1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 20, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Assessing the reliability of inversion models derived from geophysical measurements is crucial for a reliable interpretation. An interpretation depends critically on the interpreter being able to discern between the characteristics of the inversion model that can be trusted as more or less well resolved and the ones that are more dubious. This paper analyses the resolution measure ‘depth of investigation’ from a conceptual and a computational viewpoint and proposes two definitions that incorporate all aspects of the inversion and that are free of a user‐defined ad hoc parameter. Two more resolution attributes are introduced: a qualified depth of investigation and the depth of required structure . The first one answers the question: What is the minimum depth to a homogeneous halfspace with an interpreter‐defined conductivity that will not increase the data residual more than a certain amount? The second one is an ‘unqualified’ depth of investigation that addresses the question: What is the minimum depth to a homogeneous halfspace with any conductivity that will not increase the data residual more than a certain amount? This latter measure indicates the depth below which no structure is needed to fit the data. Finally, measures are defined that will provide estimates of the vertical resolution width as a function of depth. All of the resolution measures presented in this paper are based on the posterior model resolution matrix.

© 2022 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12188
2022-01-14
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12188
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Asch, T., Abraham, J. and Irons, T. (2015) A discussion on depth of investigation in geophysics and AEM inversion results. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2015. SEG, p. 5634. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2015‐5915199.1
  2. Christensen, N.B. and Lawrie, K. (2012) Resolution analyses for selecting an appropriate airborne electromagnetic (AEM) system. Exploration Geophysics, 43, 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG12005
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Christensen, N. and Lawrie, K. (2014) Response to comments by Adam Smiarowski and Shane Mulè on: Christensen, N., and Lawrie, K., 2012. Resolution analyses for selecting an appropriate airborne electromagnetic (AEM) system. Exploration Geophysics, 43, 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG14015
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Christensen, N.B. (2016) Fast approximate 1D modelling and inversion of transient electromagnetic data. Geophysical Prospecting, 64, 1620–1631. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.12373
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Christiansen, A.V. and Auken, E. (2012) A global measure for depth of investigation. Geophysics, 77(4), WB171–WB177.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Flores, C., Romo, J.M. and Vega, M. (2013) On the estimation of the maximum depth of investigation of transient electromagnetic soundings: the case of the Vizcaino transect, Mexico. Geofísica Internacional, 52(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016‐7169(13)71470‐3
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Hawkins, R., Brodie, R.C. and Sambridge, M. (2018) Trans‐dimensional Bayesian inversion of airborne electromagnetic data for 2D conductivity profiles. Exploration Geophysics, 49, 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG16139
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Inman, J.R., Jr., Ryu, J. and Ward, S.H. (1975) Resistivity inversion. Geophysics, 38, 1088–1108.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Menke, W. (1989) Geophysical data analysis: Discrete inverse theory. Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Oldenburg, D.W. and Li, Y. (1999) Estimating depth of investigation in dc resistivity and IP surveys. Geophysics, 64, 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444545
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Roy, A. and Apparao, A. (1971) Depth of investigation in direct current methods. Geophysics, 36(5), 943–959. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440226
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Smiarowski, A. and Mulè, S. (2014) Comments on: Christensen, N., and Lawrie, K., 2012. Resolution analyses for selecting an appropriate airborne electromagnetic (AEM) system. Exploration Geophysics, 43, 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG13091
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Spies, N.R. (1989) Depth of investigation in electromagnetic sounding methods. Geophysics, 54, 872–888.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Sørensen, K.I. and Auken, E. (2004) SkyTEM – a new high‐resolution helicopter transient electromagnetic system. Exploration Geophysics, 35, 191–199.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12188
Loading
Resolution attributes for geophysical inversion models: Depth of investigation and novel measures
Near Surface Geophysics 20, 3 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12188
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12188
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12188
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Interpretation; Inversion; Uncertainty

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error