Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2022) 15: 262

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-09575-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

A rapid intelligent multi-fidelity surrogate-assisted multi-objective

optimization method for water-flooding reservoir production
optimization
Lian Wang1   · Yuedong Yao1 · Tao Zhang2 · Caspar Daniel Adenutsi3 · Guoxiang Zhao1 · Fengpeng Lai4

Received: 8 November 2021 / Accepted: 19 January 2022 / Published online: 27 January 2022
© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2022

Abstract
In recent years, the surrogate-assisted method, which is one of the most promising ways for reducing the computational bur-
den of numerical simulation–based water-flooding reservoir production optimization, has been widely applied by researchers
worldwide. Meanwhile, there are different fidelity models that can be applied to extract samples for establishing a surrogate
model. However, most of the researches neglected the potential synergies between low-fidelity (LF) and high-fidelity (HF)
samples. In this study, therefore, a rapid intelligent multi-fidelity support vector regression (SVR) model–assisted multi-
objective production optimization method, namely, MFSVR-MOPO, is proposed to lessen the computational burden of
the numerical simulation–based production optimization. The uniqueness of this proposed method is that the LF and HF
samples are mapped to a high-dimension space by the kernel function of the SVR, and the relationships between variables
and objectives are evaluated by a linear model. Moreover, the gray wolf algorithm was applied to search for the optimal
hyperparameters of the SVR model so as to improve the evaluation accuracy. Two frequently used production optimization
synthetic reservoirs with different scales were studied to illustrate the effectiveness and accuracy of the MFSVR-MOPO
method. The results showed that the MFSVR-MOPO method performed comparably with the HF model–based method in
terms of convergence and diversity, but reduced the number of simulation runs on the two reservoirs by approximately 108
times and 50 times, respectively.

Keywords  Multi-fidelity surrogate model · Support vector regression · Multi-objective optimization · Surrogate-assisted
production optimization

Introduction
Responsible Editor: Santanu Banerjee
Production optimization is the search for a suitable devel-
* Lian Wang
opment scheme to maximize financial measures or the oil
wanglian02@163.com
recovery factor during the closed-loop production period of
Yuedong Yao
conventional and unconventional reservoirs (Isebor and Dur-
cup0901@126.com
lofsky 2014; Bagherinezhad et al. 2017; Guo et al. 2018a;
1
State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources Zhang et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2020b; Zhao et al. 2020b;
and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum, Feng et al. 2021). It is an essential step in reservoir devel-
Beijing 102249, China opment in situations of volatile international oil prices and
2
State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology tremendous investment uncertainties. With the development
and Exploitation, Southwest Petroleum University, of smart and digital oil field development, transportation
Chengdu 610500, Sichuan, China
3
technology, and intelligent gathering and transportation (Liu
Reservoir Simulation Laboratory, Department of Petroleum et al. 2019a; Kang et al. 2021), efficient production optimiza-
Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Geo‑Engineering, Kwame
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, tion frameworks can be developed to increase economic and
Ghana production benefits (Liu et al. 2018). Since the development
4
School of Energy Resources, China University of a reservoir is a complex and systematic engineering with
of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China sophisticated relationship between decision variables and

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
262 Page 2 of 15
objectives (Feng et al. 2018a; Zhang et al. 2021), it is neces-
sary to simultaneously optimize multiple objectives. Multi-
objective production optimization (MOPO) is an appropri-
ate method that considers these objectives simultaneously
(Zhao et al. 2020a; Liu and Reynolds 2021). The relation-
ship between decision variables and objectives is usually
evaluated by finite-difference or finite-volume numerical
simulation meshed models during the optimization process
(Feng et al. 2018b; Ding et al. 2021). However, running a
numerical simulation model is computationally expensive
and this reduces the optimization efficiency and also limits
the application of MOPO on large-scale reservoirs (Feng
et al. 2019; Rostamian et al. 2019). Surrogate models which
adopt a simple yet vigorous model to approximate numerical
simulation models for evaluating objectives is a useful way
to address this limitation. It is therefore necessary to develop
an efficient and reliable surrogate model with high accuracy
and efficiency for MOPO.
In the broadest sense, surrogate-assisted methods can
be roughly divided into two distinct forms, namely, online
and offline models. In the online model, the surrogate
model is updated in each iteration by the model manage-
ment strategy. The main drawback of the online model
is that the surrogate model needs to be retrained in each
iteration. For the offline model, a lot of samples are pre-
specified to establish the surrogate model. The surrogate
model is then used to substitute expensive computational
models for the evaluation of the objectives during the evo-
lutionary process. In this way, the pre-specified samples
play an essential role on the quality and computational
burden during the establishment of the surrogate model.
In previous studies, some of the commonly used machine
learning surrogate models for production optimization are
polynomial regression (Zhou et al. 2005), artificial neural
network (Zhu and Zabaras 2018; Liu et al. 2019b; Rao
et al. 2020), Gaussian process (Zhang et al. 2019), poly-
nomial chaos expansion (Zhang et al. 2020), radial basis
function neural network (Chen et al. 2020; Wang et al.
2021a), and support vector regression (Guo and Reynolds
2018; Guo et al. 2018b; Wang et al. 2020; Nguyen et al.
2021). These researches showed that surrogate-assisted
methods had remarkable success in single-fidelity sur-
rogate model–assisted production optimization because
the efficiency in evaluating objectives was significantly
enhanced. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that the
degree of accuracy of the surrogate model evaluation
highly depends on the number of samples available for
training and this has considerable influence on the qual-
ity of the final optimal solutions. Generally speaking,
the accuracy of the surrogate model will increase with
an increase in training samples but with an expensive
computational cost. By contrast, fewer training samples
have a cheap computational cost but result in inaccurate
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262
models. Therefore, when establishing a surrogate model
with single-fidelity samples, there is a conflict between
evaluation accuracy and computational cost.
In order to address this conflict, the multi-fidelity (MF)
surrogate model trains samples with reasonable fidelities
to strike a balance between easing the computational bur-
den and enhancing the accuracy of the model (Yin et al.
2021). In the MF surrogate model, the low-fidelity (LF)
model is computationally less demanding compared with
the high-fidelity (HF) model. Samples from both HF and
LF models are used to establish the surrogate model. In this
way, under the same computational cost, more LF samples
will be obtained than HF samples. The HF samples reli-
ably describe the characteristics of the numerical simula-
tion model while the LF samples reflect some prominent
properties of the model.
Considering the wide application of artificial intelli-
gence in developing petroleum resources, support vec-
tor regression (SVR) is employed as a machine learning
model for approximating numerical simulation models
with different fidelity samples. SVR is not only a widely
used non-linear regression model but also a novel small
sample learning method with a solid theoretical basis
(Men et al. 2017). The SVR method, which is simple in
algorithm and has good robustness with few support vec-
tors, determines the final results, which helps find key
samples and eliminate a large number of redundant sam-
ples (Nanda et al. 2018). As an efficient and accurate
response surface-based surrogate model, the SVR has
achieved significant success in the field of production
optimization (Guo and Reynolds 2018; Guo et al. 2018b;
Wang et al. 2020; Nguyen et al. 2021).
In this study, a novel SVR-based MF surrogate model
(MF-SVR) is proposed to assist a computationally expen-
sive production optimization. In the proposed method,
both the LF and HF samples are adopted to establish
the surrogate model. The uniqueness of this proposed
method is that the LF and HF samples are mapped to a
high-dimension space by the kernel function of the SVR
and the relationships between variables and objectives are
evaluated through a linear model. Moreover, the gray wolf
algorithm is applied to search the optimal hyperparameters
of the SVR model so as to improve the accuracy of the
evaluation process. The performance of the MF surrogate
model is investigated by two frequently used reservoirs
with different scales. Besides, comparisons of the perfor-
mance of the proposed MF-SVR model to other traditional
models are investigated as well.
The remainder of this study is organized as follows: The
theory of multi-objective optimization and multi-fidelity
surrogate model and its related terminologies are intro-
duced in “Methodology.” The specific theory of the multi-
fidelity support vector regression model and procedures
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262
of the proposed MFSVR-MOPO method are presented in
“Related work.” “Case study” demonstrates the behavior
of the proposed method and the computational results of
the two synthetic reservoirs. In “Conclusion,” conclu-
sions of this research and prospects for future work are
discussed.
Methodology
Multi‑objective optimization problems
In general, the mathematical form of a minimization multi-
objective optimization (MOO) problem is described as
follows:
( )
minimize𝐅(𝐱) = f1 (𝐱), f2 (𝐱), … , fm (𝐱) (1)
Subject to x ∈ Ω
where F(x) denotes the objective vector; Ω represents
the feasible area of decision space, Ω ⊂ Rn; and m and x
represent the number of objectives and decision variables,
respectively. Since these objectives may conflict with one
another, a trade-off must be made in solving the MOO prob-
lem. Thus, the optimized result of the MOO is not a unique
value, but an optimal solution set called the Pareto front.
The MOO algorithms attempt to obtain a set of high-quality
non-dominated solutions or the Pareto front in real engineer-
ing problems.
Multi‑objective production optimization model
In actual oil field production, there is more than one objective
that needs to be considered. Examples include economic and
production objectives (Lin et al. 2017; Li et al. 2021; Rajabi-
Kochi and Khamehchi 2021; Wang et al. 2021b). Since the
main purpose of production optimization during the entire
production period is to maximize economic benefits and
increase the recovery factor, the objectives of this production
optimization model are set as the net present value (NPV) and
cumulative oil production (COP). The specific formulas for
NPV and COP are found in Wang et al. (2020):
Nt
[ P (
∑ 𝛥tn ∑ ) ∑
f1 (𝐮) = tn
n n
ro · qo,j (𝐮) − rw · qw,j (𝐮) −
n=1 (1 + b) 365 j=1
Nt P
∑ ∑
f2 (𝐮) = qno,j (𝐮)
n=1 j=1
where u is the decision variable vector; ro, r w, and cwi
represent the oil price, the water-disposing cost, and
Page 3 of 15 262
water-injecting cost, respectively (USD/STB); and b is the
annual discount rate. Nt is the production control steps, tn is
the nth step, and Δtn is the length of the nth step (days). P
and I respectively denote the number of production wells and
injection wells; qno,j , qnw,j , and qnwi,j respectively denote the oil
and water rates, at the jth well at the nth step ­(m3/D).
For the purpose of maximizing the net present value and
the cumulative oil production, the multi-objective produc-
tion optimization model is defined as follows:
( )
maxF(𝐮) = f1 (𝐮), f2 (𝐮)
𝐮
(4)
s.t.g(𝐮) ≤ 0, lb ≤ 𝐮 ≤ ub (5)
where g(u) represents the constraints; lb and ub rep-
resent the lower and upper bounds of decision variables,
respectively.
Multi‑fidelity surrogate model
The primary motivation for multi-fidelity surrogate mod-
eling is that many of the LF samples are employed to reduce
the computational burden of sampling while a small number
of HF samples are adopted to increase the prediction accu-
racy of the surrogate model. There are three methods that are
commonly used to construct LF reservoir numerical simu-
lation models. These are streamline model (SLM), proper
orthogonal decomposition (POD), and grid-roughing model
(GRM). Since LF and HF are relative concepts, if the full-
scale model is chosen as a HF model, all the simplified mod-
els can be regarded as LF model. Thus, if the SLM is chosen
as the LF model, the POD model can be referred to as the HF
model. Meanwhile, with an increase in the fidelity of these
models, the amount of computational burden for running
the model also increases. The relationship between com-
putational efficiency and fidelity are illustrated in Figure 1.
Generally, the mathematical form of a multi-fidelity
surrogate model established using LF and HF models is
expressed as follows (Wang et al. 2022):
( )
F(𝐮, 𝐚) = F f l (𝐮), 𝐚 ≈ F(𝐮) (6)
I (
]
)
cwi · qnwi,j (𝐮) (2)
j=1
where u represents the vector of the decision variable;
(3) F(𝐮, 𝐚) represents the MF surrogate model; f l(u) and F(u)
represent the response of LF and HF models, respectively;
and a represents the turning vector for fitting the discrep-
ancy between LF and HF models. According to the above
13
262 Page 4 of 15 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262

definition, the MF surrogate model tends to approach the the regression of b + ωTφ(x) is defined as non-destructive to y.
HF model if the computational burden is considerably less. Therefore, the cost function in the Appendix is revised as follows:
Ns
1 T ∑ ( )
J= ω ω+c l𝜉 b + ωT 𝜑(𝐱) − yk (9)
Related work 2 k=1

Multi‑fidelity support vector regression surrogate where lξ(b + ωTφ(x) − yk) =  max {0, |y − b − ωTφ(x)| − ε}. In

model this way, the training process of the SVR is converted to
solving a minimum problem with the constraint of Eq. 8 by
The aim of this study is to establish an efficient MF surro- introducing the scaling factors ξ and ξ* as follows:
gate model based on SVR (MF-SVR) for production opti- Ns
∑ ( )
mization. The primary motivation for establishing the MF- 1 T
minJ = ω ω + c 𝜉k + 𝜉k∗ (10)
SVR surrogate model is mapping both LF and HF samples 2 k=1
to high-dimension space by the kernel function and then
the relationship between variables and objectives evaluated Subject to
by a linear regression model. Thus, the excellent features ( )
b + ωT φ 𝐱𝐤 (− y)k ≤ 𝜀 + 𝜉k
of low-fidelity and high-fidelity models are well integrated. yk − b − ωT φ 𝐱𝐤 ≤ 𝜀 + 𝜉k∗ (11)
The specific conventional steps for training SVR models is 𝜉k ≥ 0𝜉k∗ ≥ 0, k = 1, 2, … , Ns
presented in the Appendix (Mohammadi and Aghashariat-
madari 2020). Nevertheless, because of the errors between And then, the Lagrangian function is described as follows:
decision variables and objectives, finding a suitable regres- ∑ Ns � �
sion function to satisfy the following conventional SVR L(𝜔, b, a, a∗ , 𝜉, 𝜉 ∗ , 𝜇, 𝜇∗ ) = 12 𝜔T 𝜔 + c k−1 𝜉k + 𝜉k∗
∑ Ns ∑ N ∑ N � � � �
model is difficult: − 𝜇 𝜉 ∗ + − k−1
k−1 k k
s
𝜇k∗ 𝜉k∗ + k−1 s
𝛼k b + 𝜔T 𝜑 xk − yk − 𝜀 + 𝜉k
∑ Ns � � � �
+ k−1 𝛼k yk − b − 𝜔T 𝜑 xk − 𝜀 + 𝜉k
y = b + ωT φ(𝐱) (7) (12)
* * *
To address this problem, Chang and Lin (2011) proposed where ω, b, α, α , ξ, ξ , μ, and μ are the related variables of
the ε-SVR model. In this model, if a positive number ε satis- the Lagrangian function. Solving the partial differential form
fies the following conditions: of all the variables which is equal to zero, the dual form of
Eq. 10 is calculated as follows:
| |
|y − b − ωT φ(𝐱)| ≤ 𝜀 (8) ∑ Ns � ∗ �� � � �
| | minJ = 21 i,j=1 𝛼i − 𝛼i 𝛼j∗ − 𝛼j K 𝐱𝐢 , 𝐱𝐣
∑ Ns � ∗ � ∑ Ns � ∗ � (13)
− i=1 yi 𝛼i − 𝛼i + 𝜀 i=1 yi 𝛼i + 𝛼i

Subject to
Ns
∑ ( )
𝛼i − 𝛼i∗ = 0, 0 ≤ 𝛼i , 𝛼i∗ ≤ c, i = 1, 2, … , Ns (14)
i=1

where K(xi, xj) represents the kernel function; αj, α* j repre-

sent the Lagrange multipliers. In this MF-SVR model, a MF
kernel function was defined to map the LF and HF samples
(X) into the high-dimension space:
[ ( ) ( )]
KL−L (𝐗𝐋 , 𝐗𝐋 ) KL−H (𝐗𝐋 , 𝐗𝐇 )
𝐊𝐌𝐅 (𝐗, 𝐗) =
KH−L 𝐗𝐇 , 𝐗𝐋 KH−H 𝐗𝐇 , 𝐗𝐇 (15)

where XL and XH represent the NL LF samples [x1 L, x2 L, …,

xNL L]T and the NH HF samples [x1 H, x2 H, …, xNH H]T, respec-
tively. The above four kernel functions are described as follows:
( d
)
Fig. 1  Relationship between computational efficiency and fidelity ( ) ∑ ( )
j ‖ i,k j,k ‖ k
KL−L 𝐱li , 𝐱l = 𝜎L exp − ‖xl − xl ‖𝜃L , i, j = 1, 2, … , NL
‖ ‖
k=1
(16)

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262 Page 5 of 15 262

(
d
)
( ) ∑ ( )
j
KL−H 𝐱li , 𝐱h 2
= 𝜌 𝜎L exp −
‖ i,k j,k ‖ k
‖xl − xh ‖𝜃L , i = 1, … , NL , j = 1, … , NH (17)
‖ ‖
k=1

( d )
( ) ∑ ‖ i,k ( )
j
KH−L 𝐱hi , 𝐱l = 𝜌2 𝜎L exp −
j,k ‖
‖xh − xl ‖𝜃Lk , i = 1, … , NH , j = 1, … , NL (18)
‖ ‖
k=1

� � � ∑ � �⃗ + 1) = P
P(t ���P⃗(t + 1) − A
�⃗ · D
��⃗ (23)
j d � j,k �
KH−h 𝐱hi , 𝐱h = 𝜌2 𝜎L exp − k=1 �xhi,k − xh �𝜃Lk
� ∑ � �� � � (19) where t represents the number of iterations; D ��⃗ represents the
� j,k �
+ 𝜎d exp − dk=1 �xhi,k − xh �𝜃dk , i, j = 1, … , NH intermediate vector; P
���P⃗(t) and P
�⃗ represent the position vector
� �
of the prey and wolf, respectively; and A �⃗ and C��⃗ represent the
where d is the dimension of the decision variables; ρ, coefficient vectors and are calculated as follows:
σ L , σ d , θ L, and θ d are the kernel function parameters.
Meanwhile, the samples with α* j = 0 and α* j ≠ 0 are �⃗ = 2�a⃗ · r��⃗1 − a�⃗
A (24)
called support vectors. Given the above kernel function
parameters, the regression model is solved by linear pro- ��⃗ = 2 · r��⃗2
C (25)
gramming. The response of a new input x n is defined as
follows: where the elements in vector a�⃗ linearly decrease from 2 to
NL +NH
0; the elements in vectors r��⃗1 and r��⃗2 are randomly generated
∑ ( ) ( ) from 0 to 1. The regulations governing the saving of the
yn = b + 𝛼i∗ − 𝛼I K 𝐱i , 𝐱n (20)
i=1 best three solutions and updating the other solutions are as
follows:
where yn is the response of the input xn.
To characterize the error of the MF-SVR model, the root |
Da = |C1 ∙ Pa − P|
|
| |
mean square error (RMSE) of the HF samples is adopted. |
D𝛽 = |C2 ∙ P𝛽 − P|
|
The mathematical form is as follows: |
|
|
|
� D𝛾 = |C3 ∙ P𝛾 − P|
| |
�∑ �
� NH i �2
P1 = P𝛼 (t) ∙ A1 ∙ D𝛼 (26)
� i=1 yh − yih
� (21) P2 = P𝛽 (t) ∙ A2 ∙ D𝛽
RMSE =
NH P3 = P𝛾 (t) ∙ A3 ∙ D𝛾
P1 +P2 +P3
where yi h and yih are the objective values of ith HF sample P(t + 1) = 3
and evaluated values, respectively.
In order to reduce the RMSE value and enhance the At the beginning of the iteration of the GWO algorithm,
evaluation accuracy of the MF-SVR model, the gray wolf the initial solutions are randomly generated by the Latin
optimizer (GWO) (Mirjalili et al. 2014) was introduced to hypercube sampling (LHS). During the iterations, the first
optimize the hyperparameters of the model. The detailed three solutions are saved as α, β, and γ wolves and the other
theory of the GWO algorithm can be referred to from Mir- δ wolves are updated by Eq. 26. When the stop condition is
jalili et al. (2014). We defined the best solution as the α achieved, the α wolf is output as the best solution.
wolf, the second best as the β wolf, the third best as the
γ wolf, and the other solutions as δ wolves. During the Quality metrics of MOO
searching process, α, β, and γ wolves lead the search for
the optimal solution. In[the MF-SVR model, The Pareto front is usually evaluated in terms of convergence
] the optimiza- and diversity. To intuitively and quantitatively compare the
tion variables are P �⃗ = 𝜌, 𝜎L , 𝜎d , 𝛉L , 𝛉d , 𝜀  . The encircling
behavior of the wolves is described as follows (Tolouei quality of obtained Pareto fronts in this study, two frequently
et al. 2021): used metrics for measuring the performance of MOO algo-
rithms, namely, relative hyperarea difference (RHD) and
��⃗ = ||C
D ��⃗ · P �⃗ ||
���P⃗(t) − P(t) (22) overall spread (OS) (Wu and Azarm 2001), were applied.
| | Meanwhile, the number of HF model runs was used for

13
262 Page 6 of 15 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262

Fig. 2  Diagrams of two quality

metrics RHD and OS. (a) RHD.
(b) OS 

(a)RHD (b)OS

measuring the optimization efficiency of different meth- pbad and pgood (Figure 2b). The mathematical form of OS is
ods. Taking a 2D case for example, Figure 2 geometrically as follows:
explains the RHD (Figure 2a) and the OS (Figure 2b). Sup- [ ]
pose that the current high-quality non-dominated front is HA extremes(p)
OS = ( ) (28)
P = {a, b, c, d} and the extreme “bad” and “good” individuals HA pbad , pgood
are respectively pbad and pgood. Then, the value of the RHD is
represented by the relative hyperarea difference between the The metrics RHD and OS represent the convergence and
area enclosed by pbad and pgood, and the area covered from diversity of the obtained Pareto front in real engineering
the current high-quality non-dominated front to pbad. The problems, respectively. The smaller the RHD value is, the
mathematical form of RHD is as follows: better the convergence of the obtained Pareto front. Mean-
( ) ( ) while, the larger the OS value is, the higher the diversity of
HA pbad , pgood − HA pbad , a, b, c, d the obtained Pareto front would be.
RHD = ( ) (27)
HA pbad , pgood
Workflow of MFSVR‑MOPO

where HA is the hyperarea between points. The value In general, the intelligent surrogate-assisted multi-objective
of OS is represented by the ratio between the hyperarea optimization method contains two key steps, namely, the
enclosed by two end points “a” and “d” in the current high- establishment of the surrogate model and the construction
quality non-dominated front and the hyperarea enclosed by of the multi-objective optimization algorithm. Based on

Fig. 3  Workflow of the MFSVR-MOPO method

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262
this, the specific workflow of the proposed MFSVR-MOPO
method is shown in Figure 3. The main procedure of the
MFSVR-MOPO method is the multi-objective optimization
and the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (Deb
et al. 2002), which is one of the most classic multi-objective
algorithms. It is therefore adopted as the optimizer in this
study. Thus, the key point of the proposed MFSVR-MOPO
method is that both the LF and HF samples are mapped to a
high-dimension space by the kernel function of the SVR and
the relationships between variables and objectives are evalu-
ated by a linear model. Besides, the gray wolf algorithm is
applied to search the optimal hyperparameters of the SVR
model so as to improve the evaluation accuracy.
Case study
In this section, two widely used reservoir production opti-
mization models (egg model and Brugge model) with dif-
ferent levels of complexity were applied to examine and
explain the efficiency and applicability of the established
MFSVR-MOPO method. Meanwhile, the streamline and
the full order models were defined as the LF and the HF
models, respectively. The MFSVR-MOPO method was
compared with three other methods to verify its superiority
and performance. These other methods are MOPO with LF
model (LF-MOPO), MOPO with HF model (HF-MOPO),
and single-fidelity support vector regression model–assisted
MOPO (SVR-MOPO). To avoid the influence of random-
ness, twenty independent runs were conducted. It is worth
mentioning that the numerical simulation models were car-
ried out using the Eclipse software.
Case 1
Firstly, the egg model was applied to verify the superior
performance of this proposed MFSVR-MOPO method.
The egg model (Jansen et al. 2014) is a commonly used
Fig. 4  Permeability distribu-
tion of the egg model ((A) LF
model; (B) HF model)
Page 7 of 15 262
Table 1  Parameters for NPV computation
Parameters Symbol Value
Oil revenue ro $60/STB
Cost of water disposal rw $3/STB
Cost of water inject cwi $2/STB
The annual discount rate b 0.05
three-dimensional multi-channelized synthetic reservoir
model for production optimization. There are seven layers
and eight injectors as well as four producers. Because of
some non-active cells in this model, it looks as if an egg. The
detailed geological properties and reservoir parameters of
this model can be found in Jansen et al. (2014). The stream-
line model and full order simulation model were adopted
as two-level multi-fidelity models to evaluate individuals
with LF and HF values. The specific permeability field and
well locations of the LF and HF egg models are displayed
in Figure 4.
Just as in previous researches (Chen et al. 2020; Zhao
et al. 2020b), the bottom hole pressure (BHP) of producers
were set at a constant value of 38 MPa during the entire
production period in this model. In this way, the injection
rates of the eight injectors were set as the decision variables
in this case. Meanwhile, considering the scale of the egg
model, the upper boundary of the decision space was set as
70 ­m3/day while the lower boundary was 0 ­m3/day. Moreo-
ver, each production step was defined as 180 days, with a
total of twenty production steps. The specific parameters for
calculating the NPV are listed in Table 1.
The reservoir simulation was conducted on a computer
with an Intel Core i7 9700 CPU. Running the HF model once
took about 10 min, while the LF model took approximately 1
min. Therefore, the computational cost of the HF model was
ten times more than that of the LF model. Thus, evaluating
one sample by the HF model was equal to evaluating ten
13
262 Page 8 of 15 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262

Table 2  The statistics of mean

value and standard deviation LF ratio 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
(STD) of R2 with twenty runs Mean value 0.8124 0.8932 0.9438 0.9834 0.9848 0.9853 0.9854 0.9856 0.9857
STD 0.0374 0.0125 0.0086 0.0042 0.0039 0.0035 0.0032 0.0031 0.0028

Table 3  Relevant parameters of Parameter Values with a decrease in the number of LF samples. The results
algorithms in the egg model of the validation of different combinations of LF and HF
Size of population 50 samples are shown in Table 2. It was observed that when
Iterations 1000 the LF samples reduced to 60%, the accuracy of the MF-
Mutative probability 0.005 SVR model was almost invariant. Considering the balance
Cross probability 0.65 between accuracy and computational burden, a combination
of 40% HF samples and 60% LF samples was the most suit-
able for establishing the MF-SVR model.
4.8 As discussed in the validation experiment, the LHS
method was applied to generate 1000 initial samples of
which 40% were evaluated by the HF model and the other
4.4 60% were assessed by the LF model to establish the MF-
SVR model for the MFSVR-MOPO method. For the sake of
fairness, 460 samples were generated using the LHS method
COP(×105m3)

4.0 and evaluated by the HF model to train the single-fidelity

SVR model for the SVR-MOPO method. In this way, the
computational cost of establishing the above models was the
3.6
LF-MOPO same. The relevant parameters of the algorithms are shown
HF-MOPO in Table 3.
SVR-MOPO Figure 5 depicts the Pareto fronts of the four different
3.2 MFSVR-MOPO methods after the iteration process. It is obvious that the
Pareto front of the LF-MOPO was dominated by that of the
7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5
HF-MOPO and the MFSVR-MOPO methods. This means
NPV(×107USD)
that merely relying on the LF model will result in worse
results in this reservoir case. Meanwhile, the Pareto front of
Fig. 5  Pareto fronts of different methods for the egg model
the MFSVR-MOPO method with the multi-fidelity surrogate

Table 4  Statistics of RHD and Metrics LF-MOPO HF-MOPO SVR-MOPO MFTS-MOPO

OS obtained by the five methods
for the egg model with twenty RHD 0.4343 ± 0.0135 0.3608 ± 0.0051 0.4585 ± 0.0292 0.3652 ± 0.0118
runs
OS 0.6053 ± 0.0139 0.6550 ± 0.0077 0.5923 ± 0.0472 0.6574 ± 0.0102

The parameters are displayed in the form of mean value ± standard deviation (STD)

samples by the LF model. The concern that naturally arises

model was in good agreement with that of the HF-based
is how to allocate the samples for LF or HF evaluation.
method. In contrast, the Pareto front of the SVR-MOPO
To address this issue, a validation experiment was adopted
method with single fidelity was worse than those of the two
to explore the specific allocation of LF and HF samples. In
methods. These phenomena qualitatively showed the supe-
the experiment, LF and HF samples of different combina-
rior performance of the MF surrogate model in assisting the
tions were tested. In addition, the validation experiment of
production optimization process.
each combination was separately run twenty times to avoid
To further compare the quality of the Pareto fronts of
an accidental error. One thousand samples were generated
these four methods, the RHD and OS were used to quan-
by the Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) (Stein 1987) method
titatively assess their convergence and diversity. The pgood
as the training data set. Fifty samples were evaluated by the
and pbad were predefined as [1 × 1­ 08 5 × 1­ 05] and [7 × 1­ 07
HF model for validation. R-squared (R2) (Israeli 2007) was
3 × 1­ 05], respectively. The results of the quality metrics of
applied to measure the accuracy of the MF-SVR model. The
the four methods are summarized in Table 4, while Figure 6
computational cost of training the MF-SVR model increased

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262 Page 9 of 15 262

0.75 10 5
0.55 RHD
OS
Relative hyperarea difference (RHD)

0.70
8 4
0.50

Overall spread (OS)

0.65

COP (×105m3)
NPV (×107$)
0.45 6 3

0.60

0.40
4 2
0.55

0.35 NPV of scheme 1

0.30
LF-MOPO HF-MOPO SVR-MOPO
Fig. 6  Distribution of the two metrics for the egg model with 20 inde-
pendent runs
shows the distribution of the two metrics for twenty inde-
pendent runs. As shown in Table 4, the mean values of RHD
and OS for the MFSVR-MOPO method were similar to those
of the HF-MOPO method. This indicates that the Pareto
front obtained from the MFSVR-MOPO method had compa-
rable convergence and diversity with the HF-MOPO method.
In terms of computational cost, the MFSVR-MOPO method
was approximately one hundred and eight (108) times less
than the HF-MOPO method. Although the computational
cost of the MFSVR-MOPO and SVR-MOPO were the same,
the mean and standard deviation values of the two metrics
from the MFSVR-MOPO method were better than that of
the SVR-MOPO method. Therefore, the application of both
LF and HF samples significantly improved the quality of
the surrogate model in terms of convergence and diversity.
To further analyze the final optimal solutions obtained by
the MFSVR-MOPO method, two solutions with maximum
2 NPV of scheme 2 1
0.50
COP of scheme 1
COP of scheme 2
MFSVR-MOPO
0 0
0 900 1800 2700 3600
Production time (day)
Fig. 8  NPV and COP of the two schemes for the egg model
NPV and COP were chosen as schemes 1 and 2, respectively.
Figure 7 depicts the detailed well control parameters of each
production step for schemes 1 and 2. It is seen that the total
volume of water injected for scheme 1 was less than that of
scheme 2. Thus, the optimized well control parameters in
scheme 1 had better water-flooding efficiency for the maxi-
mum NPV. Meanwhile, scheme 2 was associated with more
oil displacement in obtaining the maximum COP.
The NPV and COP curves of the two extreme schemes
during the entire production period are shown in Figure 8.
As illustrated in Figure 8, scheme 1 yielded $9.52 × 1­ 07,
which was nearly 25% more than that of scheme 2, which
had $7.63 × ­107. Meanwhile, scheme 1 produced 3.15 × ­105
­m3, which was approximately 34% less than that of scheme 2
with 4.76 × ­105 ­m3. In summary, the final optimal scheme
which had the maximum NPV was related to a minimum

70 70
8 8
60 60
7 7

50 50
6 6
Injector index

Injector index

5 40 5 40

4 30 4 30

3 20
3 20

2 2
10 10

1 1
0 0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Control steps Control steps

Fig. 7  Well control parameters of schemes 1 and 2 ((a) scheme 1; (b) scheme 2)

13
262 Page 10 of 15
Fig. 9  Permeability distribution
of the Brugge model ((A) LF
model; (B) HF model)
COP and vice versa. This shows a typical characteristic of
multi-objective optimization.
Case 2
To demonstrate the performance of the MFSVR-MOPO
method on large-scale reservoirs, the Brugge model (Peters
et al. 2010), which contains twenty producers and ten injec-
tors, was applied in this case. The Brugge model is a fre-
quently used large-scale three-dimensional synthetic res-
ervoir model designed for production optimization. In the
Brugge model, all the wells are located in the oil-bearing
part of the model while the oil saturation in other parts is
zero. There are 60,048 grids equally distributed in nine lay-
ers. The specific geological characteristics and reservoir
parameters of the Brugge model can be found in Peters
et al. (2010). Just as in case 1, the streamline and full order
simulation models were conducted as LF and HF models to
generate two level fidelity samples, respectively. Figure 9
depicts the permeability field and specific well locations of
the LF and HF Brugge models.
Considering the well control parameters of both produc-
ers and injectors, the BHP of producers and water injection
rate of injectors were defined as the decision variables in the
Brugge model. The upper and lower boundaries of the BHP
were 15 MPa and 0.1 MPa, respectively. For injectors, the
decision space of the injection rate ranged from 0 to 1500
­m3/day. In addition, the production period was predefined as
6000 days with twenty steps. The relevant economic param-
eters for calculating the NPV values were the same as that
of case 1.
Under the same operation conditions, running the HF
Brugge model once took about 24 min, while the computa-
tional cost of the LF model was approximately 4 min. Hence,
the computational cost of the HF model was six times more
than that of the LF model. Thus, evaluating one sample by
the HF model was equal to evaluating six samples by the LF
model. Considering the dimension of the variables, 2000 ini-
tial samples were generated by the Latin hypercube sampling
(LHS) method. Forty percent of the samples were evaluated
by the HF model, and the other 60% of the samples were
assessed by the LF model to establish the MF-SVR model
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262
4.0
COP(×107m3)
3.6
3.2 LF-MOPO
HF-MOPO
SVR-MOPO
MFSVR-MOPO
2.8
8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0
NPV(×109USD)
Fig. 10  Pareto fronts of different methods for the Brugge model
for the MFSVR-MOPO method. For fairness, another 1000
samples were generated using the LHS method and evalu-
ated by the HF model so as to train the single-fidelity SVR
model for the SVR-MOPO method. Thus, the computational
cost of establishing the two surrogate models was the same.
The relevant parameters of the algorithms were the same as
in case 1.
After the iterations, the Pareto fronts of the four different
methods are displayed in Figure 10. It is clear that the Pareto
front obtained from MFSVR-MOPO matched well with that
of the HF-MOPO method. This phenomenon indicates that
the MFSVR-MOPO method can solve such high-dimension
complex reservoir model problems. Nevertheless, the Pareto
front of the LF-MOPO method was totally dominated by
that of the HF-MOPO and the MFSVR-MOPO method.
It is worth noting that the Pareto front of the SVR-MOPO
method had a mismatch with that of the HF-MOPO method.
Thus, the performance of the single-fidelity SVR surrogate
model was very unstable compared to the multi-fidelity SVR
surrogate model. These results showed that the combined
application of the two-fidelity samples played an essential
role in the MFSVR-MOPO method.
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262 Page 11 of 15 262

Table 5  Statistics of RHD Metrics LF-MOPO HF-MOPO SVR-MOPO MFTS-MOPO

and OS obtained by the four
methods for the Brugge model RHD 0.4599 ± 0.0156 0.3443 ± 0.0044 0.4555 ± 0.0526 0.3447 ± 0.0096
with twenty runs
OS 0.5439 ± 0.0163 0.6371 ± 0.0053 0.5595 ± 0.0292 0.6378 ± 0.0084

The parameters are displayed in the form of mean value ± standard deviation (STD).

0.70 OS from the MFSVR-MOPO method were similar to that

0.60 RHD
OS
of HF-MOPO and were better than that of the LF-MOPO
and SVR-MOPO methods. Consequently, the Pareto front
Relative hyperarea difference (RHD)

0.55 0.65
obtained from the MFSVR-MOPO method had good con-

Overall spread (OS)

0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
LF-MOPO
Fig. 11  Distribution of the two metrics for the Brugge model with 20
independent runs
The RHD and OS were once again used to quantita-
tively analyze the quality of the Pareto fronts obtained
from the four methods. The p good and p bad in this case
were predetermined as [1 × ­1010 4.2 × ­107] and [8 × ­109
2.8 × ­1 0 7], respectively. The parameters and distribu-
tion of twenty independent runs of the two metrics on
the Brugge model are listed in Table 5 and displayed in
Figure 11. From Table 5, the mean values of RHD and
0.60
vergence and diversity. Meanwhile, the STD values of the
two metrics from the MFSVR-MOPO method were less
than that of the SVR-MOPO method. Thus, the robust-
0.55
ness of the proposed MFSVR-MOPO method had been
demonstrated. Regarding the computational burden, that
0.50 of the MFSVR-MOPO method was approximately fifty
times less than that of the HF-MOPO method. These indi-
0.45 ces proved that the application of both the LF and HF
HF-MOPO SVR-MOPO MFSVR-MOPO
samples improved the quality of surrogate model in terms
of convergence as well as diversity and also significantly
reduced the computational cost of evaluation of objectives
during the iteration process.
The above qualitative and quantitative analyses have
shown the excellent performance of the MFSVR-MOPO
method. In order to show the characteristics of the rep-
resentative schemes obtained by the MFSVR-MOPO
method, the optimal solutions with maximum NPV and
COP were chosen as schemes 1 and 2, respectively. The
detailed well control parameters of each producer and
injector were compared and are shown in Figures 12 and
13. It is seen that the BHPs of scheme 1 were generally

20 15 20 15

12 12

15 15
Producer index

Producer index

9 9

10 10
6 6

5 3 5 3

0 0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Control steps Control steps
(a) (b)

Fig. 12  BHPs of schemes 1 and 2((a) scheme 1; (b) scheme 2)

13
262 Page 12 of 15 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262

1500 1500
10 10

1200 1200
8 8
Injector index

Injector index
900 900
6 6

600 600
4 4

300 300
2 2

0 0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Control steps Control steps
(a) (b)

Fig. 13  Injection rates of schemes 1 and 2 ((a) scheme 1; (b) scheme 2)

10 demonstrates a representative characteristic of multi-

4
objective optimization.
8

3 Conclusion
COP (×107m3)
NPV (×109$)

In this study, a rapid intelligent multi-fidelity support vector

4
NPV of scheme 1
2 NPV of scheme 1
COP of scheme 1
COP of scheme 2
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Production time (day)
Fig. 14  NPV and COP of the two schemes for the Brugge model
higher than that of scheme 2. Meanwhile, the total vol-
ume of water injected in scheme 1 was less than that of
scheme 2. Therefore, the optimized well control param-
eters in scheme 1 were accompanied with better water-
flooding efficiency for the maximum NPV. On the other
hand, the well control parameters in scheme 2 were associ-
ated with displacement of more oil to obtain the maximum
COP.
Figure 14 depicts the NPV and COP curves of schemes
1 and 2. In terms of the NPV, scheme 1 yielded $9.907
× ­109, which was about 17% more than that of scheme 2,
which had $8.235 × 1­ 0 9 . Meanwhile, scheme  1 pro-
duced 2.919 × ­107 ­m 3 of oil, which was about 40% less
than that of scheme 2, which produced 4.088 × ­1 07 ­m 3.
Thus, the final optimal scheme with the maximum NPV
was related to a minimum COP and vice versa. This
2 regression surrogate model–assisted multi-objective optimi-
zation method for production optimization is proposed. Two
reservoir models with different complexities were used to
1
examine the performance of the proposed MFSVR-MOPO
method. The results showed that the MFSVR-MOPO model
exhibited better performance in terms of convergence and
6000 diversity of the Pareto fronts for the two reservoir produc-
tion optimization problems compared with the single-fidel-
ity sample–based surrogate method (SVR-MOPO). Mean-
while, relying on the LF model alone resulted in unreliable
Pareto fronts, although the computational burden was neg-
ligible. Moreover, the MFSVR-MOPO method performed
better than other single surrogate models in terms of con-
vergence and diversity of the Pareto fronts. It is also found
that with a decrease in the LF sample ratio, the accuracy
and robustness of the MF-SVR model increased. Ultimately,
using the MF-SVR surrogate model, the computational bur-
den of MFSVR-MOPO was one hundred and eight (108)
times less than that of the HF-MOPO method for the egg
model and fifty (50) times less for the Brugge model.
The above results have shown the reliability and appli-
cability of the MFSVR-MOPO method for different reser-
voir production optimization problems. Nevertheless, the
proposed MFSVR-MOPO method in the current study was
merely applied to two-fidelity samples and two objectives. In
future research, the proposed MFSVR-MOPO method will
be extended to solve production optimization problems with

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262 Page 13 of 15 262

n-fidelity samples and multiple objectives to further improve Ns

∑ ( )T ( )
the accuracy and reduce the computational burden. yk = 𝛼l 𝜑 xl 𝜑 xk + b + ek (38)
l=1

Combining Eqs. 36 and 38 yields:

Appendix. Procedure of training SVR models
Ns
∑ ( )T ( ) 𝛼
The linear relationship between input (φ(x)) and output (y) yk = 𝛼l 𝜑 xl 𝜑 xk + b + k (39)
𝛾
in the SVR model is as follows:
l=1
[ ]T
T
y = b + 𝜔 𝜑(𝐱) (29) We define 1NS = [1, 1, … , 1]TN   , Y = y1 , y2 , … , yNS  ,
S
[ ]T
𝛼 = 𝛼1 , 𝛼2 , … , 𝛼NS  , and ΩK, I = φ(xk)Tφ(xl).
where ω represents the coefficient vector and b is a con-
stant scalar which could be easily obtained by solving the Equation 39 thus becomes:
following cost function J optimization problem: ( )
1
1 Ns b + Ω + I 𝛼 = Y (40)
s N 𝛾
1 1 ∑[ ( ) ]2
minJ = ωT ω + c y − ωT 𝜑 xk − b (30)
2 2 k=1 k Combining Eqs. 35 and 40 yields:
[ ][ ] [ ]
In Eq. 30 the training error is defined as the least-square 01TN b 0
error between predicted and real values. Thus, Eq. 30 is S
1 = (41)
1NS 𝛺NS ×NS + 𝛾 I 𝛼 Y
equivalent to:
Ns where
1 T 1 ∑ 2
minJ = ω ω+ c e (31) ( )T ( )
2 2 k=1 k 𝛺K,I = 𝜑 xk 𝜑 xl (42)
Subject to Using the kernel function to replace the inner product of
( ) φ gives:
ek = yk − wT 𝜑 xk − b (32)
( )T ( ) ( )
The Lagrangian function is described as follows: 𝜑 xk 𝜑 xl = K xk , xl (43)

Ns NS In this study, the RBF kernel was used. The following

1 T 1 ∑ 2 ∑ [ T ( ) ]
L(w, b, e, 𝛼) =
2
w w+ c
2 k=1
ek − 𝛼k w 𝜑 xk + b + ek − yk equation is thus obtained:
k=1
(33) ( ) (
‖ ‖2 2
)
By solving the solution ∇L = 0 of Eqs. 31 and 32, the fol-
K xk , x = exp −‖xk − x‖ ∕𝜎
‖ ‖2 (44)
lowing linear systems are obtained: ( )−1
Ns Multiplying Eq. 40 by 1TN Ω + 𝛾1 I yields:
𝜕L ∑ ( ) S

=0→w= 𝛼k 𝜑 xk (34) ( )−1 ( )−1

𝜕w 1 1
k=1 1TN Ω+ I 1Ns b + 1TN 𝛼 = 1TN Ω+ I Y (45)
S 𝛾 S S 𝛾
Ns
𝜕L ∑ Replacing the relationship 1TN 𝛼 = 0 , b is solved from
=0→ 𝛼k = 0 (35)
𝜕b k=1
Eq. 45 to obtain:
( )−1
𝜕L 1TN Ω + 𝛾1 I Y
= 0 → 𝛼k = 𝛾ek , k = 1, 2, … , Ns (36)
S

𝜕ek b= ( )−1 (46)

1TN Ω + 𝛾1 I 1 Ns
S

𝜕L ( )T
𝜕𝛼k
= 0 → w 𝜑 xk + b + ek − yk = 0, k = 1, 2, … , Ns Considering Eq. 40, α is given as:
(37) ( )−1 ( )−1
Simultaneously solving Eqs. 34 and 37 yields: 1 1
𝛼= Ω+ I Y −b Ω+ I 1 Ns (47)
𝛾 𝛾

13
262 Page 14 of 15
Combining Eqs. 29 and 34, and then applying Eq. 43, the
function y(x) is obtained as:
Ns
∑ ( )
ŷ (x) = 𝛼k K xk , x + b (48)
k=1
Funding information  This study was financially supported by the
National Basic Research Program of China (2015CB250900).
Declarations  reservoir volume evaluation. Arabian Journal of Geosciences
Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
References
Bagherinezhad A, Boozarjomehry RB, Pishvaie MR (2017) Multi-
criterion based well placement and control in the water-flooding
of naturally fractured reservoir. Journal of Petroleum Science &
Engineering 149:675–685
Chang C, Lin C (2011) LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines.
ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology (TIST)
2(3):1–27
Chen G, Zhang K, Zhang L et al (2020) Global and local surrogate-
model-assisted differential evolution for waterflooding production
optimization. SPE Journal 25(1):105–118
Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan TAMT (2002) A fast and elit-
ist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE transactions
on evolutionary computation 6(2):182–197
Ding S, Lu R, Xi Y et al (2021) Optimizing vertical and deviated
wells based on advanced initialization using new productivity
potential map. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
198:108263
Feng D, Bakhshian S, Wu K et  al (2021) Wettability effects on
phase behavior and interfacial tension in shale nanopores. Fuel
290:119983
Feng D, Wu K, Wang X et al (2019) Modeling the confined fluid
flow in micro-nanoporous media under geological temperature
and pressure. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
145:118758
Feng D, Li X, Wang X et al (2018a) Capillary filling under nanocon-
finement: the relationship between effective viscosity and water-
wall interactions. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
118:900–910
Feng D, Li X, Wang X et al (2018b) Water adsorption and its impact
on the pore structure characteristics of shale clay. Applied Clay
Science 155:126–138
Guo Z, Reynolds AC (2018) Robust life-cycle production optimi-
zation with a support-vector-regression proxy. Spe Journal
23(06):2409–2427
Guo Z, Reynolds AC, Zhao H (2018a) Waterflooding optimization
with the INSIM-FT data-driven model. Computat. Geosci.
22(3):745–761
Guo Z, Chen C, Gao G et al (2018b) Enhancing the performance of the
distributed Gauss-Newton optimization method by reducing the
effect of numerical noise and truncation error with support-vector
regression. SPE J. 23(6):2428–2443
Isebor OJ, Durlofsky LJ (2014). Biobjective optimization for general
oil field development. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.119,123-138
Israeli O (2007) A Shapley-based decomposition of the R-square of a linear
regression. The Journal of Economic Inequality 5(2):199–212
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262
Jansen JD, Fonseca RM, Kahrobaei S et al (2014) The egg model –
a geological ensemble for reservoir simulation. Geosci Data.
J1(2):192–195
Kang Q, Wu H, Zhang R et al (2021) Development of process simula-
tion software for gathering and transportation pipeline network
of intelligent oilfield. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation
40(03):277–286
Li Z, Liang Y, Xu N et al (2021) Optimization of pipeline natural gas
supply chain considering market competition. Oil & Gas Storage
and Transportation 40(1):113–120
Lin R, Ren L, Zhao J et al (2017) Cluster spacing optimization of multi-
stage fracturing in horizontal shale gas wells based on stimulated
10(2):38
Liu Z, Forouzanfar F, Zhao Y (2018) Comparison of SQP and AL
algorithms for deterministic constrained production optimization
of hydrocarbon reservoirs. J Pet Sci Eng 171:542–557
Liu F, Ma X, Chen J et al (2021) Injection production ratio optimi-
zation calculation model based on new water--drive type curve.
Arabian Journal of Geosciences 14(18):1–7
Liu Y, Chen S, Guan B et al (2019a) Layout optimization of large-
scale oil–gas gathering system based on combined optimization
strategy. Neurocomputing 332:159–183
Liu Y, Sun W, Durlofsky LJ (2019b) A deep-learning-based geologi-
cal parameterization for history matching complex models. Math.
Geosci. 51:725–766
Liu Z, Reynolds A (2021) Robust multiobjective nonlinear constrained
optimization with ensemble stochastic gradient sequential quad-
ratic programming-filter algorithm. SPE Journal:1–16
Men S, Yan L, Liu J. et  al. (2017) A classification method for
seed viability assessment with infrared thermography.
Sensors(Basel)17(4):845
Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey wolf optimizer.
Advances in engineering software 69:46–61
Mohammadi B, Aghashariatmadari Z (2020) Estimation of solar radi-
ation using neighboring stations through hybrid support vector
regression boosted by Krill Herd algorithm. Arabian Journal of
Geosciences 13:1–16
Nanda MA, Seminar KB, Nandika D et al (2018) A comparison study
of kernel functions in the support vector machine and its applica-
tion for termite detection. Information 9(1):5–14. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​3390/​info9​010005
Nguyen H, Bui XN, Choi Y et al (2021) A novel combination of whale
optimization algorithm and support vector machine with differ-
ent kernel functions for prediction of blasting-induced fly-rock in
quarry mines. Natural Resources Research:1–17
Peters L, Arts R., Brouwer G. et al.(2010) Results of the Brugge benchmark
study for flooding optimisation and history matching. SPE Res Eval
& Eng 13(3):391-405. SPE-119094-PA. doi: 10.2118/119094-PA.
Rajabi-Kochi M, Khamehchi E (2021) A modified optimization proce-
dure for production and injection scheduling in an oil field using
second derivative methods. Arabian Journal of Geosciences
14(16):1–10
Rao X, Zhao H, Deng Q (2020) Artificial-neural-network (ANN) based
proxy model for performances forecast and inverse project design
of water huff-n-puff technology. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 195:107851
Rostamian A, Jamshidi S, Zirbes E (2019) The development of a novel
multi-objective optimization framework for non-vertical well
placement based on a modified non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm-II. Computational Geosciences 23(5):1065–1085.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10596-​019-​09863-2
Stein M (1987) Large sample properties of simulations using Latin hyper-
cube sampling. Technometrics 29(2):143–151
Tolouei K, Moosavi E, Gholinejad M (2021) An effective MIP
model based on grey wolf optimizer for lot-sizing LTPSOP in
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 262
open-pit mines under uncertainty. Arabian Journal of Geosciences
14(17):1–17
Wang L, Yao Y, Zhang T et al (2022) A novel self-adaptive multi-fidel-
ity surrogate-assisted multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for
simulation-based production optimization. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering 110111
Wang L, Yao Y, Wang K, et al. 2021a. A novel surrogate-assisted
multi-objective optimization method for well control parameters
based on tri-training. Natural Resources Research, 2021.
Wang L, Li ZP, Adenutsi CD et al (2020) A novel multi-objective
optimization method for well control parameters based on PSO-
LSSVR proxy model and NSGA-II algorithm. Journal of Petro-
leum Science and Engineering 196:107694
Wang Y, Li X, Lu J (2021b) Experimental study and numerical mod-
eling of boron transport in reservoir and its influence on seawater-
breakthrough calculation. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineer-
ing 24(02):292–309
Wu J, Azarm S (2001) Metrics for quality assessment of a multiobjec-
tive design optimization solution set. J. Mech. Des. 123(1):18–25
Yin F, Xue X, Zhang C, Zhang K, et al. 2021. Multifidelity genetic
transfer: an efficient framework for production optimization. SPE
J. (2021;): SPE-205013-PA. doi: 10.2118/205013-PA
Zhang L, Li ZP, Li H et al (2020) Application of polynomial chaos
expansion to optimize injection-production parameters under
uncertainty. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2020
Page 15 of 15 262
Zhang L, Li Z, Lai F et al (2019) Integrated optimization design for
horizontal well placement and fracturing in tight oil reservoirs. J.
Pet. Sci. Eng 178:82–96
Zhang T, Javadpour F, Yin Y, et al. 2020b Upscaling water flow in com-
posite nanoporous shale matrix using lattice Boltzmann method.
Water Resources Research, 2020, 56, e2019WR026007
Zhang T, Javadpour F, Li J et al (2021) Pore-scale perspective of gas/
water two-phase flow in shale. SPE Journal 26(02):828–846
Zhao M, Zhang K, Chen G. et al. 2020a. A surrogate-assisted multi-
objective evolutionary algorithm with dimension-reduction for
production optimization. J Pet Sci Eng 192(September):107192.
doi: 10.1016/i. petrol.2020.107192.
Zhao M, Zhang K, Chen G. et al.2020b. A classification-based surro-
gate-assisted multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for produc-
tion optimization under geological uncertainty. SPE J.25(5):2450-
2469. SPE-201229-PA. https:/doi. org/10.2118/201229-PA
Zhou YS, Ong MH, Nguyen D (2005) Lim, A study on polynomial
regression and Gaussian process global surrogate model in hier-
archical surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithm, in:2005 IEEE
Congress on Evolutionary Computation,3. IEEE:2832–2839
Zhu Y, Zabaras N (2018) Bayesian deep convolutional encoder-decoder
networks for surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification. J
Comput Phys 366:415–447
13