Pareto Efficient Multi-objective Joint Optimisation of EM Data

被引:0
作者
Schnaidt, Sebastian [1 ]
Heinson, Graham [2 ]
机构
[1] University of Adelaide, Electrical Earth Imaging Group, Deep Exploration Technologies CRC, Adelaide, 5005, SA
[2] University of Adelaide, Electrical Earth Imaging Group, Adelaide, 5005, SA
关键词
1D layer model; dataset compatibility; joint inversion; Multi-objective; Pareto efficient;
D O I
10.1071/ASEG2015AB052
中图分类号
O211 [概率论(几率论、或然率论)];
学科分类号
摘要
Jointly inverting different data sets can greatly improve model results, provided that the data sets are sensitive to similar features. Such a joint inversion requires assumed connections between the different geophysical data sets, which can either be of analytical or structural nature. Classically, the joint problem is expressed as a scalar objective function that combines the misfit functions of all involved data sets and a joint term accounting for the assumed connection. This approach has two major disadvantages: Firstly, by aggregating all misfit terms a weighting of the data sets is enforced, and secondly, false models are produced, if the connection between data sets differs from the assumed one. We present a Pareto efficient multi-objective evolutionary algorithm, which treats each data set as a separate objective, avoiding forced weighting. The algorithm jointly inverts one-dimensional datasets from different electromagnetic techniques and also treats any additional information as separate objectives, rather than imposing them as a fixed constraint. Additional information can include, for example a priori models, seismic constraints, or well log data. Statistical analysis of the final solution ensemble yields an average one-dimensional model with associated uncertainties. Furthermore, the shape and evolution of the Pareto fronts is analysed to evaluate dataset compatibility and to judge if the assumed connection between datasets was valid. © 2015, Taylor and Francis. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 9 条
[1]  
Coello C.A.C., Lamont G.B., Veldhuizen D.A.V., Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems, (2007)
[2]  
Deb K., Pratap A., Agarwal S., Meyarivan T., A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6, 2, pp. 182-197, (2002)
[3]  
Edgeworth F., Mathematical Physics, (1881)
[4]  
Hadka D., Reed P., Diagnostic assessment of search controls and failure modes in many-objective evolutionary optimization, Evolutionary Computation, 20, 3, pp. 423-452, (2012)
[5]  
Hadka D., Reed P., Borg: An auto-adaptive many-objective evolutionary computing framework, Evolutionary Computation, 21, 2, pp. 231-259, (2013)
[6]  
Ishibuchi H., Tsukamoto N., Hitotsuyanagi Y., Nojima Y., Effectiveness of Scalability Improvement Attempts on the Performance of Nsga-Ii for Many-Objective Problems: GECCO '08: Proceedings of the 10Th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 649-656, (2008)
[7]  
Moorkamp M., Jones A.G., Eaton D.W., Joint inversion of teleseismic receiver functions and magnetotelluric data using a genetic algorithm: Are seismic velocities and electrical conductivities compatible?, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, (2007)
[8]  
Moorkamp M., Jones A.G., Fishwick S., Joint inversion of receiver functions, surface wave dispersion, and magnetotelluric data, Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, (2010)
[9]  
Pareto V., Cours D' Economie Politique, (1896)