Hide metadata

dc.date.accessioned2023-03-12T17:31:43Z
dc.date.available2023-03-12T17:31:43Z
dc.date.created2022-11-30T12:11:05Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationJuda, Przemysław Straubhaar, Julien Renard, Philippe . Comparison of three recent discrete stochastic inversion methods and influence of the prior choice. Comptes rendus Geoscience. 2022, 355, 1-26
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/101333
dc.description.abstractGroundwater flow depends on subsurface heterogeneity, which often calls for categorical fields to represent different geological facies. The knowledge about subsurface is however limited and often provided indirectly by state variables, such as hydraulic heads of contaminant concentrations. In such cases, solving a categorical inverse problem is an important step in subsurface modeling. In this work, we present and compare three recent inverse frameworks: Posterior Population Expansion (PoPEx), Ensemble Smoother with Multiple Data Assimilation (ESMDA), and DREAM-ZS (a Markov chain Monte Carlo sampler). PoPEx and ESDMA are used with Multiple-point statistics (MPS) as geostatistical engines, and DREAM-ZS is used with a Wasserstein generative adversarial network (WGAN). The three inversion methods are tested on a synthetic example of a pumping test in a fluvial channelized aquifer. Moreover, the inverse problem is solved three times with each method, each time using a different training image to check the performance of the methods with different geological priors. To assess the quality of the results, we propose a framework based on continuous ranked probability score (CRPS), which compares single true values with predictive distributions. All methods performed well when using the training image used to create the reference, but their performances were degraded with the alternative training images. PoPEx produced the least geological artifacts but presented a rather slow convergence. ESMDA showed initially a very fast convergence which reaches a plateau, contrary to the remaining methods. DREAM-ZS was overly confident in placing some incorrect geological features but outperformed the other methods in terms of convergence.
dc.languageEN
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleComparison of three recent discrete stochastic inversion methods and influence of the prior choice
dc.title.alternativeENEngelskEnglishComparison of three recent discrete stochastic inversion methods and influence of the prior choice
dc.typeJournal article
dc.creator.authorJuda, Przemysław
dc.creator.authorStraubhaar, Julien
dc.creator.authorRenard, Philippe
cristin.unitcode185,15,22,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for geofag
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.cristin2085514
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=Comptes rendus Geoscience&rft.volume=355&rft.spage=1&rft.date=2022
dc.identifier.jtitleComptes rendus Geoscience
dc.identifier.startpage1
dc.identifier.endpage26
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.5802/crgeos.160
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkel
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.source.issn1631-0713
dc.type.versionPublishedVersion
dc.relation.projectUIO/212216


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata

Attribution 4.0 International
This item's license is: Attribution 4.0 International