Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

A level-set structural approach for multi-physics joint inversion using full-waveform and gravity data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Gravity data can be made to rescue the deep structures that full-waveform inversion misses, provided the density contrast of the target body is known and velocity and density share one level-set interface.

desk verdict A genuinely new algorithmic coupling of level-set FWI and gravity with a sensible weighting strategy, but the synthetic evidence is weaker than the prose suggests because the tests never leave the generative class of the model. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06689 v1 pith:DCQWWC2V submitted 2025-09-08 physics.geo-ph

Xingyu Deng , Jianfeng Zhao , Wenbin Li , Jianwei Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.geo-ph MSC 86A2235R3065K10
keywords level-setmethodjointinversionfull-waveformgravitysaltstructureimagingmulti-physicsinversegravimetrybalanced-decayingweight
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that gravity data can do more than ride on the coattails of full-waveform inversion: if the density contrast of the target body is known in advance, gravity measurements can actively rescue the deep or extended structures that seismic waves fail to illuminate. The mechanism is a level-set function whose zero set is the shared boundary of both the wave-velocity model and the anomalous-density model, so a single moving interface is recovered from both datasets at once. To make the two datasets cooperate, the authors schedule a balanced, decaying weight that lets gravity dominate the early iterations, when it quickly sketches the overall body, and lets full-waveform inversion dominate later, when its high resolution sharpens the interface. In synthetic tests including salt models, the joint inversion recovers deep salt bodies and noisy data more accurately than either method alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is the shared level-set interface: one scalar field φ whose zero level set is the boundary of the anomalous body, appearing in both the velocity parameterization c(r)=c1(r)H(φ(r))+c2(r)(1−H(φ(r))) and the density parameterization ρ(r)=f(r)H(φ(r)), with H a smoothed Heaviside and δτ its derivative. It enforces structural similarity directly rather than through gradient penalties. The second mechanism is the balanced-decaying weight ω(n)=ω1(n)·ω2(n), set from the ratio of waveform and gravity gradient magnitudes in φ so that the two data misfits act comparably on the interface, and decaying exponentially so gravity dominates the early iterations and full-waveform data domina

What would settle it

Build a synthetic model with two separate anomalous bodies: one with a velocity anomaly and zero density contrast, the other with a density contrast and zero velocity anomaly. Run the proposed joint inversion with the density-contrast value of the second body imposed. If the shared level-set coupling is correct, the velocity reconstruction should ignore the density-only body; if the velocity model is pulled toward the density-only interface, the central claim fails. A second decisive experiment is to image a U-shaped or disconnected anomaly, where the uniqueness theorem's geometric conditions

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in the joint inversion of seismic and gravity data, the density function should be written as ρ(r)=f(r)H(φ(r)) — a known density-contrast value f times the indicator of a region D — and the velocity as c(r)=c1(r)H(φ(r))+c2(r)(1−H(φ(r))). Because the same level-set function φ carries both parameterizations, the boundary of the salt body or other anomaly is the single object being inverted. The authors further claim that with the weight ω(n)=ω1(n)ω2(n), where ω1 scales the gravity gradient to the waveform gradient and ω2 decays exponentially, the gravity data first establish the large-scale deep structure and the waveform data then refine it. This reverses the usual one-w

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme hinges on two priors: the density contrast f(r) is known ahead of time, and the wave-velocity anomaly and the density anomaly are exactly the same body with one common boundary; if either fails in the field—say a velocity-only sediment boundary or an unknown salt density—the gravity data can pull the reconstructed interface to a false location.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deep and laterally extended structures that full-waveform inversion alone cannot resolve become recoverable from surface data, because gravity with a known density contrast supplies large-scale information through the shared interface.
  • The recovered velocity model remains nearly correct even when gravity noise degrades the density reconstruction, so the velocity and density outputs complement each other.
  • The method requires no explicit velocity-density formula; structural coincidence replaces petrophysical composition, which is useful where rock-physics relations are unknown.
  • The interface-penalty and reinitialization steps keep the level-set evolution stable, so the joint inversion can be run from a very general initial guess.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The real test of the shared-interface assumption is geology where velocity and density boundaries do not coincide; in such settings a single level-set function would either flatten the velocity image or create a spurious interface, and a multi-level-set extension would be needed.
  • Inference: Because the density contrast f is imposed a priori, the method does not estimate the magnitude of the density anomaly; treating f as unknown with its own regularization would make the method applicable where salt or basement densities are not well constrained.
  • Inference: The balanced-decaying weight is essentially a continuation schedule on the data terms; the same schedule could be ported to other multi-physics inversions, with the early dataset chosen as the one providing the fastest large-scale constraint.
  • Inference: Since the uniqueness theorem's geometric conditions are relaxed in the algorithm, a U-shaped or disconnected anomaly is the natural stress test for whether the gravity information remains reliable outside the proven regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a level-set structural method for the joint inversion of full-waveform and gravity data. The velocity and density fields are parameterized by a single level-set function and a known density-contrast function f(r), with the interior velocity c1(r) often fixed a priori. A balanced and exponentially decaying weight is introduced to let gravity dominate early iterations and full-waveform data dominate later. The method is tested on four synthetic examples, including a 2D SEG/EAGE salt model, and compared with isolated FWI and gravity inversion. The central claim is that the joint inversion integrates the strengths of both datasets and produces superior reconstructions, especially for deep or extended salt structures.

Significance. If the claims are robust, the paper offers a practically attractive way to impose structural coupling between velocity and density: instead of penalty terms, the shared interface is represented explicitly, and prior information such as f and c1 is inserted directly. The use of an existing open-source FWI engine (Deepwave) and the clear statement of Algorithm 1 are strengths. The main significance, however, is conditional: the four synthetic tests are generated inside the model class defined by Eq. (6), with f and c1 prescribed, so the numerical evidence does not yet establish robustness to the central structural assumption. The theoretical justification via Theorem 2.1 is also invoked in a regime the theorem does not cover.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2] Theorem 2.1 is the paper's principal justification for extracting 'unambiguous information' from gravity data, but the algorithm uses only the vertical component g_z (Eq. (5)) rather than the full modulus |∇U|, and it explicitly drops the geometric conditions (star-shaped, convex, or convex-in-one-direction) required by the theorem. No proof, counterexample analysis, or numerical test is given to show that the uniqueness benefit survives these relaxations. In addition, Example 3 uses f(r)=(1.8-z)*0.2, which is not constant and may violate condition (3) of Theorem 2.1 depending on the chosen direction. The theoretical claim that gravity contributes meaningful information therefore needs either an extended theorem, a precise statement of the regularity regime in which the method operates, or substantially softened wording.
  2. [Sections 5.2.1-5.2.4] All synthetic true models satisfy the shared-interface parameterization (6) exactly, with the same f(r) and c1(r) used as known priors in the inversion. The waveform and gravity data are generated with the same numerical solvers and the same spatial mesh employed in the inversion (an inverse-crime configuration). The claim in Section 5.2.3 that the joint inversion 'produces superior solutions that closely match the true model' is therefore a demonstration within the exact generative class, not a test of the method's robustness. No experiment considers a velocity-only or density-only boundary, a misspecified f, an unknown c1, or a different forward discretization. The conclusions in Section 6 should be reframed as proof-of-concept, or additional out-of-class experiments should be added.
  3. [Equation (27)] The gravity gradient term in Eq. (27) is f(r) δτ(φ) times the gravity residual. If the structural assumption fails or f is misspecified, this term still moves the shared interface φ, and through Eq. (6) it changes the velocity reconstruction via (c1-c2)δτ(φ). Thus a density anomaly with no velocity counterpart, or an incorrect density contrast, will not merely fail to help; it can actively create a spurious velocity interface. The manuscript does not analyze this mechanism or provide experiments that bound the resulting bias. Given that the paper's central novelty is the shared-interface coupling, this is a load-bearing robustness question.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Tables 2, 3, 4, 5] The notation α_{v2} appears to mean α_{c2}, and λ_{c1} is absent although the optimization problem in Eq. (16) includes λ_{c1} E_{c1}. Please clarify whether c1 is always frozen and, if so, state this consistently in the text and tables.
  2. [Section 3.2.3] The terms '2-1 norm TV regularization' and '1-1 norm TV regularization' are nonstandard as written. Please define them explicitly, e.g., as the l2 norm of the gradient magnitude or the sum of absolute partial derivatives, so that the distinction is clear.
  3. [Section 3.2.1] There is a typo: 'repeatedlly' should be 'repeatedly'.
  4. [Section 5.2.4] The SSIM comparison is only reported for the velocity model; an SSIM or similar metric for the density reconstruction would help support the claim of complementary information in the noisy case, where the density result is visibly degraded (Figure 16(f)).
  5. [Section 6] The limitations paragraph is candid about slow convergence, hyperparameter selection, and Deepwave scalability. It would be useful to also explicitly note that the shared-interface prior and the prescription of f and c1 are untested when violated, since that is the main limitation of the numerical evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the joint inversion uses explicit priors and independent forward models; the cited uniqueness theorem is external (Isakov) and the adaptive weight is a scale-balancing heuristic.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The level-set coupling (Eq. 6) is an explicit structural prior: 'we assume that the wave velocity c(r) and the anomalous density ρ(r) have the same interface structure' (Section 3.1). The two data misfits (Eq. 11) come from genuinely different physical forward models: the acoustic wave equation (Eq. 1) and the gravity integral (Eq. 5). The shared level-set function φ is estimated by minimizing both, so the recovered interface is not defined by a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The balanced-decaying weight (Eqs. 30–33) is computed from current gradient magnitudes, not from the final answer; it is a scale-balancing heuristic and does not encode the recovered model. Theorem 2.1 is cited from Isakov's book [16] (external), with [26] and [5] as additional pointers; the uniqueness theorem is an external mathematical result, and the paper explicitly relaxes its geometric requirements ('we will not enforce these geometric constraints on D', Section 2.2), so it is not used to force the conclusion. The numerical tests construct true models inside the assumed form of Eq. (6) and impose the same density-contrast f and interior velocity c1 as priors (Algorithm 1 'freeze the density-contrast value f based on prior information'). This limits external validity and robustness to misspecified structure, as the skeptic notes, but it is not circular: the paper declares those values as priors rather than claiming to predict them. The acknowledged limitations in Section 6 (slow convergence, many hyper-parameters, Deepwave scalability) are flagged by the authors and are unrelated to circularity. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation or to an equation's own definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is built almost entirely on domain assumptions: the two forward models, the shared-interface hypothesis, the fixed density contrast, and the relaxed use of the uniqueness theorem. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are priors and hyperparameters that must be supplied externally.

free parameters (6)
  • Density contrast f(r) = 2.0 g/cm^3 (Examples 1-2); (1.8 - z)*0.2 g/cm^3 (Examples 3-4)
    Imposed as a priori information (Section 2.2, Algorithm 1 step 1). The gravity data are informative only once this value is fixed; in practice it must be known independently.
  • Velocity value inside the anomaly c1(r) = 4.0 km/s (Ex1), 4.348 km/s (Ex2), 4.482 km/s (Ex3-4)
    Frozen in all numerical examples (Sections 5.2.1-5.2.4). The recovered velocity is the outside background c2 plus the level-set boundary; the interior value is prescribed, not inverted.
  • Gravity lead-in weight omega0 = 5 (all examples)
    Chosen by hand in the decaying weight omega2 = omega0 e^{-lambda n} (Section 4). It sets gravity dominance in early iterations.
  • Decay exponent lambda = ln(50)/n_max, n_max = 2e4
    Chosen by hand; controls how fast FWI takes over from gravity.
  • Regularization weights lambda_phi, lambda_c1, lambda_c2 = e.g., lambda_phi = 5e-5 or 2e-6, lambda_c2 = 1e-4 (Tables 2-5)
    Tuned per example and per noise level. No sensitivity analysis is given and the central results depend on these choices.
  • Smoothing width tau and optimizer step sizes = tau = grid size; epsilon and alpha_phi set per example
    Algorithmic hyperparameters that affect interface thickness and convergence; reported but not analyzed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The acoustic wave equation (1) with PML and the gravity integral (5) with vertical gz are adequate forward models for the subsurface.
    Section 2.1. All synthetic data are generated and inverted with these equations; the method inherits their limitations, including no elastic effects.
  • domain assumption Theorem 2.1 (well-posedness of inverse gravimetry) is valid, and its guarantees transfer to the relaxed algorithm even though D is not enforced to be star-shaped, convex, or convex in one direction.
    Section 2.2 states the theorem and then explicitly relaxes the geometric constraints. No proof is given that the heuristic 'closer to the requirements, more accurate' holds for the actual level-set update.
  • domain assumption Velocity c and density rho share the same interface and can be represented by a single level-set function (Eq. 6).
    This is the central structural coupling. If a subsurface interface is velocity-only or density-only, the parameterization is wrong.
  • domain assumption Using only the vertical component gz, with known f(r), provides enough information to guide the inversion when combined with waveform data.
    Theorem 2.1 is stated for |grad U|, but only gz is measured. The paper builds a heuristic bridge, not a theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A level-set structural approach for multi-physics joint inversion using full-waveform and gravity data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DCQWWC2V

@misc{pith2026250906689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A level-set structural approach for multi-physics joint inversion using full-waveform and gravity data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DCQWWC2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06689}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a level-set based structural approach for the joint inversion of full-waveform and gravity data. The joint inversion aims to integrate the strengths of full-waveform inversion for high resolution imaging and gravity inversion for detecting density contrasts over extensive regions. Although common studies typically only observe full-waveform inversion assisting gravity inversion, we propose three key points that enable gravity data to complement full-waveform data in the joint inversion. (i) Based on the well-posedness theorem, we consider a volume mass distribution where the density-contrast value is imposed as a priori information, ensuring that the gravity data provide meaningful information. (ii) We utilize a level-set formulation to characterize the shared interface of wave velocity and density functions, connecting multi-physics datasets via the structural similarity of their inversion parameters. (iii) We develop a balanced and decaying weight to regulate the influence of multi-physics datasets during joint inversion. This weight comprises a balanced part that accounts for the differing scales of full-waveform and gravity data, and a decaying part designed to effectively utilize the features and advantages of each dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06689 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ricker wavelet with and without the low-frequency cutoff. The red dashed line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example 1: velocity model and full-waveform inversion result. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example 1: density model and gravity inversion result. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example 1: Convergence history of the joint inversion. The blue line plots the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example 1: joint inversion result. (a) Initial model for velocity; (b) initial model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example 2: a dipping structure; models and data. The color scale of waveform data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example 2: full-waveform inversion results. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example 2: gravity inversion results. The initial density guess is shown in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example 2: joint inversion results. (a) Initial model for velocity; (b) initial model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example 3: a salt model. (a) True velocity model; (b) true density model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example 3: measurement data. The color scale of waveform data is clipped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Example 3: joint inversion results. (a) Initial model for velocity; (b) initial model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Example 3: solutions of pure full-waveform inversion (FWI) and pure gravity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Example 4: 2D SEG/EAGE salt model. (a) True velocity model; (b) true density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Example 4: measurement data. The color scale of waveform data is clipped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Example 4: joint inversion results. (a) Initial model for velocity; (b) initial model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Example 4: solutions of pure full-waveform inversion and pure gravity inversion, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Joint inversion approaches for geophysical electromagnetic and elastic full-waveform data.Inverse problems, 28(5):055016, 2012

    Aria Abubakar, G Gao, Tarek M Habashy, and J Liu. Joint inversion approaches for geophysical electromagnetic and elastic full-waveform data.Inverse problems, 28(5):055016, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Joint inversion of refraction and gravity data for the three-dimensional topography of a sediment–basement interface.Geophysical Journal International, 151(1):243–254, 2002

    Afnimar, Kazuki Koketsu, and Koichi Nakagawa. Joint inversion of refraction and gravity data for the three-dimensional topography of a sediment–basement interface.Geophysical Journal International, 151(1):243–254, 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Aminzadeh, J

    F. Aminzadeh, J. Brac, and T. Kunz.3-Dsalt and overthrust models, SEG/EAGE 3-D Modeling Series No. 1. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    F. Birch. The velocity of compressional waves in rocks to 10 kilobars.Journal of Geophysical Research, 66:2199–2224, 1961

    work page 1961

  5. [5]

    Learning on the correctness class for domain inverse problems of gravimetry.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 5(3):035072, 2024

    Yihang Chen and Wenbin Li. Learning on the correctness class for domain inverse problems of gravimetry.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 5(3):035072, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    A comparative study of structural similarity and regularization for joint inverse problems governed by pdes.Inverse Problems, 35(2):024003, 2018

    Benjamin Crestel, Georg Stadler, and Omar Ghattas. A comparative study of structural similarity and regularization for joint inverse problems governed by pdes.Inverse Problems, 35(2):024003, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    A global integration platform for optimizing cooperative modeling and simultaneous joint inversion of multi-domain geophysical data

    Paolo Dell’Aversana, Giancarlo Bernasconi, Fabio Chiappa, et al. A global integration platform for optimizing cooperative modeling and simultaneous joint inversion of multi-domain geophysical data. Aims Geosciences, 2(1):1–31, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Dorn and D

    O. Dorn and D. Lesselier. Level set methods for inverse scattering.Inverse Problems, 22:R67–R131, 2006

    2006

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Total variation regularization strategies in full-waveform inversion.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 11(1):376–406, 2018

    Ernie Esser, Lluis Guasch, Tristan van Leeuwen, Aleksandr Y Aravkin, and Felix J Herrmann. Total variation regularization strategies in full-waveform inversion.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 11(1):376–406, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Joint two-dimensional dc resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross-gradients constraints.Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 109(B3), 2004

    Luis A Gallardo and Max A Meju. Joint two-dimensional dc resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross-gradients constraints.Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 109(B3), 2004

    2004

  3. [11]

    L. A. Gallardo-Delgado, M. A. P´ erez-Flores, and E. G´ omez-Trevi˜ no. A versatile algorithm for joint 3D inversion of gravity and magnetic data.Geophysics, 68:949–959, 2003

    2003

  4. [12]

    G. H. F. Gardner, L. W. Gardner, and A. R. Gregory. Formation velocity and density-the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps.Geophysics, 39:770–780, 1974

    1974

  5. [13]

    The split Bregman method for L1-regularized problems.SIAM journal on imaging sciences, 2(2):323–343, 2009

    Tom Goldstein and Stanley Osher. The split Bregman method for L1-regularized problems.SIAM journal on imaging sciences, 2(2):323–343, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    Joint inversion: a structural approach.Inverse problems, 13(1):63, 1997

    E Haber and D Oldenburg. Joint inversion: a structural approach.Inverse problems, 13(1):63, 1997

    1997

  7. [15]

    A joint inversion algorithm to process geoelectric and surface wave seismic data

    A Hering, R Misiek, A Gyulai, T Ormos, M Dobr´ oka, and L Dresen. A joint inversion algorithm to process geoelectric and surface wave seismic data. part i: basic ideas.Geophysical Prospecting, 43:135–156, 1995

    1995

  8. [16]

    American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, Multi-physics joint inversion using full-waveform and gravity data33 1990

    Victor Isakov.Inverse source problems. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, Multi-physics joint inversion using full-waveform and gravity data33 1990

    1990

  9. [17]

    A fast local level set method for inverse gravimetry

    Victor Isakov, Shingyu Leung, and Jianliang Qian. A fast local level set method for inverse gravimetry. Communications in Computational Physics, 10:1044–1070, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    3-d joint inversion of seismic waveform and airborne gravity gradiometry data

    Wenbin Jiang. 3-d joint inversion of seismic waveform and airborne gravity gradiometry data. Geophysical Journal International, 223(2):746–764, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Notes on perfectly matched layers (PMLs).arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.05348, 2021

    Steven G Johnson. Notes on perfectly matched layers (PMLs).arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.05348, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A convex formulation for binary tomography.IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging, 6:1–11, 2019

    Ajinkya Kadu and Tristan van Leeuwen. A convex formulation for binary tomography.IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging, 6:1–11, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Efficient 1.5 d full waveform inversion in the laplace-fourier domain.Inverse Problems, 39(7):075012, 2023

    Apostolos Kontakis, Diego Rovetta, Daniele Colombo, and Ernesto Sandoval-Curiel. Efficient 1.5 d full waveform inversion in the laplace-fourier domain.Inverse Problems, 39(7):075012, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Joint inversion of seismic traveltimes and gravity data on unstructured grids with application to mineral exploration.Geophysics, 77(1):K1–K15, 2012

    P G Leli` evre, C G Farquharson, and C A Hurich. Joint inversion of seismic traveltimes and gravity data on unstructured grids with application to mineral exploration.Geophysics, 77(1):K1–K15, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    A level-set adjoint-state method for crosswell transmission-reflection traveltime tomography.Geophysical Journal International, 199(1):348–367, 2014

    Wenbin Li, Shingyu Leung, and Jianliang Qian. A level-set adjoint-state method for crosswell transmission-reflection traveltime tomography.Geophysical Journal International, 199(1):348–367, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    A level set method for imaging salt structures using gravity data.Geophysics, 81(2):G35–G51, 2016

    Wenbin Li, Wangtao Lu, and Jianliang Qian. A level set method for imaging salt structures using gravity data.Geophysics, 81(2):G35–G51, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Simultaneously recovering both domain and varying density in inverse gravimetry by efficient level-set methods.Inverse Problems and Imaging, 15(3):387–413, 2021

    Wenbin Li and Jianliang Qian. Simultaneously recovering both domain and varying density in inverse gravimetry by efficient level-set methods.Inverse Problems and Imaging, 15(3):387–413, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Li and D

    Y. Li and D. Oldenburg. 3D inversion of gravity data.Geophysics, 63:109–119, 1998

    1998

  20. [28]

    Litman, D

    A. Litman, D. Lesselier, and F. Santosa. Reconstruction of a two-dimensional binary obstacle by controlled evolution of a level-set.Inverse Problems, 14:685–706, 1998

    1998

  21. [29]

    On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization

    Dong C Liu and Jorge Nocedal. On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization. Mathematical programming, 45(1):503–528, 1989

    1989

  22. [30]

    An optimal transport approach for seismic tomography: Application to 3d full waveform inversion.Inverse Problems, 32(11):115008, 2016

    Ludovic M´ etivier, Romain Brossier, Quentin Merigot, Edouard Oudet, and Jean Virieux. An optimal transport approach for seismic tomography: Application to 3d full waveform inversion.Inverse Problems, 32(11):115008, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Moorkamp, B

    M. Moorkamp, B. Heincke, M. Jegen, A. W. Roberts, and R. W. Hobbs. A framework for 3-D joint inversion of MT, gravity and seismic refraction data.Geophysical Journal International, 184:477–493, 2011

    2011

  24. [32]

    Nielsen and B

    L. Nielsen and B. H. Jacobsen. Integrated gravity and wide-angle seismic inversion for two-dimensional crustal modelling.Geophysical Journal International, 140:222–232, 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    S. J. Osher and J. A. Sethian. Fronts propagating with curvature dependent speed: algorithms based on Hamilton-Jacobi formulations.J. Comput. Phys., 79:12–49, 1988. Multi-physics joint inversion using full-waveform and gravity data34

    1988

  26. [34]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    Stanley Osher and Ronald Fedkiw.Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces, volume 153. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  27. [35]

    R. E. Plessix. A review of the adjoint-state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications.Geophysical Journal International, 167:495–503, 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Deepwave

    Alan Richardson. Deepwave. Software: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8381177, September 2023

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Inversion modeling of multiple geophysical data sets for geothermal exploration: application to roosevelt hot springs area

    J M Savino, W L Rodi, and J F Masso. Inversion modeling of multiple geophysical data sets for geothermal exploration: application to roosevelt hot springs area. final report. Technical report, S-Cubed, La Jolla, CA (USA), 1982

    1982

  30. [38]

    Cooperative full waveform and gravimetric inversion.J

    Raul U Silva, Jonas D De Basabe, Mrinal K Sen, Mario Gonzalez-Escobar, Enrique Gomez-Trevino, and Selene Solorza-Calderon. Cooperative full waveform and gravimetric inversion.J. Seismic Exploration, 29(6):549–573, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Sussman, P

    M. Sussman, P. Smereka, and S. J. Osher. A level set approach for computing solutions to incompressible two-phase flows.Journal of computational physics, 114:146–159, 1994

    1994

  32. [40]

    Mitigating local minima in full-waveform inversion by expanding the search space.Geophysical Journal International, 195(1):661–667, 2013

    Tristan Van Leeuwen and Felix J Herrmann. Mitigating local minima in full-waveform inversion by expanding the search space.Geophysical Journal International, 195(1):661–667, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics

    Jean Virieux and St´ ephane Operto. An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics, 74(6):WCC1–WCC26, 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    Fwigan: Full-waveform inversion via a physics-informed generative adversarial network.Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 128(4):e2022JB025493, 2023

    Fangshu Yang and Jianwei Ma. Fwigan: Full-waveform inversion via a physics-informed generative adversarial network.Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 128(4):e2022JB025493, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Total variation regularization for seismic waveform inversion using an adaptive primal dual hybrid gradient method.Inverse Problems, 34(4):045006, 2018

    Peng Yong, Wenyuan Liao, Jianping Huang, and Zhenchun Li. Total variation regularization for seismic waveform inversion using an adaptive primal dual hybrid gradient method.Inverse Problems, 34(4):045006, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.