Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 199

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analysis of iterative ensemble smoothers for solving inverse problems

Open access
Evensen, Geir·2018·Computational Geosciences

Abstract

This paper examines the properties of the Iterated Ensemble Smoother (IES) and the Multiple Data Assimilation Ensemble Smoother (ES–MDA) for solving the history matching problem. The iterative methods are compared with the standard Ensemble Smoother (ES) to improve the understanding of the similarities and differences between them. We derive the three smoothers from Bayes’ theorem for a scalar case which allows us to compare the equations solved by the three methods, and we can better understand which assumptions are applied and their consequences. When working with a scalar model, it is possible to use a vast ensemble size, and we can construct the sample distributions for both priors and posteriors, as well as intermediate iterates. For a linear model, all three methods give the same result. For a nonlinear model, the iterative methods improve on the ES result, but the two iterative methods converge to different solutions, and it is not clear which should be the preferred choice. It is clear that the ensemble of cost functions used to define the IES solution does not represent an exact sampling of the posterior-Bayes’ probability density function. Also, the use of an ensemble representation for the gradient in IES introduces an additional approximation compared to using an exact analytic gradient. For ES–MDA, the convergence, as a function of increasing number of uniform update steps, is studied for a huge ensemble size. We illustrate that ES–MDA converges to a solution that differs from the Bayesian posterior. The convergence is also examined using a realistic sample size to study the impact of the number of realizations relative to the number of update steps. We have run multiple ES–MDA experiments to examine the impact of using different schemes for choosing the lengths of the update steps, and we have tried to understand which properties of the inverse problem imply that a non-uniform update step length is beneficial. Finally, we have examined the smoother methods with a highly nonlinear model to examine their properties and limitations in more extreme situations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10596-018-9731-y

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 199

Metadata

Authors
Evensen, G.
Venue
Computational Geosciences
Published
2018-03-03
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
885-908
ISSN
  • 1420-0597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1499
OpenAlex
W2792356241
Cited by
199
References
1
FWCI
19.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analysis of iterative ensemble smoothers for solving inverse problems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10596-018-9731-y
The paper
Evensen, G. (2018). Analysis of iterative ensemble smoothers for solving inverse problems. Computational Geosciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-018-9731-y

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.