How biased are our models? – a case study of the alpine region
<p>Geophysical process simulations play a crucial role in the understanding of the subsurface. This understanding is required to provide, for instance, clean energy sources such as geothermal energy. However, the calibration and validation of the physical models heavily rely on state measureme...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Copernicus Publications
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/08a4ce0f37364f83ab3db5fa4ac25494 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | <p>Geophysical process simulations play a crucial role in the understanding of the subsurface. This understanding is required to provide, for instance, clean energy sources such as geothermal energy. However, the calibration and validation of the physical models heavily rely on state measurements such as temperature. In this work, we demonstrate that focusing analyses purely on measurements introduces a high bias. This is illustrated through global sensitivity studies. The extensive exploration of the parameter space becomes feasible through the construction of suitable surrogate models via the reduced basis method, where the bias is found to result from very unequal data distribution. We propose schemes to compensate for parts of this bias. However, the bias cannot be entirely compensated. Therefore, we demonstrate the consequences of this bias with the example of a model calibration.</p> |
|---|