用扩散模型降维,提升地下水流模拟的参数校准精度与地质合理性。
Data assimilation for subsurface flow using latent diffusion model parameterization: performance of ensemble-Kalman and Monte Carlo techniques

- 在潜空间使用扩散模型参数化,降低反演问题维度。
- 蒙特卡洛方法比集合卡尔曼法更有效减少不确定性且保持地质真实性。
- 结合快速代理模型,使高成本采样算法可在三维大尺度场景中应用。
地下水流数据同化旨在校准模型参数以匹配井点观测数据,同时保持地质合理性。潜在扩散模型(LDM)可将高维地质模型空间映射至低维潜变量空间,降低反演问题维度,同时保证后验地质模型的合理性。然而,LDM映射中的高度非线性可能降低基于卡尔曼增益的集合更新性能。本文系统比较了多种数据同化算法在具有分层地质不确定性的大规模3D河道状地质模型上的表现。对比了模型空间与潜空间的数据同化方法,采用多数据同化集合平滑器(ESMDA),发现模型空间更新虽显著降低不确定性但产生不合理的后验模型,而潜空间更新保持地质真实性但不确定性减少有限。为此,我们探索了严格的马尔可夫链蒙特卡洛(MCMC)和顺序蒙特卡洛(SMC)算法在3D-LDM潜空间的应用。为应对高计算需求,开发了一种快速代理流模型以近似井产量响应。在三个合成测试案例中,所有方法均在潜空间进行,且因LDM参数化保持地质合理性。MCMC与SMC结果一致,较潜空间ESMDA表现出更低的数据偏差和更高的不确定性减少。总体表明,集合卡尔曼方法在高度非线性参数化下可能低估后验不确定性,而结合快速代理模型的严格蒙特卡洛采样可提供更可靠的替代方案。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Data assimilation (DA) in subsurface flow entails calibrating model parameters to match observed data, typically at wells, while preserving geological realism. Latent diffusion models (LDMs) provide efficient mappings from high-dimensional geological model space to a low-dimensional latent variable, reducing the dimensionality of the inverse problem while maintaining plausibility in posterior geomodels. However, the high nonlinearity in the LDM mapping may degrade the performance of Kalman-gain-based ensemble updates. We present a systematic comparison of DA algorithms applied to large-scale 3D channelized geomodels with hierarchical geological uncertainty. We compare model-space and latent-space DA using the ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation (ESMDA), and demonstrate a key trade-off: model-space updates achieve significant uncertainty reduction but produce geologically unrealistic posterior models, while latent-space updates preserve realism but exhibit limited uncertainty reduction. Motivated by this, we explore rigorous Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) algorithms in the 3D-LDM latent space. To accommodate their high computational demands, we develop a fast surrogate flow model that approximates well-rate responses. MCMC and SMC are evaluated against ESMDA across three synthetic test cases, with DA performed in the LDM latent space. All models maintain geological realism due to the LDM parameterization. MCMC and SMC are consistent with one another and achieve lower data mismatch and more uncertainty reduction than latent-space ESMDA. Our overall results demonstrate that ensemble Kalman methods may provide overestimated posterior uncertainty with highly nonlinear parameterizations, while rigorous Monte Carlo sampling, enabled by fast surrogate models, can provide a more reliable alternative.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。