@mastersthesis {peters2019THiso,
	title = {Intersections and sums of sets for the regularization of inverse problems},
	year = {2019},
	note = {(PhD)},
	month = {05},
	school = {The University of British Columbia},
	type = {phd},
	address = {Vancouver},
	abstract = {Inverse problems in the imaging sciences encompass a variety of applications. The primary problem of interest is the identification of physical parameters from observed data that come from experiments governed by partial-differential-equations. The secondary type of imaging problems attempts to reconstruct images and video that are corrupted by, for example, noise, subsampling, blur, or saturation. The quality of the solution of an inverse problem is sensitive to issues such as noise and missing entries in the data. The non-convex seismic full-waveform inversion problem suffers from parasitic local minima that lead to wrong solutions that may look realistic even for noiseless data. To meet some of these challenges, I propose solution strategies that constrain the model parameters at every iteration to help guide the inversion. To arrive at this goal, I present new practical workflows, algorithms, and software, that avoid manual tuning-parameters and that allow us to incorporate multiple pieces of prior knowledge. Opposed to penalty methods, I avoid balancing the influence of multiple pieces of prior knowledge by working with intersections of constraint sets. I explore and present advantages of constraints for imaging. Because the resulting problems are often non-trivial to solve, especially on large 3D grids, I introduce faster algorithms, dedicated to computing projections onto intersections of multiple sets. To connect prior knowledge more directly to problem formulations, I also combine ideas from additive models, such as cartoon-texture decomposition and robust principal component analysis, with intersections of multiple constraint sets for the regularization of inverse problems. The result is an extension of the concept of a Minkowski set. Examples from non-unique physical parameter estimation problems show that constraints in combination with projection methods provide control over the model properties at every iteration. This can lead to improved results when the constraints are carefully relaxed.},
	keywords = {FWI, Optimization, PhD, regularization, Sets},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Thesis/2019/peters2019THiso/peters2019THiso.pdf},
	presentation = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Thesis/2019/peters2019THiso/peters2019THiso_pres.pdf},
	author = {Bas Peters}
}
@article {peters2018pmf,
	title = {Projection methods and applications for seismic nonlinear inverse problems with multiple constraints},
	journal = {Geophysics},
	volume = {84},
	number = {2},
	year = {2018},
	note = {(Geophysics)},
	month = {02},
	pages = {R251-R269},
	abstract = {Nonlinear inverse problems are often hampered by non-uniqueness and local minima because of missing low frequencies and far offsets in the data, lack of access to good starting models, noise, and modeling errors. A well-known approach to counter these deficiencies is to include prior information on the unknown model, which regularizes the inverse problem. While conventional regularization methods have resulted in enormous progress in ill-posed (geophysical) inverse problems, challenges remain when the prior information consists of multiple pieces. To handle this situation, we propose an optimization framework that allows us to add multiple pieces of prior information in the form of constraints. Compared to additive regularization penalties, constraints have a number of advantages making them more suitable for inverse problems such as full-waveform inversion. The proposed framework is rigorous because it offers assurances that multiple constraints are imposed uniquely at each iteration, irrespective of the order in which they are invoked. To project onto the intersection of multiple sets uniquely, we employ Dykstra{\textquoteright}s algorithm that scales to large problems and does not rely on trade-off parameters. In that sense, our approach differs substantially from approaches such as Tikhonov regularization, penalty methods, and gradient filtering. None of these offer assurances, which makes them less suitable to full-waveform inversion where unrealistic intermediate results effectively derail the iterative inversion process. By working with intersections of sets, we keep expensive objective and gradient calculations unaltered, separate from projections, and we also avoid trade-off parameters. These features allow for easy integration into existing code bases. In addition to more predictable behavior, working with constraints also allows for heuristics where we built up the complexity of the model gradually by relaxing the constraints. This strategy helps to avoid convergence to local minima that represent unrealistic models. We illustrate this unique feature with examples of varying complexity.},
	keywords = {constraints, Full-waveform inversion, intersection, Optimization, projection, regularization},
	doi = {10.1190/geo2018-0192.1},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Journals/Geophysics/2018/peters2018pmf/peters2018pmf.html},
	author = {Bas Peters and Brendan R. Smithyman and Felix J. Herrmann}
}
@article {peters2016cvp,
	title = {Constraints versus penalties for edge-preserving full-waveform inversion},
	journal = {The Leading Edge},
	volume = {36},
	number = {1},
	year = {2017},
	note = {(The Leading Edge)},
	month = {01},
	pages = {94-100},
	abstract = {Full-waveform inversion is challenging in complex geologic areas. Even when provided with an accurate starting model, the inversion algorithms often struggle to update the velocity model. Compared with other areas in applied geophysics, including prior information in full-waveform inversion is still in its relative infancy. In part, this is due to the fact that it is difficult to incorporate prior information that relates to geologic settings where strong discontinuities in the velocity model dominate, because these settings call for nonsmooth regularizations. We tackle this problem by including constraints on the spatial variations and value ranges of the inverted velocities, as opposed to adding penalties to the objective, which is more customary in mainstream geophysical inversion. By demonstrating the lack of predictability of edge-preserving inversion when the regularization is in the form of an added penalty term, we advocate the inclusion of constraints instead. Our examples show that the latter leads to more predictable results and to significant improvements in the delineation of salt bodies when these constraints are relaxed gradually in combination with extending the search space to approximately fit the observed data but not the noise.},
	keywords = {algorithm, full waveform inversion, noise, Optimization, penalty methods, salt dome, total variation},
	doi = {10.1190/tle36010094.1},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Journals/TheLeadingEdge/2016/peters2016cvp/peters2016cvp.html},
	author = {Bas Peters and Felix J. Herrmann}
}
@conference {peters2015AIPwri,
	title = {Wavefield-reconstruction inversion},
	booktitle = {Conference on Applied Inverse Problems},
	year = {2015},
	note = {(AIP, Helsinki)},
	month = {05},
	abstract = {Wavefield Reconstruction Inversion is a method for PDE-constrained optimization, which revolves around the estimation of fields using the PDE as well as the observed data in a least-squares sense. The method is quadratic penalty based, which offers some interesting possibilities for the construction of algorithms, compared to the Lagrangian form. One of the main benefits of the method is when the initial guess is far from the global minimizer. Reduced-space and full-space algorithms are discussed, including illustrative examples. The method was developed with seismic applications in mind, but applies to other PDE-constrained optimization problems as well.},
	keywords = {AIP, Full-waveform inversion, Optimization, penalty method, Waveform reconstruction inversion},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/AIP/2015/peters2015AIPwri/peters2015AIPwri.pdf},
	author = {Bas Peters and Felix J. Herrmann}
}
@conference {leeuwen2014EAGEntf,
	title = {A new take on FWI: wavefield reconstruction inversion},
	booktitle = {EAGE Annual Conference Proceedings},
	year = {2014},
	month = {06},
	abstract = {We discuss a recently proposed novel method for waveform inversion: Wavefield Reconstruction Inversion (WRI). As opposed to conventional FWI {\textendash} which attempts to minimize the error between observed and predicted data obtained by solving a wave equation {\textendash} WRI reconstructs a wave-field from the data and extracts a model-update from this wavefield by minimizing the wave-equation residual. The method does not require explicit computation of an adjoint wavefield as all the necessary information is contained in the reconstructed wavefield. We show how the corresponding model updates can be interpreted physically analogously to the conventional imaging-condition-based approach.},
	keywords = {EAGE, Full-waveform inversion, Optimization, penalty method, Wavefield Reconstruction Inversion},
	doi = {10.3997/2214-4609.20140703},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2014/leeuwen2014EAGEntf/leeuwen2014EAGEntf.pdf},
	presentation = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2014/leeuwen2014EAGEntf/leeuwen2014EAGEntf_pres.pdf},
	author = {Tristan van Leeuwen and Felix J. Herrmann and Bas Peters}
}
@conference {peters2014SEGsrh,
	title = {A sparse reduced Hessian approximation for multi-parameter wavefield reconstruction inversion},
	booktitle = {SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts},
	year = {2014},
	note = {(SEG)},
	month = {10},
	pages = {1206-1210},
	abstract = {Multi-Parameter full-waveform inversion is a challenging problem, because the unknown parameters appear in the same wave equation and the magnitude of the parameters can vary many orders of magnitude. This makes accurate estimation of multiple-parameters very difficult. To mitigate the problems, sequential strategies, regularization methods and scalings of gradients and quasi-Newton Hessians have been proposed. All of these require design, fine-tuning and adaptation to different waveform inversion problems. We propose to use a sparse approximation to the Hessian derived from a penalty-formulation of the objective function. Sparseness allows to have the Hessian in memory and compute update directions at very low cost. This results in decent reconstruction of the multiple parameters at very low additional memory and computational expense.},
	keywords = {Full-waveform inversion, Hessian, Optimization, penalty method, SEG},
	doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2014-1667.1},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/SEG/2014/peters2014SEGsrh/peters2014SEGsrh.html},
	presentation = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/SEG/2014/peters2014SEGsrh/peters2014SEGsrh_pres.pdf},
	author = {Bas Peters and Felix J. Herrmann}
}
@conference {peters2014EAGEweb,
	title = {Wave-equation based inversion with the penalty method: adjoint-state versus wavefield-reconstruction inversion},
	booktitle = {EAGE Annual Conference Proceedings},
	year = {2014},
	month = {06},
	abstract = {In this paper we make a comparison between wave-equation based inversions based on the adjoint-state and penalty methods. While the adjoint-state method involves the minimization of a data-misfit and exact solutions of the wave-equation for the current velocity model, the penalty-method aims to first find a wavefield that jointly fits the data and honours the physics, in a least-squares sense. Given this reconstructed wavefield, which is a proxy for the true wavefield in the true model, we calculate updates for the velocity model. Aside from being less nonlinear{\textendash}the acoustic wave equation is linear in the wavefield and model parameters but not in both{\textendash}the inversion is carried out over a solution space that includes both the model and the wavefield. This larger search space allows the algortihm to circumnavigate local minima, very much in the same way as recently proposed model extentions try to acomplish. We include examples for low frequencies, where we compare full-waveform inversion results for both methods, for good and bad starting models, and for high frequencies where we compare reverse-time migration with linearized imaging based on wavefield-reconstruction inversion. The examples confirm the expected benefits of the proposed method.},
	keywords = {EAGE, Full-waveform inversion, Imaging, Optimization, penalty method},
	doi = {10.3997/2214-4609.20140704},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2014/peters2014EAGEweb/peters2014EAGEweb.pdf},
	presentation = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Conferences/EAGE/2014/peters2014EAGEweb/peters2014EAGEweb_pres.pdf},
	author = {Bas Peters and Felix J. Herrmann and Tristan van Leeuwen}
}
