Stochastic inversion of tracer test and electrical geophysical data to estimate hydraulic conductivities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantifying the spatial configuration of hydraulic conductivity (K) in heterogeneous geological environments is essential for accurate predictions of contaminant transport, but is difficult because of the inherent limitations in resolution and coverage associated with traditional hydrological measurements. To address this issue, we consider crosshole and surface‐based electrical resistivity geophysical measurements, collected in time during a saline tracer experiment. We use a Bayesian Markov‐chain‐Monte‐Carlo (McMC) methodology to jointly invert the dynamic resistivity data, together with borehole tracer concentration data, to generate multiple posterior realizations of K that are consistent with all available information. We do this within a coupled inversion framework, whereby the geophysical and hydrological forward models are linked through an uncertain relationship between electrical resistivity and concentration. To minimize computational expense, a facies‐based subsurface parameterization is developed. The Bayesian‐McMC methodology allows us to explore the potential benefits of including the geophysical data into the inverse problem by examining their effect on our ability to identify fast flowpaths in the subsurface, and their impact on hydrological prediction uncertainty. Using a complex, geostatistically generated, two‐dimensional numerical example representative of a fluvial environment, we demonstrate that flow model calibration is improved and prediction error is decreased when the electrical resistivity data are included. The worth of the geophysical data is found to be greatest for long spatial correlation lengths of subsurface heterogeneity with respect to wellbore separation, where flow and transport are largely controlled by highly connected flowpaths.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".