@conference {fang2015EAGEsew,
	title = {Source estimation for Wavefield Reconstruction Inversion},
	booktitle = {EAGE Annual Conference Proceedings},
	year = {2015},
	note = {(EAGE, Madrid)},
	month = {06},
	abstract = {Wavefield reconstruction inversion is a new approach to waveform based inversion that helps overcome the {\textquoteleft}cycle skipping{\textquoteright} problem. However, like most waveform based inversion methods, wavefield reconstruction inversion also requires good source wavelets. Without correct source wavelets, wavefields cannot be reconstructed correctly and the velocity model cannot be updated correctly neither. In this work, we propose a source estimation method for wavefield reconstruction inversion based on the variable projection method. In this method, we reconstruct wavefields and estimate source wavelets simultaneously by solving an extended least-squares problem, which contains source wavelets. This approach does not increase the computational cost compared to conventional wavefield reconstruction inversion. Numerical results illustrates with our source estimation method we are able to recover source wavelets and obtain inversion results that are comparable to results obtained with true source wavelets.},
	keywords = {EAGE, source estimation, WRI},
	doi = {10.3997/2214-4609.201412588},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2015/fang2015EAGEsew/fang2015EAGEsew.html},
	presentation = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2015/fang2015EAGEsew/fang2015EAGEsew_pres.pdf},
	author = {Zhilong Fang and Felix J. Herrmann}
}
@conference {fang2015EAGEuqw,
	title = {Uncertainty quantification for Wavefield Reconstruction Inversion},
	booktitle = {EAGE Annual Conference Proceedings},
	year = {2015},
	note = {(EAGE, Madrid)},
	month = {06},
	abstract = {In this work, we propose a method to quantify the uncertainty of wavefield reconstruction inversion under the framework of Bayesian inference. Unlike the conventional method using the wave equation as the forward mapping, we involve the wave equation misfit in the posterior distribution and propose a new posterior distribution. The negative log-likelihood of the new distribution is less oscillatory than that of the conventional posterior distribution, and its Gauss-Newton Hessian is a diagonal matrix that can be generated without any additional computational cost. We use the diagonal Gauss-Newton Hessian to derive an approximate Gaussian distribution at the maximum likelihood point to quantify the uncertainty. This method makes the uncertainty quantification for WRI computationally tractable and is able to provide reasonable uncertainty analysis based on our numerical results.},
	keywords = {EAGE, FWI, UQ, WRI},
	doi = {10.3997/2214-4609.201413198},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2015/fang2015EAGEuqw/fang2015EAGEuqw.html},
	presentation = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2015/fang2015EAGEuqw/fang2015EAGEuqw_pres.pdf},
	author = {Zhilong Fang and Chia Ying Lee and Curt Da Silva and Felix J. Herrmann and Rachel Kuske}
}
@conference {lago2014EAGEfst,
	title = {Fast solution of time-harmonic wave-equation for full-waveform inversion},
	booktitle = {EAGE Annual Conference Proceedings},
	year = {2014},
	month = {06},
	abstract = {For many full-waveform inversion techniques, the most computationally intensive step is the computation of a numerical solution for the wave equation on every iteration. In the frequency domain approach, this requires the solution of very large, complex, sparse, ill-conditioned linear systems. In this extended abstract we bring out attention specifically to CGMN method for solving PDEs, known for being flexible (i.e. it is able to treat equally acoustic data as well as visco-elastic or more complex scenarios) efficient with respect both to memory and computation time, and controllable accuracy of the final approximation. We propose an improvement for the known CGMN method by imposing a minimal residual condition, which incurs in one extra model vector storage. The resulting algorithm called CRMN enjoys several interesting properties as monotonically nonincreasing behaviour of the norm of the residual and minimal residual, guaranteeing optimal convergence for the relative residual criterion. We discuss numerical experiments both in an isolated PDE solve and also within the inversion procedure, showing that in a realistic scenario we can expect a speedup around 25\% when using CRMN rather than CGMN.},
	keywords = {CGMN, CRMN, EAGE, FWI, Time-Harmonic Wave Equation},
	doi = {10.3997/2214-4609.20140812},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2014/lago2014EAGEfst/lago2014EAGEfst.pdf},
	presentation = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2014/lago2014EAGEfst/lago2014EAGEfst_pres.pdf},
	author = {Rafael Lago and Art Petrenko and Zhilong Fang and Felix J. Herrmann}
}
@conference {fang2014EAGEfuq,
	title = {Fast uncertainty quantification for 2D full-waveform inversion with randomized source subsampling},
	booktitle = {EAGE Annual Conference Proceedings},
	year = {2014},
	month = {06},
	abstract = {Uncertainties arise in every area of seismic exploration, especially in full-waveform inversion, which is highly non-linear. In the framework of Bayesian inference, uncertainties can be analyzed by sampling the posterior probability density distribution with a Markov chain Monte-Carlo (McMC) method. We reduce the cost of computing the posterior distribution by working with randomized subsets of sources. These approximations, together with the Gaussian assumption and approximation of the Hessian, leads to a computational tractable uncertainty quantification. Application of this approach to a synthetic leads to standard deviations and confidence intervals that are qualitatively consistent with our expectations.},
	keywords = {EAGE, FWI, Markov chain Monte Carlo, randomized sources subsampling, Uncertainty quantification},
	doi = {10.3997/2214-4609.20140715},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2014/fang2014EAGEfuq/fang2014EAGEfuq.pdf},
	presentation = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2014/fang2014EAGEfuq/fang2014EAGEfuq_pres.pdf},
	author = {Zhilong Fang and Curt Da Silva and Felix J. Herrmann}
}
@conference {vanleeuwen2011EAGEhsdomwi,
	title = {A hybrid stochastic-deterministic optimization method for waveform inversion},
	booktitle = {EAGE Annual Conference Proceedings},
	year = {2011},
	month = {05},
	abstract = {Present-day high quality 3D acquisition can give us lower frequencies and longer offsets with which to invert. However, the computational costs involved in handling this data explosion are tremendous. Therefore, recent developments in full-waveform inversion have been geared towards reducing the computational costs involved. A key aspect of several approaches that have been proposed is a dramatic reduction in the number of sources used in each iteration. A reduction in the number of sources directly translates to less PDE-solves and hence a lower computational cost. Recent attention has been drawn towards reducing the sources by randomly combining the sources in to a few supershots, but other strategies are also possible. In all cases, the full data misfit, which involves all the sequential sources, is replaced by a reduced misfit that is much cheaper to evaluate because it involves only a small number of sources (batchsize). The batchsize controls the accuracy with which the reduced misfit approximates the full misfit. The optimization of such an inaccurate, or noisy, misfit is the topic of stochastic optimization. In this paper, we propose an optimization strategy that borrows ideas from the field of stochastic optimization. The main idea is that in the early stage of the optimization, far from the true model, we do not need a very accurate misfit. The strategy consists of gradually increasing the batchsize as the iterations proceed. We test the proposed strategy on a synthetic dataset. We achieve a very reasonable inversion result at the cost of roughly 13 evaluations of the full misfit. We observe a speed-up of roughly a factor 20.},
	keywords = {EAGE, Full-waveform inversion, Optimization, Presentation},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2011/vanleeuwen11EAGEhsdomwi/vanleeuwen11EAGEhsdomwi.pdf},
	presentation = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2011/vanleeuwen11EAGEhsdomwi/vanleeuwen11EAGEhsdomwi_pres.pdf},
	url2 = {http://earthdoc.eage.org/publication/publicationdetails/?publication=50341},
	author = {Tristan van Leeuwen and Felix J. Herrmann and Mark Schmidt and Michael P. Friedlander}
}
@conference {frijlink2010EAGEcos,
	title = {Comparison of standard adaptive subtraction and primary-multiple separation in the curvelet domain},
	booktitle = {EAGE Annual Conference Proceedings},
	year = {2010},
	month = {06},
	abstract = {In recent years, data-driven multiple prediction methods and wavefield extrapolation methods have proven to be powerful methods to attenuate multiples from data acquired in complex 3-D geologic environments. These methods make use of a two-stage approach, where first the multiples (surface-related and / or internal) multiples are predicted before they are subtracted from the original input data in an adaptively. The quality of these predicted multiples often raises high expectations for the adaptive subtraction techniques, but for various reasons these expectations are not always met in practice. Standard adaptive subtraction methods use the well-known minimum energy criterion, stating that the total energy after optimal multiple attenuation should be minimal. When primaries and multiples interfere, the minimum energy criterion is no longer appropriate. Also, when multiples of different orders interfere, adaptive energy minimization will lead to a compromise between different amplitudes corrections for the different orders of multiples. This paper investigates the performance of two multiple subtraction schemes for a real data set that exhibits both interference problems. Results from an adaptive subtraction in the real curvelet domain, separating primaries and multiples, are compared to those obtained using a more conventional adaptive subtraction method in the spatial domain.},
	keywords = {EAGE},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2010/frijlink10EAGEcos/frijlink10EAGEcos.pdf},
	url2 = {http://earthdoc.eage.org/publication/publicationdetails/?publication=39875},
	author = {M. O. Frijlink and Reza Shahidi and Felix J. Herrmann and R. G. van Borselen}
}
