1887
Volume 62, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Compressed Sensing has recently proved itself as a successful tool to help address the challenges of acquisition and processing seismic data sets. Compressed sensing shows that the information contained in sparse signals can be recovered accurately from a small number of linear measurements using a sparsity‐promoting regularization. This paper investigates two aspects of compressed sensing in seismic exploration: (i) using a general non‐convex regularizer instead of the conventional one‐norm minimization for sparsity promotion and (ii) using a frequency mask to additionally subsample the acquired traces in the frequency‐space () domain. The proposed non‐convex regularizer has better sparse recovery performance compared with one‐norm minimization and the additional frequency mask allows us to incorporate information about the events contained in the wavefields into the reconstruction. For example, (i) seismic data are band‐limited; therefore one can use only a partial set of frequency coefficients in the range of reflections band, where the signal‐to‐noise ratio is high and spatial aliasing is low, to reconstruct the original wavefield, and (ii) low‐frequency characteristics of the coherent ground rolls allow direct elimination of them during reconstruction by disregarding the corresponding frequency coefficients (usually bellow 10 Hz) via a frequency mask. The results of this paper show that some challenges of reconstruction and denoising in seismic exploration can be addressed under a unified formulation. It is illustrated numerically that the compressed sensing performance for seismic data interpolation is improved significantly when an additional coherent subsampling is performed in the domain compared with the domain case. Numerical experiments from both simulated and real field data are included to illustrate the effectiveness of the presented method.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12146
2014-07-14
2020-07-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AminiN. and JavaherianA., 2011. A MATLAB‐based frequency‐domain finite‐difference package for solving 2D visco‐acoustic wave equation. Waves in Random and Complex Media21, 161–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AskariR. and SiahkoohiH. R., 2008. Ground roll attenuation using the S and x‐f‐k transforms. Geophysical Prospecting56, 105–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AttouchH., BolteJ. and SvaiterB.F.2010. Convergence of descent methods for semi‐algebraic and tame problems: proximal algorithms, forward‐backward splitting, and regularized gauss–seidel methods [Online].
  4. CandesE. J., DemanetL., DonohoD. L. and YingL., 2006. Fast discrete curvelet transforms. SIAM Multiscale Modeling and Simulation5, 861–899.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CandesE. J. and DonohoD. L., 2004. New tight frames of curvelets and optimal representations of objects with piecewise C 2 singularities. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics57, 219–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CandesE. J., RombergJ. and TaoT.2006. Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics59, 1207–1223.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CandesE. J., EldarY. C., NeedellD. and RandallP.2011. Compressed sensing with coherent and redundant dictionaries. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis31, 59–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CandesE. J., WakinM. B., and BoydS., 2008. Enhancing sparsity by reweighted l1 minimization. Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications14(5), 877–905.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. ChartrandR.2007. Exact reconstruction of sparse signals via nonconvex minimization. IEEE Signal Processing Letters14(10), 707–710.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DeighanA. and WattsD., 1997. Ground‐roll suppression using the wavelet transform. Geophysics62, 1896–1903.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DonohoD. L.2006. Compressed sensing. IEEE Transactions on Information52(4), 1289–1306.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. EladE., 2007. Optimized projections for compressed‐sensing. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing55, 5695–5702.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. FomelS., 2002. Applications of plane‐wave destruction filters. Geophysics67, 1946–1960.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GholamiA. and HosseiniS. M., 2011. A general framework for sparsity‐based denoising and inversion. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing59, 5202–5211.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GholamiA. and SacchiM. D.2012. A fast and automatic sparse deconvolution in the presence of outliers. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing50(10), 4105–4116.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GholamiA., and SiahkoohiH. R.2010. Regularization of linear and nonlinear geophysical ill‐posed problems with joint sparsity constraints. Geophysical Journal International180, 871–882.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HennenfentG. and HerrmannF. J.2006. Seismic denoising with nonuniformly sampled curvelets. Computing in Science and Engineering8(3), 16–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HennenfentG. and HerrmannF. J.2009. Simply denoise: wavefield reconstruction via jittered undersampling. Geophysics, 73, V19.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HerrmannF. J., BoenigerU. and VerschuurD.2007. Nonlinear primary‐multiple separation with directional curvelet frames. Geophysical Journal International170, 781–799.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. HerrmannF. J., MoghaddamP.P., and StolkC. C.2008. Sparsity‐ and continuity‐promoting seismic image recovery with curvelet frames. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis24, 150–173.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. HerrmannF. J., WangD., HennenfentG. and MoghaddamP. P., 2008. Curvelet‐based seismic data processing: a multiscale and nonlinear approach. Geophysics73, A1–A5.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. LevyS. and FullagerP. K.1981. Reconstruction of a sparse spike train from a portion of its spectrum and application to high‐resolution deconvolution. Geophysics46(9), 1235–1243.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. NaghizadehM. and SacchiM. D.2010. Beyond alias hierarchical scale curvelet interpolation of regularly and irregularly sampled seismic data. Geophysics75, 189–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. OropezaV. and SacchiM. D.2011. Simultaneous seismic data denoising and reconstruction via Multichannel Singular Spectrum Analysis (MSSA). Geophysics76(3), V25–V32.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. SaabR., ChartrandR. and YilmazO.2008. Stable sparse approximations via nonconvex optimization. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing(ICASSP), 3885–3888.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SaabR. and YilmazO.2010. Sparse recovery by non‐convex optimization ‐ instance optimality. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis29, 30–48
    [Google Scholar]
  27. SacchiM. D., WangJ. and KuehlH.2006. Regularized migration/inversion: new generation of imaging algoritihms, CSEG Recorder, Volume 31, Special Edition, 54–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. StarckJ. L., MurtaghF., and FadiliJ. M.2010. Sparse Image and Signal Processing: Wavelets, Curvelets, Morphological Diversity. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. TradD., UlrychJ. and SacchiM. D., 2003. Latest view of sparse Radon transforms. Geophysics68, 386–399.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. YarhamC., and HerrmannF. J.2008. Bayesian ground‐roll separation by curvelet‐domain sparsity promotion. SEG Expanded Abstracts27, 2576–2580.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. ZhangR. and UlrychT. J.2003. Physical wavelet frame denoising. Geophysics68, 225–231.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12146
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12146
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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