Object-based model verification by a genetic algorithm approach: Application in archeological targets

Abstract A new target-oriented parameterization scheme, named the object-based model, is suggested to represent man-made or natural targets as regular shapes embedded in a two-dimensional resistivity background. The numerical values of the target parameters (size, depth, location and resistivity) are estimated in three steps consisting of conventional regularized inversion, exclusion of anomalous regions and delineation of target bodies. The method produces sharp edges and sharp variation in intrinsic resistivity between the targets and background. The number of target objects is decided by the visual inspection of the 2D resistivity section derived from the application of a conventional cell-based regularized inversion. The 2D background is also extracted from the same section. A genetic algorithm approach is used at the final stage to test a large number of distinct models. Each test model consists of the same number of objects buried in the 2D background. The size, depth, location and resistivity of the targets are estimated from a class of models generated by the application of biological rules. The derived images of buried bodies have sharp edges and can then be understood by engineers and archeologists. However, if the hypothesis about the ‘conceptual model’ is very different from the geometry of the subsurface, the proposed approach will not be able to produce satisfactory results.

[1]  E. Cardarelli,et al.  Electrical resistivity tomography to detect buried cavities in Rome: a case study , 2006 .

[2]  T. Günther Inversion methods and resolution analysis for the 2D/3D reconstruction of resistivity structures from DC measurements , 2004 .

[3]  Irfan Akca,et al.  Extraction of structure-based geoelectric models by hybrid genetic algorithms , 2010 .

[4]  A. T. Basokur,et al.  Detecting small‐scale targets by the 2D inversion of two‐sided three‐electrode data: application to an archaeological survey , 2001 .

[5]  M. Everett,et al.  Two-Dimensional Nonlinear Magnetotelluric Inversion Using a Genetic Algorithm , 1993 .

[6]  Robin P. Fletcher,et al.  Suppressing unwanted internal reflections in prestack reverse-time migration , 2006 .

[7]  Mrinal K. Sen,et al.  Global Optimization Methods in Geophysical Inversion , 1995 .

[8]  Thomas Hennig,et al.  Object orientated focussing of geoelectrical multielectrode measurements , 2008 .

[9]  Michele Cercato,et al.  Electrical resistivity and seismic refraction tomography to detect buried cavities , 2008 .

[10]  M. Dabas,et al.  Three‐dimensional inversion of automatic resistivity profiling data , 2009 .

[11]  Ugur Yaramanci,et al.  Use of block inversion in the 2-D interpretation of apparent resistivity data and its comparison with smooth inversion , 2000 .

[12]  Aria Abubakar,et al.  Inversion of controlled‐source electromagnetic data using a model‐based approach , 2010 .

[13]  Irfan Akca,et al.  Hybrid genetic algorithms in view of the evolution theories with application for the electrical sounding method , 2007 .

[14]  Michael S. Zhdanov,et al.  3D electromagnetic inversion based on quasi-analytical approximation , 2000 .

[15]  M. A. Pérez-Flores,et al.  Application of 2-D inversion with genetic algorithms to magnetotelluric data from geothermal areas , 2002 .

[16]  G. Tsokas,et al.  Tracing a major Roman road in the area of ancient Helike by resistivity tomography , 2009 .

[17]  Klaus Mosegaard,et al.  MONTE CARLO METHODS IN GEOPHYSICAL INVERSE PROBLEMS , 2002 .

[18]  A. Christiansen,et al.  Optimizing a layered and laterally constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data using Broyden's update and 1D derivatives , 2004 .

[19]  M. Jha,et al.  Vertical electrical sounding survey and resistivity inversion using genetic algorithm optimization technique , 2008 .

[20]  L. West,et al.  The use of reference models from a priori data to guide 2D inversion of electrical resistivity tomography data , 2009 .

[21]  Michael S. Zhdanov,et al.  A novel approach to the model appraisal and resolution analysis of regularized geophysical inversion , 2006 .

[22]  N. Papadopoulos,et al.  Two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional resistivity imaging in archaeological site investigation , 2006 .

[23]  J. L. Fernández Martínez,et al.  Feasibility Analysis of the Use of Binary Genetic Algorithms as Importance Samplers Application to a 1-D DC Resistivity Inverse Problem , 2008 .

[24]  Ty P. A. Ferré,et al.  Optimization of ERT Surveys for Monitoring Transient Hydrological Events Using Perturbation Sensitivity and Genetic Algorithms , 2004 .

[25]  Chris Gaffney,et al.  DETECTING TRENDS IN THE PREDICTION OF THE BURIED PAST : A REVIEW OF GEOPHYSICAL TECHNIQUES IN ARCHAEOLOGY , 2008 .

[26]  Christoph Schwarzbach,et al.  Two‐dimensional inversion of direct current resistivity data using a parallel, multi‐objective genetic algorithm , 2005 .

[27]  Ying Ji,et al.  Sensitivity study using a genetic algorithm: inversion of amplitude variations with slowness , 2000 .

[28]  John C. Cripps,et al.  3D electrical imaging of known targets at a controlled environmental test site , 2002 .

[29]  Mrinal K. Sen,et al.  Non‐linear inversion of resistivity profiling data for some regular geometrical bodies , 1995 .

[30]  S. Friedel,et al.  Resolution, stability and efficiency of resistivity tomography estimated from a generalized inverse approach , 2003 .