Data kit inversion and uncertainty analysis

Abstract Linear and nonlinear discrete inverse problems are by genesis ill-posed, that is, several solutions exist compatible with the prior information and fit the observed data within the same error bounds (equivalent models). This fact and the presence of noise and modelling errors cause their solution to be uncertain. Uncertainty analysis and solution appraisal is a crucial step in inverse modelling, and it is typically accomplished via random sampling methodologies and Bayesian approaches (provided a good knowledge of the probabilistic distributions of the model and data spaces is at disposal) or via exploratory global optimization algorithms that perform an approximate posterior sampling of the nonlinear equivalence region. This paper demonstrates that a simple method to sample the uncertainty space in linear and nonlinear problems consists in performing different inversions of random data bags. This novel methodology is called data kit inversion and it is inspired in the bootstrapping technique in statistical inference, switching in this case to the existence of other equivalent models, instead of using in estimating the properties of a given estimator. We present its application to different synthetic linear and nonlinear inverse problems and also to the inversion of a real dataset of gravimetric inversion in the Atacama Desert and also to 1D seismic and AVO inversion. We show that using partial information (random data bags) it is possible to sample different models of the equivalence region (uncertainty space) in order to explore the existence of different plausible geophysical scenarios according to the geophysical model that it is adopted. This algorithm has a general character and can be used in different fields of science and technology.

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

[2]  A. Buland,et al.  Joint AVO inversion, wavelet estimation and noise‐level estimation using a spatially coupled hierarchical Bayesian model , 2003 .

[3]  Michael J. Tompkins,et al.  On the topography of the cost functional in linear and nonlinear inverse problems , 2012 .

[4]  D. Nichols,et al.  Model‐uncertainty quantification in seismic tomography: method and applications , 2013 .

[5]  Michael J. Tompkins,et al.  Marine electromagnetic inverse solution appraisal and uncertainty using model‐derived basis functions and sparse geometric sampling , 2011 .

[6]  Juan Luis Fernández-Martínez,et al.  From Bayes to Tarantola: New insights to understand uncertainty in inverse problems☆ , 2013 .

[7]  Michael J. Tompkins,et al.  Comparison of sparse‐grid geometric and random sampling methods in nonlinear inverse solution uncertainty estimation , 2013 .

[8]  Luis Tenorio,et al.  Prior information and uncertainty in inverse problems , 2001 .

[9]  Alberto Malinverno,et al.  Two ways to quantify uncertainty in geophysical inverse problems , 2006 .

[10]  L. Frazer,et al.  Reflection/transmission coefficients and azimuthal anisotropy in marine seismic studies , 1991 .

[11]  Juan Luis Fernández-Martínez,et al.  The effect of noise and Tikhonov's regularization in inverse problems. Part I: The linear case , 2014 .

[12]  Tapan Mukerji,et al.  Scalable uncertainty estimation for nonlinear inverse problems using parameter reduction, constraint mapping, and geometric sampling: Marine controlled-source electromagnetic examples , 2011 .

[13]  C. Sayers,et al.  Azimuth‐dependent AVO in reservoirs containing non‐orthogonal fracture sets , 2001 .

[14]  Clifford H. Thurber,et al.  Parameter estimation and inverse problems , 2005 .

[15]  Samuel H. Gray,et al.  Spatial sampling, migration aliasing, and migrated amplitudes , 2013 .

[16]  Milo M. Backus,et al.  Waveform-based AVO inversion and AVO prediction-error , 1996 .

[17]  Juan Luis Fernández-Martínez,et al.  Comparative analysis of the solution of linear continuous inverse problems using different basis expansions , 2015 .

[18]  Juan Luis Fernández-Martínez,et al.  Model reduction and uncertainty analysis in inverse problems , 2015 .

[19]  Roel Snieder,et al.  The Anatomy of Inverse Problems , 2000 .

[20]  M. Glinsky,et al.  Resolution and uncertainty in 1D CSEM inversion: A Bayesian approach and open-source implementation , 2010 .

[21]  Michael E. Jones,et al.  Use of anisotropy in P-wave and S-wave data for fracture characterization in a naturally fractured gas reservoir , 1995 .

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

[23]  Mrinal K. Sen,et al.  Transdimensional seismic inversion using the reversible jump Hamiltonian Monte Carlo algorithm , 2017 .

[24]  Andrew M. Stuart,et al.  Inverse problems: A Bayesian perspective , 2010, Acta Numerica.

[25]  J. Fernández-Martínez,et al.  3D gravity inversion and uncertainty assessment of basement relief via Particle Swarm Optimization , 2015 .

[26]  P. Hansen.  Rank-Deficient and Discrete Ill-Posed Problems: Numerical Aspects of Linear Inversion , 1987 .

[27]  A. Tarantola,et al.  Generalized Nonlinear Inverse Problems Solved Using the Least Squares Criterion (Paper 1R1855) , 1982 .

[28]  S. Bonvalot,et al.  Linear geophysical inversion via the discrete cosine pseudo‐inverse: application to potential fields , 2017 .

[29]  A. Tarantola,et al.  Inverse problems = Quest for information , 1982 .