General Optimization Framework for Robust and Regularized 3D Full Waveform Inversion

Scarcity of hydrocarbon resources and high exploration risks motivate the development of high fidelity algorithms and computationally viable approaches to exploratory geophysics. Whereas early approaches considered least-squares minimization, recent developments have emphasized the importance of robust formulations, as well as formulations that allow disciplined encoding of prior information into the inverse problem formulation. The cost of a more flexible optimization framework is a greater computational complexity, as least-squares optimization can be performed using straightforward methods (e.g., steepest descent, Gauss-Newton, L-BFGS), whilst incorporation of robust (non-smooth) penalties requires custom changes that may be difficult to implement in the context of a general seismic inversion workflow. In this study, we propose a generic, flexible optimization framework capable of incorporating a broad range of noise models, forward models, regularizers, and reparametrization transforms. This framework covers seamlessly robust noise models (such as Huber and Student's $t$), as well as sparse regularizers, projected constraints, and Total Variation regularization. The proposed framework is also expandable --- we explain the adjustments that are required for any new formulation to be included. Lastly, we conclude with few numerical examples demonstrating the versatility of the formulation.

[1]  Emmanuel J. Candès,et al.  Near-Optimal Signal Recovery From Random Projections: Universal Encoding Strategies? , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[2]  Felix J. Herrmann,et al.  Fighting the Curse of Dimensionality: Compressive Sensing in Exploration Seismology , 2012, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.

[3]  L. Demanet Curvelets, Wave Atoms, and Wave Equations , 2006 .

[4]  E. Haber,et al.  Sensitivity computation of the ℓ1 minimization problem and its application to dictionary design of ill-posed problems , 2009, Inverse Problems.

[5]  José Mario Martínez,et al.  Nonmonotone Spectral Projected Gradient Methods on Convex Sets , 1999, SIAM J. Optim..

[6]  Mark W. Schmidt,et al.  Optimizing Costly Functions with Simple Constraints: A Limited-Memory Projected Quasi-Newton Algorithm , 2009, AISTATS.

[7]  Aleksandr Y. Aravkin,et al.  Estimating nuisance parameters in inverse problems , 2012, 1206.6532.

[8]  Mark W. Schmidt,et al.  Fast Optimization Methods for L1 Regularization: A Comparative Study and Two New Approaches , 2007, ECML.

[9]  A. Tarantola Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation , 1984 .

[10]  K. Bube,et al.  Hybrid l 1 /l 2 minimization with applications to tomography , 1997 .

[11]  W. Symes,et al.  Robust inversion of seismic data using the Huber norm , 2003 .

[12]  Felix J. Herrmann,et al.  Robust inversion, dimensionality reduction, and randomized sampling , 2012, Math. Program..

[13]  D K Smith,et al.  Numerical Optimization , 2001, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[14]  David L Donoho,et al.  Compressed sensing , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.