For parameters, the simplest model that explain all your data points is certainly the best

choice.

First of all, for density there is no need have more than one layer unless you have good
reasons. The dispersion curves are relatively not sensitive to density except in rare cases
and given the usual uncertainties of dispersion curves. So the best choice is to set an
average value (e.g. 2000 kg/m3) constant for all depths.

For Poisson's ratio, in the current release it is no possible to fix it. Future releases under
preparation do now accept fixed values, to invert only for Vs. Poisson's ratio is not a
parameter but just a condition. Random parameters are Vp and Vs and only models with a
Poisson's ratio in the given range are generated. If you have no prior information available
the distribution of Poisson's ratio with depth, you should set only one layer with the range
you want. If you have more than one layer, you must set interface depths to fixed values or
link them to other profiles. If not, you will have some sort of floating conditions, usually not
what we want.

Vs is the best resolved parameter. Vp can be resolved in some cases but the reason of Vp is
mostly for cases where we have no idea of Vp profile. By leaving a relative freedom to Vp,
we avoid biases to Vs results if Vp were badly chosen. In most cases, Vp has a very low
influence on the final Vs profile but in some not (e.g. stiff rocks). I would suggest a simple
profile with two layers including half-space for Vp. The number of layer for Vs can be any.
We usually link the Vp interface to the Vs interface where we expect the boundary between
stiff rocks and soft sediments. For instance, I can resolve 4 layers in Vs which correspond to
a single value of Vp. Depth of Vp0 must be linked to Vs3 in this case. Not linking might be
useful if you have a refined Vp profile from other experiments. You can enter the precise Vp
structure and generate a Vs profile that is completely disconnected (e.g. a water level
visible on Vp not necessarily influencing Vs values at the same depth).

For the number of layers, I would recommend to start with a low number, let's say 2 or 3. 2
often generates a too rigid parameterizations and a bit more degrees of freedom are
required. Then progressively increase the number if data fit is improved, if not you
probably reached the minimum number of parameter required to explain your data curve.

For a layer with a 'Bottom depth', do I select the range say from 9000-10000m, and the
algorithm varies this range to give the best fit, if 'Fixed' is not selected?

Right, random depths will be generated between 9000 and 10000 m. Do not be afraid of
having a large range (e.g. 1000 to 10000) for a first try, to test roughly what can be inferred
from your data. If it fails, try to restrict ranges. Same remark for velocity ranges. About
depth or thickness, depths are preferred, see literature why (Wathelet 2008).

Depth range can overlap. You can start with all layers from 1 to 10000 m. Internally, depths
are handled with a constitutive condition that their value increase as the layer index
increases, to avoid negative thicknesses.
The seed value has little meaning... especially for a parallelized NA core. We are keeping the seed
adjustement for debug purposes only. In this case, a single threaded inversion must be used (dinver
started from command line with "dinver -j 1", see "dinver -h all" for details). According to the CPU
load on your cores, the set of generated models will never be exactly the same, even with the same
seed.

Having distinct misfits for distinct runs with the same parameters is to be expected when the
inversion is not perfectly exploring the parameter space. When the number of layers is increasing
the complexity of the parameter space increases as well, and the minimum is more difficult to find.
About your tuning parameters, I would not suggest to have Ns>Nr if you want to achieve the best
exploration. One extreme case is Nr=1, a very selective one. The inversion gets easily trapped in
local minima and great variability in obtained misfits is expected.

I noticed that you usually need a sufficiently broad band for group dispersion curve to be
successful. However, I have very little experience with the inversion of group velocities. We
generally get phase velocities. With group velocities, the inversion problem is a little bit more
difficult than with phase. I'm half surprised that you get various misfits with changing seeds. Are
the ground profiles much different in those runs? Do they correspond to distinct model families? If
so, you may want to prevent the inversion to explore one of those (set velocity or depth limits to
forbid some areas of the parameter space). Are they all consistent with you prior information?

You might be interested by fixing the Poisson's ratio. Only the "devel" release can achieve it if you
tolerate a little more instabilities.

For the bottom layer I ticked the 'fixed' box for DVs0 to 10000m, then HVs1 and HVs2 as
thickness for 1 to 10000m range

Counting of layer is in the other way. If you have 4 layers, DVs0 is the depth of the most
superficial and DVs2 is the depth of the deepest interface. I would not use thicknesses but
depths for all layers. I kept thickness during development, to test and compare things. As
explained in Wathelet (2008, GRL) depths are better than thicknesses for stochastic
methods. If you want the deepest interface at 10 km, yes, you can tick the fixed check box,
or if you not 100% that it is 10 km, leave a small range of variation.

When you invert group velocity data, the non-uniqueness is bit larger than for phase
velocity.

Looking at your figures, there is something wrong but can't find what it is. Can you save the dinver
environment (File/Save as) and send me the .dinver file. *_report directory is no required.

You'd better tick the Vs*>Vs* or Vp*>Vp* conditions, at least for the last layer (the bottom half
space). For the majority of models, if the Vs3 (in your case) is less than for upper layers, leaky
modes are common and the forward computation will certainly fail, which does not hurt too much
the final result except that it slows down the process. If you remove that condition for all other
layers, you can drastically increase the non-uniqueness of the problem. Usually, I remove that
condition only under special circumstances when the geology supports it or if there is no other way
to fit a dispersion curve.

Having a look at your dinver file, I finally got your question, sorry for the delay:

Is this because the program only plots velocity that varies? If the velocity doesn't change after
a certain depth (i.e. profile goes straight) it's not included in the plot?

The answer is simply yes. The y axis is adjusted to the deepest velocity change plus a small
percentage (cannot remember how much exactly). If you want to plot things down to 10
km you can adjust the y-axis range using the properties (context menu or double click on
the graph).

When you create an inversion run, the current target and parameterization is copied into
the new run. In other words, if you change the parameterization afterwards if does not
affect the already created runs. To review the parameters and the targets of the run created
so far, you can switch to "show" mode in menu "Run". The parameter window becomes
read-only. Hence, the 3 runs you created have all 3 layers from 1 to 10 km, none of them
has a fixed depth at 10 km as stated in the current parameterization, valid for next created
run. If these explanations are somewhat unclear, do not hesitate.