@article {witte2018fwip3,
	title = {Full-Waveform Inversion - Part 3: optimization},
	journal = {The Leading Edge},
	volume = {37},
	number = {2},
	year = {2018},
	note = {(The Leading Edge)},
	month = {1},
	pages = {142-145},
	abstract = {This tutorial is the third part of a full-waveform inversion (FWI) tutorial series with a step-by-step walkthrough of setting up forward and adjoint wave equations and building a basic FWI inversion framework. For discretizing and solving wave equations, we use Devito, a Python-based domain-specific language for automated generation of finite-difference code (Lange et al., 2016). The first two parts of this tutorial (Louboutin et al., 2017, 2018) demonstrated how to solve the acoustic wave equation for modeling seismic shot records and how to compute the gradient of the FWI objective function using the adjoint-state method. With these two key ingredients, we will now build an inversion framework that can be used to minimize the FWI least-squares objective function.},
	keywords = {devito, finite-differences, FWI, inversion, Modeling, tutorial},
	doi = {10.1190/tle37020142.1},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Journals/TheLeadingEdge/2018/witte2018fwip3/witte2018fwip3.html},
	author = {Philipp A. Witte and Mathias Louboutin and Keegan Lensink and Michael Lange and Navjot Kukreja and Fabio Luporini and Gerard Gorman and Felix J. Herrmann}
}
@article {louboutin2017fwi,
	title = {Full-Waveform Inversion - Part 1: forward modeling},
	journal = {The Leading Edge},
	volume = {36},
	number = {12},
	year = {2017},
	note = {(The Leading Edge)},
	month = {12},
	pages = {1033-1036},
	abstract = {Since its re-introduction by Pratt (1999), full-waveform inversion (FWI) has gained a lot of attention in geophysical exploration because of its ability to build high resolution velocity models more or less automatically in areas of complex geology. While there is an extensive and growing literature on the topic, publications focus mostly on technical aspects, making this topic inaccessible for a broader audience due to the lack of simple introductory resources for newcomers to geophysics. We will accomplish this by providing a hands-on walkthrough of FWI using Devito (Lange et al. 2016), a system based on domain-specific languages that automatically generates code for time-domainfinite-differences.},
	keywords = {devito, finite-differences, FWI, Modeling, tutorial},
	doi = {10.1190/tle36121033.1},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Journals/TheLeadingEdge/2017/louboutin2017fwi/louboutin2017fwi.html},
	author = {Mathias Louboutin and Philipp A. Witte and Michael Lange and Navjot Kukreja and Fabio Luporini and Gerard Gorman and Felix J. Herrmann}
}
@article {louboutin2016ppf,
	title = {Performance prediction of finite-difference solvers for different computer architectures},
	journal = {Computers \& Geosciences},
	volume = {105},
	year = {2017},
	note = {(Computers \& Geosciences)},
	month = {08},
	pages = {148-157},
	abstract = {The life-cycle of a partial differential equation (PDE) solver is often characterized by three development phases: the development of a stable numerical discretization; development of a correct (verified) implementation; and the optimization of the implementation for different computer architectures. Often it is only after significant time and effort has been invested that the performance bottlenecks of a PDE solver are fully understood, and the precise details varies between different computer architectures. One way to mitigate this issue is to establish a reliable performance model that allows a numerical analyst to make reliable predictions of how well a numerical method would perform on a given computer architecture, before embarking upon potentially long and expensive implementation and optimization phases. The availability of a reliable performance model also saves developer effort as it both informs the developer on what kind of optimisations are beneficial, and when the maximum expected performance has been reached and optimisation work should stop. We show how discretization of a wave-equation can be theoretically studied to understand the performance limitations of the method on modern computer architectures. We focus on the roofline model, now broadly used in the high-performance computing community, which considers the achievable performance in terms of the peak memory bandwidth and peak floating point performance of a computer with respect to algorithmic choices. A first principles analysis of operational intensity for key time-stepping finite-difference algorithms is presented. With this information available at the time of algorithm design, the expected performance on target computer systems can be used as a driver for algorithm design.},
	keywords = {finite differences, HPC, Modeling, performance},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2017.04.014},
	url = {https://slim.gatech.edu/Publications/Public/Journals/ComputersAndGeosciences/2016/louboutin2016ppf/louboutin2016ppf.pdf},
	author = {Mathias Louboutin and Michael Lange and Felix J. Herrmann and Navjot Kukreja and Gerard Gorman}
}
