Skip to main content

Modeling Uncertainty of Complex Earth Systems in Metric Space

Handbook of Geomathematics

Abstract

Modeling the subsurface of the Earth has many characteristic challenges. Earth models reflect the complexity of the Earth subsurface and contain many complex elements of modeling, such as the subsurface structures, the geological processes of growth and/or deposition, and the placement, movement, or injection/extraction of fluid and gaseous phases contained in rocks or soils. Moreover, due to the limited information provided by measurement data, whether from boreholes or geophysics, and the requirement to make interpretations at each stage of the modeling effort, uncertainty is inherent to any modeling effort. As a result, many alternative (input) models need to be built to reflect the ensemble of sources of uncertainty. On the other hand, the (engineering) purpose (in terms of target response) of these models is often very clear, simple, and straightforward: do we clean up or not, do we drill, where do we drill, what are oil and gas reserves, how far have contaminants traveled, etc. The observation that models are complex but their purpose is simple suggests that input model complexity and dimensionality can be dramatically reduced, not by itself, but by means of the purpose or target response. Reducing dimension by only considering the variability between all possible models may be an impossible task, since the intrinsic variation between all input models is far too complex to be reduced to a few dimensions by simple statistical techniques such as principal component analysis (PCA). In this chapter, we will define a distance between two models created with different (and possibly randomized) input parameters. This distance can be tailored to the application or target output response at hand, but should be chosen such that it correlates with the difference in target response between any two models. A distance defines then a metric space with a broad gamma of theory. Starting from this point of view, we redefine many of the current Cartesian-based Earth modeling problems and methodologies, such as inverse modeling, stochastic simulation and estimation, model selection and screening, model updating, and response uncertainty evaluation in metric space. We demonstrate how such a redefinition greatly simplifies as well as increases effectiveness and efficiency of any modeling effort, particularly those that require addressing the matter of model and response uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alpak F, Barton M, Caers J (2010) A flow-based pattern recognition algorithm for rapid quantification of geologic uncertainty: application to high resolution channelized reservoir models. Comput Geosci. In press

    Google Scholar 

  • Besag J, Green PJ (1993) Spatial statistics and Bayesian computation. J R Stat Soc B 55:3–23

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Borg I, Groenen P (1997) Modern multidimensional scaling: theory and applications. Springer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Caers J, Hoffman T (2006) The probability perturbation method: a new look at Bayesian inverse modeling. Math Geol 38(1):81–100

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dubuisson MP, Jain AK (1994) A modified Hausdorff distance for object matching. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on pattern recognition, Jerusalem, vol A, pp 566–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Evensen G (2003) The ensemble Kalman filter: theoretical formulation and practical implementation. Ocean Dyn 53:343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karhunen K (1947) Ăśber lineare Methoden in der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Ann Acad Sci Fennicae Ser A I Math-Phys 37:1–79

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kwok JT-Y, Tsang IW-H (2004) The pre-image problem in kernel methods. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 15(6):1517–1525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantuejoul C (2002) Geostatistical simulation. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Loève M (1978) Probability theory, vol II, 4th edn. Graduate texts in mathematics, vol 46. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Moosegard K, Tarantola A (1995) Monte Carlo sampling of solutions to inverse problems. J Geophys Res B 100:12431–12447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omre H, Tjelmeland H (1996) Petroleum geostatistics. In: Baafi EY, Schofield NA (eds) Proceeding of the fifth international geostatistics congress, Wollongong Australia, vol 1, pp 41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Park K, Caers J (2007) History matching in low-dimensional connectivity vector space. In: EAGE petroleum geostatistics conference, Cascais, 10–14 Sept 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripley BD (2004) Spatial statistics. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley, Hoboken, 251p

    Google Scholar 

  • Roggero F, Hu LY (1998) Gradual deformation of continuous geostatistical models for history matching. In: Proceedings society of petroleum engineers 49004, annual technical conference, New Orleans

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheidt C, Caers J (2009a) Bootstrap confidence intervals for reservoir model selection techniques. Comput Geosci. doi:10.1007/s10596-009-9156-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheidt C, Caers J (2009b) Uncertainty quantification in reservoir performance using distances and kernel methods – application to a West-Africa deepwater turbidite reservoir. SPEJ 118740-PA. Online First

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheidt C, Caers J (2009c) Representing spatial uncertainty using distances and kernels. Math Geosci 41(4):397–419. doi:10.1007/s11004-008-9186-0

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Scheidt C, Park K, Caers J (2008) Defining a random function from a given set of model realizations. In: Proceedings of the VIII international geostatistics congress, Santiago, 1–5 Dec 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Schöelkopf B, Smola A (2002) Learning with kernels. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Strebelle S (2002) Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point geostatistics. Math Geol 34:1–22

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki S, Caers J (2008) A distance-based prior model parameterization for constraining solutions of spatial inverse problems. Math Geosci 40(4):445–469

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki S, Caumon G, Caers J (2008) Dynamic data integration into structural modeling: model screening approach using a distance-based model parameterization. Comput Geosci 12(1):105–119

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tarantola A (1987) Inverse problem theory. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 342p

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Vapnik V (1998) Statistical learning theory. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jef Caers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this entry

Cite this entry

Caers, J., Park, K., Scheidt, C. (2013). Modeling Uncertainty of Complex Earth Systems in Metric Space. In: Freeden, W., Nashed, M., Sonar, T. (eds) Handbook of Geomathematics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27793-1_29-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27793-1_29-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27793-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference MathematicsReference Module Computer Science and Engineering

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Modeling Uncertainty of Complex Earth Systems in Metric Space
    Published:
    04 April 2015

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27793-1_29-3

  2. Original

    Modeling Uncertainty of Complex Earth Systems in Metric Space
    Published:
    17 September 2014

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27793-1_29-2