Geo2019-0535 1

GEOPHYSICS
Downloaded 12/09/19 to 131.211.12.11. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Accurate and efficient data-assimilated wavefield

reconstruction in the time domain
Journal: Geophysics
Manuscript ID GEO-2019-0535.R2
Manuscript Type: Letters
Keywords:
Area of Expertise: Geophysics Letters, Seismic Inversion
This paper presented here as accepted for publication in Geophysics prior to copyediting and composition.
© 2020 Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
Page 1 of 21 GEOPHYSICS
1
2
3
4
5
Accurate and efficient data-assimilated wavefield
6
7
reconstruction in the time domain
8
9
10
Hossein S. Aghamiry 12 , Ali Gholami 1 and Stéphane Operto 2
11
12
13 1 University of Tehran, Institute of Geophysics, Tehran, Iran, email: h.aghamiry@ut.ac.ir,
14
15 agholami@ut.ac.ir
16
17 2 Université
18 Côte d’Azur, CNRS, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, IRD , Géoazur,
19
20 Valbonne, France, email: aghamiry@geoazur.unice.fr, operto@geoazur.unice.fr
21
22 (November 15, 2019)
23
24 Running head: Wavefield Reconstruction by BF Recursion
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 1
GEOPHYSICS Page 2 of 21
1
2
3
4 ABSTRACT
5
6
7 Wavefield reconstruction inversion (WRI) mitigates cycle skipping in Full Waveform Inversion by
8
9 computing wavefields that do not exactly satisfy the wave-equation to match data with inaccurate
10
11 velocity models. We refer these wavefields to as ”data assimilated wavefield” because they are
12
13 obtained by combining the physics of wave propagation and the observations. Then, the velocity
14
15 model is updated by minimizing the wave equation errors, namely the source residuals. Computing
16
17 these data-assimilated wavefields in the time domain with explicit time stepping is challenging. This
18
19 is because the right-hand side of the wave equation to be solved depends on the back-propagated
20
21 residuals between the data and the unknown wavefields. To bypass this issue, a previously proposed
22
23 approximation replaces these residuals by those between the data and the exact solution of the wave
24
25 equation. This approximation is questionable during the early WRI iterations when the wavefields
26
27 computed with and without data-assimilation differ significantly. We propose a simple backward-
28
29 forward time-stepping recursion to refine the accuracy of the data-assimilated wavefields. Each
30
31 iteration requires us to solve one backward and one forward problem, the former being used to
32
33 update the right-hand side of the latter. An application to the BP salt model shows that a few
34
35 iterations are enough to reconstruct data-assimilated wavefields accurately with a crude velocity
36
37 model. Although this backward-forward recursion leads to increased computational overheads during
38
39 one WRI iteration, it preserves its capability to extend the search space.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 2
1
2
3
4 INTRODUCTION
5
6
7
Wavefield reconstruction inversion (WRI) (van Leeuwen and Herrmann, 2013) decreases
8
9
10 the nonlinearity of full waveform inversion (FWI) (Virieux and Operto, 2009) by extending
11
12 the parameter search space. WRI first computes wavefields such that the modeled and
13
14 recorded data are matched to each other (hence, mitigating cycle skipping) despite inac-
15
16
17
curate velocity models by relaxing the constraint that the modeled data satisfy the wave
18
19 equation exactly. This data fit is achieved during wavefield reconstruction by jointly solving
20
21 in a least-squares sense the weighted wave equation and the observation equation, namely
22
23 the equation relating the wavefield to the data via a sparse sampling operator. This de-
24
25
26 scribes a data-assimilation procedure since the wavefield reconstruction is driven not only
27
28 by the physics of wave propagation but also by the observations. Accordingly, we refer these
29
30 wavefields to as data-assimilated wavefields in the following study. This wave-equation re-
31
32 laxation generates source residuals, namely extended sources (Huang et al., 2018), that are
33
34
35 minimized in a second step to update the velocity model. When the starting velocity model
36
37 is inaccurate, wavefields are reconstructed with aggressive relaxation of wave-equation to
38
39 guarantee the data fit. In that case, the data-assimilated wavefields can differ significantly
40
41 from the wavefields that satisfy the wave equation exactly.
42
43
44 Data-assimilated wavefields are reconstructed in the frequency domain by solving with
45
46
direct or iterative methods an overdetermined sparse linear system gathering the weighted
47
48
49 time-harmonic wave equation and the observation equation. In contrast, the wavefield re-
50
51 construction in the time domain with explicit time stepping is more challenging because
52
53 the right-hand side of the wave equation to solve depends on the final state of the un-
54
55
known assimilated wavefield. The approaches that have been proposed so far rely on an
56
57
58
59
60 3
1
2
3
4 approximation, which prevents aggressive wave equation relaxation and hence inaccurate
5
6
7
starting velocity models to be used (Wang et al., 2016). A first aim of this letter is to
8
9 propose an efficient backward-forward time-stepping recursion for data-assimilated wave-
10
11 field reconstruction. Then we show that the approximation used by Wang et al. (2016) is
12
13 obtained at the first iteration of the proposed algorithm. We assess the accuracy and the
14
15
16
convergence speed of our method on the 2004 BP salt model. We show that it reconstructs
17
18 wavefields which are close to those obtained in the frequency domain after a few iterations
19
20 when the background model is far away from the true model. Then, we illustrate the sig-
21
22 nificant impact of the accuracy of the wavefield reconstruction on the velocity model built
23
24
25 by iteratively-refined (IR-)WRI (Aghamiry et al., 2019b).
26
27
28
29 METHOD
30
31
32 Problem statement
33
34
35
36 FWI seeks the subsurface parameters m ∈ RN ×1 by solving the following partial-
37
38 differential equation (PDE) constrained optimization problem (van Leeuwen and Herrmann,
39
40 2013; Aghamiry et al., 2019b):
41
42
43
44 min ||Pu − d||22 subject to A(m)u = b, (1)
45 m,u
46
47
48 where k·k2 denotes the Euclidean norm. In the frequency domain, the source b ∈ CN ×1 , the
49
50
51
wavefield u ∈ CN ×1 , the data d ∈ CM ×1 and the PDE operator A(m) ∈ CN ×N are complex
52
53 valued. The linear observation operator P ∈ RM ×N samples u at the receiver positions.
54
55 The number of degrees of freedom which discretize the parameter and the data spaces are
56
57 denoted by N and M , respectively. In the time domain, b ∈ R(N ×Nt )×1 , u ∈ R(N ×Nt )×1 ,
58
59
60 4
1
2
3
4 d ∈ R(M ×Nt )×1 and A(m) ∈ R(N ×Nt )×(N ×Nt ) are real valued, where Nt is the number of
5
6
7
time steps.
8
9 Eliminating u from equation 1, we recast FWI (Pratt et al., 1998) as a reduced-space
10
11
12 unconstrained problem
13
14 min kPA(m)−1 b − dk22 , (2)
m
15
16
17 where the misfit function depends on m through the highly nonlinear inverse operator
18
19
A(m)−1 .
20
21
22 The WRI method (van Leeuwen and Herrmann, 2013) solves problem 1 with a penalty
23
24
25 method to mitigate the nonlinearity of the reduced-space FWI, problem 3, via a relaxation
26
27 of the constraint
28
29 min kPu − dk22 + λkA(m)u − bk22 , (3)
30 u,m
31
32
where λ is the penalty parameter. A small value of λ is typically used to foster the data
33
34
35 fit within the first iterations at the expense of the fidelity with which the wave equation is
36
37 satisfied. Alternatively, IR-WRI (Aghamiry et al., 2019b) uses an augmented Lagrangian
38
39 method, which can be recast as a penalty method where the right-hand sides b of the
40
41
wave equation are iteratively updated with the wave-equation errors. This right-hand side
42
43
44 updating progressively corrects the errors generated by the penalization and allows us to
45
46 satisfy the wave-equation constraint at the convergence point when a constant λ is used.
47
48
49 The bivariate problem 3 can be solved efficiently in alternating mode, namely, estimate
50
51 u keeping m fixed and vice versa. The wavefield reconstruction requires us to solve
52
53
54
55 λA(m)T A(m) + PT P u = λA(m)T b + PT d,

(4)
56
57
58
59
60 5
1
2
3
4 where the left-hand side operator is the Gauss-Newton Hessian, the right-hand side is the
5
6 T
7
steepest descent direction and denotes the transpose operator. We refer to the solution
8
9 of equation 4 as the data-assimilated wavefield as it jointly satisfies the weighted wave-
10
11 equation and the observation equation (i.e. fits the data) in a least-squares sense. Then, m
12
13 is updated by minimizing the wave equation residual kA(m)u − bk22 keeping u fixed.
14
15
16 We focus now on the solution of the first subproblem. In the frequency domain, the
17
18
system 4 can be solved accurately for a limited number of discrete frequencies with either
19
20
21 direct or iterative methods. In the time domain, the size of the system would be prohibitively
22
23 large due to the extra temporal dimension.
24
25
26
27 Reconstruction of data-assimilated wavefield by backward-forward recur-
28
29
sion
30
31
32
33 In this section, we show how to solve the augmented wave equation system, equation
34
35 4, with explicit (matrix free) time stepping via an iterative majorize-minimization (MM)
36
37 algorithm (Lange, 2016). Let us write equation 4 in a compact matrix form Bu = y, where
38
39
40 B = λAT A + PT P is a symmetric positive definite matrix and y = λAT b + PT d (for
41
42 compactness, we ignore the argument m of A, while recalling that m is kept fixed during
43
44 the wavefield reconstruction). Solving Bu = y is equivalent to minimizing the quadratic
45
46
function
47
48 1
49 f (u) = uT Bu − yT u. (5)
2
50
51
52 The governing idea of MM is to find the minimum of f via the iterative minimization of a
53
54 simpler surrogate function f˜k that majorizes f at step k (i.e. f˜k ≥ f ). For reasons which
55
56
57
58
59
60 6
1
2
3
4 will become clear later, we define f˜k as
5
6
7
8 c 1
f˜k (u) = f (u) + kAu − Auk k22 − kPu − Puk k22 , (6)
9 2 2
10
11
12
where the scalar c is determined such that the Hessian of the added terms is positive definite
13
14
15
16
cAT A − PT P 0. (7)
17
18
19
20
21 This condition makes f˜k strictly convex and guarantees that the following surrogate condi-
22
23 tions are satisfied (Lange, 2016)
24
25 
26 
f˜k (uk ) = f (uk ),

27


28 (8)
29

f˜k (u) ≥ f (u), ∀u, k.


30

31
32
33 Figure 1 shows a schematic of the MM process. The convex function f is shown in blue
34
35 while a few surrogate functions f˜k for points uk , k ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3}, are shown in orange. This
36
37
figure shows how the iterative MM algorithm approaches the minimum of f through the
38
39
40 minimum of easy to minimize surrogate functions f˜k .
41
42
43
44
45
46 [Figure 1 about here.]
47
48
49 It follows from equation 8 that iterative minimization of f˜k will converge to the global
50
51
minimum of f since
52
53
54 f (uk+1 ) ≤ f˜k (uk+1 ) ≤ f˜k (uk ) = f (uk ). (9)
55
56
57
58
59
60 7
1
2
3
4 Zeroing the gradient of f˜k , equation 6, gives the wavefield at iteration k + 1
5
6
7
8 uk+1 = uk + αB̃−1 (y − Buk ) , (10)

9
10
11
12
where B̃−1 = (AT A)−1 is an approximate inverse of B and α = 1
serves as the step
13 λ+c
14
15 length. Accordingly, our method can be viewed as a quasi-Newton inversion. Note that,
16
17 since A does not change during the wavefield-reconstruction iterations, a suitable constant c
18
19 can be found to satisfy the positive definite condition, equation 7, at each step k. However,
20
21
α can be updated at each iteration by a line search to optimize the convergence speed of the
22
23
24 wavefield reconstruction. Starting from an initial guess u0 , a recursive procedure (Aghamiry
25
26 et al., 2019b, their Appendix B) gives immediately
27
28
29 k
X
30 uk+1 = u0 + α B̃−1 (y − Bui ) . (11)
31 i=0
32
33
34 If we substitute B̃−1 , B and y by their expression (B = λAT A+PT P and y = λAT b+PT d)
35
36
and multiply the left- and right-hand sides by A, we obtain
37
38
39 k
40 X
Auk+1 = Au0 + α (ūi + λ∆bi ) , (12)
41
i=0
42
43
44
45 where ∆bi = b − Aui denotes the source residuals at iteration i. The backward wavefield
46
47 ūi satisfies the so-called adjoint equation
48
49
50
51 AT ūi = PT (d − Pui ) = PT ∆d, (13)
52
53
54
55 which propagates the data residuals ∆d backward in time (e.g. Pratt et al., 1998).
56
57
58
59
60 8
1
2
3
4 The most natural choice for u0 is the (exact) solution of the wave equation
5
6
7
8 u0 = A−1 b. (14)
9
10
11
12
Accordingly, equation 12 simplifies to
13
14
15 k
16 X
Auk+1 = b + α (ūi + λ∆bi ) = b + b̄k , (15)
17
i=0
18
19
20
21 where b̄k denotes the extended source. Noting from the above equation that ∆bk+1 = −b̄k ,
22
23 the extended source reduces to the following series of backward wavefields
24
25
26 k
X
27 b̄k = α ūi − λb̄i−1 = (1 − αλ) b̄k−1 + αūk
28 i=0
29 k
30
X
= α (1 − αλ)k−i ūi . (16)
31 i=0
32
33
34 We summarize now the key results of our approach. We have designed the surrogate function
35
36
f˜k of the MM algorithm, equation 6, such that it allows us to recast the normal-equation
37
38
39 system, equation 4, in a form which is amenable to explicit time stepping, equation 15. This
40
41 is indeed shown by the left hand side of equation 15 which reduces now to the wave equation
42
43 operator A. The MM method also provides us with the mathematical framework to prove
44
45
46
the convergence of our algorithm. The iterative refinement of the wavefields performed by
47
48 the right-hand side updating in equation 15 corrects the errors generated by the use of
49
50 the approximate inverse B̃−1 of B, equation 10, associated with f˜k . In fact, the series of
51
52 backward wavefields in equation 16 converges to the backward wavefield that would have
53
54
55
been generated by the back-propagated residuals between the data and the data-assimilated
56
57
58
59
60 9
1
2
3
4 wavefield sought. This is shown by the re-writing of equation 4 as
5
6
7
8 1 −T T
Au = b + A P (d − Pu) , (17)
9 λ
10
11
12
where the unknown data-assimilated wavefield u appears both in the right- and left-hand
13
14
15 sides.
16
17
18
The approximate wavefield reconstructed by Wang et al. (2016, their equations 7 and
19
20 8) is the one obtained at the first iteration of our approach (k=0 and c=0 in equation 15).
21
22
23
24 A(m)u1 = b + ū0 /λ, (18)
25
26
27
28 In this case, the backward wavefield ū0 on the right-hand side is computed from the data
29
30 residuals generated by the forward wavefield u0 , which exactly satisfies the wave equation
31
32
14. Instead, the data residuals should be generated from the data-assimilated wavefield,
33
34
35 i.e. the right-hand side of equation 17. This is a gross approximation when a significant
36
37 wave-equation relaxation is necessary to match the data during the early WRI iterations,
38
39 which is why further improvements to the method are necessary.
40
41
42 The wavefield reconstruction requires one backward and one forward solve at each it-
43
44 eration (Algorithm 1), hence we call it a backward-forward time stepping recursion. The
45
46
47 storage requirement scales to the full time history of the sum of the backward wavefields
48
49 (i.e. N × Nt ). The backward-wavefields can be recomputed on the fly forward in time
50
51 during the wavefield reconstruction if one wants to avoid its storage on disk.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 10
1
2
3
4
Algorithm 1: Data-assimilated wavefield reconstruction by backward-forward re-
5
6 cursion.
7 Initialize: k = 0; u0 = A(m)−1 b, b̄−1 = 0.
8
Step 1: solve the adjoint equation for ūk (equation 13) and update the extended source (equation
9
16).
10
11 Step 2: solve the forward equation for uk+1 (equation 15).
12
Step 3: if kuk+1 − uk k ≤ exit, else set k = k + 1 go to Step 1.
13
14
15
16
17 NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
18
19
20
Although this study is dedicated to the time-domain implementation, we assess the
21
22
23 accuracy and the convergence of the algorithm in the frequency domain because we can
24
25 easily generate an accurate data-assimilated wavefield by solving equation 4 with a direct
26
27 solver. We compute the assimilated wavefield with a constant value of c that satisfies the
28
29
positive definite condition, equation 7, and a small value of λ to generate a significant wave
30
31
32 equation relaxation and fit the data accordingly. We refer to the wavefield computed by the
33
34 backward-forward method at iteration k as BFIk . We assess the method against a part of
35
36 the 2004 BP salt model (Figure 2a). The selected subsurface model is 16.25 km wide and
37
38
39
5.825 km deep, and is discretized with a 25 m grid interval. We compute the wavefields
40
41 with a finite-difference method (Chen et al., 2013), using absorbing boundary conditions
42
43 along the bottom, right and left sides of the model and a free-surface boundary condition
44
45 at the surface. We consider a long-offset fixed-spread acquisition designed with a line of 80
46
47
48 sources on the sea floor spaced 200 m apart and a line of 215 receivers spaced 75 m apart
49
50 at 25 m depth.
51
52
53 We compute the data-assimilated wavefields in a laterally homogeneous velocity model in
54
55 which the velocity linearly increases with depth from 1.5 km/s to 4.5 km/s. The wavefield
56
57 computed in the true model and the data-assimilated wavefield computed with a direct
58
59
60 11
1
2
3
4 solver (the data-assimilated wavefield targeted by our recursive approach) are shown in
5
6
7
Figures 2b and 2c for the 3 Hz frequency and a source located at 450-m distance. A direct
8
9 comparison between the two wavefields at the receiver positions shows that the chosen λ
10
11 allows the data to be matched (Figure 2d). We show the BFI1 wavefield, namely the one
12
13 used by Wang et al. (2016), and the difference with the targeted wavefield (Figure 2c)
14
15
16
in Figures 3a and 3d, respectively. The significant mismatch between the two wavefields,
17
18 highlighted by their direct comparison at three depths (z = 0, 2.0, 4.0 km) in Figure 3g,
19
20 illustrates the need for more iterations. The BFI3 and BFI5 wavefields show that three to
21
22 five iterations are enough to achieve the desired accuracy (Figures 3b,c,e,f and Figures 3h,i,
23
24
25 respectively).
26
27
29
30
32
33
34
35 To emphasize the impact of the wavefield accuracy on the velocity estimation, we com-
36
37 pare the two velocity models inferred from IR-WRI when the BFI1 and BFIk,k≥1 wavefields
38
39 are used at each (outer) IR-WRI iteration (Figures 4a and 4b). In the latter case (k ≥ 1),
40
41
42
we stop the inner wavefield-reconstruction iterations when kuk+1 − uk k ≤ 1e−3 kuk k. We
43
44 perform IR-WRI with hybrid Tikhonov + TV (TT) regularization (Aghamiry et al., 2019a).
45
46 The inversion setup and the hyperparameter tuning for IR-WRI are the same as those re-
47
48 viewed in the above reference. We use a classical continuation frequency strategy in the
49
50
51 [3-13]Hz frequency band by proceeding over small batches of two frequencies with a fre-
52
53 quency interval of 0.5Hz. We also perform three paths through the batches, where the
54
55 starting and finishing frequencies of the paths are [3, 9.5], [3.5, 11.5], [5, 13] Hz respectively.
56
57 A total of 45 frequency batches are processed. A direct comparison between the true ve-
58
59
60 12
1
2
3
4 locity model, the initial model and the final IR-WRI velocity models at x = 5 km, x = 9
5
6
7
km and x = 15 km distances are shown in Figure 4c. As expected, the results show that
8
9 the accuracy of the wavefield reconstruction has a significant impact on the quality of the
10
11 estimated velocity model.
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
Indeed, the number of backward-forward iterations that is required to satisfy the stopping
21
22
23 criterion is directly related to the accuracy of the velocity model. To gain some insights on
24
25 the real computational overhead generated by our iterative wavefield reconstruction during
26
27 a full run of IR-WRI, we show in Figure 5 the average number of backward-forward iterations
28
29
per frequency batch. Although, these forward-backward recursions generate computational
30
31
32 overhead, they keep the capability of the method to extend the search space. In addition,
33
34 this number decreases as the IR-WRI proceeds over the frequency batches and it reduces
35
36 to one at around the mid-point of the IR-WRI inversion.
37
38
39
41
42
43
44
CONCLUSIONS
45
46
47
48 We have proposed a simple backward-forward time-stepping recursion to perform accu-
49
50 rate data-assimilated wavefield reconstruction with explicit time stepping methods in the
51
52 framework of WRI. Although this recursion introduces a computational overhead in the
53
54
wavefield reconstruction during the early stages of the waveform inversion, they preserve
55
56
57 the ability of WRI to extend the search space when crude initial velocity models are used.
58
59
60 13
1
2
3
4 Therefore, the computational overhead introduced in the wavefield reconstruction should
5
6
7
be easily compensated by the improved convergence speed of the WRI and the improved
8
9 accuracy of the estimated velocity model.
10
11
12
13 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
14
15
16 We would like to thank the Editors Alison Malcolm, Joakim Blanch, and Jeffrey Shragge
17
18
19
and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments which greatly help improving the
20
21 manuscript. This study was partially funded by the SEISCOPE consortium (http://seiscope2.osug.fr ),
22
23 sponsored by AKERBP, CGG, CHEVRON, EQUINOR, EXXON-MOBIL, JGI, PETRO-
24
25 BRAS, SCHLUMBERGER, SHELL, SINOPEC, and TOTAL. This study was granted ac-
26
27
28 cess to the HPC resources of SIGAMM infrastructure (https://www.oca.eu/fr/
29
30 mesocentre-sigamm) and CINES/IDRIS/TGCC under the allocation A0050410596 made
31
32 by GENCI.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 14
1
2
3
4 REFERENCES
5
6
7 Aghamiry, H., A. Gholami, and S. Operto, 2019a, Compound regularization of Full-
8
9 waveform Inversion for imaging piecewise media: IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
10
11
12 Remote Sensing, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2019.2944464.
13
14 ——–, 2019b, Improving full-waveform inversion by wavefield reconstruction with alternat-
15
16 ing direction method of multipliers: Geophysics, 84(1), R139–R162.
17
18
Chen, Z., D. Cheng, W. Feng, and T. Wu, 2013, An optimal 9-point finite difference scheme
19
20
21 for the Helmholtz equation with PML: International Journal of Numerical Analysis &
22
23 Modeling, 10, 389-410.
24
25 Huang, G., R. Nammour, and W. W. Symes, 2018, Source-independent extended wave-
26
27
form inversion based on space-time source extension: Frequency-domain implementation:
28
29
30 Geophysics, 83(5), R449–R461.
31
32 Lange, K., 2016, MM optimization algorithms, volume 147: SIAM.
33
34 Pratt, R. G., C. Shin, and G. J. Hicks, 1998, Gauss-Newton and full Newton methods
35
36
in frequency-space seismic waveform inversion: Geophysical Journal International, 133,
37
38
39 341–362.
40
41 van Leeuwen, T. and F. J. Herrmann, 2013, Mitigating local minima in full-waveform inver-
42
43 sion by expanding the search space: Geophysical Journal International, 195(1), 661–667.
44
45
Virieux, J. and S. Operto, 2009, An overview of full waveform inversion in exploration
46
47
48 geophysics: Geophysics, 74(6), WCC1–WCC26.
49
50 Wang, C., D. Yingst, P. Farmer, and J. Leveille, 2016, Full-waveform inversion with the
51
52 reconstructed wavefield method, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1237–
53
54
55
1241.
56
57
58
59
60 15
1
2
3
4 LIST OF FIGURES
5
6 1 Sketch of the iterative MM algorithm. The function f is shown in blue while a
7
few surrogate functions f˜k , k ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3} are shown in orange. The MM algorithm seeks
8
9 to find the minimizer of f , red point, by iteratively minimizing easy to minimize functions
10 f˜k . The surrogate function f˜k is greater than or equal to f , and the equality holds at the
11 current optimal point uk . Minimization of f˜k gives a new optimal point.
12 2 (a) 2004 BP salt velocity model. (b) 3 Hz wavefield computed in (a). (c) Data-
13 assimilated wavefield computed in the laterally-homogeneous velocity model described in
14 the text. (d) Direct comparison between (b, blue) and (c, dashed red) at receiver positions.
15
3 Reconstructed wavefields BFIk at iterations (a) 1, (b) 3, (c) 5 and (d-f) their dif-
16
17
ference with the target wavefield (Figure 2c). (g-i) Direct comparison between (g) BFI1 ,
18 (h) BFI3 (i) BFI5 (blue) and target (red) wavefields at different depths.
19 4 Velocity models inferred from IR-WRI. (a) BFI1 wavefields are used at each IR-
20 WRI iteration. (b) BFIk wavefields are used at each IR-WRI iteration in which k is de-
21 termined with the stopping criterion described in the text. (c) A direct comparison at
22 distances 5, 9 and 15 km between the true velocity model (solid black), the initial model
23 (dash black), and the estimated velocity models shown in (a) (red) and (b) (green).
24
5 The average number of backward-forward iterations required for wavefield recon-
25
26 struction per frequency batch.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1 Sketch of the iterative MM algorithm. The function f is shown in blue while a few surrogate functions
29 tilde{f}k, k ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3} are shown in orange. The MM algorithm seeks to find the minimizer of f, red
30 point, by iteratively minimizing easy to minimize functions tilde{f}k. The surrogate function tilde{f}k is
31 greater than or equal to f, and the equality holds at the current optimal point uk. Minimization of tilde{f}k
32 gives a new optimal point.
33
34 316x208mm (300 x 300 DPI)
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 2 (a) 2004 BP salt velocity model. (b) 3 Hz wavefield computed in (a). (c) Data-assimilated wavefield
computed in the laterally-homogeneous velocity model described in the text. (d) Direct comparison between
25
(b, blue) and (c, dashed red) at receiver positions.
26
27 163x85mm (300 x 300 DPI)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 3 Reconstructed wavefields BFIk at iterations (a) 1, (b) 3, (c) 5 and (d-f) their difference with the target
24 wavefield (Figure 2c). (g-i) Direct comparison between (g) BFI1, (h) BFI3 (i) BFI5 (blue) and target (red)
25 wavefields at different depths.
26
27 244x124mm (300 x 300 DPI)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 4 Velocity models inferred from IR-WRI. (a) BFI1 wavefields are used at each IR-WRI iteration. (b) BFIk
29 wavefields are used at each IR-WRI iteration in which k is determined with the stopping criterion described
in the text. (c) A direct comparison at distances 5, 9 and 15 km between the true velocity model (solid
30
black), the initial model (dash black), and the estimated velocity models shown in (a) (red) and (b) (green).
31
32 153x99mm (300 x 300 DPI)
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 5 The average number of backward-forward iterations required for wavefield reconstruction per frequency
batch.
24
25 134x65mm (300 x 300 DPI)
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
DATA AND MATERIALS AVAILABILITY
Data associated with this research are confidential and cannot be released.

Geo2019-0535 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geo2019-0535 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOPHYSICS

Accurate and efficient data-assimilated wavefield

Manuscript Type: Letters

Area of Expertise: Geophysics Letters, Seismic Inversion

8 uk+1 = uk + αB̃−1 (y − Buk ) , (10)

You might also like