2408.02420v1
2408.02420v1
2408.02420v1
Rohan Sharma*1, Divakar Vashisth2, Kuldeep Sarkar1 and Upendra Kumar Singh1
1
Department of Applied Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology Dhanbad, 2Department of Energy
Science and Engineering, Stanford University
email: * rohanlatha29@gmail.com
Summary
The inversion of DC resistivity data is a widely employed method for near-surface characterization.
Recently, deep learning-based inversion techniques have garnered significant attention due to their
capability to elucidate intricate non-linear relationships between geophysical data and model
parameters. Nevertheless, these methods face challenges such as limited training data availability and
the generation of geologically inconsistent solutions. These concerns can be mitigated through the
crucial yet often overlooked in deep learning-based inversion methodologies. In this study, we utilized
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) based Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) to invert
both synthetic and field Schlumberger sounding data while also estimating prediction uncertainty via
Monte Carlo dropout. For both synthetic and field case studies, the median profile estimated by
PINNs is comparable to the results from existing literature, while also providing uncertainty
estimates. Therefore, PINNs demonstrate significant potential for broader applications in near-surface
characterization.
Introduction
The direct-current (DC) resistivity method is a widely utilized technique in near-surface geophysics,
attributed to its high sensitivity to variations in the resistivity of geological features and its cost-
effectiveness. It has been popularly employed in groundwater investigation (Benson et al., 1997) and
mineral exploration (Srigutomo et al., 2016). In DC resistivity surveys, an electric current is injected
into the ground, and the potential difference is measured to calculate the apparent resistivity using
Ohm's law. To obtain the true resistivity model of the subsurface and facilitate interpretation, this
apparent resistivity data is inverted. Some researchers have tried solving this inverse problem using
global optimization methods like simulated annealing (Sen et al., 1993), genetic algorithm (Liu et al.,
2012), and variable weight particle swarm optimizer - grey wolf optimizer (Sarkar et al., 2023).
The advent of machine learning algorithms has proven effective in geophysical inversion, enabling
complex nonlinear mappings between observed geophysical data and subsurface earth model
parameters. In a supervised setting, they have been employed to invert DC resistivity data (El-Qady
and Ushijima, 2001; Singh et al., 2019; Aleardi et al., 2021). However, inversion based on supervised
deep learning presents challenges, such as the limited availability of training data and estimations that
could be geologically and physically inconsistent. Additionally, there is a need for uncertainty
quantification in the predicted model parameters. These considerations are driving the adoption of
physics-informed methodologies in the field of geophysical inversion (Vashisth and Mukerji, 2022;
This paper introduces a convolutional neural network (CNN) based, physics-informed deep learning
framework tailored for unsupervised 1D DC resistivity data inversion, drawing inspiration from
Vashisth and Mukerji (2022). Our primary contribution is the development of a lightweight CNN
architecture, applied to both case studies and employed to estimate uncertainties in the predicted
resistivities through Monte Carlo dropout. In the following sections, we outline our employed
methodology and demonstrate the efficacy of our approach through both synthetic and field case
studies.
Methodology
The DC resistivity Physics Informed Neural Network (PINN) architecture comprises of an encoder
and a decoder (Figure 1). The encoder consists of three convolutional blocks, each containing a 1D
convolutional layer, a rectified linear units (ReLU) layer for non-linearity, and a dropout layer with a
dropout rate of 0.2 for regularization and uncertainty estimation. The outputs from the final
convolutional block are flattened and fed into a fully connected layer with the number of output nodes
equal to the number of layered earth model parameters. To define an n-layered earth model, we
require 2n-1 model parameters, consisting of the resistivity (ρ) and thickness (h) of each layer, with
the bottommost layer assumed to be semi-infinite. The fully connected layer’s output is passed
through a sigmoid activation function to constrain the values between 0 and 1. Subsequently, these
values are rescaled to fall within the specified bounds (search space) for resistivities and thicknesses
The output of the encoder serves as the input for the decoder, which incorporates the physics of
Schlumberger sounding (Koefoed, 1979). The decoder generates apparent resistivity curves
corresponding to the input resistivity profiles. The training phase makes use of the Adam optimizer
with an initial learning rate of 0.001, aiming to minimize the root mean squared (RMS) error between
the logarithms of the observed and predicted apparent resistivity curves. It is important to note that
incorporating the logarithm of the apparent resistivity values into the loss function was crucial for
achieving better fits, particularly in cases with highly varying resistivities. The learning rate was
reduced by a factor of 0.8 if there was no improvement in the loss for 15 consecutive epochs. Upon
completion of the training process, the encoder's output vector acquires meaningful representations in
the form of the learned layered earth model parameters. This allows the encoder to directly predict
resistivity profiles from the apparent resistivity curves. The values of all hyperparameters within the
resistivity profile from a given input apparent resistivity curve. The decoder incorporates the physics
During the prediction phase, dropout is still employed to mimic the behaviour observed during
training. This approach, known as Monte Carlo Dropout, serves to approximate the posterior
distribution of the model parameters, thereby aiding in uncertainty estimation (Gal and Ghahramani,
2016). By repeating this process multiple times (in this case, 10000 times), empirical samples of the
predictions are generated. These samples facilitate the computation of approximate posterior
percentiles. Notably, the 50th percentile (P-50) represents the median value, while the range between
the 5th (P-5) and 95th percentile (P-95) provides an estimate of the network's prediction uncertainty
In this study, we utilize the same vertical electric sounding (VES) synthetic and field dataset as
presented in Sarkar et al. (2023). Our analysis involves comparison of the results obtained through
PINNs with those derived from the application of the variable weight particle swarm optimizer - grey
The synthetic apparent resistivity dataset, incorporating 10% Gaussian noise (Figure 2a), is derived
from a three-layered earth model (Figure 2b) with resistivities conforming to an H-type curve. Figure
2b demonstrates that the median (P-50) of PINNs predicted resistivity profiles closely matches the
true profile (Figure 2b), with the computed apparent resistivity curve for this profile (Figure 2a)
exhibiting an RMS error of 16.55 Ωm, significantly outperforming the 45.39 Ωm RMS error
associated with vPSOGWO algorithm. Furthermore, the uncertainty in the predicted resistivity
profiles (spread between P-5 and P-95) remains relatively constant with depth, highlighting
For the field case study (Figure 3), VES data from Digha, Medinipur (West Bengal) is inverted. The
geological profile for the area is characterized by alternating layers of sedimentary rock containing
sand and clay, overlaid by a thin alluvial layer. The apparent resistivity curve (Figure 3a)
corresponding to the PINNs estimated P-50 resistivity profile (Figure 3b) exhibits a strong alignment
with the observed data, yielding an RMS error of 0.49 Ωm, which is comparable to the 0.50 Ωm RMS
error given by vPSOGWO algorithm. Notably, the uncertainty in the PINNs predicted resistivity
profiles decreased considerably below the estimated conductive alluvial layer, indicating a higher
study. (b) The true (black) and estimated resistivity profiles from PINNs and vPSOGWO. The PINNs
estimated median resistivity profile (P-50) and its corresponding apparent resistivities are illustrated
in pink, while the predictions highlighting the uncertainty range (between P-5 and P-95) are shown in
green. The vPSOGWO estimated resistivity profile and apparent resistivities are shown in yellow.
Figure 3 (a) The observed (black) and computed DC apparent resistivity curves for the Digha field
case study. (b) The estimated resistivity profiles from PINNs and vPSOGWO. The PINNs estimated
median resistivity profile (P-50) and its corresponding apparent resistivities are illustrated in pink,
while the predictions highlighting the uncertainty range (between P-5 and P-95) are shown in green.
The vPSOGWO estimated resistivity profile and apparent resistivities are shown in yellow.
The findings from both synthetic and field case studies underscore the robustness and accuracy of the
proposed PINNs architecture for inverting DC resistivity data, with all observed apparent resistivity
data points falling within the model-predicted uncertainty bounds. Future work will explore the
application of PINNs to the inversion of 2D and 3D Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) data.
Conclusions
This study highlights the efficacy of the proposed PINNs architecture in accurately inverting DC
resistivity data, showcasing performance comparable to that reported in existing literature. The
architecture proved to be robust in handling both synthetic and field datasets, predicting consistent
resistivity profiles and providing reliable uncertainty estimates. These results underscore the potential
of PINNs as a reliable and valuable tool for geophysical data inversion tasks and near-surface
characterization.
References
Aleardi, M., Vinciguerra, A., & Hojat, A. [2021]. A convolutional neural network approach to
Benson A. K., Payne K. L., & Stubben M. A. [1997]. Mapping Groundwater Contamination using DC
Resistivity and VLF Geophysical Methods-a Case Study. Geophysics, 62, 80-86.
Das, V., & Mukerji, T. [2020]. Petrophysical properties prediction from prestack seismic data using
El-Qady, G. and Ushijima, K. [2001]. Inversion of DC resistivity data using neural networks.
Uncertainty in Deep Learning. The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 48,
1050-1059.
Liu, B., Li, S.C., Nie, L.C., Wang, J., L, X., & Zhang, Q.S. [2012]. 3D resistivity inversion using an
improved Genetic Algorithm based on control method of mutation direction. Journal of Applied
Liu, B., Pang, Y., Jiang, P., Liu, Z., Liu, B., Zhang, Y., Cai, Y., & Liu, J. [2023a]. Physics-Driven
Deep Learning Inversion for Direct Current Resistivity Survey Data. IEEE Transactions on
Liu, M., Vashisth, D., Grana, D., and Mukerji, T. [2023b]. Joint inversion of geophysical data for
Sarkar, K., Mukesh, and Singh, U.K. [2023]. Nature-inspired stochastic hybrid technique for joint and
Sen, M. K., Bhattacharya, B. B., & Stoffa, P. L. [1993]. Nonlinear inversion of resistivity sounding
Singh, A. P., Vashisth, D., and Srivastava, S. [2019]. Random Forest Regressor for Layered Earth
measurement for manganese ore exploration. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 739, 012138.
Vashisth, D., & Mukerji, T. [2022]. Direct estimation of porosity from seismic data using rock-and