Skip to main content
Log in

Model Fusion and Joint Inversion

  • Published:
Surveys in Geophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inverse problems are inherently non-unique, and regularization is needed to obtain stable and reasonable solutions. The regularization adds information to the problem and determines which solution, out of the infinitely many, is obtained. In this paper, we review and discuss the case when a priori information exists in the form of either known structure or in the form of another inverse problem for a different property. The challenge is to include such information in the inversion process. To use existing known structure, we review the concept of model fusion, where we build a regularization functional that fuses the inverted model to a known one. The fusion is achieved by four different techniques. Joint inversion of two data sets is achieved by using iterative data fusion. The paper discusses four different methods for joint inversion. We discuss the use of correspondence maps or the petrophysics of the rocks, as well as structure. In particular, we suggest to further stabilize the well-known gradient cross product and suggest a new technique, Joint Total Variation, to solve the problem. The Joint Total Variation is a convex functional for joint inversion and, as such, has favorable optimization properties. We experiment with the techniques on the DC resistivity problem and the borehole tomography and show how model fusion and joint inversion can significantly improve over existing techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Throughout the paper we somewhat abuse the notations between continuous and discrete variables. The understanding of what type of variable should be clear from the context.

  2. Recall that the level sets of a function m(x) are lines (in 2D) and surfaces (in 3D) that are defined implicitly by the equation m(x) = const.

  3. Recall that the Hadamard product of a vector y with a vector z is defined as \((z \odot y)_{i} = z_{i} y_{i}\)

References

  • Archie G (1942) The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Petroleum Trans AIME 146:54–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascher U (2010) Numerical methods for evolutionary PDE’s. SIAM, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascher U, Haber E, Haung H (2005) On effective methods for implicit piecewise smooth surface recovery. SIAM J Sci Comput 28:339–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton PJ (1986) The relationship between seismic velocity and density in the continental crust a useful constraint? Geophys J R Astronom Soc 87:195–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg E, Friedlander M (2010) Joint-sparse recovery from multiple measurements. IEEE Trans Info Theory 56(5):2516–2527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardiff M, Kitanidis PK (2009) Bayesian inversion for facies detection: An extensible level set framework. Water Resour Res 45(10). doi:10.1029/2008WR007675

  • De Stefano M, Andreasi FG, Re S, Virgilio M, Snyder F (2011) Multiple-domain, simultaneous joint inversion of geophysical data with application to subsalt imaging. Geophysics 76(3):R69–R80. doi:10.1190/1.3554652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallardo L (2007) Multiple cross-gradient joint inversion for geospectral imaging. Geophys Res Lett 34:L19301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallardo L, Fontes S, Meju M, Buonora MP, de Lugao P (2012) Robust geophysical integration through structure-coupled joint inversion and multispectral fusion of seismic reflection, magnetotelluric, magnetic and gravity images: example from Santos Basin, offshore Brazil. Geophysics 77:B237–B251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallardo LA, Meju MA (2003) Characterization of heterogeneous near-surface materials by joint 2d inversion of dc resistivity and seismic data. Geophys Res Lett 30(13):1658–1664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallardo LA, Meju MA (2004) Joint two-dimensional dc resistivity and seismic traveltime inversion with cross-gradients constraints. J Geophys Res 109B:3311–3315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallardo LA, Meju MA (2011) Structure-coupled multiphysics imaging in geophysical sciences. Rev Geophys 49(1). doi:10.1029/2010RG000330

  • Golub G, Heath M, Wahba G (1979) Generalized cross-validation as a method for choosing a good ridge parameter. Technometrics 21:215–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haber E, Modersitzki J (2006) Intensity gradient based registration and fusion of multi-modal images. In: Proceeding of MICCAI, pp 323–330

  • Haber E, Oldenburg D (1997) Joint inversion a structural approach. Inverse Prob 13:63–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haber E, Oldenburg D (2000) A GCV based methods for nonlinear inverse problem. Comput Geosci 4, n1

  • Hansen PC (1997) Rank-deficient and discrete ill-posed problems. SIAM, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu W, Abubakar A, Habashy TM (November-December 2009) Joint electromagnetic and seismic inversion using structural constraints. Geophysics 74(6):R99–R109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson D (1979) The use of a priori data to resolve non-uniqueness in linear inversion. Geophys J R Astronom Soc 57:137–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jilinski P, Fontes S, Gallardo L (2010) Joint interpretation of maps using gradient directions, cross and dot-product values to determine correlations between bathymetric and gravity anomaly maps. SEG Expand Abstr 29:1226–1229

    Google Scholar 

  • Jilinski P, Fontes S, Meju A (2012) Estimating optimum density for regional Bouguer reduction by morphological correlation of gravity and bathymetric maps: examples from offshore southeastern Brazil. Geo Marine Lett 1–7

  • Jones AG, Fishwick S, Evans RL, Team TS (2009) Correlation of lithospheric velocity and electrical conductivity for Southern Africa. In: 11th SAGA biennial technical meeting and exhibition, Swaziland 16–18 September, pp 428 – 434

  • Lelivre PG, Oldenburg DW (2009) A comprehensive study of including structural orientation information in geophysical inversions. Geophys J Int 178(2):623–637. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04188.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linde N, Tryggvason A, Peterson JE, Hubbard S (2008) Joint inversion of crosshole radar and seismic traveltimes acquired at the south oyster bacterial transport site. Geophysics 73(4):G29–G37. doi:10.1190/1.2937467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modersitzki J (2009) FAIR: flexible algorithms for image registration. SIAM, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moorkamp M, Jones A, Eaton D (2007) Joint inversion of teleseismic receiver functions and magnetotelluric data using a genetic algorithm: are seismic velocities and electrical conductivities compatible? Geophys Res Lett 34:L16311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorkamp M, Jones A, Fishwick S (2011) Joint inversion of receiver functions, surface wave dispersion and magnetotelluric data. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 115:5–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Nocedal J, Wright S (1999) Numerical optimization. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parker RL (1994) Geophysical inverse theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidlisecky A, Knight R (2008) A rapid 2.5 forward modelling algorithm for electrical resistivity modelling. Comput Geosci 34(12):1645–1654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pluim J, Maintz J, Viergever M (1999) Mutual-information-based registration of medical images: a survey. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22:986–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roux E, Moorkamp M, Jones A, Bischoff M, Endrun B, Levedev S, Meier T (2011) Joint inversion of long-period magnetotelluric data and surface-wave dispersion curves for anisotropic structure: application to data from Central Germany. Geophys Res Lett 38:5–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman BW (1986) Density estimation. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tikhonov A, Arsenin V (1977) Methods for solving ill-posed problems. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tryggvason A, Linde N (2006) Local earthquake (le) tomography with joint inversion for p- and s-wave velocities using structural constraints. Geophys Res Lett L07303

  • Van Huffel S, Vandewalle J (1991) The total least squares problem: computational aspects and analysis. Frontiers in applied mathematics, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

  • Viola PA (1995) Alignment by maximization of mutual information. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • Vogel C (2001) Computational methods for inverse problem. SIAM, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Morgan FD (1996) Joint seismic and electrical tomography. In: Proceedings of EEGS symposium on applications of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems keystone, Colorado, pp 391–396

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Adam Pidlisecky for the 2D DC code Pidlisecky and Knight (2008).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michal Holtzman Gazit.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haber, E., Holtzman Gazit, M. Model Fusion and Joint Inversion. Surv Geophys 34, 675–695 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-013-9232-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-013-9232-4

Keywords

Navigation