1887
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

To reduce both the computational cost of probabilistic inversions and the ill‐posedness of geophysical problems, model and data spaces can be reparameterized into low‐dimensional domains where the inverse solution can be computed more efficiently. Among the many compression methods, deep learning algorithms based on deep generative models provide an efficient approach for model and data space reduction. We present a probabilistic electrical resistivity tomography inversion in which the data and model spaces are compressed through deep convolutional variational autoencoders, while the optimization procedure is driven by the ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation, an iterative ensemble‐based algorithm. This method iteratively updates an initial ensemble of models that are generated according to a previously defined prior model. The inversion outcome consists of the most likely solution and a set of realizations of the variables of interest from which the posterior uncertainties can be numerically evaluated. We test the method on synthetic data computed over a schematic subsurface model, and then we apply the inversion to field measurements. The model predictions and the uncertainty assessments provided by the presented approach are also compared with the results of a Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling working in the compressed domains, a gradient‐based algorithm and with the outcomes of an ensemble‐based inversion running in the uncompressed spaces. A finite‐element code constitutes the forward operator. Our experiments show that the implemented inversion provides most likely solutions and uncertainty quantifications comparable to those yielded by the ensemble‐based inversion running in the full model and data spaces, and the Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling, but with a significant reduction of the computational cost.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12194
2022-03-12
2022-05-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aleardi, M. (2015) The importance of the Vp/Vs ratio in determining the error propagation, the stability and the resolution of linear AVA inversion: a theoretical demonstration. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, 56(3), 357–366.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aleardi, M. (2020) Discrete cosine transform for parameter space reduction in linear and non‐linear AVA inversions. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 179, 104106.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aleardi, M. and Salusti, A. (2020) Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for target‐oriented and interval‐oriented amplitude versus angle inversions with non‐parametric priors and non‐linear forward modellings. Geophysical Prospecting, 68(3), 735–760.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aleardi, M., Vinciguerra, A. and Hojat, A. (2020) A geostatistical Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion algorithm for electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics, 19(1), 7–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aleardi, M., Vinciguerra, A. and Hojat, A. (2021a) A convolutional neural network approach to electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 193, 104434.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Aleardi, M., Vinciguerra, A. and Hojat, A. (2021b) Ensemble‐based electrical resistivity tomography with data and model space compression. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 178, 1781–1803.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Arosio, D., Munda, S., Tresoldi, G., Papini, M., Longoni, L. and Zanzi, L. (2017) A customized resistivity system for monitoring saturation and seepage in earthen levees: installation and validation. Open Geosciences, 9(1), 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo‐2017‐0035.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Aster, R.C., Borchers, B. and Thurber, C.H. (2018) Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems. Cambridge: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Balles, L. and Hennig, P. (2018) Dissecting Adam: the sign, magnitude and variance of stochastic gradients. International Conference on Machine Learning, 404–413.
  10. Bao, J., Li, L. and Redoloza, F. (2020) Coupling ensemble smoother and deep learning with generative adversarial networks to deal with non‐Gaussianity in flow and transport data assimilation. Journal of Hydrology, 590, 125443.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bièvre, G., Oxarango, L., Günther, T., Goutaland, D. and Massardi, M. (2018) Improvement of 2D ERT measurements conducted along a small earth‐filled dyke using 3D topographic data and 3D computation of geometric factors. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 153, 100–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Binley, A. and Slater, L. (2020) Resistivity and Induced Polarization: Theory and Applications to the Near‐Surface Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brooks, S.P. and Gelman, A. (1998) General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Journal of computational and graphical statistics, 7(4), 434–455.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, Y. and Oliver, D.S. (2017) Localization and regularization for iterative ensemble smoothers. Computational Geosciences, 21(1), 13–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dahlin, T. (2020) Geoelectrical monitoring of embankment dams for detection of anomalous seepage and internal erosion – experiences and work in progress in Sweden. Fifth International Conference on Engineering Geophysics (ICEG), Al Ain, UAE, https://doi.org/10.1190/iceg2019‐053.1.
  16. Dubey, A.K. and Jain, V. (2019) Comparative study of convolution neural network's ReLU and LeakyReLU activation functions. In Applications of Computing, Automation and Wireless Systems in Electrical Engineering. Singapore: Springer, pp. 873–880.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Emerick, A.A. and Reynolds, A.C. (2013) Ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation. Computers & Geosciences, 55, 3–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gao, Z., Li, C., Liu, N., Pan, Z., Gao, J. and Xu, Z. (2020) Large‐dimensional seismic inversion using global optimization with autoencoder‐based model dimensionality reduction. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 59(2), 1718–1732.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y. and Courville, A. (2016) Deep learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grana, D., Passos de Figueiredo, L. and Azevedo, L. (2019) Uncertainty quantification in Bayesian inverse problems with model and data dimension reduction. Geophysics, 84(6), M15–M24.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hermans, T. and Paepen, M. (2020) Combined inversion of land and marine electrical resistivity tomography for submarine groundwater discharge and saltwater intrusion characterization. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(3), e2019GL085877.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hojat, A., Arosio, D., Di Luch, I., Ferrario, M., Ivanov, V.I., Longoni, L., et al. (2019a) Testing ERT and fiber optic techniques at the laboratory scale to monitor river levees. 25th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, The Hague, Netherlands, https://doi.org/10.3997/2214‐4609.201902440.
  23. Hojat, A., Arosio, D., Longoni, L., Papini, M., Tresoldi, G. and Zanzi, L. (2019b) Installation and validation of a customized resistivity system for permanent monitoring of a river embankment. EAGE‐GSM 2nd Asia Pacific Meeting on Near Surface Geoscience and Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214‐4609.201900421.
  24. Kang, X., Kokkinaki, A., Kitanidis, P.K., Shi, X., Lee, J., Mo, S. and Wu, J. (2021) Hydrogeophysical characterization of nonstationary DNAPL source zones by integrating a convolutional variational autoencoder and ensemble smoother. Water Resources Research, 57(2), e2020WR028538.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kang, X., Shi, X., Revil, A., Cao, Z., Li, L., Lan, T. and Wu, J. (2019) Coupled hydrogeophysical inversion to identify non‐Gaussian hydraulic conductivity field by jointly assimilating geochemical and time‐lapse geophysical data. Journal of Hydrology, 578, 124092.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Karaoulis, M., Revil, A., Tsourlos, P., Werkema, D.D. and Minsley, B.J. (2013) IP4DI: a software for time‐lapse 2D/3D DC‐resistivity and induced polarization tomography. Computers & Geosciences, 54, 164–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kingma, D.P. & Welling, M. (2013) Auto‐encoding variational Bayes. arXiv:1312.6114.
  28. Laloy, E., Hérault, R., Jacques, D. and Linde, N. (2018) Training‐image based geostatistical inversion using a spatial generative adversarial neural network. Water Resources Research, 54(1), 381–406.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Liu, M. and Grana, D. (2018b) Stochastic nonlinear inversion of seismic data for the estimation of petroelastic properties using the ensemble smoother and data reparameterization. Geophysics, 83(3), M25‐M39.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Loke, M.H., Papadopoulos, N., Wilkinson, P.B., Oikonomou, D., Simyrdanis, K. and Rucker, D.F. (2020) The inversion of data from very large three‐dimensional electrical resistivity tomography mobile surveys. Geophysical Prospecting, 68(8), 2579–2597.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lopez‐Alvis, J., Laloy, E., Nguyen, F. and Hermans, T. (2021) Deep generative models in inversion: the impact of the generator's nonlinearity and development of a new approach based on a variational autoencoder. Computers & Geosciences, 152, 104762.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Luo, X., Bhakta, T., Jakobsen, M. and Nævdal, G. (2018) Efficient big data assimilation through sparse representation: a 3D benchmark case study in petroleum engineering. Plos One, 13(7), e0198586.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Luo, X., Lorentzen, R.J., Valestrand, R. and Evensen, G. (2019) Correlation‐based adaptive localization for ensemble‐based history matching: applied to the Norne field case study. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 22(3), 1084–1109.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mandelli, S., Borra, F., Lipari, V., Bestagini, P., Sarti, A. and Tubaro, S. (2018) Seismic data interpolation through convolutional autoencoder. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018 (pp. 4101–4105). Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Moradipour, M., Ranjbar, H., Hojat, A., Karimi‐Nasab, S. and Daneshpajouh, S. (2016) Laboratory and field measurements of electrical resistivity to study heap leaching pad no. 3 at Sarcheshmeh copper mine. 22nd European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, https://doi.org/10.3997/2214‐4609.201602140.
  36. Norooz, R., Olsson, P.I., Dahlin, T., Günther, T. and Bernston, C. (2021) A geoelectrical pre‐study of Älvkarleby test embankment dam: 3D forward modelling and effects of structural constraints on the 3D inversion model of zoned embankment dams. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 191, 104355.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pradhan, A. and Mukerji, T. (2020) Seismic Bayesian evidential learning: estimation and uncertainty quantification of sub‐resolution reservoir properties. Computational Geosciences, 24, 1121–1140.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rucker, D.F., Fink, J.B. and Loke, M.H. (2011) Environmental monitoring of leaks using time‐lapsed long electrode electrical resistivity. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 74(4), 242–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Saad, O.M. and Chen, Y. (2020) Deep denoising autoencoder for seismic random noise attenuation. Geophysics, 85(4), V367–V376.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sambridge, M. and Mosegaard, K. (2002) Monte Carlo methods in geophysical inverse problems. Reviews of Geophysics, 40(3), 3–1.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Santurkar, S., Tsipras, D., Ilyas, A. and Madry, A. (2018) How does batch normalization help optimization?. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2483–2493.
  42. Sajeva, A., Aleardi, M., Mazzotti, A., Bienati, N. and Stucchi, E. (2014) Estimation of velocity macro‐models using stochastic full‐waveform inversion. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2014. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1227–1231.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sætrom, J. and Omre, H. (2013) Uncertainty quantification in the ensemble Kalman filter. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 40(4), 868–885.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sen, M.K. and Stoffa, P.L. (2013) Global Optimization Methods in Geophysical Inversion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tarantola, A. (2005) Inverse Problem Theory. Philadelphia: SIAM.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Tso, C.H.M., Johnson, T.C., Song, X., Chen, X., Kuras, O., Wilkinson, P., et al. (2020) Integrated hydrogeophysical modelling and data assimilation for geoelectrical leak detection. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 234, 103679.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Vinciguerra, A., Aleardi, M., Hojat, A. and Stucchi, E. (2021) Discrete cosine transform for parameter space reduction in Bayesian electrical resistivity tomography. Geophysical Prospecting, 70, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.13148.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Vinciguerra, A. and Aleardi, M. (2021) Ensemble‐based time‐lapse ERT inversion with model and data space compression through deep variational autoencoders. In NSG2021 2nd Conference on Geophysics for Infrastructure Planning, Monitoring and BIM. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2021(1), 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Vrugt, J.A. (2016) Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using the DREAM software package: theory, concepts, and MATLAB implementation. Environmental Modelling & Software, 75, 273–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Whiteley, J., Chambers, J.E. and Uhlemann, S., (2017) Integrated monitoring of an active landslide in Lias group Mudrocks, North Yorkshire, UK. In: Hoyer, S. (Ed.) GELMON 2017: 4th International Workshop on GeoElectrical Monitoring, 27.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wu, H. and Gu, X. (2015) Towards dropout training for convolutional neural networks. Neural Networks, 71, 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12194
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12194
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Electrical resistivity tomography; Inversion
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error