1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 67, Issue 7
  5. Article
Volume 67, Issue 7
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Matching pursuit belongs to the category of spectral decomposition approaches that use a pre‐defined discrete wavelet dictionary in order to decompose a signal adaptively. Although disengaged from windowing issues, matching point demands high computational costs as extraction of all local structure of signal requires a large size dictionary. Thus in order to find the best match wavelet, it is required to search the whole space. To reduce the computational cost of greedy matching pursuit, two artificial intelligence methods, (1) quantum inspired evolutionary algorithm and (2) particle swarm optimization, are introduced for two successive steps: (a) initial estimation and (b) optimization of wavelet parameters. We call this algorithm quantum swarm evolutionary matching pursuit. Quantum swarm evolutionary matching pursuit starts with a small colony of population at which each individual, is potentially a transformed form of a time‐frequency atom. To attain maximum pursuit of the potential candidate wavelets with the residual, the colony members are adjusted in an evolutionary way. In addition, the quantum computing concepts such as quantum bit, quantum gate, and superposition of states are introduced into the method. The algorithm parameters such as social and cognitive learning factors, population size and global migration period are optimized using seismic signals. In applying matching pursuit to geophysical data, typically complex trace attributes are used for initial estimation of wavelet parameters, however, in this study it was shown that using complex trace attributes are sensitive to noisy data and would have lower rate of convergence.

The algorithm performance over noisy signals, using non‐orthogonal dictionaries are investigated and compared with other methods such as orthogonal matching pursuit. The results illustrate that quantum swarm evolutionary matching pursuit has the least sensitivity to noise and higher rate of convergence. Finally, the algorithm is applied to both modelled seismograms and real data for detection of low frequency anomalies to validate the findings.

© 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12767
2019-05-13
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12767
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlRashidiM.R., AlHarjiM.F., Al‐OthmanA.K. and El‐NaggarK.M.2010. Particle swarm optimization and its applications in power systems In: Computational Intelligence in Power Engineering, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 302 (eds. B.K.Panigrahi, A.Abraham and S.Das), pp. 295–324, Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BurgJ. P.1975. Maximum entropy spectrum analysis. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. CastagnaJ.P., BatzleM.L. and KanT.K.1993. Rock physics – The link between rock properties and AVO response. In: Offset‐Dependent Reflectivity – Theory and Practice of AVO Analysis, Investigations in Geophysics, Vol. 8 (eds. J.P.Castagna and M.Backus), pp. 135–171, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ChakrabortyA. and OkayaD.1995. Frequency‐time decomposition of seismic data using wavelet‐based methods. Geophysics60, 1906–1916.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. CohenL.1989. Time‐frequency distributions ‐ a review. Proceedings of the IEEE77, 941–981.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. EberhartR.C. and KennedyJ.1995. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, Nagoya, Japan, August 2002, pp. 39–43. IEEE.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. EbromD.2004. The low frequency gas shadow in seismic sections. Leading Edge23, 772.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Ferreira da SilvaA.R.2003. Atomic decomposition with evolutionary pursuit. Digital Signal Processing13, 317–337.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. GaborD.1946. Theory of communication. Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers93, 429–457.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GholamiA.2012. Sparse time–frequency decomposition and some applications. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing51, 3598–3604.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HallM.2006. Resolution and uncertainty in spectral decomposition. First Break24, 43–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. HanK.‐H.2003. Quantum‐inspired evolutionary algorithm. PhD thesis, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST).
  13. HanK.‐H. and KimJ.‐H.2002. Quantum‐inspired evolutionary algorithm for a class of combinatorial optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation6, 580–593.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. HuangZ.L., ZhangJ., ZhaoT.H. and SunY.2016. Synchrosqueezing S‐transform and its application in seismic spectral decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing54, 817–825.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. LiY., ZhengX. and ZhangY.2011. High‐frequency anomalies in carbonate reservoir characterization using spectral decomposition. Geophysics76, V47–V57.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. LiuG., FomelS. and ChenX.2011. Time‐frequency analysis of seismic data using local attributes. Geophysics76, P23–P34.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. LiuJ. and MarfurtK.2005. Matching pursuit decomposition using Morlet wavelets. 79th SEG Annual meeting, Houston, Texas, Expanded Abstracts, 786–789.
  18. LuW. and LiF.2013. Seismic spectral decomposition using deconvolutive short‐time Fourier transform spectrogram. Geophysics78, V43–V51.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. MallatS. and ZhangZ.1993. Matching pursuits with time‐frequency dictionaries. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing41, 3397–3415.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. MargarveG. F.1998. Theory of nonstationary linear filtering in the Fourier domain with application to time‐variant filtering. GeoPhysics63, 244–259.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. MathiasK.E. and WhitleyL.D.1994. Transforming the search space with Gray coding. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 513–518. IEEE.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. NarayananA. and MooreM.1996. Quantum‐inspired genetic algorithms. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 61–66. IEEE.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. PartykaG., GridleyJ. and LopezJ.1999. Interpretational applications of spectral decomposition in reservoir characterization. Leading Edge18, 353–360.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. PatiY. C., RezaiifarR. and KrishnaprasadP. S.1993. Orthogonal matching pursuit: recursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, pp. 40–44. IEEE.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. PortniaguineO. N. and CastagnaJ. P.2004. Inverse spectral decomposition. 74th SEG Annual meeting, Denver, Colorado, Expanded Abstracts, 1786–1789.
  26. PuryearC. I., PortniaguineO. N., CobosC. M. and CastagnaJ. P.2012. Constrained least‐squares spectral analysis: application to seismic data. Geophysics77, V143–V167.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Rebollo‐NeiraL. and LoweD.2002. Optimized orthogonal matching pursuit approach. IEEE Signal Processing Letters9, 137–140.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. SattariH., GholamiA. and SiahkoohiH.2013. Seismic data analysis by adaptive sparse time‐frequency decomposition. Geophysics78, V207–V217.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. SheriffR. E. and GeldartL.P.1995. Exploration Seismology, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. SinhaS., RouthP. S., AnnoP. D. and CastagnaJ. P.2005. Spectral decomposition of seismic data with continuous‐wavelet transform. Geophysics70, P19–P25.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. StockwellR. G., MansinhaL. and LoweR. P.1996. Localization of the complex spectrum: the S transform. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing44, 998–1001.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. VenturaR.M.F. and VandergheynstP.2001. Matching pursuit through genetic algorithms. LTS‐EPFL Technical Report, 1–14.
  33. WangY.2007. Seismic time‐frequency spectral decomposition by matching pursuit. Geophysics72, V13–V20.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. WangY., FengX., HuangY., PuD., ZhouW., LiangY. and ZhouC.2007. A novel quantum swarm evolutionary algorithm and its applications. Neurocomputing70, 633–640.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. ZhangGX.2010. Time‐frequency atom decomposition with quantum‐inspired evolutionary algorithms. Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing29, 209–233.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. ZoukaneriI. and PorsaniM. J.2015. A combined Wigner‐Ville and maximum entropy method for high‐resolution time‐frequency analysis of seismic data. Geophysics80, O1–O11.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12767
Loading
Time‐frequency decomposition of seismic signals via quantum swarm evolutionary matching pursuit
Geophysical Prospecting 67, 1701 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12767
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12767
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12767
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Algorithm; Optimization; Time‐frequency analysis

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error