Levenberg–Marquardt forms of the iterative ensemble smoother for efficient history matching and uncertainty quantification

• Published in: Computational geosciences 2013-08, Vol.17 (4), p.689-703
• Main Authors: Chen, Yan, Oliver, Dean S.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Algorithms; Computation; Data assimilation; Data collection; Earth and Environmental Science; Earth science; Earth Sciences; Geotechnical Engineering & Applied Earth Sciences; Hydrogeology; Iterative methods; Kalman filters; Markov chains; Mathematical analysis; Mathematical Modeling and Industrial Mathematics; Mathematical models; Multiphase flow; Nonlinearity; Original Paper; Soil Science & Conservation
• ISSN: 1420-0597; 1573-1499
• DOI: 10.1007/s10596-013-9351-5

The use of the ensemble smoother (ES) instead of the ensemble Kalman filter increases the nonlinearity of the update step during data assimilation and the need for iterative assimilation methods. A previous version of the iterative ensemble smoother based on Gauss–Newton formulation was able to match data relatively well but only after a large number of iterations. A multiple data assimilation method (MDA) was generally more efficient for large problems but lacked ability to continue “iterating” if the data mismatch was too large. In this paper, we develop an efficient, iterative ensemble smoother algorithm based on the Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) method of regularizing the update direction and choosing the step length. The incorporation of the LM damping parameter reduces the tendency to add model roughness at early iterations when the update step is highly nonlinear, as it often is when all data are assimilated simultaneously. In addition, the ensemble approximation of the Hessian is modified in a way that simplifies computation and increases stability. We also report on a simplified algorithm in which the model mismatch term in the updating equation is neglected. We thoroughly evaluated the new algorithm based on the modified LM method, LM-ensemble randomized maximum likelihood (LM-EnRML), and the simplified version of the algorithm, LM-EnRML (approx), on three test cases. The first is a highly nonlinear single-variable problem for which results can be compared against the true conditional pdf. The second test case is a one-dimensional two-phase flow problem in which the permeability of 31 grid cells is uncertain. In this case, Markov chain Monte Carlo results are available for comparison with ensemble-based results. The third test case is the Brugge benchmark case with both 10 and 20 years of history. The efficiency and quality of results of the new algorithms were compared with the standard ES (without iteration), the ensemble-based Gauss–Newton formulation, the standard ensemble-based LM formulation, and the MDA. Because of the high level of nonlinearity, the standard ES performed poorly on all test cases. The MDA often performed well, especially at early iterations where the reduction in data mismatch was quite rapid. The best results, however, were always achieved with the new iterative ensemble smoother algorithms, LM-EnRML and LM-EnRML (approx).