Intelligent Management of Data Driven Simulations to Support Model Building

Author(s):  
C. Kennedy ◽  
G. Theodoropoulos
2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 561-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catriona Kennedy ◽  
Georgios Theodoropoulos ◽  
Volker Sorge ◽  
Edward Ferrari ◽  
Peter Lee ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (03) ◽  
pp. 25-30
Author(s):  
Srikanta Mishra ◽  
Jared Schuetter ◽  
Akhil Datta-Gupta ◽  
Grant Bromhal

Algorithms are taking over the world, or so we are led to believe, given their growing pervasiveness in multiple fields of human endeavor such as consumer marketing, finance, design and manufacturing, health care, politics, sports, etc. The focus of this article is to examine where things stand in regard to the application of these techniques for managing subsurface energy resources in domains such as conventional and unconventional oil and gas, geologic carbon sequestration, and geothermal energy. It is useful to start with some definitions to establish a common vocabulary. Data analytics (DA)—Sophisticated data collection and analysis to understand and model hidden patterns and relationships in complex, multivariate data sets Machine learning (ML)—Building a model between predictors and response, where an algorithm (often a black box) is used to infer the underlying input/output relationship from the data Artificial intelligence (AI)—Applying a predictive model with new data to make decisions without human intervention (and with the possibility of feedback for model updating) Thus, DA can be thought of as a broad framework that helps determine what happened (descriptive analytics), why it happened (diagnostic analytics), what will happen (predictive analytics), or how can we make something happen (prescriptive analytics) (Sankaran et al. 2019). Although DA is built upon a foundation of classical statistics and optimization, it has increasingly come to rely upon ML, especially for predictive and prescriptive analytics (Donoho 2017). While the terms DA, ML, and AI are often used interchangeably, it is important to recognize that ML is basically a subset of DA and a core enabling element of the broader application for the decision-making construct that is AI. In recent years, there has been a proliferation in studies using ML for predictive analytics in the context of subsurface energy resources. Consider how the number of papers on ML in the OnePetro database has been increasing exponentially since 1990 (Fig. 1). These trends are also reflected in the number of technical sessions devoted to ML/AI topics in conferences organized by SPE, AAPG, and SEG among others; as wells as books targeted to practitioners in these professions (Holdaway 2014; Mishra and Datta-Gupta 2017; Mohaghegh 2017; Misra et al. 2019). Given these high levels of activity, our goal is to provide some observations and recommendations on the practice of data-driven model building using ML techniques. The observations are motivated by our belief that some geoscientists and petroleum engineers may be jumping the gun by applying these techniques in an ad hoc manner without any foundational understanding, whereas others may be holding off on using these methods because they do not have any formal ML training and could benefit from some concrete advice on the subject. The recommendations are conditioned by our experience in applying both conventional statistical modeling and data analytics approaches to practical problems.


2015 ◽  
Vol 73 ◽  
pp. 116-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Cozad ◽  
Nikolaos V. Sahinidis ◽  
David C. Miller

Geophysics ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 547-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanghua Wang

This paper introduces a fully data‐driven concept, multiple prediction through inversion (MPI), for surface‐related multiple attenuation (SMA). It builds the multiple model not by spatial convolution, as in a conventional SMA, but by updating the attenuated multiple wavefield in the previous iteration to generate a multiple prediction for the new iteration, as is usually the case in an iterative inverse problem. Because MPI does not use spatial convolution, it is able to minimize the edge effect that appears in conventional SMA multiple prediction and to eliminate the need to synthesize near‐offset traces, required by a conventional scheme, so that it can deal with a seismic data set with missing near‐offset traces. The MPI concept also eliminates the need for an explicit surface operator, which is required by conventional SMA and is comprised of the inverse source signature and other effects. This method accounts implicitly for the spatial variation of the surface operator in multiple‐model building and attempts to predict multiples which are not only accurate kinematically but are also accurate in phase and amplitude.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladan Babovic ◽  
Jayashree Chadalawada ◽  
Herath Mudiyanselage Viraj Vidura Herath

<p>Modelling of rainfall-runoff phenomenon continues to be a challenging task at hand of hydrologists as the underlying processes are highly nonlinear, dynamic and interdependent. Numerous modelling strategies like empirical, conceptual, physically based, data driven, are used to develop rainfall-runoff models as no model type can be considered to be universally pertinent for a wide range of problems. Latest literature review emphasizes that the crucial step of hydrological model selection is often subjective and is based on legacy. As the research outcome depends on model choice, there is a necessity to automate the process of model evolution, evaluation and selection based on research objectives, temporal and spatial characteristics of available data and catchment properties. Therefore, this study proposes a novel automated model building algorithm relying on machine learning technique Genetic Programming (GP).</p><p>State of art GP applications in rainfall-runoff modelling as yet used the algorithm as a short-term forecasting tool which produces an expected future time series very much alike to neural networks application. Such simplistic applications of data driven black-box machine learning techniques may lead to development of accurate yet meaningless models which do not satisfy basic hydrological insights and may have severe difficulties with interpretation. Concurrently, it should be admitted that there is a vast amount of knowledge and understanding of physical processes that should not just be thrown away. Thus, we strongly believe that the most suitable way forward is to couple the already existing body of knowledge with machine learning techniques in a guided manner to enhance the meaningfulness and interpretability of the induced models.</p><p>In this suggested algorithm the domain knowledge is introduced through the incorporation of process knowledge by adding model building blocks from prevailing rainfall-runoff modelling frameworks into the GP function set. Presently, the function set library consists with Sugawara TANK model functions, generic components of two flexible rainfall-runoff modelling frameworks (FUSE and SUPERFLEX) and model equations of 46 existing hydrological models (MARRMoT). Nevertheless, perhaps more importantly, the algorithm is readily integratable with any other internal coherence building blocks. This approach contrasts from rest of machine learning applications in rainfall-runoff modelling as it not only produces the runoff predictions but develops a physically meaningful hydrological model which helps the hydrologist to better understand the catchment dynamics. The proposed algorithm considers the model space and automatically identifies the appropriate model configurations for a catchment of interest by optimizing user-defined learning objectives in a multi-objective optimization framework. The model induction capabilities of the proposed algorithm have been evaluated on the Blackwater River basin, Alabama, United States. The model configurations evolved through the model-building algorithm are compatible with the fieldwork investigations and previously reported research findings.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document