Geophys. J . Int.

(1993) 112, 115-123

Automatic 1-D inversion of magnetotelluric data by the method of

modelling
J. T. Weaver and A. K. Agarwal
Department of Physics and Astronomy and School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3P6

Accepted 1992 July 14. Received 1992 July 14; in original form 1992 April 10

SUMMARY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/112/1/115/652969 by guest on 09 April 2020

Two popular methods for obtaining a preliminary 1-D geo-electric model from
magnetotelluric data are the simple inversion algorithms due t o Niblett, Bostick or
Schmucker, and the modelling scheme of Fischer & LeQuang. The former provides
resistivity values at different depths, while the latter uses an optimizing program to
obtain the resistivities and thicknesses of a prescribed number of layers which give a
best-fitting response t o the given data. The present scheme combines features of
both methods by using Niblett inversion t o provide an initial resistivity profile from
which, successively, 2 , 3 , 4 , . . . layer models are constructed automatically. The
algorithm provides a response with minimum misfit for each layered model
according t o the method of Fischer & LeQuang, and uses a statistical F-test to
determine when the inclusion of additional layers is no longer justified by the
improvement of fit. The method therefore provides a best-fitting ‘least-layered’
model consistent with the given data without the human intervention required by
the Fischer-LeQuang scheme. Some examples of its application t o both synthetic
and real data are presented.
Key words: conductivity, geo-electric structures, geo-electromagnetic induction,
inversion, magnetotellurics.

model under certain prescribed conditions. The former

1 I N T RODUCT I O N
1-D inversion of magnetotelluric (MT) data is probably
regarded as a closed book by many practitioners in the field
of electromagnetic induction, especially as much attention is
now directed towards the more challenging problems arising
with the interpretation of 2- and 3-D data. Indeed there are
many sophisticated 1-D inversion schemes in routine use
today, ranging from Parker’s (1980) D + method which
yields a best-fitting but geologically unrealistic model,
comprising a series of infinitesimally thin sheets at different
depths to OCCAM inversion (Constable et al. 1987) in
which the problem is regularized by stipulating a maximum
smoothness constraint. The first is used mainly as a test on
the acceptability of data for 1-D inversion, while the second
will generate a smoothly varying conductivity profile which
is both physically plausible and compatible with the data,
Other methods, including those developed by Oldenburg
and co-workers are covered in a review article by Whittall &
Oldenburg (1992).
For a fast, preliminary inversion of MT data, however, it
is customary either to use one of the approximate inversion
formulae associated with the names of Niblett, Bostick or
Schmucker, or to do forward modelling in conjunction with
some sort of optimization which seeks out a best-fitting
approach provides directly a series of depths and associated
resistivities from which an approximate, continuous
resistivity profile can be drawn, while the latter yields a
best-fitting layered model, the number of layers having to be
decided in advance by the user following the general
guideline ‘the fewer the better’. It was successfully
developed by Fischer & LeQuang (1981, 1982) using a
minimization routine MINDEF originally written by J. Beiner.
The second output is more pleasing to the many
geophysicists who tend to think of the geo-electric structure
of the Earth in terms of layered models, but the method is
less easy to implement than the first because considerable
interplay between operator and computer is required. In
particular, it is necessary to make an inspired guess for the
starting model, and later to adjust the number of layers if
that seems appropriate in the light of the results obtained.
Even if the starting model is generated by the inversion
scheme of Fischer et af. (1981), some judicious intervention
is usually required before optimization, because the scheme
invariably gives a starting model with more layers than are
necessary.
Despite the fact that Parker (1983) wrote nearly a decade
ago ‘It is hard to believe there is a need for any further
effort on iterative inversion in terms of a small number of

115
116 J . T. Weaver and A . K . Agarwal
homogeneous layers’, some new discussions on this theme
have appeared recently. Fischer & Weibel (1991) have
investigated the inversion of Swiss AMT data using the
modelling method of Fischer & LeQuang (1981) paying
particular attention to the trade-off between layer thickness
and resistivity. In a conference presentation of what has
turned out to be a forerunner of this paper, Weaver &
Fischer (1990) described a new computer program for an
automatic implementation of the Fischer-LeQuang scheme
in which all human involvement in finding a best-fitting
model with the appropriate number of layers was removed.
In this paper we develop the automatic algorithm (called
AUTOMOD) in a more systematic manner by introducing
statistical tests which allow us to determine the best
‘least-layered’ model at some prescribed level of confidence.
It combines some features of Niblett-Bostick inversion with
the forward modelling method of Fischer & LeQuang, and
although it is more computer intensive than either of the
original procedures on which it is based, this is more than
offset by the rapid advances in desk-top computer power in
the past decade. It can be employed as readily today as were
the other procedures ten years ago.
The given data are assumed to be in the form of a set of
values R ( T ) and I ( T ) , the respective real and imaginary
parts of the (dimensionless) complex impedance Z ( T ) / Z , ,
at the periods T = T, (n = 1, 2, . . , , N), and with the error
bars at period Tn defined by a pair of complex values
[Zmi”(T,)/Z,, ZmaX( Tn)/Zo]. The (real) scaling constant Z,
includes the dimensions of impedance and is introduced to
ensure that R( T) and I( T) are dimensionless quantities of
moderate magnitude. A suitable choice for the value of Z,
in a given investigation might be [max lZ(T,)I x
min IZ(Tn)I]1’2B where the maximum and minimum values
are extracted from the N impedances in the data set or
alternatively, perhaps, the modulus of the impedance (at
some average period) of the best-fitting half-space. MT
responses are usually displayed as graphs of apparent
resistivity pa = IZ12T/2np, and phase @ = arg Z plotted
against period, with logarithmic scales for apparent
resistivity and period. If the data are supplied as values of
apparent resistivity and phase, they can be converted to
complex impedance values with the formula
Z(T) = [ R ( T )+ iI(T)]Z, = q2nip,pa(T)/Texp [i$(T)] (1)
before the inversion procedure is begun. However, the
option exists in AUTOMOD to treat apparent resistivity and
phase data directly as described in section 4.
The parameter to be minimized for a least squares fit to
the response of a k-layered model is the variance of fit s’,
(Bevington 1969), where the subscript v signifies the number
of degrees of freedom. Since there are 2k - 1 adjustable
parameters defining a k-layered earth, k resistivities pi
( i = 1, 2 , . . . , k) plus k - 1 layer thicknesses hi ( i =
1, 2, . . . , k - l), the number of degrees of freedom left
after the model response has been fitted to the 2N measured
data is 2N - 2k + 1. The variance of the fit (or simply the
square of the ‘misfit’) is therefore defined by
N
In this definition R r ) it:)+ denotes the calculated
(dimensionless) impedance at period T, for the k-layer
model, and the weighting functions w, and wf are the
normalized inverse variances uf of the data points whose
errors of measurement are assumed to be independent and
normally distributed about the true response. Thus
(3)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/112/1/115/652969 by guest on 09 April 2020
Note that if u?’ at each period T, then
wR(Tn)= wf(T,). Furthermore, if the variances ui are the
same at all data points (e.g. if the same percentage of
Gaussian noise is present in all the data, or is simply
assumed to be the same in the absence of experimental error
bars, or if the data are synthetic and exact) then the weights
all reduce to unity. Experimental data are usually provided
with error bars indicating in some way the standard
deviation of the Gaussian distribution of error at each point.
In this case
+
uZp) iu?) = A[zmaX(~,)
- Z~’”(T,)] (4)
where 1 is a factor which takes into account how the error
bars are defined; e.g. if they have a length of two standard
deviations then 1 = 1/2; if the length is twice the standard
(or probable) error, then A=0.74; if it is the half-width of
the Gaussian distribution, 1 = 0.43; if it represents a 95 per
cent confidence interval, 1 = 0.26; etc..
It should be mentioned that Fischer & LeQuang (1981)
preferred to use unconventional weighting factors propor-
tional to the linear inverses of the error bar lengths because
they penalize outlying data points less. Definitions (3) and
(4), however, are the natural weights to choose since
minimization of the corresponding s2 yields the maximum
likelihood that the model is representative of the true
response from which the data were obtained (Bevington
1969).
2 THE ALGORITHM
It is assumed that measured values of the complex
impedance are available for N-periods and that error
bounds (variances) are iricluded with the data [if they are
not, the weight functions (3) are all set equal to 11. The
strategy adopted in AUTOMOD is described in the 11 steps
listed below.
(1) A preliminary inversion is undertaken by converting
the complex impedance values to apparent resistivity and
phase, and applying the Niblett formulae (Niblett &
Sayn-Wittgenstein 1960) that gives the conductivity
K, = K ( z , ) at depth z, as
for each period T,. Here m ( T ) = d log,, p , ( T ) / d log,, T is
the slope of the apparent resistivity curve which can be
 Inversion of MT data 117

estimated from the phase data by Weidelt’s (1972) result considered, the starting model is defined by
m ( T ) = 1- 4 $ ( T ) / n .
Alternatively, Schmucker’s (1970) formulae
(6) hj= c
JMk

n =n,
d,,
1 1 JMk
-=-
pj hi,=,,
tn (j=1,2, . . . , k-2) (10)

M-1 rG-7

n=l n=l

1 - 1 M-1
could be employed to the same end. -- C rn,
(k-1)
Pk = Pk-1
__ (11)
(2) Unacceptable data points (if any) which do not give Pk-1 h k - l n=nk--I
increasing depths for increasing periods, or yield negative +
where nj = ( j - l)Mk 1, M k = [(M- l)/k], and the best-
resistivities, are temporarily discarded. If there are N - M fitting model with misfit mins2N-2k+, is defined by the
such points, we are left with M pairs of values K , , zn for values hjk), p j k ) ( j = 1, 2, . . . , k - 1) and p p ) .
n = 1, 2, . . . , M. With most data M = N. (7) Before AUTOMOD moves on to construct a (k 1)- +
(3) Based on the inversion in (l), an M-layered structure layer starting model a test is performed which determines

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/112/1/115/652969 by guest on 09 April 2020

is assembled with boundaries at depths z = 5, where whether the k-layer model is so highly unacceptable that it
should be rejected. For this purpose the program computes
(7)

and with the layers ~ n < z z ( 5 ; 1 + l ( n = 1 , 2 , . . . , M - 1 )

having the conductivities K, given by equation (5). The
which is a standard x2 distribution with 2N - 2k + 1 degrees
basement half-space z > cM
is assigned the final conductivity
of freedom. The hypothesis that the k-layered model is
K~ corresponding to the period T, in equation (5). The
acceptable in the sense that the computed value of x$-,~+,
thicknesses d , and conductances rn (n = 1, 2, . . . , M - 1) of
would be attained or exceeded by virtue of the randomness
the M - 1 layers above this half-space are given by the
in the data alone is now tested. The probability of x2
formulae
exceeding a given value can be found, of course, in standard
dn = fnt rn =Kndn. (8) statistical tables, but in AUTOMOD it is computed directly
using published subroutines (Press et al. 1989). If the
(4) The search begins with a two-layer model comprising probability is found to be less than the pre-assigned value of
a top layer of thickness h , and resistivity p 1 defined by 0.1 per cent, then the hypothesis (and with it the model) is
M-1
1 1M-l rejected at the 99.9 per cent confidence level. If no
h,= C
n=l
dn, -=-
p1 h1
C
n=l
rn (9) variances are supplied with the data and cannot be
estimated, or if the data are synthetic and exact, or even if
overlying the half-space z > h , of resisitivity pz = 1 / ~The ~ . the error estimates are believed to be highly unreliable, then
three model parameters h , , p 1 and p2 are adjusted by the this test has no meaning, and it is therefore by-passed. In its
minimization routine (with a prescribed maximum number place we simply require that the minimum misfit s, defined
of calls and step size for the parameter variations, with layer with unit weighting functions be less then 0.1.
thicknesses constrained to be greater than 10 m, and with (8) When k 2 3 and the model has not been rejected at
resistivity variations limited to the range 0. 1-lo6 P m ) until a step (7), a further test is made by comparing the current
minimum of the misfit, mins,,_,, defined in equation (2), is value of x2 with the previous one which had 2N - 2k + 3
found. The ‘best’ two-layer model is then defined by the degrees of freedom. This is done by taking their difference
corresponding parameter values hi’), p p , p g ) . Note that s2 and forming the ratio
is calculated using all N data points including any that had to
be removed from the Niblett inversion. In other words the F(2,2N - 2k + 1) = (xfN-2kt3 - x f N - 2 k + L)l2
response is fitted to all the data even though only a subset of X2N-2k+1/(2N - 2k + 1>
the data may have been used to construct the starting which represents a measure of the improvement in fit as a
model. result of adding the additional layer. It behaves as an F
( 5 ) The next step is to construct a three-layer model distribution (Bevington 1969) being the ratio of two reduced
defined by the resistivities p l , p 2 , p3 and thicknesses h , , h, x2 distributions with 2 and 2N - 2k + 1 degrees of freedom
where respectively. If ~7:~)= uy’ at each period Tn (even though
M2 M-l the variance may change from period to period) then
h,= c dn,
n=l h 2 = ( z l dn)-hl. equation (13) reduces with the aid of equation (12) and
equation (2) to
F(2, 2N - 2k + 1)
- (2N - 2k + 3)S&.-zk+3 - (2N - 2k + 1)SfNP2k+1
Here M2= [(M- 1)/2], the square brackets meaning (14)
‘integral part o f . The minimization routine is again called to %;N--2k+l
find a best-fitting three-layer model, characterized by the which depends only on the normalized weighting functions
parameters h?, h y ) , p?, p p l , p$3)and misfit min s ~ ~ - ~ . rather than the variances, and therefore continues to be
(6) The procedure continues adding one more layer each defined even when the variances are unknown but are
time. At the stage where a k-layer model is being assumed equal for all data points (or if the data are synthetic
118 J . T. Weaver and A . K . Agarwal

and exact). The hypothesis that the value of F obtained
could have arisen by chance is now tested by computing,
with the aid of published subroutines for the probability
distribution of F (Press et al. 1989), the probability of the
given value being reached or exceeded. If it is found to be
less than 5 per cent, the hypothesis is rejected and it is
concluded with 95 per cent confidence that the new layer
contributed significantly to the improvement of the fit. In
this case AUTOMOD advances without interruption to an
+
investigation of models with k 1 layers. Should the
hypothesis not be rejected, however, then a flag is set to
prepare the search for possible termination at the (next)
+
(k 1)th step in the inversion procedure. If the flag is
already in the ‘on’ position, having been set during the
testing of the (k - 1)-layer model, then the search stops here
(11) A final model selected by the criteria described in
@)-(lo), and not rejected at the 99.9 per cent level by the
x2 test in step (7), is now resubmitted to the minimization
routine for further refinement with a smaller step size in the
parameter variations, and a greater number of calls to the
routine permitted. This allows the search to continue
onwards, if necessary, towards the local minimum which
may be on the floor of a rather long, flat, curved valley in
parameter space (Fischer & LeQuang 1982). When the true
local minimum has been located, the model parameters
piK), hiKK’(k = 1, 2, . . . , K - 1) and p F ) are displayed
together with the misfit parameter mins,,-,,+,, and the x2
level of acceptance (if available).
3 COMMENTARY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/112/1/115/652969 by guest on 09 April 2020

because there is no strong evidence to suggest that inclusion
In step (4) it is possible to tighten the bounds on the
of the last two layers has contributed significantly to an
resistivity and thickness parameters before calling the
improvement in the fitting of the response curves to the
minimization routine. This could be justified if, for example,
data. The program therefore returns to the best-fitting
prior geological information suggested that resistivities
(k - 2)-layer model (i.e. the last one to show improvement
outside a certain range would definitely not be expected in
over those with fewer layers) as the ‘least-layered’ model of
the region under investigation. The minimization program
choice. Occasionally the hypothesis will be rejected even
that is actually called at present is the original routine
though the flag had been previously set one stage back. In
MINDEF used by Fischer & LeQuang. Obviously this could
this event it is assumed that the lack of improvement in the
be easily replaced by any of the more modern routines now
fit when an extra layer was added to the (k - 2)model was a
freely available.
temporary aberration and that the inclusion of further layers
The test in step (7) is essentially what Parker (1983) called
is still justified. The flag is therefore cleared, and the
an ‘old fashioned approach’ which is ‘quite reasonable’. It is
program proceeds as before. If F should turn out to be
used here with a very high confidence limit (99.9 per cent) in
negative (meaning that the fit is no longer improving) then
order to provide a preliminary screening of possible models
the search halts and the (k - 2)- or (k - 1)-layer model is
and to eliminate only those that are clearly unacceptable. If
selected depending on whether the flag has already been set
a final model is rejected at this level of confidence it is
or not. probably because the data are not 1-D, or because the
(9) In the unlikely event that the search for a
errors have been seriously underestimated, or possibly
‘least-layered’ model continued in this manner without
because the errors are not normally distributed. It is of
success until all M layers in the starting model were used up
interest to note that according to Parker (1983) the
(or equivalently, if M = N, until the available degrees of
best-fitting model to the full COPROD data set was rejected
freedom were exhausted) the program could be led,
with more than 99.9 per cent certainty, but when the set was
especially if the data set were large, into an unreasonable
limited to the 15 well-estimated responses it passed the x2
number of calculations entailing lengthy and pointless
test at a confidence level as low as about 70 per cent.
searches for minimum misfits in a series of multi-layered
Step (8) provides some sort of quantitative backing to the
models. As a safeguard against this happening, AUTOMOD is
philosophy expressed by Fischer & LeQuang (1981)
programmed to select the model with the smallest misfit
regarding the selection of the right number of layers, and
after it has reached a 10-layer model without the test criteria
removes all dependency on human judgement in this task by
described in (7) and (8) being satisfied.
basing the procedure on statistical tests that can be
(10) Once the ‘least-layered’ model, or failing that the
implemented automatically.
one with minimum misfit, has been selected with (say)
A non-automatic option is retained under which the
L ( L 5 10) layers, it is subjected to a further test to check
program will compute a best-fitting model from a given
that resistivities in adjacent layers are sufficiently different in
starting model with a fixed number of layers. This may be
magnitude. For this the parameters
required if, despite the imposition of various criteria for
model selection described above, the final model generated
is not fully satisfactory in some aspect-perhaps two
adjacent layers whose resistivities just fail to pass the cut-off
are required to satisfy Pk 2 6 where 6 is specified, e.g. if
test in (10) need to be combined. In addition, the
6 = 0.2 then neighbouring resistivities must differ by more
non-automatic version of the program can be used to
than 20 per cent. Each time this condition is not met, the
investigate ‘parameter trade-off (Fischer & LeQuang 1982;
adjacent layers are combined into a single layer whose
Fischer & Weibel 1991).
resistivity is an average of the two previous values and the
total number of layers is reduced by 1. Thus if Pk < 0.2 for j
4 A P P A R E N T RESISTIVITY A N D PHASE
values of k, then the ‘least-layered’ model selected will be
DATA
changed to one with K = L - j layers. This normally
happens only when AUTOMOD has failed to select a clear It was mentioned in section 1 that data are often supplied as
‘least-layered’ model in the early stages of the search. apparent resistivity and phase values with associated error

bars. AUTOMOD can deal with such data directly, the
modifications required being quite straightforward.
It is usual to take the logarithm of (1) and to regard the
errors in pa as having a log-normal distribution. Thus in
place of (1) we have at some fixed period
In Z ( T ) = (1/2) In [p,(T)/p,] + i#(T)+ const
where po is some constant representing a scale of
measurement for pa. The variables to be fitted when
comparing the computed model response with the data are
(1/2)1n(pa/po) and #. The square of the misfit (2) is
therefore replaced by
2
1 corresponding values of the misfit min s, (the square root of
'ZN-Zk+l =
2N - 2k +1 Pan
Inversion of M T data 119
derivative, while m(Tl) is found by fitting a parabola
through the three points (log,, pa(T,), log,,, TI),
(log,, P,(T2), log10 T2) and (log,, P a ( m log,,, TA and
differentiating at the end-point T,. An analogous procedure
is used for calculating m(TN). Similar modifications are
required if only phase data are inverted,
5 APPLICATIONS
We consider first the five-layer structure chosen as a test for
the original inversion scheme of Fischer et af. (1981). The
given model, and the model returned automatically, are
shown by tabulated values in Table 1, together with the
the variance of fit). The synthetic data supplied to the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/112/1/115/652969 by guest on 09 April 2020

program consisted of 52 points, the 26 pairs of R(Tn) and
I( )
'
7 values obtained from forward calculations for
logarithmically equi-spaced periods Tn over the five decades
where the new weighting functions are in the AMT range from 10-3s to 100s with Gaussian
random noise superimposed at all periods.
There are frequent references in the literature to synthetic
data to which a certain percentage of Gaussian noise has
been added, but it is not always made clear what the stated
percentage refers to. Here we use a Box-Muller method to
generate 52 Gaussian random deviates ul, u2, . . . with zero
mean and unit variance (Press et al. 1989; Constable 1991)
n=l and, if we are adding p per cent noise, the data points
actually used for the inversion are R(Tn)+ p ~ , ~ - , / 1 0 0and
Here (uf))' is the variance of (1/2)In[pa(T,)/po] while
0 n = 1, 2, . . . , 26. Thus the percentage
I(Tn)+ p ~ , ~ / 1 0 for
(u:@))' is the variance of #(T',). The relationship between
p refers to the standard deviation of the Gaussian
the variances and the error bars supplied with the data
distribution. Put in another way, for A = 1/2 in (4), the error
needs to be clarified. Corresponding to equation (4) in
bar Zmax(T,)- Zmin(T,) is pZ0/50. [With apparent
section 1 we have
resistivity and phase the corresponding noisy data would be
o l #('GI + P V 2 n 1 1 0 0
(1/2) In [ ~ a ( T n~) X (P~ ~ 2 n - 1 1 1 0 0 ) l ~and
in radians; e.g. if 2 per cent noise is added, the 95 per cent
Note that this implies how the scales of logl,pa and #
interval, corresponding to A =0.26 in (18), defines error
should be drawn if the error bars on apparent resistivity and
bars with p y = 1.08 x pa and p:'" = 0.93 X pa, while
phase are to have equal lengths when the standard deviation - #""" = 4.41O.I
of their errors of measurement are the same at any given
period. Since one unit on the loglo pa scale corresponds to a Table 1. Five-layer test model. The top table of values were
decade in pa or a unit of standard deviation proportional to obtained from synthetic impedance data; in the bottom table
(1/2)ln 10, an equal standard deviation in # is similarly synthetic apparent resistivity and phase values were used.
proportional to (1/2) In 10 radians, or approximately 66". Layer 0% Noise 2% Noise 10% Noise
Thus one unit on the log,,p, scale should have the same pPm) h (km) PWm) h (km) P W ~ ) h (km)
length as 66" on the # scale. 1 450 0.10 442 0.10 415 0.10
2 50.0 0.40 49.4 0.40 46.9 0.39
The procedure followed by AUTOMOD is exactly the same 3 28.0 3.00 28.1 1.58 28.5 1.41
as before except that it is now the misfit (16) that is 4 45.0 7.00 48.0 8.64 140 15.6
minimized. The new x2 function is formed by replacing R in 5 1.00 x 104 6.72 x 103 3.78 103
(12) with In pa and I with #. The F test function is still Misfit rnins13 = 6.33 x 1O-I rnins43 = 1.88 x lo-' rnins13 = 9.55 x lo-?

defined by (13) and (14) in terms of the new x2 and s 2 Layei Actual Model
functions. P W ) h(km)
Occasionally a data set may only contain apparent 450 0.10
resistivity values, in which case the number of degrees of 50.0 0.40
28.0 3.00
freedom is reduced by N and the misfit squared becomes 45.0 7.00
1 2 w,(Tn)((1/2)1n~)'.
N
(19) 1.00 x 10' 05

S L k + l =
Layer 0% Noise 2% Noise 10% Noise
N-2k+ln=1 Pan
P W ) h (km) P(W h(km) p ( W h (km)
The definitions of x' and F are revised accordingly. In the 1 450 0.10 424 0.10 379 0.11
2 50.0 0.40 48.6 0.40 44.3 0.34
absence of phase data, it is also necessary to modify the
3 28.0 3.01 27.3 3.09 26.1 5.60
preliminary inversion procedure described under (1) in 4 45.1 7.00 47.6 6.94 998 63.6
section 2. The slope m(Tn) (n = 2,3, . . . , N - 1) is 5 LOO x 104 7.89 x 103 1.09 x 10' m
estimated from the central difference representation of the Misfit rnin = 2.52 x lo-' rninsrs = 1.78 x lo-' rninq3 = 8.91 x
120 J . T. Weaver and A . K . Agarwal
The models obtained for three different levels of noise, 0
per cent, 2 per cent and 10 per cent, are shown in Table 1.
Note that the program correctly selects a five-layer model in
each case whereas the original inversion scheme of Fischer
et al. returned twelve layers which, after inspection, were
reduced manually to a five-layer starting model for
submission to their minimization routine. The agreement
with the original model is excellent-perfect, in fact, to
three significant figures or two decimal places when the
exact data are used-but the noisier the data, the greater
the misfit s, as expected. It is of interest to mention that the
F-test correctly selected five-layer models by the standard
tests in section 2 (8) when noisy data were used, but halted
the search procedure at six layers with the exact data as a
result of F becoming negative. Since the flag had not
previously been set, however, the program returned to the
five-layer model according to the criteria listed at the end of
section 2 (8) (this latter behaviour was the result of a very
pronounced minimum of s’, being reached when Y took the
value 43 corresponding to 5 layers).
Figure 1 shows the impedance data points containing 10
per cent noise (with their error bars two standard deviations
in length) that were used to generate the model in column 3
of the topmost Table 1. The response curves for the final
model obtained, together with the responses of the actual
model, are also depicted. The random scatter of the points
around the true response curve is clearly evident in the
figure but the deviation of the response curve computed
from the model generated by AUTOMOD is barely visible. In
Fig. 2(a) the models tablulated in Table 1 are reproduced as
diagrams showing the variation of resistivity with depth.
As a second example we use the test model adopted by
Dosso & Oldenburg (1989, 1991) defined in Table 2 and
illustrated in Fig. 2(b). In the 1989 paper they used 25
14-
12-
10.
[(T)
8-
6-
4-
2-
0-
- 2 1 -2 I
-3 -2 -1 0 1 -3 -2 -1
LOG T LOG T
Figure 1. Impedance data points with 10 per cent noise used as the
input to AUTOMOD to generate the five-layer model given in column
3 of Table 1 . The response curves depicted by broken lines are the
real (left diagram) and imaginary (right diagram) parts of the
dimensionless impedance for the actual test model; those drawn
with solid lines are the corresponding responses for the five-layer
model yielded by AUTOMOD.
equi-spaced periods between 2.5 X lop3 and 250 s on a
logarithmic time scale. We have actually used 26
equi-spaced periods again (so as to retain the five periods
per decade) in the same range and have included 2 per cent
and 10 per cent random Gaussian noise. The models
returned by AUTOMOD are also shown in Table 2-the
agreement with the original model is quite good for 2 per
cent noisy data (perfect agreement was again achieved with
exact data) but when 10 per cent noise was added the signal-
to-noise ratio at the longer periods became very small as a
result of the impedance values being relatively small there.
The deterioration in the model obtained from these data is
obvious from the values given for the deeper layers in Table
2. The models obtained are compared graphically in Fig.
2(b). In their 1991 paper Dosso & Oldenburg inverted data
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/112/1/115/652969 by guest on 09 April 2020
produced by the same model but for only 12 periods in the
same range. We repeated this exercise and found very
similar results to those in Table 2.
Further examples of the inversion of synthetic data to
which 2 per cent noise has been added are shown in Table 3.
The models all have four layers which are generally deeper
than those in Table 1, and are therefore more relevant to
MT rather than AMT investigations. They have been
designed to illustrate the performance of AUTOMOD on four
distinct types of structures, which can be roughly described
as a ‘sandwiched conductor’ (model I), a ‘sandwiched
resistor’ (model II), a ‘staircase of decreasing resistivity’
(model III), and a ‘staircase of increasing resistivity’ (model
IV). Resistivities and layer thicknesses have been chosen so
as to make the models at least fairly plausible from a
geological point of view. Thus the basement half-space in
model 111 is placed at a greater depth than in the other
models in order to be more suggestive of the conductive
mantle; in model IV the corresponding depth is much
smaller because the now highly resistive basement must
represent the middle crust and not the mantle. Given the
depths of the layers, only 16 logarithmically equi-spaced
points in the longer period MT range of 1 - lo3 s were used
to compute the synthetic data, leaving just 25 degrees of
freedom when calculating the misfit for the responses of the
four layer models found in each case. The results provided
by AUTOMOD again accurately reflect the structures of the
original models from which they were generated. Only the
depth and resistivity of the basement in model 111 deviate
substantially from their true values (albeit preserving the
general trend), but this is hardly surprising because the
structure in this model extends to a greater depth than in the
others. Indeed, when the period range was extended by
another decade, these slight deviations disappeared. With
different variations of random noise AUTOMOD occasionally
generated five- or three-layer models which nevertheless still
closely resembled the original model, the tendency being
either to split one of the original layers into two separate
0 1 layers whose resistivities just failed to meet the criterion in
test (lo), or alternatively to combine adjacent layers into
one.
Turning to real data with error bars, we re-examine the
data set analysed by Fischer & LeQuang (1982) of p, and 4
values recorded at station Ahausen in Germany for 23
periods between 8 s and 1002s. After a series of trials
Fischer & LeQuang decided that a four-layer model was
appropriate for the Ahausen data (see their Fig. l l ) , and
 Inversion of M T data 121
-2
(a)

-1

LOG 2

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/112/1/115/652969 by guest on 09 April 2020

2

LOG P o

0
(b)

2 (km)

10

15

20
-2 0 1 2 3
LOG Pa

Figure 2. (a) The five-layer test model in Table 1 (solid line) and the corresponding models returned by AUTOMOD from data to which 2 per
cent (broken line) and 10 per cent (dotted line) noise has been added. (b) The same diagram for the resistivity model used by Dosso &
Oldenburg (1989). Note that the depth scale in km is logarithmic in (a) and linear in (b).

Table 3. Synthetic models I-IV; the data processed by AUTOMOD

included 2 per cent Gaussian noise.
Layer Model I AUTOMOD Model II AUTOMOD
P(Wh (km) ~ ( n m )
h(km) ~ ( n m )h ( k m ) ~ ( n m ) h (km)
Table 2. The test model used by Dosso & Oldenburg (1989). The 1 1000 1 2.02 103 0.99 100 5 99.5 4.81
results are presented in the same format as in Table 1. 2 10 4 10.1 4.10 1000 10 713 105
3 1000 25 I 42 x 103 24.5 100 15 98.5 14.7
Layer Actual Model 2% Noise 10% Noise 4 10 m 9.24 m 10 c4 8.98 30
Misfit minS25 = 1.5i x m i n s Z 5= 1 5 7 x 10.'
~ ( f l m ) h(km) ~ ( n m ) h(km) p(flm) h(km)
1 250 0.6 250 0.60 252 0.60 Layer Model 111 AUTOMOD Model IV AUTOMOD
2 25 1.4 24.8 1.58 25.3 0.33 ~ ( f l m ) h ( k m J ~ ( n m ) h (km) p(llm) h (km) p ( R m ) h (km)
3 100 4.0 244 2.80 14.32 0.37 1 1000 10 998 10.0 2 1 2.00 0.96
2 100 20 99.6 20.1 10 2 8.28 1.82
4 10 4.0 11.5 5.73 57.0 14.3
3 10 20 8.23 22.5 100 17 92.6 li0
5 25 00 52.5 00 0.10 00 4 2 m 0.10 m 1000 m 902 ?j

Misfit mins13 = 1.78 x minsla = 1.26 x lo-' Misfit min325= 1.46 x 10.' minsz. = 1 5 3 x
122 J . T. Weaver and A . K . Agarwal

Table 4. Models obtained from Ahausen data. Table 5. Models obtained from data at station MUS.
Layer AUTOMOD Fischer & LeQuang Layer AUTOMOD Fischer & Weibel
P(Rm) h (km) PPm) h (km) P(flm) h (km) Pwm) h (km)
1 2.71 2.95 2.69 2.83 1 216 0.10 200 0.09
2 75.9 4.08 34.6 4.11 2 5.68 x lo4 0.75 1.14 x lo4 0.78
3 1.18 4.02 1.39 5.18 3 751 2.22 750 2.20
4 11.3 00 16.5 00 4 2.24 x 103 oo 2.23 x 103 00

Misfit mins39 = 2.04 x lo-' mins39 = 2.11 x lo-' Misfit mins2.I = 2.81 x mins2.r = 2.94 x

their best model is shown in Table 4 (see Tables 3 and 4 in recomputed according to definitions (16) and (17). The
their original paper). AUTOMOD also returned a four-layer models agree very well except for the resistivity p2 of the
model whose parameters are tabulated alongside the second layer. This is not surprising, however, because in
original ones in Table 4. The misfit value quoted by Fischer discussing 'parameter trade-off with these data, Fischer &

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/112/1/115/652969 by guest on 09 April 2020

& LeQuang is not directly comparable with ours (see the LeQuang (1982) showed that p2 could increase without
final sentence in section 1) and has therefore been bound with little effect on the value of the misfit. In other

-3 -2 -1 0
LOG T

75'-

+ 6oo-

15'- €

words, above a certain lower limit the value of p2 has very
little significance.
We conclude with an example of a fairly recent Swiss
AMT data set of apparent resistivity and phase values
recorded at a station (code-named MUS)which has been the
subject of a detailed investigation by Fischer & Weibel
(1991). The model constructed by AUTOMOD has four layers
in agreement with the best model obtained by Fischer &
Weibel; the parameters of both models are compared in
Table 5. The response curves for the model in column 2 are
shown in Fig. 3. The agreement with the Fischer & Weibel
best model is so remarkably close (even though the
weighting factors (3) and (4) were different in the two
schemes) that the curves are almost identical to those in Fig.
1 of the paper by Fischer & Weibel (1991).
6 CONCLUSIONS
Given a 1-D magnetotelluric data set, the program
AUTOMOD will always produce, automatically, a ‘sensible’
layered model with as few layers (maximum 10) as is
‘reasonable’ to give a response that best fits the data, in the
sense that the misfit is minimized in the neighbourhood of
an initial layered model which is derived from Niblett
inversion. By ‘reasonable’ we mean that the number of
dimensions in the model space selected is not so large (for
the given data) that extraneous minima are introduced as a
result of the multiplicity of layers, or so small that the
minimum misfit obtained is unacceptably large; and by
‘sensible’ we mean that the program will generally steer
clear of minima associated with very thin layers (even
though such minima may be smaller than the local minimum
found), because the search for a local minimum always
starts from a ‘sensible’ model.
Minimization of the response function c ( T ) =
-iTZ(T ) / 2 n p 0 instead of the impedance or apparent
resistivity and phase was also tried with AUTOMOD,but we
found the program to perform slightly less robustly in this
case. Another available option that may be useful when
treating real data sets for which prior geological information
is available, is to fix the resistivity and depth of the bottom
layer.
While no new theoretical insights into 1-D inversion have
been presented here, the rather vague criteria (requiring
human judgement) for selecting the right number of layers
in a modelling scheme have been replaced by recognized
statistical tests which can be implemented automatically at a
stated level of confidence. Automation of the method and
its speedy execution have become possible primarily because
of the emergence of relatively inexpensive and powerful
desk-top computers over the last few years.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The indirect contributions to this work by Dr Gaston
Fischer through his informative discussions on the modelling
approach t o inverting magnetotelluric data, during the
Inversion of M T data 123
period when one of us (JTW) spent 6 months at the
Observatoire Cantonal in Neuchbtel, are gratefully acknow-
ledged. Thanks are also due to Dr Pierre Schnegg for his
assistance in preparing the two real data sets which were
used in this study and for explaining how the optimization
routine MINDEF is implemented. This work was supported
by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada and, during the period spent in Neuchbtel, by the
Swiss National Science Foundation.
REFERENCES
Bevington, P. R., 1969. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the
Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Constable, S. C. 1991. Comment on ‘Magnetic appraisal using
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/112/1/115/652969 by guest on 09 April 2020
simulated annealing’ by S. E. Dosso and D. W. Oldenburg,
Geophys. J. Int., 106, 387-388.
Constable, S. C., Parker, R. L. & Constable, C. G. 1987. Occam’s
Inversion: a practical algorithm for generating smooth models
from EM sounding data, Geophysics, 52, 289-300.
Dosso, S . E. & Oldenburg, D. W., 1989. Linear and non-linear
appraisal using extremal models of bounded variation,
Geophys. J . Int., 99, 483-495.
Dosso, S. E. & Oldenburg, D.W., 1Y91. Magnetotelluric appraisal
using simulated annealing, Geophys. J. Int., 106, 379-385.
Fischer, G. & LeQuang, B. V., 1981. Topography and
minimization of the standard deviation in one-dimensional
magnetotelluric modelling, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 67,
279-292.
Fischer, G. & LeQuang, B. V., 1982. Parameter trade-off in
one-dimensional magnetotelluric modelling, J. Geophys., 51,
206-2 15.
Fischer, G . & Weibel, P., 1991. A new look at an old problem:
magnetotelluric modelling of 1-D structures, Geophys. 1. Int.,
106, 161-167.
Fischer, G., Schnegg, P.-A,, Peguiron, M. & LeQuang, B. V.,
1981. An analytic one-dimensional magnetotelluric inversion
scheme, Geophys. J. R . astr. Soc., 67, 257-278.
Niblett, E. R. & Sayn-Wittgenstein, C., 1960. Variations of
electrical conductivity with depth by the magnetotelluric
method, Geophysics, 25, 998-1008.
Parker, R. L., 1980. The inverse problem of electomagnetic
induction: existence and construction of solutions based on
incomplete data. J . geophys. Res., 85B,421-4428,
Parker, R. L., 1983. The magnetotelluric inverse problem.
Geophys. Surv., 6 , 5-25.
Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., Teukolsky, S. A. & Vetterling, W.
T., 1989. Numerical Recipes, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Schmucker, U., 1983. Anomalies of geomagnetic variations in the
southwestern United States. Bull. Scripps Inst. Oceanography,
13, University of California Press, California.
Weaver, J. T. & Fischer, G. 1990. Finding a one-dimensional
layered model: a combination of the Niblett-Bostick and
Fischer-LeQuang schemes. Paper presented at: lcXh Workshop
on Electromagnetic Induction in the Earth, Ensenada, Mexico.
Weidelt, P., 1972. The inverse problem of geomagnetic induction,
Z. Geophys., 38, 257-289.
Whittall, K. P. & Oldenburg, D. W., 1992. Inversion of
magnetotelluric data for a one-dimensional conductivity.
Geophysics Monograph Series No. 5, ed. Fitterman, D. V.,
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.