1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 72, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 72, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Conventional methods solve the full‐waveform inversion making use of gradient‐based algorithms to minimize an error function, which commonly measure the Euclidean distance between observed and predicted waveforms. This deterministic approach only provides a ‘best‐fitting’ model and cannot account for the uncertainties affecting the predicted solution. Local methods are also usually prone to get trapped into local minima of the error function. On the other hand, casting this inverse problem into a probabilistic framework has to deal with the formidable computational effort of the Bayesian approach when applied to non‐linear problems with expensive forward evaluations and large model spaces. We present a gradient‐based Markov Chain Monte Carlo full‐waveform inversion in which the posterior sampling is accelerated by compressing the data and model spaces through the discrete cosine transform, and by also defining a proposal that is a local, Gaussian approximation of the target posterior probability density. This proposal is constructed using the local Hessian and gradient informations of the log posterior, which are made computationally manageable thanks to the compression of the data and model spaces. We demonstrate the applicability of the approach by performing two synthetic inversion tests on portions of the Marmousi and BP acoustic model. In these examples, the forward modelling is performed using Devito, a finite difference domain‐specific language that solves the discretized wave equation on a Cartesian grid. For both examples, the results obtained by the implemented method are also validated against those obtained using a classic deterministic approach. Our tests illustrate the efficiency of the proposed probabilistic method, which seems quite robust against cycle‐skipping issues and also characterized by a computational cost comparable to that of the local inversion. The outcomes of the proposed probabilistic inversion can also play the role of starting models for a subsequent local inversion step aimed at improving the spatial resolution of the probabilistic result, which was limited by the model compression.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2023 The Authors. Geophysical Prospecting published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13437
2024-01-30
2025-03-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13437
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/72/2/gpr13437.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13437&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ahmed, N., Natarajan, T. & Rao, K. (1974) Discrete cosine transform. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C‐23(1), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1109/T‐C.1974.223784
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aleardi, M. (2021) A gradient‐based Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm for elastic pre‐stack inversion with data and model space reduction. Geophysical Prospecting, 69(5), 926–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.13081
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. Aleardi, M., Vinciguerra, A., Stucchi, E. & Hojat, A. (2022) Machine learning‐accelerated gradient‐based Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion applied to electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics, 20(4), 440–461. https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12211
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Aleardi, M., Vinciguerra, A., Stucchi, E. & Hojat, A. (2022) Stochastic electrical resistivity tomography with ensemble smoother and deep convolutional autoencoders. Near Surface Geophysics, 20(2), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12194
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Britanak, V., Yip, P. & Rao, K.R. (2010) Discrete cosine and sine transforms: general properties, fast algorithms and integer approximations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bunks, C., Saleck, F.M., Zaleski, S. & Chavent, G. (1995) Multiscale seismic waveform inversion. Geophysics, 60(5), 1457–1473. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443880
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Curtis, A. & Lomax, A. (2001) Prior information, sampling distributions and the curse of dimensionality. Geophysics, 66(2), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444928
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Datta, D. & Sen, M.K. (2016) Estimating a starting model for full‐waveform inversion using a global optimization method. Geophysics, 81(4), R211–R223. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015‐0339.1
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gebraad, L., Boehm, C. & Fichtner, A. (2020) Bayesian elastic full‐waveform inversion using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 125(3), e2019JB018428. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB018428
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gelman, A. & Rubin, D.B. (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457–511. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hastings, W.K. (1970) Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika, 57, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.1.97
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Jain, A.K. (1989) Fundamentals of digital image processing. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Jiang, A. & Jafarpour, B. (2021) Deep convolutional autoencoders for robust flow model calibration under uncertainty in geologic continuity. Water Resources Research, 57(11), e2021WR029754. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR029754
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Louboutin, M., Lange, M., Luporini, F., Kukreja, N., Witte, P.A., Herrmann, F.J. et al. (2019) Devito (v3.1.0): an embedded domain‐specific language for finite differences and geophysical exploration. Geoscientific Model Development, 12, 1165–1187. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd‐12‐1165‐2019
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Metivier, L., Allain, A., Brossier, R., Merigot, Q., Oudet, E. & Virieux, J. (2018) Optimal transport for mitigating cycle skipping in full‐waveform inversion: a graph‐space transform approach. Geophysics, 83(5), R515–R540. https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2017‐0807.1
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Mosegaard, K. & Tarantola, A. (2002) Probabilistic approach to inverse problems. International Geophysics Series, 81, 237–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074‐6142(02)80219‐4
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Sajeva, A., Aleardi, M., Stucchi, E., Bienati, N. & Mazzotti, A. (2016) Estimation of acoustic macro models using a genetic full‐waveform inversion: applications to the Marmousi model. Geophysics, 81(4), R173–R184. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015‐0198.1
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Sajeva, A., Aleardi, M. & Mazzotti, A. (2017) Genetic algorithm full‐waveform inversion: uncertainty estimation and validation of the results. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, 58(4), 395–414.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Sambridge, M. & Mosegaard, K. (2002) Monte Carlo methods in geophysical inverse problems. Reviews of Geophysics, 40(3), 3–1. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000RG000089
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Sen, M.K. & Stoffa, P.L. (1996) Bayesian inference, Gibbs sampler and uncertainty estimation in geophysical inversion. Geophysical Prospecting, 44, 313–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2478.1996.tb00152.x
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Shah, N., Warner, M., Nangoo, T., Umpleby, A., Stekl, I., Morgan, J. et al. (2012) Quality assured full‐waveform inversion: ensuring starting model adequacy [Expanded abstracts]. 82nd Annual International Meeting. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2012‐1228.1
  23. Sun, B. & Alkhalifah, T. (2018) Mitigate cycle skipping in FWI: a generalized instantaneous travel‐time approach. 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2018. Utrecht, the Netherlands, EAGE. pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214‐4609.201801028
  24. Tarantola, A. (2005) Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Thurin, J., Brossier, R. & Métivier, L. (2019) Ensemble‐based uncertainty estimation in full waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 219(3), 1613–1635.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Virieux, J. & Operto, S. (2009) An overview of full‐waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics, 74(6), WCC1–WCC26. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3238367
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Warner, M. & Guasch, L. (2014) Adaptive waveform inversion‐FWI without cycle skipping‐theory. 76th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2014. Utrecht, the Netherlands, European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers. pp. 1–5.
  28. Zhao, Z. & Sen, M.K. (2021) A gradient‐based Markov chain Monte Carlo method for full‐waveform inversion and uncertainty analysis. Geophysics, 86(1), R15–R30. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2019‐0585.1
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13437
Loading
A computationally efficient Bayesian approach to full‐waveform inversion
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 580 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13437
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13437
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13437
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): acoustics; full waveform; inverse problem; seismics

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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