Uncertainty and Resolution Analysis of 2D and 3D Inversion Models Computed from Geophysical Electromagnetic Data

Abstract

A meaningful solution to an inversion problem should be composed of the preferred inversion model and its uncertainty and resolution estimates. The model uncertainty estimate describes an equivalent model domain in which each model generates responses which fit the observed data to within a threshold value. The model resolution matrix measures to what extent the unknown true solution maps into the preferred solution. However, most current geophysical electromagnetic (also gravity, magnetic and seismic) inversion studies only offer the preferred inversion model and ignore model uncertainty and resolution estimates, which makes the reliability of the preferred inversion model questionable. This may be caused by the fact that the computation and analysis of an inversion model depend on multiple factors, such as the misfit or objective function, the accuracy of the forward solvers, data coverage and noise, values of trade-off parameters, the initial model, the reference model and the model constraints. Depending on the particular method selected, large computational costs ensue. In this review, we first try to cover linearised model analysis tools such as the sensitivity matrix, the model resolution matrix and the model covariance matrix also providing a partially nonlinear description of the equivalent model domain based on pseudo-hyperellipsoids. Linearised model analysis tools can offer quantitative measures. In particular, the model resolution and covariance matrices measure how far the preferred inversion model is from the true model and how uncertainty in the measurements maps into model uncertainty. We also cover nonlinear model analysis tools including changes to the preferred inversion model (nonlinear sensitivity tests), modifications of the data set (using bootstrap re-sampling and generalised cross-validation), modifications of data uncertainty, variations of model constraints (including changes to the trade-off parameter, reference model and matrix regularisation operator), the edgehog method, mostsquares inversion and global searching algorithms. These nonlinear model analysis tools try to explore larger parts of the model domain than linearised model analysis and, hence, may assemble a more comprehensive equivalent model domain. Then, to overcome the bottleneck of computational cost in model analysis, we present several practical algorithms to accelerate the computation. Here, we emphasise linearised model analysis, as efficient computation of nonlinear model uncertainty and resolution estimates is mainly determined by fast forward and inversion solvers. In the last part of our review, we present applications of model analysis to models computed from individual and joint inversions of electromagnetic data; we also describe optimal survey design and inversion grid design as important Extended author information available on the last page of the article applications of model analysis. The currently available model uncertainty and resolution analyses are mainly for 1D and 2D problems due to the limitation...

A Lithosphere‐Asthenosphere Boundary and Partial Melt Estimated Using Marine Magnetotelluric Data at the Central Middle Atlantic Ridge

“…Uncertainty in the inversions was qualitatively evaluated by testing inversions with different parameters, skin depth analysis (Huang, 2005), sensitivity analysis (Ren & Kalscheuer, 2019; Wang, Bastani, Constable, et al, 2019), model perturbation tests (Key et al, 2013), and synthetic tests (Wang, Bastani, Constable, et al, 2019). Those steps provide confidence that the anomalies in the resistivity models are robust and reliable.…”

“…The skin depth defined by Huang (2005) shows that the signals at the longest period are deeper than 150 km at all stations. Although we have achieved a good fit to the data, we examine the robustness of our anomalies that may be caused by gaps in data coverage at some parts of the profiles and the nonuniqueness of inversions (Menke, 1989;Ren & Kalscheuer, 2019).…”

Toward Retrieving Distributed Aquifer Hydraulic Parameters From Distributed Strain Sensing

“…Because of the combined effect of parameter crosstalk and data noise, the current solution may be solely a near-optimal solution. A choice of other inversion methods (such as the adjoint-based method; Vasco & Mali, 2020) and global optimization methods (Comola et al, 2016;Jones, et al, 1998), or a better regularization technique (Aster et al, 2018;Menke, 2018;Ren & Kalscheuer, 2020) may improve the solution.…”

Electrical Conductivity Versus Temperature in Freezing Conditions: A Field Experiment Using a Basket Geothermal Heat Exchanger

“…Note the samples have been remolded, which can explain why the value of T C is different between the field data and the core samples. Other models have been developed in the past to account for the effect of the temperature on the electrical conductivity curve (see, for instance, Minsley et al, 2015;Ren & Kalscheuer, 2019). However, our model is the first to account simultaneously for a number of effects (shown in Figure 6) including (1) the effect of the temperature on the ionic mobility of the charge carriers, (2) a soil freezing curve and its effect on the relationship between temperature and the liquid water content, and (3) the residual water saturation and the effect of the salt segregation.…”