Linearised versus Nonlinear Estimates of Uncertainty in Full Waveform Inversion
Xuebin Zhao, Andrew Curtis

TL;DR
This paper compares linearised and nonlinear Bayesian methods for seismic full waveform inversion, showing that linearisation leads to less accurate uncertainty estimates and biases in inferred geological properties.
Contribution
It demonstrates the limitations of linearised uncertainty estimates in Bayesian FWI and advocates for fully nonlinear approaches for accurate uncertainty quantification.
Findings
Linearised methods produce less accurate waveform fits.
Nonlinear methods better capture true uncertainty structures.
Linearisation introduces bias in estimated geological properties.
Abstract
Seismic full waveform inversion (FWI) is a powerful technique to generate high resolution images of the Earth's interior. However, significant uncertainty exists in all FWI solutions due to imperfect acquisition geometries, inherent noise in the data, and nonlinearity of the forward problem. Probabilistic Bayesian FWI addresses this non-uniqueness by estimating the entire family of possible model solutions described by the posterior probability density function (pdf). The posterior pdf can be estimated using nonlinear inversion methods to quantify full uncertainties. Alternatively, by linearising the physics relating parameters and observations around the maximum a posteriori solution, the posterior pdf is usually approximated by a Gaussian pdf. This is referred to as the linearised method. In this work, we apply both nonlinear and linearised methods to 2D acoustic Bayesian FWI…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques · Seismic Waves and Analysis · High-pressure geophysics and materials
