1887
Volume 72, Issue 8
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Quantification of data misfits and model structures is an important step in the non‐linear iterative inverse scheme, allowing medium parameters to be iteratively refined through minimization. This study developed a new three‐dimensional controlled‐source electromagnetic inversion algorithm that allows general measures to be made selectively available for this evaluation. We adopt , , Huber, hybrid /, Sech, Cauchy, biweight and norms as general measures. The inversion implementation is based on a regularized Gauss–Newton method, and non‐quadratic measures are incorporated via the use of an iteratively reweighted least‐squares scheme. To exploit current computing power, forward solutions are computed on an edge finite‐element discretization using a parallel version of a direct sparse solver, while dense matrix operations in inversion are optimized using the LAPACK library. The behaviours of general measures for evaluating data misfits and model structures are examined in synthetic inversion experiments, focusing on elucidating weighting mechanisms and setting user‐defined parameters. A preliminary demonstration is presented, showcasing simultaneous regularization in imaging a toy model containing both sharp and smooth property changes, alongside a field data application for imaging subsurface artificial structures. Our findings highlight the seamless integration of general measures, contributing to improved robustness against data outliers and enhanced spatial properties provided in output models.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13576
2024-09-15
2026-02-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aravkin, A., van Leeuwen, T. & Herrmann, F. (2011) Robust full‐waveform inversion using the Student's t‐distribution. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 2669–2673. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3627747
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aster, R.C., Borchers, B. & Thurber, C.H. (2013) Parameter estimation and inverse problems (2nd ed.). Elsevier Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Borsic, A. & Adler, A. (2012) A primal‐dual interior‐point framework for using the L1 or L2 norm on the data and regularization terms of inverse problems. Inverse Problems, 28(9), 095011.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, V., Key, K. & Singh, S. (2012) Seismically regularized controlled‐source electromagnetic inversion. Geophysics, 77(1), E57–E65.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bube, K.P. & Langan, R.T. (1997) Hybrid ℓ1$\ell _1$/ℓ2$\ell _2$ minimization with applications to tomography. Geophysics, 62(4), 1183–1195.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chung, Y., Son, J.‐S., Lee, T.J., Kim, H.J. & Shin, C. (2014) Three‐dimensional modelling of controlled‐source electromagnetic surveys using an edge finite‐element method with a direct solver. Geophysical Prospecting, 62(6), 1468–1483.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Commer, M. & Newman, G.A. (2008) New advances in three‐dimensional controlled‐source electromagnetic inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 172(2), 513–535.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Constable, S., Orange, A. & Key, K. (2015) And the geophysicist replied:“which model do you want?”. Geophysics, 80(3), E197–E212.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Constable, S., Parker, R. & Constable, C. (1987) Occam's inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics, 52(3), 289–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Crase, E., Pica, A., Noble, M., McDonald, J. & Tarantola, A. (1990) Robust elastic nonlinear waveform inversion: application to real data. Geophysics, 55(5), 527–538.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Daubechies, I., DeVore, R., Fornasier, M. & Güntürk, C.S. (2010) Iteratively reweighted least squares minimization for sparse recovery. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 63(1), 1–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Farquharson, C.G. (2008) Constructing piecewise‐constant models in multidimensional minimum‐structure inversions. Geophysics, 73(1), K1–K9.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Farquharson, C.G. & Oldenburg, D.W. (1998) Non‐linear inversion using general measures of data misfit and model structure. Geophysical Journal International, 134(1), 213–227.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Farquharson, C.G. & Oldenburg, D.W. (2004) A comparison of automatic techniques for estimating the regularization parameter in non‐linear inverse problems. Geophysical Journal International, 156(3), 411–425.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fournier, D. & Oldenburg, D.W. (2019) Inversion using spatially variable mixed ℓp$\ell _p$ norms. Geophysical Journal International, 218(1), 268–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gheymasi, H.M. & Gholami, A. (2013) A local‐order regularization for geophysical inverse problems. Geophysical Journal International, 195(2), 1288–1299.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Golub, G.H., Heath, M. & Wahba, G. (1979) Generalized cross‐validation as a method for choosing a good ridge parameter. Technometrics, 21(2), 215–223.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grayver, A., Streich, R. & Ritter, O. (2013) Three‐dimensional parallel distributed inversion of CSEM data using a direct forward solver. Geophysical Journal International, 193(3), 1432–1446.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Grayver, A., Streich, R. & Ritter, O. (2014) 3D inversion and resolution analysis of land‐based CSEM data from the Ketzin CO2$\rm CO_{2}$ storage formation. Geophysics, 79(2), E101–E114.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Guitton, A. & Symes, W. (2003) Robust inversion of seismic data using the Huber norm. Geophysics, 68(4), 1310–1319.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haber, E., Oldenburg, D.W. & Shekhtman, R. (2007) Inversion of time domain three‐dimensional electromagnetic data. Geophysical Journal International, 171(2), 550–564.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hampel, F.R. (1974) The influence curve and its role in robust estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 383–393.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hansen, P.C. (1992) Analysis of discrete ill‐posed problems by means of the L‐curve. SIAM Review, 34(4), 561–580.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Huber, P.J. (1964) Robust estimation of a location parameter. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35(1), 73–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Intel (2017) Developer Reference for Intel®Math Kernel Library 2017 ‐ Fortran.
  26. Jeong, W., Kang, M., Kim, S., Min, D.‐J. & Kim, W.‐K. (2015) Full waveform inversion using Student's t distribution: a numerical study for elastic waveform inversion and simultaneous‐source method. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 172(6), 1491–1509.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ji, J. (2006) CGG method for robust inversion and its application to velocity‐stack inversion. Geophysics, 71(4), R59–R67.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ji, J. (2012) Robust inversion using biweight norm and its application to seismic inversion. Exploration Geophysics, 43(2), 70–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Key, K. (2016) MARE2DEM: a 2‐D inversion code for controlled‐source electromagnetic and magnetotelluric data. Geophysical Journal International, 207(1), 571–588.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim, J.‐H., Supper, R., Tsourlos, P. & Yi, M.‐J. (2013) Four‐dimensional inversion of resistivity monitoring data through Lp${L}_p$ norm minimizations. Geophysical Journal International, 195(3), 1640–1656.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Last, B.J. & Kubik, K. (1983) Compact gravity inversion. Geophysics, 48(6), 713–721. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441501
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Long, Z., Cai, H., Hu, X., Li, G. & Shao, O. (2020) Parallelized 3‐D CSEM inversion with secondary field formulation and hexahedral mesh. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 58(10), 6812–6822.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Malmberg, J.‐A. & Mattsson, J. (2017) Large‐scale 3D inversion of towed streamer electromagnetic data using the Gauss‐Newton method. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2017. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1142–1146.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Morozov, V.A. (1966) On the solution of functional equations by the method of regularization. In Soviet Mathematics – Doklady, 7, 414–417.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Noh, K., Chung, Y., Seol, S.J., Byun, J. & Uchida, T. (2014) Three‐dimensional inversion of CSEM data: water leak detection using a small‐loop EM method. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 102, 134–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Portniaguine, O. & Zhdanov, M.S. (1999) Focusing geophysical inversion images. Geophysics, 64(3), 874–887.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Portniaguine, O. & Zhdanov, M.S. (2002) 3‐D magnetic inversion with data compression and image focusing. Geophysics, 67(5), 1532–1541. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1512749
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rosas Carbajal, M., Linde, N. & Kalscheuer, T. (2012) Focused time‐lapse inversion of radio and audio magnetotelluric data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 84, 29–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rudin, L.I., Osher, S. & Fatemi, E. (1992) Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 60, 259–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Scales, J.A. & Gersztenkorn, A. (1988) Robust methods in inverse theory. Inverse Problems, 4(4), 1071–1091.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Schenk, O., Gärtner, K., Fichtner, W. & Stricker, A. (2001) PARDISO: a high‐performance serial and parallel sparse linear solver in semiconductor device simulation. Future Generation Computer Systems, 18, 69–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Schwarzbach, C. & Haber, E. (2013) Finite element based inversion for time‐harmonic electromagnetic problems. Geophysical Journal International, 193(2), 615–634.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sun, J. & Li, Y. (2014) Adaptive Lp inversion for simultaneous recovery of both blocky and smooth features in a geophysical model. Geophysical Journal International, 197(2), 882–899.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tikhonov, A. & Arsenin, V.Y. (1977) Solutions of ill‐posed problems. John‐Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhdanov, M. & Tolstaya, E. (2004) Minimum support nonlinear parametrization in the solution of a 3D magnetotelluric inverse problem. Inverse Problems, 20(3), 937.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13576
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13576
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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