Mantle viscosity inference: A comparison between simulated annealing and neighbourhood algorithm inversion methods

Geophysical Journal International

Volumn 157, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 890-900

  Agostinetti, N Piana ^a   Spada, G ^b   Cianetti, S ^a  

^a ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI GEOFISICA E VULCANOLOGIA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF URBINO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Mantle viscosity; Neighbourhood algorithm; Postglacial rebound; Simulated annealing

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; MANTLE; POSTGLACIAL REBOUND; SIMULATED ANNEALING; VISCOSITY;

EID: 2542627438     PISSN: 0956540X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02237.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Cianetti, S., Giunchi, C. & Spada, G., 2002. Mantle viscosity beneath the Hudson Bay: an inversion based on the Metropolis algorithm, J. geophys. Res., 107, B12, doi: 10.1029/200IJB000585.
2. Johnston, P.J. & Lambeck, K., 2000. Automatic inference of ice models from postglacial sea level observations: theory and application to the British Isles. J geophys. Res., 105, B6, 13 179-13 194.
3. King, S.D., 1995. Radial models of mantle viscosity: results from a genetic algorithm, Geophys. J. Int., 122, 725-734.
4. Lomax, A. & Snieder, R., 1995. Identifying sets of acceptable solutions to non-linear, geophysical inverse problems which have complicated misfit functions. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 2, 222-227.
5. Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A.W., Rosenbluth, N.M., Teller, A.H. & Teller, E., 1953. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines, J. Chem. Phys., 1(6), 1087-1092.
6. Milne, G.A., Mitrovica, J.X. & Forte, A.M., 1998. The sensitivity of glacial isostatic adjustment predictions to a low-viscosity layer at the base of the upper mantle, Earth planet. Sci. Lett., 154, 265-278.
7. Mitrovica, J.X., 1996. Haskell (1935) revisited, J. geophys. Res., 101, 555-569.
8. Mitrovica, J.X. & Peltier, W.R., 1995. Constraints on mantle viscosity based upon the inversion of post-glacial uplift data from the Hudson Bay region, Geophys. J. Int., 122, 353-377.
9. Mitrovica, J.X., Forte, A.M. & Simons, M., 2000. A reappraisal of postglacial decay times from Richmond gulf and James Bay, Canada, Geophys. J. Int., 142, 783-800.
10. Mosegaard, K. & Tarantola, A., 1995. Monte Carlo sampling of solutions to inverse problems, J. geophys. Res., 100, B7, 12 431-12 447.
11. Mosegaard, K. & Tarantola, A., 2002. Probabilistic approach to inverse problems, in, International handbook of Earthquake and engineering seismology, pp. 237-265, eds, Lee, W.H.K. et al., Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
12. Peltier, W.R., 1998. Postglacial variations in the level of the sea: implications for climate dynamics and solid-earth geophysics, Rev. Geophys., 36(4), 603-689.
13. Ricard, Y., Vigny, C. & Froidevaux, C., 1989. Mantle heterogeneities, geoid and plate motions: a Monte Carlo inversion, J. geophys. Res., 94, 13 739-13 754.
14. Ritzwoller, M.H., Shapiro, N.M., Levshin, A.L. & Leahy, G.M., 2001. Crustal and upper mantle structure beneath Antarctica and surrounding oceans, J. geophys. Res., 106, B12,30 645-30 670.
15. Sambridge, M., 1998. Exploring multidimensional landscapes without a map, Inverse Problems, 14, 427-440.
16. Sambridge, M., 1999a. Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm-I. Searching a parameter space, Geophys. J. Int., 138, 479-494.
17. Sambridge, M., 1999b. Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm-II. Appraising the ensemble, Geophys. J. Int., 138, 727-746.
18. Sambridge, M., 2001. Finding acceptable models in nonlinear inverse problems using a neighbourhood algorithm, Inverse Problems, 17, 387-403.
19. Sambridge, M. & Mosegaard, K., 2002. Monte Carlo methods in geophysical inverse problems, Rev. Geophys., 40(3), doi:10.1029/2000RG000089.
20. Shapiro, N.M. & Ritzwoller, M.H., 2002. Monte-Carlo inversion for a global shear-velocity model of the crust and upper mantle, Geophys. J. Int., 151, 88-105.
21. Shibutani, T., Sambridge, M. & Kennett, B., 1996. Genetic algorithm inversion for receiver functions with application to crust and uppermost mantle structure beneath eastern Australia, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23(14), 1829-1832.
22. Snoke, J.A. & Sambridge, M., 2002. Constraints on the s wave velocity structure in a continental shield from surface wave data: comparing linearized least squares inversion and the direct search neighbourhood algorithm, J. geophys. Res., 107, B5, doi:10.1029/2001JB000498.
23. Spada, G., 2001. Mantle viscosity from Monte Carlo inversion of very long baseline interferometry data, J. geophys. Res., 106, B8, 16 375-16 385.
24. Spada, G., Sabadini, R., Yuen, D.A. & Ricard, Y., 1992. Effects on postglacial rebound from the hard rheology of the transition zone, Geophys. J. Int., 109, 683-700.
25. Tushingham, A.M. & Peltier, W.R., 1991. ICE-3G: a new global model of late Pleistocene deglaciation based upon geophysical predictions of post-glacial relative sea level change, J. geophys. Res., 96, B3, 4497-4523.
26. Velicogna, I. & Wahr, J., 2002. Postglacial rebound and Earth's viscosity structure from GRACE, J. geophys. Res., 107, B12, doi:10.1029/2001JB001735.
27. Walcott, R.I., 1972. Late quaternary vertical movements in eastern north America: quantitative evidence of glacio-isostatic rebound, Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 10, 849-884.
28. Wessel, P. & Smith, W. H. F, 1998. New, improved version of the Generic Mapping Tools released. EOS, Trans. Am. geophys. Un., 79, 579.