The invention relates generally to the field of geophysical prospecting. Specifically, the invention is a method for determining a subsurface property model though joint inversion of multiple geophysical data types.
Obtaining models of subsurface properties is of value to extractive industries (for example, hydrocarbon production or mining) Direct sampling via drill cores can provide constraints, but direct sampling is infeasible over large areas, particularly in challenging environments. Remote sensing via geophysical data (e.g. seismic waves, gravity, electromagnetic waves) is used instead to develop property models over large areas. However, inversions of remotely sensed geophysical data are typically non-unique, that is, a range of geologic models is consistent with the measured data. Jointly inverting independent geophysical data sets has been proposed as a method to reduce ambiguity in the resulting property model (e.g., Vozoff and Jupp, 1975).
The concept of joint inversion is well known in the geophysics community.
Generally, a penalty function (sometimes called an objective function, a cost function, or a misfit function) is formulated as a function Fj of observed geophysical data dj and predicted data dj*(m) from the candidate subsurface model for each data type:
Ψ=λ1F1(d1,d1*(m)+λ2F2(d2,d2*(m)+ . . . +R(m) (1)
The goal of the inversion is to determine the model m that minimizes equation (1). R(m) is a regularization term that places constraints on the model, for example, model smoothness or length. The variables λi represent arbitrary weights that determine the relative contributions of the data types to the penalty function. In general, the inversion is non-linear and it is difficult to obtain a solution that satisfies equation (1) directly. Common solutions to this problem are to perform iterative inversions, using gradient based approaches or stochastic approaches (e.g., Monte Carlo or genetic algorithms).
A typical joint inversion algorithm is disclosed by Moorkamp et al. (2010), and is shown schematically in
Geophysical data (
The vast majority of joint inversion algorithms use constant weight values for the duration of the inversion (e.g. Lines et al., 1988, Johnson et al., 1996, Julia et al., 2000, Linde et al., 2006). Unfortunately, as weight choices are arbitrary, this may direct the solver through model space in an inefficient manner, resulting in an increased number of iterations to achieve convergence. Further, in many problems model space is populated with many models that are local minima of equation (1). These local minima can “trap” gradient based solvers, leading to incomplete convergence. This is diagramed in
Colombo et al. (US patent application publication No. 2008/0059075) disclose a method for joint inversion of geophysical data and applications for exploration. However, as described above, their method is prone to trapping in local minima Tonellot et al. (US patent application publication No. 2010/0004870) also disclose a method for joint inversion of geophysical data, but their method uses constant weights on data terms as well. Both of these techniques would benefit from a new method to mitigate local minima.
Lovatini et al. (PCT patent application publication No. WO 2009/126566) disclose a method for joint inversion of geophysical data. The authors use a probabilistic inversion algorithm to search model space. These types of solvers are not hindered by local minima, but are much more computationally intensive than the gradient-based solvers to which the present invention pertains.
Publications in a variety of different fields describe methods to adaptively change weights. For example, in U.S. Pat. No. 7,895,562, Gray et al. describe an adaptive weighting scheme for layout optimization, in which the importance of a priority is scaled based on the magnitude of a lesser priority. Unfortunately, this method does not allow the priority weights to be adjusted during the solution of the layout optimization problem.
In U.S. Pat. No. 7,487,133, Kropaczek et al. describe a method for adaptively determining weight factors for objective functions. In this method, the data component with the highest penalty (i.e., the data component that contributes most to the objective function) receives an increased emphasis (weight) in a subsequent penalty function. However, simply increasing emphasis on the component with highest penalty can result in misleading results if that component is trapped in a local minimum. In this situation, increasing the weight of this component will ultimately result in a converged result. Though other components are not satisfied, they are down-weighted in the penalty function and therefore no longer contribute to the final model.
Chandler presents a joint inversion method in U.S. Pat. No. 7,383,128 using generalized composite weight factors that are computed during each solver iteration. These weight factors are related to the independent variables (i.e., data). In this method the weights are chosen in such a way as to render error deviations to be represented by a non-skewed homogeneous uncertainty distribution. However, this method requires the input of a priori error estimates and is limited to two-dimensional problems, and is not applicable to joint inversion of multiple independent data sets because the derivation of this method is limited to variables that can be represented as “orthogonal coordinate-oriented data-point projections,” which is not the case for geophysical data sets.
Adaptive weights have also been considered in applications to neural network optimization algorithms. For example, Yoshihara (U.S. Pat. No. 5,253,327) discloses a method in which synaptic weights are changed in response to the degree of similarity between input data and current synaptic weight. This emphasizes connections with high importance in the network, resulting in a more efficient search of model space. Unfortunately this and similar disclosures (for example, Jin et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,363,280, or Ehsani et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,917,942) actually are “adaptive learning” systems, in which past searches of model space are used to guide the future search of model space. While this can help avoid local minima and can result in more efficient computation in some situations, it depends on historical experience in the solution space, rather than intrinsic properties of the data themselves.
The present invention is a method for adaptive weighting of geophysical data in joint inversion. Joint inversion is a process by which an optimal model is obtained that simultaneously satisfies multiple constraints. Generally, weights may be specified to emphasize or to help balance the contributions of each data type in the optimization process.
The present inventive method relies on the realization that different geophysical data constrain different portions of the model space, and further, that an optimal model may be found by designing a weighting scheme that emphasizes fitting some portion of data space over others at different times during the inversion. Further, the present inventive method recognizes that a local minimum of the objective function may result from a subset of one or more but less than all of the data types in the inversion. Finally, the inventive method emphasizes the fact that in the true global minimum, each individual penalty term for each data type alone should be irreducible by further iteration (neglecting regularization, e.g. smoothing or normalization, or the presence of noise).
The present inventive method comprises the following basic steps: (1) obtain at least two geophysical data types over the region of interest; this may include a variety of data types. (2) Select an objective function, and determine inversion convergence criteria. This can be the same criterion by which it is judged whether convergence has been reached in the iterative joint inversion, e.g. in step 15 of
The present inventive method does not require any computationally expensive forward modeling steps beyond what is normally performed in gradient-based inversions, as the modified objective functions can be constructed from each iteration's existing forward simulated data. Further, this approach mitigates the effect of local minima on inversion convergence, yielding improved inversion accuracy.
In one of its embodiment, the present invention is a method for simultaneously determining a model for each of a plurality of physical properties of a subsurface region by iterative joint inversion of a plurality of corresponding geophysical data types, comprising using a computer to minimize a penalty function to determine model updates for a next iteration cycle, said penalty function containing a separate weighted term for each data type, wherein the penalty function weights are changed when one or more convergence criteria are satisfied.
The present invention and its advantages will be better understood by referring to the following detailed description and the attached drawings in which:
The invention will be described in connection with example embodiments. However, to the extent that the following detailed description is specific to a particular embodiment or a particular use of the invention, this is intended to be illustrative only, and is not to be construed as limiting the scope of the invention. On the contrary, it is intended to cover all alternatives, modifications and equivalents that may be included within the scope of the invention, as defined by the appended claims. Persons skilled in the technical field will readily recognize that in practical applications of the present inventive method, it must be performed on a computer, typically a suitably programmed digital computer.
Convergence criteria of the present inventive method may be as simple as tolerances on minimum change in misfit values, for a particular data type or the combined misfit function, from one iteration to the next. If the change in misfit values is less than this tolerance at any time during the inversion, this can be used as an indication that the objective function needs to be modified. One could be more sophisticated: in addition to misfit values, a norm (such as the average of the absolute value) of the gradient of the misfit with respect to the model parameters could be monitored during the inversion, and if the norm falls below a certain threshold, this could be indicative of a local minimum for that data type. The subsequent iterations can then be carried out with less emphasis on this data type. These are two possible choices of convergence criteria, but any criteria that may be used at step 15 in the flowchart of
In the present inventive method, when convergence is reached at step 15, i.e. model updates are no longer found to be possible, instead of merely assuming that a global minimum of the penalty function has been attained, the penalty function is modified by changing the weights of one or more of the data types at step 51. Then, at step 52 the optimizer determines whether an update is now possible. This determination may be made separately for each data type. If no update is possible the current property model is taken to be the final property model 53. If an update is possible, that update is made at step 16 and the method cycles again through traditional steps 14, 13 and 15, and so on as before. An update is not “possible” when, to use a gradient-based optimizer as an example, the gradients of the penalty function with respect to the property parameters are all zero to within a preselected tolerance. Step 52 may use the same convergence criteria as step 15; i.e. at step 52, the convergence criteria would be reapplied to the objective function where the weights have been changed.
In the present inventive method, the penalty function may be modified by changing the data type weights to emphasize, in turn, each individual data type in the inversion. This modification can be achieved by increasing the weight of one data type relative to another, or, setting the weights of all other data types to zero. An example of two penalty functions is given in
Expanding on this last point, in general, a single data type can yield a single update to the model. However, one or more data types may constrain the same rock properties, or, may constrain different rock properties. If the data types and rock properties are completely orthogonal, an update is not likely to move the estimated property model out of a local minimum. If, on the other hand, data types share some sensitivity to a given property (for example, both seismic waves and gravity are sensitive to density), emphasizing one type (e.g., gravity) will move the model from a local minima caused by another type (e.g., seismic).
Practically speaking, once it is determined which data type is causing the local minimum, which the convergence tests of the present inventive method enable one to do, this data type may be deemphasized for one or more iterations until the model is sufficiently far from the local minimum as to resume convergence towards the global minimum. By deemphasizing the data causing the local minimum, that barrier to convergence is being removed. It may seem that it might be a better idea to instead work with the data causing the local minimum, but in practice that is very difficult to do, because it is essentially impossible to predict what size bump to those model parameters is necessary to move out of the minimum.
An alternative embodiment of the invention involves changing the penalty function weights at one or more, possibly all, iterations. This achieves the same result, as the final solution should be consistent with all data regardless of the weight in the penalty function. In principle, this can be achieved through a specified weighting routine, or even at random.
It can be seen that the present inventive method differs from (a) Gray because the weights change during the optimizing process; (b) Kropaczek because the weights change is triggered by satisfying the convergence criteria rather than changing on every cycle for the data component with greatest misfit; (c) Chandler because no prior uncertainty estimates are required, and because geophysical data are not orthogonal coordinate-oriented data-point projections; and (d) Yoshihara when the weights change depends on the data (through the convergence criteria), not on training a neural network based on past experience unrelated to the data. Other differences exist, but the ones mentioned are prominent.
The foregoing patent application is directed to particular embodiments of the present invention for the purpose of illustrating it. It will be apparent, however, to one skilled in the art, that many modifications and variations to the embodiments described herein are possible. All such modifications and variations are intended to be within the scope of the present invention, as defined in the appended claims.
This application is the National Stage entry under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/US2012/037108 that published as WO 2013/012470 and was filed on May 9 2012, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/510,363, filed Jul. 21 2011, entitled ADAPTIVE WEIGHTING OF GEOPHYHSICAL DATA TYPES IN JOINT INVERSION, the entirety of which is incorporated by reference herein.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2012/037108 | 5/9/2012 | WO | 00 | 12/23/2013 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2013/012470 | 1/24/2013 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4742305 | Stolarczyk | May 1988 | A |
4792761 | King et al. | Dec 1988 | A |
4831383 | Ohnishi et al. | May 1989 | A |
4875015 | Ward | Oct 1989 | A |
5050129 | Schultz | Sep 1991 | A |
5175500 | McNeill | Dec 1992 | A |
5189644 | Wood | Feb 1993 | A |
5210691 | Freedman et al. | May 1993 | A |
5253327 | Yoshihara | Oct 1993 | A |
5265192 | McCormack | Nov 1993 | A |
5357893 | Ruffa | Oct 1994 | A |
5373443 | Lee et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5406206 | Safinya et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5467018 | Ruter et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5563513 | Tasci et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5594343 | Clark et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5706194 | Neff et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5764515 | Guerillot et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5770945 | Constable | Jun 1998 | A |
5825188 | Montgomery et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5835883 | Neff et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5841733 | Bouyoucos et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5884227 | Rabinovich et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5905657 | Celniker | May 1999 | A |
5917942 | Ehsani et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6037776 | McGlone | Mar 2000 | A |
6049760 | Scott | Apr 2000 | A |
6088656 | Ramakrishnan et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6094400 | Ikelle | Jul 2000 | A |
6101448 | Ikelle et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115670 | Druskin et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6138075 | Yost | Oct 2000 | A |
6181138 | Hagiwara et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6253100 | Zhdanov | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253627 | Lee et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6256587 | Jericevic et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6278948 | Jorgensen et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6304086 | Minerbo et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6311132 | Rosenquist et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6332109 | Sheard et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6339333 | Kuo | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6393363 | Wilt et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6424918 | Jorgensen et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430507 | Jorgensen et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6466021 | MacEnany | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6470274 | Mollison et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6476609 | Bittar | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493632 | Mollison et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6502037 | Jorgensen et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6529833 | Fanini et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6533627 | Ambs | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6534986 | Nichols | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6593746 | Stolarczyk | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6594584 | Omeragic et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6671623 | Li | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675097 | Routh et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6686736 | Schoen et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6711502 | Mollison et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6724192 | McGlone | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6739165 | Strack | May 2004 | B1 |
6765383 | Barringer | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6813566 | Hartley | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6816787 | Ramamoorthy et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6842006 | Conti et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6842400 | Blanch et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6846133 | Martin et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6876725 | Rashid-Farrokhi et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6883452 | Gieseke | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6888623 | Clements | May 2005 | B2 |
6901029 | Raillon et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6901333 | Van Riel et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6914433 | Wright et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6950371 | Herkenhoff et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6950747 | Byerly | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6957708 | Chemali et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6958610 | Gianzero | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6977866 | Huffman et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6985403 | Nicholson | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6993433 | Chavarria et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6999880 | Lee | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7002349 | Barringer | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7002350 | Barringer | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7023213 | Nichols | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7039525 | Mittet | May 2006 | B2 |
7062072 | Anxionnaz et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7092315 | Olivier | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7109717 | Constable | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7113869 | Xue | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7114565 | Estes et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7116108 | Constable | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7126338 | MacGregor et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7142986 | Moran | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7187569 | Sinha et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7191063 | Tompkins | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7203599 | Strack et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7227363 | Gianzero et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7250768 | Ritter et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7257049 | Laws et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7262399 | Hayashi et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7262602 | Meyer | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7307424 | MacGregor et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7328107 | Strack et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7337064 | MacGregor et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7347271 | Ohmer et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7356412 | Tompkins | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7362102 | Andreis | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7363280 | Jin et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7382135 | Li et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7383128 | Chandler | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7400977 | Alumbaugh et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7411399 | Reddig et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7453763 | Johnstad | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7456632 | Johnstad et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7477160 | Lemenager et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7482813 | Constable et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7487133 | Kropaczek et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7502690 | Thomsen et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7504829 | Watts | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7536262 | Hornbostel et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7542851 | Tompkins | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7636275 | Anno et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7659721 | MacGregor et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7660188 | Meldahl | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7683625 | Milne et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7805250 | Colombo et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7822552 | Bittleston | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7840394 | Madatov et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7884612 | Conti et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7895562 | Gray et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7928732 | Nichols | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8000945 | Rogers et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8008920 | Lu et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8098543 | Bachrach et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8099239 | MacGregor et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8255166 | Tonnellot et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8363509 | Colombo et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8577660 | Wendt et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
20020172329 | Rashid-Farrokhi et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20050128874 | Herkenhoff et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050237063 | Wight et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060186887 | Strack et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20070288211 | MacGregor et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080007265 | Milne et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080008920 | Alexandrovichserov et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080059075 | Colombo et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080105425 | MacGregor et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080106265 | Campbell | May 2008 | A1 |
20090204330 | Thomsen et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090243613 | Lu et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090303834 | Sengupta et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090306900 | Jing et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090309599 | Ziolkowski | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100004870 | Tonnellot et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100014384 | Colombo | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100074053 | Jaiswal et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100177595 | Khare et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100179761 | Burtz et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20110139462 | Bourne | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110255371 | Jing et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2 402 745 | Aug 2005 | GB |
2 410 635 | Dec 2006 | GB |
WO 9807050 | Feb 1998 | WO |
WO 2004109338 | Dec 2004 | WO |
WO 2006052145 | May 2006 | WO |
WO 2006073115 | Jul 2006 | WO |
WO 2008054880 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2008062024 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2009126566 | Oct 2009 | WO |
WO 2010080366 | Jul 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Johnson, J.M. (1996), “The 1964 Prince William Sound earthquake: Joint inversion of tsunami and geodetic data,” J. of Geophysical Research 101(B1), pp. 523-532. |
Julia, J. et al. (2000), “Joint inversion of receiver function and surface wave dispersion observations,” Geophys. J. Intl. 145, pp. 99-112. |
Linde, N. et al. (2006), “Improved hydrogeophysical characterization using joint inversion of cross-hole electrical resistance and ground-penetrating radar traveltime data,” Water Resources Research 42, 16 pgs. |
Lines, L.R. et al. (1988), “Cooperative inversion of geophysical data,” Geophysics 53(1), pp. 8-20. |
Moorkamp, J. et al. (2011), “A framework for 3-D joint inversion of MT, gravity and seismic refraction data,” Geophysical J. Int. 184, pp. 477-493. |
Vozoff, K. et al. (1975), “Joint Inversion of Geophysical Data,” Geophys. J.R. astr. Soc. 42, pp. 977-991. |
Doetsch, J. et al., “Zonation for 3D aquifer characterization based on joint inversions of multimethod crosshole geophysical data,” Geophysics 75(6), pp. G53-G64 (Nov.-Dec. 2010). |
Gallardo, L.A. et al., “A quadratic programming approach for joint image reconstruction: mathematical and geophysical examples,” Inverse Problems 21, pp. 435-452 (2005). |
Johnson, T.C. et al., “Data-domain correlation approach for joint hydrogeologic inversion of time-lapse hydrogeologic and geophysical data,” Geophysics 74(6), pp. F127-F140 (Nov. 1, 2009). |
Lelièvre, P.G. et al., “Joint inversion of seismic traveltimes and gravity data on unstructured grids with application to mineral exploration,” SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting, pp. 1758-1762 (2010). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140136170 A1 | May 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61510363 | Jul 2011 | US |