Abstract: In this chapter, I discuss an alternative perspective on interpreting the results of joint and constrained inversions of geophysical data. Typically such inversions are performed based on inductive reasoning (i.e. we fit a limited set of observations and conclude that the resulting model is representative of the Earth). While this has seen many successes, it is less useful when, for example, the specified relationship between different physical parameters is violated in parts of the inversion domain. I argue that in these cases a hypothesis testing perspective can help to learn more about the properties of the Earth. I present joint and constrained inversion examples that show how we can use violations of the assumptions specified in the inversion to study the subsurface. In particular I focus on the combination of gravity and magnetic data with seismic constraints in the western United States. There I see that high velocity structures in the crust are associated with relatively low density anomalies, a possible indication of the presence of melt in a strong rock matrix. The concepts, however, can be applied to other types of data and other regions and offer an extra dimension of analysis to interpret the results of geophysical inversion algorithms.

Geophysical methods have the potential to delineate and map the geometry of glacially induced faults (GIFs) in the hard rock environment of the Baltic Shield. Relevant geophysical methods include seismic, geoelectric, electromagnetic, magnetic and gravity ones. However, seismic methods have the greatest potential for determining the geometry at depth due to their higher resolving power. Seismic methods have even been used to identify a previously unknown GIF within the Pärvie Fault system. The other geophysical methods are usually employed to image the near-surface structure of GIFs. We provide a brief review of geophysical principles and how they apply to imaging of GIFs in the hard rock environment. The advantages and challenges associated with various geophysical methods are discussed through several case histories. Results to date show that it is possible to map GIFs dipping at 35–65° from the near-surface down to depths of 7–8 km. It is not clear if the limiting factor in their mapping at depth is the nature of the faults or the limitations in the seismic acquisition parameters since the mapping capacity is highly dependent upon the acquisition geometry and source type used.