Abstract
Iterative ensemble smoothers have been widely used for calibrating simulators of various physical systems due to the relatively low computational cost and the parallel nature of the algorithm. However, iterative ensemble smoothers have been designed for perfect models under the main assumption that the specified physical models and subsequent discretized mathematical models have the capability to model the reality accurately. While significant efforts are usually made to ensure the accuracy of the mathematical model, it is widely known that the physical models are only an approximation of reality. These approximations commonly introduce some type of model error which is generally unknown and when the models are calibrated, the effects of the model errors could be smeared by adjusting the model parameters to match historical observations. This results in a bias estimated parameters and as a consequence might result in predictions with questionable quality. In this paper, we formulate a flexible iterative ensemble smoother, which can be used to calibrate imperfect models where model errors cannot be neglected. We base our method on the ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation (ES-MDA) as it is one of the most widely used iterative ensemble smoothing techniques. In the proposed algorithm, the residual (data mismatch) is split into two parts. One part is used to derive the parameter update and the second part is used to represent the model error. The proposed method is quite general and relaxes many of the assumptions commonly introduced in the literature. We observe that the proposed algorithm has the capability to reduce the effect of model bias by capturing the unknown model errors, thus improving the quality of the estimated parameters and prediction capacity of imperfect physical models.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Brynjarsdottir, J., O’ Hagan, A.: Learning about physical parameters: The importance of model discrepancy. Inverse Probl. 30(11), 114007 (2014)
Carter, J.N., Ballester, P.J., Tavassoli, Z., King, P.R.: Our calibrated model has poor predictive value: An example from the petroleum industry. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety 91(10), 1373–1381 (2006)
Chen, Y., Oliver, D.S.: Levenberg–Marquardt forms of the iterative ensemble smoother for efficient history matching and uncertainty quantification. Comput. Geosci. 17(4), 689–703 (2013)
Emerick, A.A., Reynolds, A.C.: History matching time-lapse seismic data using the ensemble Kalman filter with multiple data assimilations. Comput. Geosci. 16(3), 639–659 (2012)
Emerick, A.A., Reynolds, A.C.: Ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation. Comput Geosci 55, 3–15 (2013)
Evensen, G.: Data Assimilation: The Ensemble Kalman Filter. Springer Science & Business Media, New York (2009)
Evin, G., Thyer, M., Kavetski, D., McInerney, D., Kuczera, G.: Comparison of joint versus postprocessor approaches for hydrological uncertainty estimation accounting for error autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity. Water Resour. Res. 50(3), 2350–2375 (2014)
Giudice, D.D., Honti, M., Scheidegger, A., Albert, C., Reichert, P., Rieckermann, J.: Improving uncertainty estimation in urban hydrological modeling by statistically describing bias. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17(10), 4209–4225 (2013). https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4209-2013. https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/17/4209/2013/
Giudice, D.D., Löwe, R., Madsen, H., Mikkelsen, P.S., Rieckermann, J.: Comparison of two stochastic techniques for reliable urban runoff prediction by modeling systematic errors. Water Resour. Res. 51 (7), 5004–5022 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016678
Hansen, T.M., Cordua, K.S., Jacobsen, B.H., Mosegaard, K.: Accounting for imperfect forward modeling in geophysical inverse problems—exemplified for crosshole tomography. Geophysics 79(3), H1–H21 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2013-0215.1
Hersbach, H.: Decomposition of the continuous ranked probability score for ensemble prediction systems. Weather Forecast. 15(5), 559–570 (2000)
Kennedy, M.C., O’Hagan, A.: Bayesian calibration of computer models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol. 63(3), 425–464 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00294
Köpke, C., Irving, J., Elsheikh, A.H.: Accounting for model error in Bayesian solutions to hydrogeophysical inverse problems using a local basis approach. Adv. Water Resour. 116, 195–207 (2018)
Köpke, C., Elsheikh, A.H., Irving, J.: Hydrogeophysical parameter estimation using iterative ensemble smoothing and approximate forward solvers. Front. Environ. Sci. 7, 34 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00034
Lie, K.-A.: An Introduction to Reservoir Simulation Using MATLAB - User Guide for the Matlab Reservoir Simulation Toolbox (MRST). Sintef ICT, Department of Applied Mathematics. https://www.sintef.no/Projectweb/MRST/Publications (2016)
Lødøen, O.P., Omre, H., Durlofsky, L.J., Chen, Y.: Assessment of uncertainty in reservoir production forecasts using upscaled flow models. In: Geostatistics Banff 2004, pp 713–722. Springer (2005)
Lødøen, O.P., Tjelmeland, H.: Bayesian calibration of hydrocarbon reservoir models using an approximate reservoir simulator in the prior specification. Stat. Model. 10(1), 89–111 (2010)
Luo, X., Stordal, A.S., Lorentzen, R.J., Naevdal, G., et al.: Iterative ensemble smoother as an approximate solution to a regularized minimum-average-cost problem: Theory and applications. SPE J. 20(05), 962–982 (2015)
Mariethoz, G., Caers, J.: Multiple-Point Geostatistics: Stochastic Modeling with Training Images. Wiley, New York (2014). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fe7sBQAAQBAJ
O’ Sullivan, A., Christie, M.: Error models for reducing history match bias. Comput. Geosci. 9(2-3), 125–153 (2005)
Oliver, D.S., Alfonzo, M.: Calibration of imperfect models to biased observations. Comput. Geosci. 22(1), 145–161 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-017-9678-4
Omre, H., Lødøen, O.P., et al.: Improved production forecasts and history matching using approximate fluid-flow simulators. SPE J. 9(03), 339–351 (2004)
Rammay, M.H., Elsheikh, A.H., Chen, Y.: Quantification of prediction uncertainty using imperfect subsurface models with model error estimation. J. Hydrol. 576, 764–783 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.02.056. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169419302136
Rammay, M.H., Elsheikh, A.H., Chen, Y.: Robust algorithms for history matching of imperfect subsurface models. SPE J SPE-193838-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/193838-pa (2020)
Sargsyan, K., Najm, H., Ghanem, R.: On the statistical calibration of physical models. Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 47(4), 246–276 (2015)
Schoups, G., Vrugt, J.A.: A formal likelihood function for parameter and predictive inference of hydrologic models with correlated, heteroscedastic, and non-Gaussian errors. Water Resour. Res. 46(10) (2010)
Stordal, A.S., Elsheikh, A.H.: Iterative ensemble smoothers in the annealed importance sampling framework. Adv. Water Resour. 86, 231–239 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2015.09.030. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309170815002377
Storn, R., Price, K.: Differential evolution–a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Global Optim. 11(4), 341–359 (1997)
Xu, T., Valocchi, A.J.: Data-driven methods to improve baseflow prediction of a regional groundwater model. Comput. Geosci. 85, 124–136 (2015)
Acknowledgments
The first author thanks Total E&P UK for the financial support. The authors acknowledge Total S.A. for authorizing the publication of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Calibration and prediction metrics
1.1 A.1 Prediction interval coverage probability (PICP)
The mathematical description of coverage probability (CP) is shown below,
NCI = Number of observations or parameters in confidence interval
Nt = Total number of observations or parameters
Prediction interval coverage probability is obtained by computing coverage probability for confidence interval 10%, 20%,..., 90%, 99%.
1.2 A.2 Mean square error (MSE)
The mathematical description of mean square error (MSE) is shown below,
where n is index of observation or model prediction at corresponding time.
1.3 A.3 Continuous ranked probability score (CRPS)
Mathematically, CRPS can be described as follows,
where \(p(x) = {\int \limits }_{-\infty }^{x} \rho (y) dy\) Cumulative distribution of quantity of interest, H(x − xobs) = Heaviside function (Step function), i.e.,
For an ensemble system with Ne realizations, the CRPS can be written as follows,
where pr = P(x) = r/Ne, for xr < x < xr+ 1 (cumulative distribution is a piece wise constant function).
Appendix 2: Reservoir properties
Corey model in form of power law is used to generate relative permeability data for the reservoir model. The mathematically description of Corey model in form of power law is shown below.
The notations of above equations are described in MRST manual [15]. The fluid data and Corey relative permeability model parameters used in the reservoir model are shown in Table 1.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Rammay, M.H., Elsheikh, A.H. & Chen, Y. Flexible iterative ensemble smoother for calibration of perfect and imperfect models. Comput Geosci 25, 373–394 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-020-10008-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-020-10008-z