1887
24th International Geophysical Conference and Exhibition – Geophysics and Geology Together for Discovery
  • ISSN: 2202-0586
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Jointly inverting different data sets can greatly improve model results, provided that the data sets are sensitive to similar features. Such a joint inversion requires assumed connections between the different geophysical data sets, which can either be of analytical or structural nature. Classically, the joint problem is expressed as a scalar objective function that combines the misfit functions of all involved data sets and a joint term accounting for the assumed connection. This approach has two major disadvantages: Firstly, by aggregating all misfit terms a weighting of the data sets is enforced, and secondly, false models are produced, if the connection between data sets differs from the assumed one. We present a Pareto efficient multi-objective evolutionary algorithm, which treats each data set as a separate objective, avoiding forced weighting. The algorithm jointly inverts one-dimensional datasets from different electromagnetic techniques and also treats any additional information as separate objectives, rather than imposing them as a fixed constraint. Additional information can include, for example a priori models, seismic constraints, or well log data. Statistical analysis of the final solution ensemble yields an average one-dimensional model with associated uncertainties. Furthermore, the shape and evolution of the Pareto fronts is analysed to evaluate dataset compatibility and to judge if the assumed connection between datasets was valid.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2015ab052
2015-12-01
2026-01-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Coello, C. A. C., G. B. Lamont, and D. A. V. Veldhuizen, 2007, Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, second ed.: Springer.
  2. Deb, K., A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, 2002, A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II: IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6, 2, 182197.
  3. Edgeworth, F., 1881, Mathematical physics.
  4. Hadka, D., and P. Reed, 2012, Diagnostic assessment of search controls and failure modes in many-objective evolutionary optimization: Evolutionary Computation, 20, 3, 423-452.
  5. Hadka, D., and P. Reed, 2013, Borg: An auto-adaptive many-objective evolutionary computing framework: Evolutionary Computation, 21, 2, 231-259.
  6. Ishibuchi, H., N. Tsukamoto, Y. Hitotsuyanagi, and Y. Nojima, 2008, Effectiveness of scalability improvement attempts on the performance of nsga-ii for many-objective problems: GECCO ‘08: Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, ACM, 649-656.
  7. Moorkamp, M., A. G. Jones, and D. W. Eaton, 2007, Joint inversion of teleseismic receiver functions and magnetotelluric data using a genetic algorithm: Are seismic velocities and electrical conductivities compatible?: Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L16311.
  8. Moorkamp, M., A. G. Jones, and S. Fishwick, 2010, Joint inversion of receiver functions, surface wave dispersion, and magnetotelluric data: Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, B04318.
  9. Pareto, V., 1896, Cours d’ Economie politique: F. Rouge, I, II.
/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2015ab052
Loading
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