A Cramér–Rao resolution limit for structural-parameter estimation in electrical resistivity tomography: interface dip, data noise, and model error

Clicks: 17
ID: 328150
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #203 of 338 articles by views in geophysical journal international

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 338 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Summary Dip is often read from a regularized electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) image without a parameter-specific uncertainty. Image-resolution measures describe how an inversion blurs the resistivity field, but they do not give a noise-dependent limit for the dip of a geological interface. We derive that limit from the 2.5-D forward operator using Fisher information and a Cramér–Rao bound (CRB). The background resistivity is profiled out in log-data space. For a specified structural family, the dip standard error satisfies $\sigma _\theta \ge \sigma /\left\Vert \partial g_0/\partial \theta \right\Vert _{P_{C_0}}$. We also derive a marginal bound for unknown geometry and a first-order bias caused by structural misspecification. Tests with a 30-electrode dipole–dipole array show that the maximum-likelihood estimate attains the CRB when the fitted family is correct. At 3 % noise, the single-parameter floor is 0.14–0.50○ and the geometry-marginalised floor is 0.33–0.72○. Holding a coupled geometry parameter one cell away from its true value instead produces a 3–5○ dip bias. This is 6–25 times the formal floor. An ablation attributes most of the bias to thickness, width, or depth rather than resistivity contrast. The result is conditional on the chosen model family: the CRB measures noise-limited precision within that family, whereas the bias measures the cost of using the wrong geometry. For the cases tested here, improving an independent geometric constraint is therefore more useful than further reducing data noise.
Reference Key
openalex_W7212031990 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Junghoon Choi
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal geophysical journal international
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/gji/ggag370
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggag370
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.