Estimating Three-Dimensional Resistivity Distribution with Magnetotelluric Data and a Deep Learning Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we describe a deep learning (DL)-based workflow for the three-dimensional (3D) geophysical inversion of magnetotelluric (MT) data. We derived a mathematical connection between a 3D resistivity model and the surface-observed electric/magnetic field response by using a fully connected neural network framework (U-Net). Limited by computer hardware functionality, the resistivity models were generated by using a random walk technique to enlarge the generalization coverage of the neural network model, and 15,000 paired datasets were utilized to train and validate it. Grid search was used to select the optimal configuration parameters. With the optimal model framework from the parameter tuning phase, the metrics showed stable convergence during model training/validation. In the test period, the trained model was applied to predict the resistivity distribution by using both the simulated synthetic and the real MT data from the Mount Meager area, British Columbia. The reliability of the model prediction was verified with noised input data from the synthetic model. The calculated results can be used to reconstruct the position and shape trends of bodies with anomalous resistivity, which verifies the stability and performance of the DL-based 3D inversion algorithm and showcases its potential practical applications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".