Search

By starting from a general framework for probabilistic continuous inversion (developed in Part I) and introducing discrete basis functions, we obtain the well-known algorithms for probabilistic least-squares inversion set out by Tarantola & Valette. In doing so, we establish a direct equivalence between the spatial covariance function that must be specified in continuous inversion, and the combination of basis functions and prior covariance matrix that must be chosen for discretized inversion. We show that the common choice of Tikhonov regularization (⁠|$\mathbf {C_m^{-1}} = \sigma ^2\mathbf {I}$|⁠) arises from a delta-function spatial covariance, and that this lies behind many of the artefacts commonly associated with discretized inversion. We show that other choices of spatial covariance function can be used to generate regularization matrices yielding substantially better results, and permitting localization of features even if global basis functions are used. We are also able to offer a straightforward explanation for the spectral leakage problem identified by Trampert & Snieder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns raised by Okazaki & Ueda (2022) on the paper by Sambridge et al. (2022) are addressed. Two issues are discussed and some new numerical results presented. The first concerns whether the properties of the Wasserstein time-series misfit introduced in our earlier paper will translate to model space non-uniqueness in a seismic waveform inversion setting. It is argued that this is unlikely, given the special conditions, which must exist between all observed/predicted seismic waveform pairs for non-uniqueness to result. The second issue discussed is the efficacy of using the Sliced Wasserstein algorithm of Bonneel et al. (2015) as an alternate to the marginal Wasserstein algorithm, as proposed by Okazaki & Ueda (2022). It is argued that for optimization-based waveform fitting, the Sliced Wasserstein algorithm is a viable alternate provided care is taken to ensure that conditions arise which do invalidate analytical derivative expressions of the resulting Wasserstein misfit. In practice, this would likely mean recasting the 2D Optimal Transport problem posed in our earlier paper onto unstructured grids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The centroid-moment-tensor (CMT) algorithm provides a straightforward, rapid method for the determination of seismic source parameters from waveform data. As such, it has found widespread application, and catalogues of CMT solutions – particularly the catalogue maintained by the Global CMT Project – are routinely used by geoscientists. However, there have been few attempts to quantify the uncertainties associated with any given CMT determination: whilst catalogues typically quote a ‘standard error’ for each source parameter, these are generally accepted to significantly underestimate the true scale of uncertainty, as all systematic effects are ignored. This prevents users of source parameters from properly assessing possible impacts of this uncertainty upon their own analysis. The CMT algorithm determines the best-fitting source parameters within a particular modelling framework, but any deficiencies in this framework may lead to systematic errors. As a result, the minimum-misfit source may not be equivalent to the ‘true’ source. We suggest a pragmatic solution to uncertainty assessment, based on accepting that any ‘low-misfit’ source may be a plausible model for a given event. The definition of ‘low-misfit’ should be based upon an assessment of the scale of potential systematic effects. We set out how this can be used to estimate the range of values that each parameter might take, by considering the curvature of the misfit function as minimised by the CMT algorithm. This approach is computationally efficient, with cost similar to that of performing an additional iteration during CMT inversion for each source parameter to be considered. The source inversion process is sensitive to the various choices that must be made regarding dataset, earth model and inversion strategy, and for best results, uncertainty assessment should be performed using the same choices. Unfortunately, this information is rarely available when sources are obtained from catalogues. As already indicated by Valentine and Woodhouse (2010), researchers conducting comparisons between data and synthetic waveforms must ensure that their approach to forward-modelling is consistent with the source parameters used; in practice, this suggests that they should consider performing their own source inversions. However, it is possible to obtain rough estimates of uncertainty using only forward-modelling. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]