## 4 Results and Discussion
Geological conditions are complex and variable; thus, a single fixed SI may not suit the entire study area, but having methods to exclude solutions can more easily eliminate interfering ones, focusing on areas of interest. Combining both approaches in this case might be an effective attempt. To estimate the accuracy of the solutions, a survey line (L3400) across IMA3 was selected and the solutions were imported into the line. Based on their distribution patterns, a simple cross-sectional model was established (c). In Figure 10, geological body boundaries were roughly outlined according to the Euler deconvolution solutions. We assumed that sediment magnetic susceptibility is approximately zero while assigning higher values for rock bodies (around 0.01 to 0.02 SI units; iterative calculation can also be performed by fixing spatial ranges of rocks), and calculating magnetic field values based on regional inclination, declination, and other geomagnetic background parameters. A misfit of less than 20 nT has already shown a good result compared to magnetic anomalies of several hundred nanoteslas. Figure 8: Color range symbols’ map of located AN-EUL deconvolution depths of the DZL area. The symbols are overlaid on the tilt angle with 40% transparency. The symbol colors range from cool to warm, and the sizes from small to large represent increasing-in-depth values. Based on the genesis of the DZL ore deposit, the contact zones between rock bodies and surrounding rocks are favorable locations for mineralization. Therefore, we use the zero-value lines of the tilt angle as a basis to identify the potential rock bodies in the study area and combine them with the Euler deconvolution distribution characteristics to recommend the areas outside the identified rock bodies as potential targets for further exploration work (Figure 11). Among them, we prioritize the areas along the extension of the DZL ore deposit, as they have the most similar conditions to the DZL ore deposit and are more likely to help discover new ore bodies. This favorable zone (zone 1 in Figure 11) is roughly an arc-shaped belt extending westward from the DZL deposit, with a length of approximately 6 km. The magnetic source depths are relatively shallow at the DZL deposit, ranging from tens of meters to 300 m, and gradually deepen to around 700 m westward. Additionally, this zone is a relatively flat area within the study area, which is also conducive to conducting ground exploration. Zones 2 and 3 on both sides of the DZL deposit, as well as the DZL deposit itself, are located within the same large magnetic anomaly range and have relatively shallow magnetic source depths, suggesting that ground exploration should be carried out subsequently. Although the southern half of zone 3 has a magnetic source  
Figure 10: Forward modeling using Euler deconvolution solutions from the L3400 line. Sus. represents the magnetic susceptibility assigned to a geological unit. Figure 9: Color range symbols’ map of located Euler deconvolution depths of the DZL area. depth of over 700 m, which may pose some difficulties, considering its spatial and magnetic field relationship with the DZL deposit, it is still worth conducting exploration work. The next suggested step is to explore the areas with shallow magnetic source depths in zones 4, 5, and 6, as well as the isolated anomaly bodies with shallow-source characteristics in zones 7 to 11 and 14 to 15. Zones 12 and 13 have relatively weak magnetic field intensities, and it is recommended to first verify the cause of this phenomenon in zone 12 before planning subsequent work. Of course, this is a suggestion based on short-term economic considerations. For a longer-term work cycle, every potential rock body identified through the aeromagnetic survey is worth further study by the mine owner.