Engineering Geology

Engineering Geology

Magnetic Data Inversion Optimization Using the Mountain Gazelle Optimization Algorithm: A Case Study of 2D Dipping Dykes

Author
reza Toushmalani
Islamic Azad University, Rasht Branch
10.22034/JEG.2025.19.2.1020351
Abstract
Inversion of magnetic data to characterisegeological structures, such as dikes, is a fundamental challenge in engineering geophysics due to its highly non-linear and ill-posed nature, necessitating robust optimization methods. This study introduces and evaluates for the first time, the Mountain Gazelle Optimizer (MGO) for the first time, examining its efficiency and potential as an effective solution to this problem. The MGOalgorithm is designed to find the global optimum by intelligently balancing exploration and exploitation within the parameter space. The performance of the MGO was assessed by comparing it with two distinct approaches: a powerful machine learning algorithm called Random Forest (RF), and a classic processing-estimation method based on Reduction to the Pole (RTP). Evaluations were conducted on synthetic data (with noise levels ranging from 0% to 20%) as well as on real field data from the Gansu iron deposit in China. The results clearly demonstrated the superiority of MGO in all scenarios. Not only did the algorithm exhibit greater stability against noise than RF, it also, achieved a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.48 in the real data case study,, which was significantly lower than the error achieved by the classic method (0.88). Furthermore, the parameters estimated by MGO showed better alignment with the geological information from existing drilling data in the area. This study suggests that MGO's superiority obtained from its direct and global inversion approach. Ultimately, MGO is presented as an accurate and reliable tool for exploration and engineering applications.
Keywords
Mountain Gazelle Optimization Algorithm
Random Forest
Dipping Dykes
Magnetic Data Inversion Optimization
Abdollahzadeh, B., Gharehchopogh, F. S., Khodadadi, N., & Mirjalili, S. (2022). Mountain gazelle optimizer: A new nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Advances in Engineering Software, 174, 103282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2022.103282
Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
Çınar, H., & Kandemir, I. (2021). Active energy management based on meta-heuristic algorithms of fuel cell/battery/supercapacitor energy storage system for aircraft. Aerospace, 8(3), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8030085
Cutler, A., & Zhao, G. (2001). PERT – Perfect ensemble random trees. Unpublished manuscript.
Du, W., Cheng, L., & Li, Y. (2021). lp Norm smooth inversion of magnetic anomaly based on improved adaptive differential evolution. Applied Sciences, 11(3), 1072. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031072
El-Henawy, I., & Abdelmegeed, N. A. (2018). Meta-heuristics algorithms: A survey. International Journal of Computer Applications, 179(22), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2018916388
Fouad, F., Kassam, A. E. H., & Al-Zubaidi, S. S. (2024). A new heuristic method for solving unbalanced multi-objective assignment problem. Engineering Research Express, 6(4), 045429. https://doi.org/10.1088/2631-8695/ad7c7e
Geurts, P., Ernst, D., & Wehenkel, L. (2006). Extremely randomized trees. Machine Learning, 63(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1
Gharehchopogh, F. S. (2022). An improved tunicate swarm algorithm with best-random mutation strategy for global optimization problems. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 19(4), 1177–1202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42235-022-00185-6
Karthik, N., Rajagopalan, A., Bajaj, M., Medhi, P., Kanimozhi, R., Blazek, V., & Prokop, L. (2024). Chaotic self-adaptive sine cosine multi-objective optimization algorithm to solve microgrid optimal energy scheduling problems. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 18997. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69874-9
Khunkitti, S., Siritaratiwat, A., & Premrudeepreechacharn, S. (2023). A many-objective mountain gazelle optimizer for parameter extraction of photovoltaic models. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 15404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42666-8
Liaw, A., & Wiener, M. (2002). Classification and regression by randomForest. R News, 2(3), 18–22. https://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/Rnews_2002-3.pdf
Mirjalili, S., Mirjalili, S. M., & Lewis, A. (2014). Grey wolf optimizer. Advances in Engineering Software, 69, 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007
Rodriguez-Galiano, V. F., Ghimire, B., Rogan, J., Chica-Olmo, M., & Rigol-Sanchez, J. P. (2012). An assessment of the effectiveness of a random forest classifier for land-cover classification. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 67, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2011.11.002
Tan, R. K., & Bora, Ş. (2019). Adaptive parameter tuning for agent-based modeling and simulation. Simulation, 95(9), 771–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549718790008
Toushmalani, R., Essa, K. S., & Ibraheem, I. M. (2024). A well-structured metaheuristic optimization technique for magnetic data inversion of 2D dipping dyke-like geological structures using the cuckoo optimization algorithm. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-024-08879-8