Conventional in-situ stress inversion based mainly on stress-magnitude fitting may yield non-unique solutions with similar magnitude residuals but inconsistent principal stress orientations. Moreover, traditional data-driven methods usually require large training datasets, limiting their applicability when high-fidelity forward simulations are expensive. To address these limitations, this study proposes a physically constrained Bayesian optimization framework, termed SOC-BO, for sample-efficient and geomechanically consistent in-situ stress inversion from hydraulic fracturing (HF) measurements. The inversion is formulated as a constrained optimization problem in which a measurement-point-normalized objective function is constructed to reduce the scale-dominance effect caused by large spatial variations in stress magnitude, while the measured maximum horizontal principal stress ( S H ) azimuths are introduced as explicit physical constraints. Through the probability of feasibility, the sequential procedure allocates high-fidelity simulations to candidates having both low normalized component misfit and acceptable S H -azimuth consistency. The method was validated using HF measurements from an ultra-long, deeply buried tunnel on the eastern margin of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. SOC-BO identified the best feasible solution within 67 forward simulations. Compared with unconstrained Bayesian optimization under the same initial design, SOC-BO reduced the forward-simulation budget by 28.7% and the optimal objective value by 12.5%. Compared with a genetic-algorithm-optimized backpropagation neural network under the same forward-simulation budget, the stress-magnitude and S H -azimuth RMSEs were reduced by 34% and 36%, respectively. These results indicate that SOC-BO provides a physically constrained and sample-efficient approach to improve parameter identifiability and suppress S H -azimuth inconsistent non-unique solutions in HF-based inversion when the regional stress direction is sufficiently coherent and local directional uncertainty can be quantified.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wei et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: