Inference of the Transition Matrix in Convolved Hidden Markov Models and the Generalized Baum–Welch Algorithm

A convolved two-level hidden Markov model is defined, with convolved observations as the top layer, continuous responses as the hidden middle layer, and categorical variables following a Markov chain as the hidden bottom layer. The model parameters include the transition probabilities of the Markov chain, response means and variances, and the convolution kernel and error variance. The focus of this study is on categorical deconvolution of the observations into the hidden bottom categorical layer when the transition probability parameters defining the Markov chain transition matrix are unknown. The inversion is cast in a Bayesian setting where the solution is represented by an approximate posterior model. Three algorithms, all of them based on the approximate model, for inference on the unknown parameters are defined and discussed. The inference techniques are compared in two empirical studies and in a seismic case study from a petroleum reservoir offshore Norway. We conclude that an approximate expectation-maximization algorithm, appearing as a generalized Baum-Welch algorithm, is preferable if point parameter estimates and marginal maximum a posterior class predictions are required. If uncertainty quantifications are also required, a more computationally demanding Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm must be used.

[1]  P. Switzer,et al.  Estimation of Geological Attributes from a Well Log: An Application of Hidden Markov Chains , 2004 .

[2]  Arild Buland,et al.  Bayesian lithology/fluid prediction and simulation on the basis of a Markov-chain prior model , 2006 .

[3]  J. Mendel,et al.  Maximum-Likelihood Seismic Deconvolution , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[4]  H. Omre,et al.  Hierarchical Bayesian lithology/fluid prediction: A North Sea case study , 2012 .

[5]  A. Buland,et al.  Bayesian linearized AVO inversion , 2003 .

[6]  Wolfgang Jank,et al.  Implementing and Diagnosing the Stochastic Approximation EM Algorithm , 2006 .

[7]  G. Celeux,et al.  A stochastic approximation type EM algorithm for the mixture problem , 1992 .

[8]  L. Baum,et al.  A Maximization Technique Occurring in the Statistical Analysis of Probabilistic Functions of Markov Chains , 1970 .

[9]  Paul G. Richards,et al.  Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods , 1980 .

[10]  Hugo Hammer,et al.  Approximate forward-backward algorithm for a switching linear Gaussian model , 2011, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[11]  G. C. Wei,et al.  A Monte Carlo Implementation of the EM Algorithm and the Poor Man's Data Augmentation Algorithms , 1990 .

[12]  David Volent Lindberg,et al.  Blind Categorical Deconvolution in Two-Level Hidden Markov Models , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[13]  Henning Omre,et al.  Improved resolution in Bayesian lithology/fluid inversion from prestack seismic data and well observations: Part 1 — Methodology , 2010 .

[14]  Galin L. Jones,et al.  Ascent‐based Monte Carlo expectation– maximization , 2005 .

[15]  Anthony N. Pettitt,et al.  Efficient recursions for general factorisable models , 2004 .

[16]  Jeff A. Bilmes,et al.  A gentle tutorial of the em algorithm and its application to parameter estimation for Gaussian mixture and hidden Markov models , 1998 .

[17]  Henning Omre,et al.  Approximate posterior distributions for convolutional two-level hidden Markov models , 2013, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[18]  Hugo Lewi Hammer,et al.  Bayesian lithology/fluid inversion—comparison of two algorithms , 2010 .

[19]  Benayad Nsiri,et al.  Blind marine seismic deconvolution using statistical MCMC methods , 2003 .

[20]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .