Why we should not report unconstrained inversion output in densities or magnetic susceptibilities

Unconstrained gravity and magnetic inversions are too readily accepted as justified representations of the ground structure. Reliable estimates from unconstrained inversions are mostly restricted to discrete anomalies which can be reasonably separated from other field variations. Furthermore, for those inversions only the values of total anomalous mass or magnetization and its centre location are reliable. These limitations apply identically to both parametric and voxel inversions. Density and magnetization or magnetic susceptibility values and the details of their distribution are rarely recovered reliably from unconstrained inversions. We suggest that reporting of only those statistics reliably recovered from inversions will enhance the value of inversions even though we are jettisoning much of the apparent detail that is currently accepted.