The Neuro-Physical Inverter: A Modular Framework for Magnetotelluric Inversion Coupling Ensemble Conditioning with Residual Learning
Organizations: MIT-WHOI Joint Program in Oceanography/Applied Ocean Science and Engineering, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA · Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA · Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA
Abstract
We present the Neuro-Physical Inverter (NPI), a modular, uncertainty-aware framework for geophysical inversion that couples ensemble-based conditioning with constrained residual learning, demonstrated in the 1D magnetotelluric (MT) setting as a controlled testbed. The framework operates in two stages. An Ensemble-Conditional Gaussian Process (EnsCGP) conditions a prior ensemble of resistivity models on the observed response, producing a physically admissible reference ensemble. A residual-learning neural network then predicts targeted corrections to this reference, trained on synthetic data and fine-tuned per station for field application through a physics-coupled objective. Because an ensemble is conditioned, refined, and propagated through both stages, every estimate carries an associated ensemble spread. Synthetic experiments show that NPI systematically reduces ensemble-mean error without destabilizing the ensemble. Applied to broadband MT data from the Gabbs Valley geothermal region (Nevada, USA), NPI reduces the across-station mean misfit over the mid-period band while retaining comparable ensemble spread. The propagated ensemble yields a factor of uncertainty that serves as an operational measure of constraint within the assumed model class. Both stages are dimension-agnostic in formulation, and the design principles established here are intended to scale to higher-dimensional parameterizations.
Figures & tables
| Accuracy | Ensemble | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | RMS | nRMS | mean | 90% | 95% | Percentile | Spread/error |
| EnsCGP | 0.131 | 1.355 | 1.85 | 88.6% | 94.1% | 42 | 0.97 |
| NPI | 0.111 | 0.962 | 2.13 | 96.8% | 98.6% | 52 | 1.40 |
| RTO-TKO | 0.135 | 1.011 | 2.62 | 94.7% | 97.1% | 48 | 1.42 |
| End-to-end | 0.104 | 0.961 | – | – | – | – | – |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Component | Parameter | Value |
| EnsCGP | Ensemble size | 500 |
| Localization | 500 nearest neighbors, cosine distance in data space | |
| Observation noise model | , (5% relative impedance error, Eq. 14) | |
| ResNet-1D pretraining | Architecture | 2-channel input, conv stem (32), four residual blocks (32 64 128 64 32), global average pool, FC(32 64 89) |
| Optimizer | AdamW, learning rate , weight decay | |
| Loss | Huber, |
| Method | Time (s) | Ensemble | Per-member / per-draw cost | Execution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EnsCGP | 1.03 | 500 | 0.00205 s per member | parallel, 4 worker processes |
| NPI | 11.96 | 500 | fine-tuning 11.01 s (independent of ensemble size); propagation and forward modeling 0.00190 s per member | fine-tuning single-threaded; propagation batched; per-member forward modeling serial |
| RTO-TKO | 640.07 | 500 (+50 burn-in) | 1.28 s per kept sample (1.16 s per draw including burn-in) | serial Markov chain; per-draw Jacobian assembly parallel, 16 threads |
| End-to-end † | 5.19 | n/a | n/a, single point estimate | single-threaded |
| † No ensemble; reported for completeness and not part of the EnsCGP, NPI, and RTO-TKO comparison in Section III-B3 . | ||||
| Accuracy | Ensemble | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Setting | Method | RMS | nRMS | mean | 90% | 95% | Percentile | Spread/error |
| In distribution | EnsCGP | 0.124 | 1.200 | 1.79 | 88.3% | 93.8% | 42 | 0.98 |
| NPI | 0.114 | 1.058 | 1.83 | 93.1% | 96.8% | 53 | 1.10 | |
| End-to-end (MC dropout) | 0.191 | 1.798 | 1.58 | 59.2% | 66.9% | 47 | 0.52 | |
| Out of distribution | EnsCGP | 0.196 | 1.608 | 1.68 | 72.7% | 78.0% | 44 | 0.55 |
| NPI | 0.192 | 1.583 | 1.71 | 74.6% | 79.9% | 54 | 0.57 | |
Inverse Problems
Inverse problems infer hidden causes, parameters, or signals from indirect, noisy measurements using physical models, priors, and statistical methods.
See all 246 papers