Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lost Valley Search
Lost Valley Search
Urubamba, Perú
Email: manuel.z.abarca@outlook.es
as cross-over and mutation to find the best fitted indi- the model.
vidual. We call ”forward problem” to the physical-
mathematical equations which relates a ”model”
Our algorithm implements a search strategy similar with an ”measurable” response in some point of the
to the Simplex [6] but combined with a tracking in the space; in a general form is a f (m). ⃗ This function of
neighbourhood. The main difference respect to Simplex the model has unique solution, so, for each model m ⃗i
is that this uses the point of centroid over all population there is one and only one set of observed responses in
in variables space. While our logical reasoning is to find the space f (m ⃗ i ).
the centroid around a (transitory) minimum point plus The ”real” data or ”observed” data d⃗o are the mea-
two points in their neighbourhood. The idea below this sures of some physical magnitude in points of the space
search mechanism is that one point of minimum in a (generally on surface earth).
surface representing an error function could mean one We call ”inverse problem” to the mathematical pro-
of this things: it is a local minimum or it is a point cedure to find the model which best fit the observed
2 M. Abarca
data. This is made minimizing an objective (or error) If there is a lost valley in any region of the variables
function, space it will be possible to find with this mechanism.
2
We present the same algorithm in a flux diagram in
τ (m) ⃗ − d⃗o
⃗ =
f (m) (1)
2 the next figure,
for instance we are using here the least square norm.
[hhh]
where,
k1 = 1; k2 = 2; k3 = 3 , for the first weighted mean; TABLE 1. Seismic model of a sedimentary basin.
k1 = 3; k2 = 1; k3 = 2 , for the second weighted mean; Depht m Vp m/s
k1 = 2; k2 = 3; k3 = 1 , for the third weighted mean. 1500 1800
Then, inside the step 8 of SLV we choose the centroid 4000 2500
with the lowest error function. 90000 5000
T (m(x
⃗ j , xj+1 , ..., xp−1 , xp )) (6)
where,
xj : seismic velocity in the first layer ;
xj+1 : depth of first layer;
xp−1 : seismic velocity of semi-infinite medium;
xp : depth trending to infinite (90000 m in table 1
means semi-infinite);
T : travel time.
FIGURE 2. Synthetic Receiver Function (RF), obtained
But, in a real seismological investigation we got time from the model of table 1.
series (seismograms) registered by instruments (called
seismometers) where we can read arrival times of seis- The test consists in applying our SLV algorithm to
mic waves. In Receiver Function method (RF) we have inverse problem; in that way we have to recovery the
not just the travel time of one kind of seismic wave, but same model (or approximately the same) given in table
also the times of converted waves (P to S) and rever- 1, from inversion of ”observed” RF (Fig. 2). Our RF
berated waves; further we have the complete waveform gets a more realistic shape including 5% of noise.
of RF. In any case the relevant parameter is time,
t0 observed in a seismogram or in a pseudo-seismogram. Minimization of( 7) will produce a best fitted RF
associated to a seismic model which must be similar
We don’t describe the RF method in their seis- to the proposed in the premises of our test,
mological intricacies for one reason: this is not a
seismological study. This a research with focus in the
area of optimization, or could be also in geophysical
inversion techniques, so our proposal is to make known
a new method in global search (or maybe in non linear 1.0
1000
optimization). 2000
2.0 3000
The final subject of an inversion is to get a
realistic model of sedimentary basin from RF pseudo-
3.0
seismogram. This implies to minimize an objective 5000
function,
4.0
2 2
⃗ = ∥T (m)
τ (m) ⃗ − t0 ∥ 2 + λ ∥W ·
2
m∥
⃗ 2 (7)
5.0
0,4
FR ajustada
FR observada
0,1
-9000
7. CONCLUSIONS
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Velocidad de P - m/s
SLV algorithm meets two important proposals of all
global optimization strategy,. First one. is capable of
an uniform and complete sampling of variables space;
FIGURE 7. Seismic model of sedimentary basin in Parana this quality is given by a good random numbers gen-
(Brazil), obtained from inversion of RF. erator. And the second one, has a search mechanism
Dois RF inversion - capb stn.
able to track the variables space until to find any local
0
minimum, and probably the general minima. Looking
-1
Modelo sismico in the neighbourhood of a transitory best model with 4
centroids increase probability to get a new best model.
-2 It is a notable feature of algorithm the pivoting on each
new best model, re-beginning the search for a new min-
Profundidade (km)
-3
ima, or jumping outside this local minimum but track-
-4 ing again all the space.
The new global search algorithm SLV passes satisfacto-
-5
rily two tests. The first test with synthetic RF, and the
-6 second test inverting a real RF.
-7
2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6
Vp (km/s) DATA AVAILABILITY
The data underlying this article will be shared on
reasonable request to the corresponding author.
FIGURE 8. Result of RF inversion with GA in Parana
basin ([10]), using same seismic station and the same
waveform of RF used in this section. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have to thank to mi sister Martha by her financial
support during research epoch.
results (Fig. 7).
In the doubt smoothes, says some geophysicist who’s
REFERENCES
name I don’t remember. So, we apply smoothness
in the regularization function of our τ . This type [1] R. Fletcher, M. J. D. Powell (1963) A Rapidly
of regularization try to oblige the model to minimize Convergent Descent Method for Minimization. The
differences between velocities of layers; but abrupt Computer Journal, 6-2, 163–168.
changes in velocity can appear if the data indicates [2] R. Fletcher, C. M. Reeves (1964) Function minimiza-
necessity of that jumps in velocity. This is a good proof tion by conjugate gradients. The Computer Journal,
for our algorithm and the model in following figure is 7-2, 149–154.
signalling that strong differences in velocities are real. [3] J.H. Holland (1975) Adaptation in Natural and
Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann
In this case we have not a previously well known model
Arbor, Michigan, re-issued by MIT Press.
to compare with the result. However we have made an
[4] Scott Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, Jr., and M. P. Vecchi
study some years ago with the same RF . In that old
(1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science,
study we used a Genetic Algorithm (GA) in inversion of 220(4598), 671–680.
RF, obtaining the model exhibited in Fig.8. Comparing [5] Nicholas Metropolis, S. Ulam (1949) The Monte
the resulting seismic models for Parana basin, obtained Carlo Method. Journal of the American Statistical
with two different algorithms, SLV Fig. 7 and GA Association, 44, No. 247, 335–341.
Fig. 8, we can see many similarities. One of the [6] Nelder, John A.; R. Mead (1965) A simplex method for
main goals of that old study was to determine depth minimization. The ComputerJournal , 7, 308–313.
of sedimentary basin (until basement). In both models [7] W. L. PRICE (1983) Global Optimization by Con-
the basement depth is located near 3500 m. A second trolled Random Search. Journal of optimization theory
feature distinctive of Parana basin is the existence of and applications, 40, 333–348.
6 M. Abarca