Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dr.iiserpune.ac.in:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/9028
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDEHIYA, RAHULen_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-29T11:31:13Z
dc.date.available2024-07-29T11:31:13Z
dc.date.issued2024-07en_US
dc.identifier.citationGeophysical Journal Internationalen_US
dc.identifier.issn1365-246Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggae251en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dr.iiserpune.ac.in:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/9028
dc.description.abstractThis study examines error propagation from data space to model space during three-dimensional inversion of controlled-source electromagnetic data using a Gauss-Newton based algorithm. An expression for model parameter correction is obtained using higher-order generalised singular value decomposition for various regularisation strategies. Inverse modelling is performed for different types of noise employing distinct regularisation schemes to investigate the impact of error. Data corrupted with random noise suggests that the random noise mainly propagates when regularisation parameters are small, owing to the high-frequency nature of random noise. Furthermore, the random noise predominantly causes artefacts in the shallower part of the inverted model. However, it has little impact on the estimation of major anomalies because the anomaly primarily depends on the smoothly varying parts of data. These observations are valid for both isotropic and anisotropic inversions. Resistive geological anomalies, like vertical dyke or vertical fractures, may pose a significant challenge for isotropic inversion in terms of convergence and data fit, even if the subsurface is isotropic. On the other hand, anisotropic inversion performs remarkably well in such cases, showing faster convergence and better data fit than isotropic inversion. Anisotropic inversion is indispensable in the case of an anisotropic host medium, as isotropic inversion produces significant artefacts and poorer data fit. Numerical experiments suggest that, in general, anisotropic inversion produces relatively better data fit and faster convergence, even in the case of isotropic subsurface. However, due to the varying degree of sensitivity of CSEM data on thin resistive bodies, caution is required in interpreting an anisotropy obtained using anisotropic inversion. An investigation of field data also supports the observations obtained using synthetic experiments.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.subjectNumerical approximations and analysisen_US
dc.subjectInverse theoryen_US
dc.subjectControlled source electromagnetics (CSEM)en_US
dc.subject2024en_US
dc.subject2024-JUL-WEEK4en_US
dc.subjectTOC-JUL-2024en_US
dc.titleError propagation and model update analysis in three-dimensional CSEM inversionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Earth and Climate Scienceen_US
dc.identifier.sourcetitleGeophysical Journal Internationalen_US
dc.publication.originofpublisherForeignen_US
Appears in Collections:JOURNAL ARTICLES

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.