Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms in Geophysics: A Comprehensive Review of Seismic Inversion, Potential Field Modeling, and Geophysical Data Interpretation

Authors

https://doi.org/10.48313/maa.v2i3.51

Abstract

Geophysical inverse problems are inherently ill-posed, non-unique, and nonlinear, posing substantial challenges for deterministic optimization methods that are prone to entrapment in local minima. Over the past three decades, metaheuristic optimization algorithms have emerged as powerful alternatives for solving complex geophysical inversion problems across multiple subdisciplines. This paper presents a comprehensive systematic review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework, of metaheuristic algorithm applications in geophysics from 1990 to 2025. A total of 312 peer-reviewed publications were identified from Scopus, Web of Science, Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) Library, GeoRef, and Google Scholar databases, of which 186 met the inclusion criteria for detailed analysis. The review encompasses six primary geophysical domains: seismic data processing and inversion, gravity and magnetic field modeling, Electromagnetic (EM) and resistivity methods, seismological applications, well log analysis and petrophysics, and geophysical survey design optimization. Comparative performance analyses reveal that Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Differential Evolution (DE) consistently demonstrate superior convergence properties and solution accuracy across most geophysical inversion problems, while Simulated Annealing (SA) maintains advantages for high-dimensional parameter spaces with rugged objective function landscapes. Hybrid approaches coupling metaheuristics with local gradient-based methods show improvements of 15–45% in misfit reduction with 30–60% fewer forward model evaluations. Bibliometric analysis indicates exponential growth in publications since 2010, with recent trends emphasizing Graphics Processing Unit (GPU)-accelerated implementations, deep learning surrogate models, and multi-physics joint inversion frameworks. The review identifies critical challenges including computational scalability for three-dimensional models, uncertainty quantification, and the gap between synthetic benchmarks and field data validation. Future directions including quantum-inspired metaheuristics, physics-informed neural network surrogates, and cloud-based distributed inversion architectures are discussed.

Keywords:

Metaheuristic algorithms, Geophysical inversion, Seismic optimization, Gravity modeling, Electromagnetic inversion

References

  1. [1] Tarantola, A. (2005). Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. https://scispace.com/pdf/inverse-problem-theory-and-methods-for-model-parameter-335c19f078.pdf
  2. [2] Menke, W. (2018). Geophysical data analysis: Discrete inverse theory. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813555-6.00001-0
  3. [3] Tikhonov, A. N., & Arsenin, V. Y. (1997). Solutions of ill-posed problems. Winston & Sons. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1971430859759815825/holdings
  4. [4] Constable, S. C., Parker, R. L., & Constable, C. G. (1987). Occam’s inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics, 52(3), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442303
  5. [5] Lines, L. R., & Treitel, S. (1984). A review of least-squares inversion and its application to geophysical problems. Geophysical prospecting, 32(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1984.tb00726.x
  6. [6] Glover, F. (1986). Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence. Computers & operations research, 13(5), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(86)90048-1
  7. [7] Holland, J. H. (1992). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: An introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262082136/adaptation-in-natural-and-artificial-systems/
  8. [8] Storn, R., & Price, K. (1997). Differential evolution--a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. Journal of global optimization, 11(4), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328
  9. [9] Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. (1995). Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of ICNN’95-international conference on neural networks (Vol. 4, pp. 1942–1948). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968
  10. [10] Dorigo, M., Maniezzo, V., & Colorni, A. (1996). Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, part b (cybernetics), 26(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/3477.484436
  11. [11] Karaboga, D. (2005). An idea based on honey bee swarm for numerical optimization. https://abc.erciyes.edu.tr/pub/tr06_2005.pdf
  12. [12] Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt Jr, C. D., & Vecchi, M. P. (1983). Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220(4598), 671–680. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1370016973449261184
  13. [13] Rashedi, E., Nezamabadi Pour, H., & Saryazdi, S. (2009). GSA: A gravitational search algorithm. Information sciences, 179(13), 2232–2248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2009.03.004
  14. [14] 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
  15. [15] Mirjalili, S., & Lewis, A. (2016). The whale optimization algorithm. Advances in engineering software, 95, 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.01.008
  16. [16] Heidari, A. A., Mirjalili, S., Faris, H., Aljarah, I., Mafarja, M., & Chen, H. (2019). Harris Hawks optimization: Algorithm and applications. Future generation computer systems, 97, 849–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028
  17. [17] Mirjalili, S. (2015). Moth-flame optimization algorithm: A novel nature-inspired heuristic paradigm. Knowledge-based systems, 89, 228–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.07.006
  18. [18] Mirjalili, S. (2016). SCA: A sine cosine algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowledge-based systems, 96, 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.12.022
  19. [19] Yang, X. S. (2010). A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm. In Nature inspired cooperative strategies for optimization (NICSO 2010) (pp. 65–74). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12538-6_6
  20. [20] Yang, X. S., & Deb, S. (2009). Cuckoo search via lévy flights. 2009 world congress on nature & biologically inspired computing (NABIC) (pp. 210–214). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/NABIC.2009.5393690
  21. [21] Rothman, D. H. (1985). Nonlinear inversion, statistical mechanics, and residual statics estimation. Geophysics, 50(12), 2784–2796. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441899
  22. [22] Rothman, D. H. (1986). Automatic estimation of large residual statics corrections. Geophysics, 51(2), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442092
  23. [23] Sen, M. K., & Stoffa, P. L. (1991). Nonlinear one-dimensional seismic waveform inversion using simulated annealing. Geophysics, 56(10), 1624–1638. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442973
  24. [24] Sambridge, M., & Drijkoningen, G. (1992). Genetic algorithms in seismic waveform inversion. Geophysical journal international, 109(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1992.tb00100.x
  25. [25] Stoffa, P. L., & Sen, M. K. (1991). Nonlinear multiparameter optimization using genetic algorithms; inversion of plane-wave seismograms. Geophysics, 56(11), 1794–1810. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442992
  26. [26] Shaw, R., & Srivastava, S. (2007). Particle swarm optimization: A new tool to invert geophysical data. Geophysics, 72(2), F75-F83. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2432481
  27. [27] Pallero, J. L. G., Fernández Muñiz, M. Z., Cernea, A., Álvarez Machancoses, Ó., Pedruelo González, L. M., Bonvalot, S., & Fernández Martinez, J. L. (2018). Particle swarm optimization and uncertainty assessment in inverse problems. Entropy, 20(2), 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/e20020096
  28. [28] Vitale, A., & Fedi, M. (2020). Self-constrained inversion of potential fields through a 3D depth weighting. Geophysics, 85(6), G143-G156. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2019-0812.1
  29. [29] Zhdanov, M. S. (2002). Geophysical inverse theory and regularization problems. Elsevier. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256504559
  30. [30] Claerbout, J. F., & Muir, F. (1973). Robust modeling with erratic data. Geophysics, 38(5), 826–844. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440378
  31. [31] deGroot Hedlin, C., & Constable, S. (1990). Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics, 55(12), 1613–1624. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442813
  32. [32] Sen, M., & Stoffa, P. (1996). Bayesian inference, Gibbs sampler and uncertainty estimation in nonlinear geophysical inversion. Geophysical prospecting, 44(2), 313–350. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201409813
  33. [33] Sambridge, M. (1999). Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm—I. Searching a parameter space. Geophysical journal international, 138(2), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.1999.00876.x
  34. [34] Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., & Mulrow, C. D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British medical journal, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  35. [35] Sajeva, A., Aleardi, M., Stucchi, E., Bienati, N., & Mazzotti, A. (2016). Estimation of acoustic macro models using a genetic full-waveform inversion: Applications to the Marmousi model. Geophysics, 81(4), R173-R184. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015-0198.1
  36. [36] Datta, D., & Sen, M. K. (2016). Estimating a starting model for full-waveform inversion using a global optimization method. Geophysics, 81(4), R211-R223. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015-0339.1
  37. [37] Kant, R., Maurya, S. P., Singh, K. H., Nisar, K. S., & Tiwari, A. K. (2024). Qualitative and quantitative reservoir characterization using seismic inversion based on particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithm: A comparative case study. Scientific reports, 14(1), 22581. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-72278-2
  38. [38] Buland, A., & Omre, H. (2003). Bayesian linearized AVO inversion. Geophysics, 68(1), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1543206
  39. [39] Song, X., Tang, L., Lv, X., Fang, H., & Gu, H. (2012). Application of particle swarm optimization to interpret Rayleigh wave dispersion curves. Journal of applied geophysics, 84, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2012.05.011
  40. [40] Wilken, D., & Rabbel, W. (2012). On the application of particle swarm optimization strategies on Scholte-wave inversion. Geophysical journal international, 190(1), 580–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05500.x
  41. [41] Yamanaka, H., & Ishida, H. (1996). Application of genetic algorithms to an inversion of surface-wave dispersion data. Bulletin of the seismological society of america, 86(2), 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0860020436
  42. [42] Beaty, K. S., Schmitt, D. R., & Sacchi, M. (2002). Simulated annealing inversion of multimode Rayleigh wave dispersion curves for geological structure. Geophysical journal international, 151(2), 622–631. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2002.01809.x
  43. [43] Vashisth, D., Shekar, B., & Srivastava, S. (2022). Joint inversion of rayleigh wave fundamental and higher order mode phase velocity dispersion curves using multi-objective grey wolf optimization. Geophysical prospecting, 70(3), 479–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13176
  44. [44] Boschetti, F., Dentith, M. C., & List, R. D. (1996). Inversion of seismic refraction data using genetic algorithms. Geophysics, 61(6), 1715–1727. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444089
  45. [45] Sambridge, M. (1999). Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm—II. Appraising the ensemble. Geophysical journal international, 138(3), 727–746. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246x.1999.00900.x
  46. [46] Daley, T. M., Myer, L. R., Peterson, J. E., Majer, E. L., & Hoversten, G. M. (2008). Time-lapse crosswell seismic and VSP monitoring of injected CO2 in a brine aquifer. Environmental geology, 54(8), 1657–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0943-z
  47. [47] Sen, M. K., & Stoffa, P. L. (2013). Global optimization methods in geophysical inversion. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511997570
  48. [48] Ekinci, Y. L., Balkaya, Ç., Göktürkler, G., & Turan, S. (2016). Model parameter estimations from residual gravity anomalies due to simple-shaped sources using differential evolution algorithm. Journal of applied geophysics, 129, 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.03.040
  49. [49] Pallero, J. L. G., Fernández Martinez, J. L., Bonvalot, S., & Fudym, O. (2015). Gravity inversion and uncertainty assessment of basement relief via particle swarm optimization. Journal of applied geophysics, 116, 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2015.03.008
  50. [50] Biswas, A., & Acharya, T. (2016). A very fast simulated annealing method for inversion of magnetic anomaly over semi-infinite vertical rod-type structure. Modeling earth systems and environment, 2(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0256-x
  51. [51] Vashisth, D., Pollack, A., Mukerji, T., & Siler, D. (2023). Stochastic inversion of gravity and magnetic data to build subsurface geological fault models using evolution and swarm intelligence-inspired optimization algorithms. Proceedings of the 48th workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering (pp. 1-17). Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States. https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/GeoConf/papers/SGW/2023/Vashisth.pdf
  52. [52] Dosso, S. E., & Oldenburg, D. W. (1991). Magnetotelluric appraisal using simulated annealing. Geophysical journal international, 106(2), 379–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1991.tb03899.x
  53. [53] Heriyanto, M. (2016). 1-D magnetotelluric data inversion using modified very fast simulated annealing (MVFSA) [Thesis]. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35938.43209
  54. [54] Fernández Martinez, J. L., Garcia Gonzalo, E., & Naudet, V. (2010). Particle swarm optimization applied to solving and appraising the streaming-potential inverse problem. Geophysics, 75(4), WA3-WA15. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3460842
  55. [55] Busch, S., Van der Kruk, J., Bikowski, J., & Vereecken, H. (2012). Quantitative conductivity and permittivity estimation using full-waveform inversion of on-ground GPR data. Geophysics, 77(6), H79-H91. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2012-0045.1
  56. [56] Grayver, A. V, & Kuvshinov, A. V. (2016). Exploring equivalence domain in nonlinear inverse problems using covariance matrix adaption evolution strategy (CMAES) and random sampling. Geophysical journal international, 205(2), 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw063
  57. [57] Billings, S. D., Kennett, B. L. N., & Sambridge, M. S. (1994). Hypocentre location: Genetic algorithms incorporating problem-specific information. Geophysical journal international, 118(3), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1994.tb03994.x
  58. [58] Lomax, A., Virieux, J., Volant, P., & Berge Thierry, C. (2000). Probabilistic earthquake location in 3D and layered models: Introduction of a Metropolis-Gibbs method and comparison with linear locations. In Advances in seismic event location (pp. 101–134). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9536-0_5
  59. [59] Sambridge, M. S., & Kennett, B. L. N. (2001). Seismic event location: Nonlinear inversion using a neighbourhood algorithm. Pure and applied geophysics, 158(1), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00001158
  60. [60] Snoke, J. A., Lee, W. H. K., Kanamori, H., Jennings, P. C., & Kisslinger, C. (2003). FOCMEC: Focal mechanism determinations. International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, 85, 1629–1630. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-6142%2803%2980291-7
  61. [61] Sokos, E. N., & Zahradnik, J. (2008). ISOLA a Fortran code and a Matlab GUI to perform multiple-point source inversion of seismic data. Computers & geosciences, 34(8), 967–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2007.07.005
  62. [62] Kayhan, A. H., Korkmaz, K. A., & Irfanoglu, A. (2011). Selecting and scaling real ground motion records using harmony search algorithm. Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 31(7), 941–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.02.009
  63. [63] Sun, B., & Qi, L. (2026). Ground motion inversion method based on generalized chaotic particle swarm optimization. Public library of science (PLoS) one, 21(4), e0341957. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341957
  64. [64] Heidari, Z., Torres Verdin, C., & Preeg, W. E. (2012). Improved estimation of mineral and fluid volumetric concentrations from well logs in thinly bedded and invaded formations. Geophysics, 77(3), WA79-WA98. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2011-0454.1
  65. [65] Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., & Dvorkin, J. (2020). The rock physics handbook. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333016
  66. [66] Al-Mudhafar, W. J. (2017). Integrating well log interpretations for lithofacies classification and permeability modeling through advanced machine learning algorithms. Journal of petroleum exploration and production technology, 7(4), 1023–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-017-0360-0
  67. [67] Chen, T., & Huang, L. (2022). Optimal design of microseismic monitoring network for cost-effective monitoring of geologic carbon storage. In Geophysical monitoring for geologic carbon storage (pp. 41–52). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119156871.ch4
  68. [68] Curtis, A. (2004). Theory of model-based geophysical survey and experimental design: Part 1—linear problems. The leading edge, 23(10), 997–1004. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1813346
  69. [69] Pérez Flores, M. A., & Schultz, A. (2002). Application of 2-D inversion with genetic algorithms to magnetotelluric data from geothermal areas. Earth, planets and space, 54(5), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03353049
  70. [70] Shibutani, T., Sambridge, M., & Kennett, B. (1996). Genetic algorithm inversion for receiver functions with application to crust and uppermost mantle structure beneath eastern Australia. Geophysical research letters, 23(14), 1829–1832. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/44381522
  71. [71] Fernandez Martinez, J. L., Fernandez Muniz, M. Z., & Tompkins, M. J. (2012). On the topography of the cost functional in linear and nonlinear inverse problems. Geophysics, 77(1), W1-W15. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2011-0341.1
  72. [72] Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (2002). No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 1(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.585893
  73. [73] Chen, J., Dai, Z., Yin, S., Zhang, M., & Soltanian, M. R. (2025). Enhancing inverse modeling in groundwater systems through machine learning: A comprehensive comparative study. Hydrology and earth system sciences, 29(17), 4251–4279. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4251-2025

Downloads

Published

2025-06-17

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): Metaheuristic Algorithms with Applications

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Ghasemabadi, N. (2025). Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms in Geophysics: A Comprehensive Review of Seismic Inversion, Potential Field Modeling, and Geophysical Data Interpretation. Metaheuristic Algorithms With Applications, 2(3), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.48313/maa.v2i3.51

Similar Articles

11-19 of 19

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.