Loading in 5 sec....

Uncertainty quantification in geophysical inversion: Challenges and the way forwardPowerPoint Presentation

Uncertainty quantification in geophysical inversion: Challenges and the way forward

- By
**dewey** - Follow User

- 235 Views
- Uploaded on

Download Presentation
## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Uncertainty quantification in geophysical inversion: Challenges and the way forward' - dewey

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

### Uncertainty quantification in geophysical inversion: Challenges and the way forward

### 1. Introduction

PETRONAS Exploration,

Petronas Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur

Workshop on Uncertainty Analysis in Geophysical Inverse Problems, November 7 - 11, 2011. Leiden, The Netherlands

- Introduction
- Sources of uncertainty: nature of

geophysical data, modelling error

- Methods of uncertainty estimation
- Extremal bounds analysis : the nonlinear most-squares approach
- Examples from electromagnetic inversion

- Challenges & way forward
- uncertainty reduction

- simple metrics of model uncertainty

- Conclusion

There are various sources of uncertainty - from field surveying to model interpretation

Quantifying and reducing the impact of uncertainty in regularized inversion of incomplete, insufficient and inconsistent observational data is a difficult proposition

Finding a simple composite measure or index of uncertainty in model interpretation remains a major challenge

- Main causes of uncertainty in geophysical data inversion
- Band-limited field measurements (due to technical limitations)
- Measurement errors
- Geological heterogeneity
- Nonlinearity of physical (forward) process. Simulation/prediction errors.

Nature of field data: incomplete, insufficient & inconsistent

MT amplitude and phase data for different periods (sec.).

The nature of EM field data and inconsistentmodel equivalency lead to uncertainty in interpretation

Meju & Sakkas, JGR 2007

3 equivalent 2D resistivity models for

the same EM data set from Kenya.

- Formally, model uncertainty and non-uniqueness can be reduced by combining measurements of fundamentally different physical attributes of a subsurface target (i.e.,coupled-field analysis) or by using available a priori information about the target, and accounting for 3D geological heterogeneity.
- Several approaches to quantifying the uncertainty arising from band-limited data, data errors, and nonlinearity.

- Bayesian probability density function estimation (mostly applied to small-size geophysical inverse problems)
- Monte Carlo covariance method for large-scale geophysical inverse problems

- Deterministic (mostly applied to small-size inverse problems) :
- linear sensitivity analysis (Backus-Gilbert; funnel-function appraisal methods etc),

- minimax,

- nonlinear extremalbounds analysis (Most-squares method)

- Problem statement: applied to small-size geophysical inverse problems)
‘Given an optimal model for a regularised parameter estimation problem, mopt, find, on account of data errors, solution equivalency and non-uniqueness, other models that satisfy a specified threshold misfit, qms and are consistent with the constraints imposed by the data uncertainties’

Problem formulation applied to small-size geophysical inverse problems):

Extremize the function mTb, subject to the constraint

q = (Wd-Wf(m))T(Wd-Wf(m)) + mTLTLm + (m-mo)T(m-mo)

≤ qms, (1)

where b is the model projection operator, and L andare respectively the Laplacian operator and regularisation parameter used for generating mls.

The expected value of qms is n-l, where there are l active constraints in the problem.

NB: The above problem formulation is appropriate for model construction algorithms that use the additional stabilisation measure, (m-mo)T(m-mo), to place a bound on the absolute size of model perturbation.

An equivalent mathematical statement to Equation applied to small-size geophysical inverse problems)(1)is:

Extremize:

mTb + 1/2µ{(Wd-Wf(m))T(Wd-Wf(m)) + mTLTLm + (m-mo)T(m-mo) - qms}

(2)

Next, we need to linearize the expression so that we can solve it using established linear methods!

ℓ= mTb + 1/2µ{(Wd-Wf(m))T(Wd-Wf(m)) + mTLTLm + (m-mo)T(m-mo) - qms}

NB: If we linearize d=f(m), using Taylor series expansion, we obtain y=Ax.

So,

ℓ= (m0+ x)Tb + 1/2µ{(Wy-WAx)T(Wy-WAx) + (m0+ x)TLTL(m0+ x) + xTx- qms} (3)

Next, find d solve it using established linear methods!ℓ/dx and equate to zero for minima/maxima!

ℓ = m0Tb +xTb + 1/2µ {yTWTWy - WxTATWy - WyTWAx + xTATWTWAx + (m0TLTLm0) + 2(m0TLTLx)+ (xTLTLx) + xTx- qms}

So,

dℓ/dx = b + 1/2µ { -2ATEy + 2ATEAx+ 2LTLm0 + 2LTLx + 2Ix} = 0 (4)

where E = WTW for notational simplicity!

Next, assemble like-terms and form the Most-Squares Normal Equations!

From the previous slide,

b + 1/µ [ATEAx + LTLx + Ix] - 1/µ[ATEy - LTLm0] = 0.

Therefore,

[ATEA + LTL + I]x = [ATEy - LTLm0 -µb], (5)

which are the Most-squares Normal Equations (akin to the Least-squares normal equations) and I is the identity matrix.

Finally, solve the Normal Equations for x! Equations!

From the Normal Equations, we obtain

x = [ATEA + LTL + I]-1 [ATEy - LTLm0 -µb]. (6)

Nonlinearity is dealt with using an iterative formula of the form

mk+1 = mk + x

= mk + [ATEA + LTL + I]-1 [ATEy - LTLm0 -µb]

(7)

where A and y are evaluated at mk and the iteration is begun at k = 0.

Alternatively, obtain the direct estimate of m! Equations!

Recall that m=mo+x. Replacing x with m-mo in the Normal Equations yields

m = [ATEA + LTL + I]-1 {ATEd* + Im0 -µb} (8)

where d* = [y + Am0], and

= ± {[qms - qls]/(bT [ATEA + LTL + I]-1 b)}0.5.

There are two (plus and minus) solutionsfor and may be regarded as the upper and lower resistivity boundsfor the specified qms if the elements of the projection operator b are set to unity.

Flow chart of the Equations!regularisedextremal bounds analysis process (Meju 2009)

- The result of Equations!regularised 2D MT inversion served as the input. This is the best model obtained in a Least-squares sense. It is then subdivided into blocks for appraisal.
- Most-squares model bounds are calculated for each block of the model for a specified threshold misfit of 10%, i.e., qms =qls1.1, with b values set to unity.

Example of a simple application by Equations! Meju & Sakkas, JGR 2007

qms = qls1.1, with b values set to unity

A. 2D Least-squares inversion model

B. 2D Most-squares inversion model.

- Appraisal of layered-earth models: Mapping regions inaccessible to a given data set(to prevent the over-interpretation of field data)
- Synthetic MT amplitude and phase data

(smooth-versus-rough-models)

- COPROD MT field data (standard test) and effective depth of inference

- Time-domain CSEM models and effective depth of inference

lower envelope inaccessible to a given data

Upper envelope

For high quality data, narrow solution envelopes are obtained by setting the elements of the projection vector ‘b’ to unity. That is, only two models are generated which are maximally consistent with the data.

Most-squares solution envelopes for synthetic MT data (Meju & Hutton 1992)Model response covers the region spanned by error bars of the amplitude and phase data

For high quality data, narrow solution envelopes are obtained by setting the elements of the projection vector ‘b’ to unity. That is, only two extreme models are generated.

Smooth solution envelopes for synthetic MT data (after Meju & Hutton 1992)Model response covers the region spanned by error bars of the amplitude data

Benchmark obtained by setting the elements of the projection vector ‘: Effective depth of inference (zone of structural concordance in pooled models) for COPROD MT data

inaccessible region

Region constrained by field data

inaccessible region

Smooth models are generated for a range of regularisation factors (0.05 to 0.8). The resulting pool of models share common features only when they are constrained by the field data. The models diverge (splay) at depths where the data fail to constrain them (Meju, 1988).

Region not constrained by field data obtained by setting the elements of the projection vector ‘

Region not constrained by field data

Most-squares class of extreme models for COPROD MT dataNote that the Most-squares model diverge or splay where the models are poorly-constrained by the noisy field data.

Region not constrained by field data obtained by setting the elements of the projection vector ‘

Optimal least-squares smooth- and rough-models for land time-domain CSEM dataConventional least-squares inversion of high-quality data leads to a single smooth- or rough-model

Region not constrained by field data obtained by setting the elements of the projection vector ‘

Region constrained by field data

Region not constrained by field data

Comparison of effective depths from smooth models and direct-depth imaging for TEM dataModels from inversion using two different regularisation factors, 0.01 and 0.5

Models from skin-depth of investigation

High quality field data; narrow solution envelopes obtained by setting the elements of the projection vector ‘b’ to unity. That is, only two extreme models are generated.

Most-squares upper & lower solution envelopes for the time-domain CSEM field dataNote that model responses cover the region spanned by data error bars

Extreme parameter sets are obtained by setting only one element of the projection vector ‘b’ to unity at a time, yielding 2M extreme models for the M model parameters.

Most-squares class of extreme model parameters for the TEM dataNote that model responses cover the region spanned by data error bars

Uncertainty visualisation in multiple dimensions: element of the projection vector ‘The search for a simple index of common structure!

What are the common features in these 3 statistically equivalent

2D resistivity models? How can we measure ‘common structure’?

- Is there a simple metric for presenting or visualizing uncertainty in inversion?
- The geometrical attributes of extreme models from Most-squares inversion, and especially their degree of structural similarity, may be used as one quantitative measure of uncertainty (Meju,2009, GRL).
- Let mp and mmbe the property fields for the Most-squares plus and minus solutions.
- A criterion to apply is that the cross-products of the gradients of the mp and mm property fields must be zero at an important boundary or target zone.

- If uncertainty in inversion?mp(x,y,z) denotes the vector field of the gradient of the model derived using the plus solution and mm(x,y,z) denotes the gradient of the model from the minus solution, we define the cross-gradients function
t(x,y,z) = mp(x,y,z) mm(x,y,z).

- The vector field of the cross-gradients function is
- and t (x,y,z) = 0 implies structural similarity while departure from zero at any given location in the model (m(x,y,z)) may be taken as an interpretative measure of structural uncertainty at that location (Meju 2009).

- Using mathematical methods to combine ( uncertainty in inversion?disparate or correlated) measurements taken from different platforms so as to reconcile geoscientific conflicts or reduce interpretational ambiguities.
- ‘Mathematics of conflict resolution’ requires realistic physical models!
- Uncertainty quantification in large-scale geophysical inversion is a major challenge
- Simple robust interpretation or visualization of uncertainty is not available!

Directions for Future Research: uncertainty in inversion?1) Combining measurements of multiple physical phenomena (fields) to reduce model uncertainty2) Data homogenization: giving equal importance to the various data sources in in joint inversion of coupled-fields2) Methods for rapid computation of multiphysics fields4) Uncertainty analysis for large data sets: Monte Carlo covariance methods

Example: Joint cross-gradient inversion of electromagnetic resistivity and seismic travel-time data

Reducing ambiguity by combining multiple physical phenomena (fields)Gallardo & Meju, 2003 GRL; 2004 JGR; 2007 GJI; 2011 RoG.

Gallardo et al., 2005 Inv. Prob.

Basis of structure-coupled joint inversion resistivity and seismic travel-time data

. True model resistivity and seismic travel-time data

Test model and 2D grid design. resistivity and seismic travel-time data

Seismic ray coverage for the above synthetic test model. The inverted triangles mark the locations of the seismic shot-points.

Simple metric of uncertainty in deep crustal imaging: Synthetic MT-seismic test – Gallardo & Meju 2007, GJISeparate resistivity and seismic travel-time data

Joint inversion

a) MT-resistivity model obtained by separate inversion. b) Seismic model obtained by separate inversion of the seismic data. c) MT-resistivity and d) seismic velocity models obtained by joint inversion using cross-gradients constraints. The thick lines outline the test structures that are the exploration targets (units A-F).

Separate versus joint inversion resultsModel appraisal: cross-gradient map of interpretational uncertainty

Simple metric of uncertainty: Cross-gradient values are zero in areas well-constrained zones having common structure. It is non-zero in zones of conflicting subsurface structures.

5. Concluding comments: uncertainty

The outstanding challenges in uncertainty quantification are

- Geological complexity and nonlinearity
- Uncertainties in forward modelling of physical reality! Computational limitation
- Fusing physical and non-physical data
- Data homogenization (how to give equal-importance to various data sources!)

That’s all folks uncertainty !Thanks for your kind attention !

Email: [email protected]

Access pdfs of my publications at: http://www.es.lancs.ac.uk/giei/publications.htm

Useful references uncertainty

Gallardo, L.A. & Meju, M.A., 2011. Structure-coupled multi-physics imaging in geophysical sciences. Reviews of Geophysics, 49, RG1003, doi:10.1029/2010RG000330. Meju, M.A., 2009. Regularized extremal bounds analysis (REBA): An approach to quantifying uncertainty in nonlinear geophysical inverse problems. Geophys. Res. Letts., 36, L03304, doi:10.1029/2008GL036407.Meju, M. A. & V. Sakkas, 2007. Heterogeneous crust and upper mantle across southern Kenya and the relationship to surface deformation as inferred from magnetotelluric imaging, J. Geophys. Res., 112, B04103, doi:10.1029/2005JB004028.Meju, M.A., 1994. Biased estimation: a simple framework for parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis with prior data. Geophys. J. Int., 119,521-528.Meju, M.A., 1994. A general program for linear parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis. Computers & Geosciences, 20 (2), 197-220.Meju M.A. & Hutton, V.R.S., 1992. Iterative most-squares inversion: application to magnetotelluric data. Geophys. J. Int., 108, 758-766.

Download Presentation

Connecting to Server..