1887
Volume 23, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

Abstract

The airborne transient electromagnetic method (ATEM), as a large‐scale and efficient geophysical exploration method, applies to exploration in areas with complex terrain and harsh environments. However, the ATEM method generates a large amount of data, which demonstrates a non‐linear relationship with the resistivity model. Additionally, the non‐uniqueness of the inversion problem further complicates the computational difficulty of the inversion problem. These problems raise the calculation cost of traditional inversion. Thus, our research group introduced an ATEM one‐dimensional inversion method based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) and gate recurrent unit (GRU). Specifically, the nonlinear relationship between the resistivity model and the electromagnetic response was obtained through the excellent nonlinear processing ability of the deep neural network. The test results suggest that this method had higher accuracy than the traditional shallow neural network inversion method. Compared with the traditional regularization inversion method, the deep learning method exhibited less dependence on the initial model and did not involve complex regularization parameter selection. It commonly needs to only train a large number of diverse data samples and can obtain an inversion result with high accuracy. After the deep neural network training was completed, ATEM field real‐time data were processed under the same hardware parameters. Additionally, the reliability of the CNN–GRU with field data was verified to confirm that the CNN–GRU deep neural network possessed good practicability. The test unveils that the inversion result of the deep neural network was close to the actual model, and the inversion accuracy was high. The one‐dimensional inversion results were combined to obtain the pseudo‐two‐dimensional inversion results, contributing to the improved visualization of inversion results.

© 2025 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2025 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.70000
2025-03-25
2026-02-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.70000
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Annan, A.P. & Lockwood, R. (1991) An application of airborne GEOTEM* in Australian conditions. Exploration Geophysics, 22(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/510.1071/eg991005
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Auken, E., Christiansen, A.V., Jacobsen, L.H. & Sorensen, K.I. (2008) A resolution study of buried valleys using laterally constrained inversion of TEM data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 65(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2008.03.003
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bai, P., Vignoli, G. & Hansen, T.M. (2021), 1d stochastic inversion of airborne time‐domain electromagnetic data with realistic prior and accounting for the forward modeling error. Remote sensing (Basel, Switzerland), 13(19), 3881.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bai, P., Vignoli, G., Viezzoli, A., Nevalainen, J. & Vacca, G. (2020) (Quasi‐)real‐time inversion of airborne time‐domain electromagnetic data via artificial neural network. Remote Sensing (Basel, Switzerland), 12(20), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12203440
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Blatter, D., Key, K., Ray, A., Foley, N., Tulaczyk, S. & Auken, E. (2018) Trans‐dimensional Bayesian inversion of airborne transient EM data from Taylor Glacier, Antarctica. Geophysical Journal International, 214(3), 1919–1936. https://doi.org/10;193610.1093/gji/ggy255
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Boyko, W., Paterson, N.R. & Kwan, K. (2001) AeroTEM characteristics and field results. Leading Edge, 20(10), 1130–1138. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1487244
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Colombo, D., Turkoglu, E., Li, W.C., Sandoval‐Curiel, E., Rovetta, D. (2021) Physics‐driven deep‐learning inversion with application to transient electromagnetics. Geophysics, 86(3), E209–E224. https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2020‐0760.1
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, J. & Raiche, A. (1998) Inverting AEM data using a damped eigenparameter method. Exploration Geophysics, 29(1‐2), 128–132. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG998128
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, T. & Yang, D.K. (2022) Modeling and inversion of airborne and semi‐airborne transient electromagnetic data with inexact transmitter and receiver geometries. Remote Sensing, 14(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040915
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, T.Y., Hodges, G. & Miles, P. (2015) Multipulse—high resolution and high power in one TDEM system. Exploration Geophysics, 46(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1071/eg14027
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Fan, T., Xue, G.Q., Li, P., Yan, B., Bao, L., Song, J.Q., et al. (2022) TEM real‐time inversion based on long‐short term memory network. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 65(9), 3650–3663. https://doi.org/10.6038/cjg2022P0572
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Feng, B., Zhang, J.F., Li, D. & Bai, Y. (2020) Resistivity‐depth Imaging with the airborne transient electromagnetic method based on an artificial neural network. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 25(3), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.32389/jeeg19‐087
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Foley, N., Tulaczyk, S., Auken, E., Grombacher, D., Mikucki, J., Foged, et al. (2020) Mapping geothermal heat flux using permafrost thickness constrained by airborne electromagnetic surveys on the western coast of Ross Island. Antarctica. Exploration Geophysics, 51(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/08123985.2019.1651618
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Gao, Z.H., Yin, C.C., Qi, Y.F., Zhang, B., Ren, X.Y. & Lu, Y.C. (2018) Transdimensional Bayesian inversion of time‐domain airborne EM data. Applied Geophysics, 15(2), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11770‐018‐0684‐7
     [Google Scholar]
  15. He, Z.X., Suo, X.D., Hu, Z.Z., Shi, Y.L., Shi, D.Y. & Dong, W.B. (2019) Time–frequency electromagnetic method for exploring favorable deep igneous rock targets: a case study from North Xinjiang. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 24(2), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.2113/jeeg24.2.215
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Huang, H. & Palacky, G.J. (1991) Damped least‐squares inversion of time‐domain airborne EM data based on singular value decomposition. Geophysical Prospecting, 39(6), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2478.1991.tb00346.x
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Huang, H.P. & Fraser, D.C. (2003) Inversion of helicopter electromagnetic data to a magnetic conductive layered earth. Geophysics, 68(4), 1211–1223. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1598113
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Jozefowicz, R., Zaremba, W. & Sutskever, I. (2015) An empirical exploration of recurrent network architectures. In 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 07–09 July 2015, Lille, France. San Diego. JMLR—Journal Machine Learning Research, 37, 2332.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Karshakov, E.V., Podmogov, Y.G., Kertsman, V.M. & Moilanen, J. (2017) Combined frequency domain and time domain airborne data for environmental and engineering challenges. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2113/jeeg22.1.1
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kwan, K., Prikhodko, A., Legault, J.M., Plastow, G.C., Kapetas, J. & Druecker, M. (2016) VTEM airborne EM, aeromagnetic and gamma‐ray spectrometric data over the Cerro Quema high sulphidation epithermal gold deposits. Panama. Exploration Geophysics, 47(3), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lecun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. (2015) Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Lecun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y. & Haffner, P. (1998) Gradientbased learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86, 2278–2324. https://doi.org/10.1109/5.726791
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Legault, J.M., Izarra, C., Prikhodko, A., Zhao, S.K. & Saadawi, E.M. (2015) Helicopter EM (ZTEM‐VTEM) survey results over the Nuqrah copper–lead–zinc–gold SEDEX massive sulphide deposit in the Western Arabian Shield, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Exploration Geophysics, 46(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1071/eg14028
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Leggatt, P.B., Klinkert, P.S. & Hage, T.B. (2000) The spectrem airborne electromagnetic system—further developments. Geophysics, 65(6), 1976–1982. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444881
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Macnae, J., King, A., Stolz, N., Osmakoff, A. & Blaha, A. (1998) Fast AEM data processing and inversion. Exploration Geophysics, 29(2), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1071/eg998163
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Madsen, L.M., Bording, T., Grombacher, D., Foged, N., Foley, N., Dugan, H.A., et al. (2022) Comparison of ground‐based and airborne transient electromagnetic methods for mapping glacial and permafrost environments: cases from McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 199, 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2022.103578
     [Google Scholar]
  27. McLachlan, P., Christiensen, N.B., Grombacher, D. & Christiansen, A.V. (2023) Evaluating the impact of correlated noise for time‐lapse transient electromagnetic (TEM) monitoring studies. Near Surface Geophysics, 21(5), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12262
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Munkholm, M.S. & Auken, E. (1996) Electromagnetic noise contamination on transient electromagnetic soundings in culturally disturbed environments. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 1(2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.4133/JEEG1.2.119
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Peters, G., Street, G., Kahimise, I. & Hutchins, D. (2015) Regional TEMPEST survey in north‐east Namibia. Exploration Geophysics, 46(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1071/eg14022
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Puzyrev, V. (2019) Deep learning electromagnetic inversion with convolutional neural networks. Geophysical Journal International, 218(2), 817–832. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggz204
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Qin, S.Q., Wang, Y., Xu, Z.Y., Liao, X., Liu, L.H. & Fu, Z.H. (2019) Fast resistivity imaging of transient electromagnetic using ANN. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 16(9), 1373–1377. https://doi.org/10.1109/lgrs.2019.2900992
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Rymarczyk, T., Klosowski, G. & Kozlowski, E. (2018) A non‐destructive system based on electrical tomography and machine learning to analyze the moisture of buildings. Sensors, 18, 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18072285
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Schmidhuber, J. (2015) Deep learning in neural networks: an overview. Neural Networks, 61(7), 85–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Siemon, B., Christiansen, A.V. & Auken, E. (2009) A review of helicopter‐borne electromagnetic methods for groundwater exploration. Near Surface Geophysics, 7(5–6), 629–646. https://doi.org/10.3997/1873‐0604.2009043
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Smith, R.S. & Lee, T.J. (2002) The moments of the impulse response: a new paradigm for the interpretation of transient electromagnetic data. Geophysics, 67(4), 1095–1103. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1500370
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Sorensen, K.I. & Auken, E. (2004) SkyTEM—a new high‐resolution helicopter transient electromagnetic system. Exploration Geophysics, 35(3), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1071/eg04194
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Van Der Baan, M. & Jutten, C. (2000) Neural networks in geophysical applications. Geophysics, 65(4), 1032–1047. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444797
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Viezzoli, A., Auken, E. & Munday, T. (2009) Spatially constrained inversion for quasi 3D modelling of airborne electromagnetic data—an application for environmental assessment in the Lower Murray Region of South Australia. Exploration Geophysics, 40(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1071/eg08027
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang, Y.S., Liao, W.L. & Chang, Y.Q. (2018) Gated recurrent unit network‐based short‐term photovoltaic forecasting. Energies, 11(8), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11082163
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Wu, S.H., Huang, Q.H., Zhao, L. (2021) Convolutional neural network inversion of airborne transient electromagnetic data. Geophysics Prospecting, 69(8‐9), 1761–1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.13136
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Yang, H.J., Xu, Y.Z., Peng, G.X., Yu, G.P., Chen, M., Duan, W.S., et al. (2017) Particle swarm optimization and its application to seismic inversion of igneous rocks. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 27(2), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.01.019
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Yin, C.C. & Hodges, G. (2007) Simulated annealing for airborne EM inversion. Geophysics, 72(4), F189–F195. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2736195
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Yin, C.C., Qi, Y.F., Liu, Y.H. & Cai, J. (2014) Trans‐dimensional Bayesian inversion of frequency‐domain airborne EM data. Chinese Journal of Geophysics—Chinese Edition, 57(9), 2971–2980. https://doi.org/10.6038/cjg20140922
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Yuan, S.Y., Liu, J.W., Wang, S.X., Wang, T.Y. & Shi, P.D. (2018) Seismic waveform classification and first‐break picking using convolution neural networks. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 15(2), 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1109/lgrs.2017.2785834
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.70000
Loading
One‐dimensional deep neural network inversion of airborne transient electromagnetic data
Near Surface Geophysics 23, 134 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.70000
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.70000
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.70000
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): airborne electromagnetic; data processing; inversion; neural network; resistivity

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