2012
DOI: 10.1190/geo2010-0298.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bayesian inversion of CSEM and magnetotelluric data

Abstract: We have developed a Bayesian methodology for inversion of controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) data and magnetotelluric (MT) data. The inversion method provided optimal solutions and also the associated uncertainty for any sets of electric and magnetic components and frequencies from CSEM and MT data. The method is based on a 1D forward modeling method for the electromagnetic (EM) response for a plane-layered anisotropic earth model. The inversion method was also designed to invert common midpoint (CMP)-so… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the Occam inversion outputs the smoothest model, it is also possible to fit more complicated models to the data for the given error. Unlike a Bayesian inversion (Chen et al 2007;Buland & Kolbjørnsen 2012;Ray & Key 2012), it does not provide any information about model uncertainty. Finding the suite of these models would require the application of many perturbations to the final model, that is impractical, given model run times (On 64 computer nodes 4x Xeon E5/Core i7 processors, the OBE inversions take approximately 20 hr and the Vulcan inversions take approximately 14 hr for Line 1 and 8 hr for Line 2).…”
Section: Linementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the Occam inversion outputs the smoothest model, it is also possible to fit more complicated models to the data for the given error. Unlike a Bayesian inversion (Chen et al 2007;Buland & Kolbjørnsen 2012;Ray & Key 2012), it does not provide any information about model uncertainty. Finding the suite of these models would require the application of many perturbations to the final model, that is impractical, given model run times (On 64 computer nodes 4x Xeon E5/Core i7 processors, the OBE inversions take approximately 20 hr and the Vulcan inversions take approximately 14 hr for Line 1 and 8 hr for Line 2).…”
Section: Linementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Trainor-Guitton & Hoversten (2011) use a sampling scheme which involves both the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm (Hastings 1970) and slice sampling (Neal 2003) in order to improve convergence upon the PDF of solution models. Buland & Kolbjornsen (2012) apply the MetropolisHastings algorithm to invert marine CSEM data together with magnetotelluric (MT) data in order to constrain the range of likely resistivities as a function of depth. In all these studies, with the exception of Gunning et al (2010) who use a maximum a posteriori estimate-based layer splitting approach, the parametrization is fixed at the outset by the user.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Applications include the inversion of controlled-source electromagnetic marine (CSEM) data (e.g., Gunning et al, 2010;Buland and Kolbjørnsen, 2012), AEM data (e.g., Minsley, 2011;Brodie and Sambridge, 2012), and direct current resistivity sounding (e.g., Malinverno, 2002). All aforementioned MCMC algorithms use a 1D forward kernel, and they are applied on a station-by-station basis, in which the number of layers is often treated as an additional unknown.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%