1887
Volume 69, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Diffraction imaging is the process of separating diffraction events from the seismic wavefield and imaging them independently, highlighting subsurface discontinuities. While there are many analytic‐based methods for diffraction imaging which use kinematic, dynamic or both, properties of the diffracted wavefield, they can be slow and require parameterization. Here, we propose an image‐to‐image generative adversarial network to automatically separate diffraction events on pre‐migrated seismic data in a fraction of the time of conventional methods. To train the generative adversarial network, plane‐wave destruction was applied to a range of synthetic and real images from field data to create training data. These training data were screened and any areas where the plane‐wave destruction did not perform well, such as synclines and areas of complex dip, were removed to prevent bias in the neural network. A total of 14,132 screened images were used to train the final generative adversarial network. The trained network has been applied across several geologically distinct field datasets, including a 3D example. Here, generative adversarial network separation is shown to be comparable to a benchmark separation created with plane‐wave destruction, and up to 12 times faster. This demonstrates the clear potential in generative adversarial networks for fast and accurate diffraction separation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13086
2021-05-16
2021-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/69/5/gpr13086.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13086&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aharchaou, M. and Baumstein, A. (2020) Deep learning‐based artificial bandwidth extension: training on ultrasparse OBN to enhance towed‐streamer FWI. The Leading Edge, 39, 718–726.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alotaibi, A. (2020) Deep generative adversarial networks for image‐to‐image translation: a review. Symmetry, 12, 1705–1731.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Basheer, I. and Hajmeer, M. (2000) Artificial neural networks: fundamentals, computing, design, and application. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 43, 3–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Berkovitch, A., Belfer, I., Hassin, Y. and Landa, E. (2009) Diffraction imaging by multifocusing. Geophysics, 74(6), WCA75–WCA81.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bonnefoy‐Claudet, S., Cotton, F. and Bard, P. (2006) The nature of noise wavefield and its applications for site effects studies: a literature review. Earth‐Science Reviews, 79, 205–227.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brownlee, J. (2019) How to develop a Pix2Pix GAN for image‐to‐image translation. Accessed December 1, 2020. Available at: http://www.machinelearningmastery.com/how‐to‐develop‐a‐pix2pix‐gan‐for‐image‐to‐image‐translation.
  7. Cai, L., Gao, H. and Ji, S. (2019) Multi‐stage variational auto‐encoders for coarse‐to‐fine image generation. Proceedings of the 2019 SIAM Internatinoal Conference on Data Mining, Spokane, WA, pp. 630–638.
  8. Chen, Z., Fomel, S. and Lu, W. (2013) Accelerated plane‐wave destruction. Geophysics, 78(1), V1‐V9.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Claerbout, J. (1985) Fundamentals of Geophysical Data Processing with Applications to Petroleum Prospecting. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Decker, L., Janson, X. and Fomel, S. (2015) Carbonate reservoir characterization using seismic diffraction imaging. Interpretation, 3(1), SF21–SF30.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Decker, L., Klokov, A. and Fomel, S. (2013) Comparison of seismic diffraction imaging techniques: plane‐wave destruction versus apex destruction. 83rd SEG Annual International Meeting, Houston, TX, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 4054–4059.
  12. Dell, S. and Gajewski, D. (2011) Common‐reflection‐surface‐based workflow for diffraction imaging. Geophysics, 76(5), S187–S195.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fehler, M. and Keliher, P. (2011) SEAM Phase I: Challenge of Subsalt Imaging in Tertiary Basins, with Emphasis on Deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fomel, S. (2002) Applications of plane‐wave destruction filters. Geophysics, 67(6), 1946–1960.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fomel, S., Landa, E. and Taner, M. (2007) Poststack velocity analysis by separation and imaging of seismic diffractions. Geophysics, 72(6), U89–U94.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fomel, S., Sava, P., Vlad, I., Liu, Y. and Bashkardin, V. (2013) Madagascar: open‐source software project for multidimensional data analysis and reproducible computational experiments. Journal of Open Research Software, 1(1), e8.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gelius, L. and Asgedom, E. (2011) Diffraction‐limited imaging and beyond – the concept of super resolution. Geophysical Prospecting, 59, 400–421.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goodfellow, I. (2016) NIPS 2016 tutorial: generative adversarial networks. Neural information Processing Systems 2016, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 1–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodfellow, I., Pouget‐Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde‐Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A.et al., (2014) Generative adversarial nets. Neural Information Processing Systems 2014, Montreal, Canada, pp. 2672–2680.
  20. Han, C., Murao, K., Sato, S. and Nakayama, H. (2019) Learning more with less: GAN‐based medical image augmentation. ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Beijing.
  21. Harlan, W., Claerbout, J. and Rocca, F. (1984) Signal/noise separation and velocity estimation. Geophysics, 49(11), 1869–1880.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ho, Y., Wookey, S. (2019)The real‐world‐weight cross‐entropy loss function: modeling the costs of mislabeling. IEEE Access, 8, 4806–4813.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Isola, P., Zhu, J., Zhou, T. and Efros, A. (2017) Image‐to‐image translation with conditional adversarial networks. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Manchester, pp. 1125–1134.
  24. JafarGandomi, A., Bukola, O., Refaar, R. and Hoeber, H. (2019) Specular imaging of converted wave data and its AVO impact. 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, London, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 1–5.
  25. Kahng, M., Thorat, N., Chau, D.H.P., Viégas, F.B. and Wattenberg, M. (2018) GAN lab: understanding complex deep generative models using interactive visual experimentation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25, 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kanasewich, E. and Phadke, S. (1988) Imaging discontinuities on seismic sections. Geophysics, 53(3), 334–345.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kennett, B. (2001) The Seismic Wavefield: Introduction and Theoretical Development (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Khaidukov, V., Landa, E. and Moser, T. (2004) Diffraction imaging by focusing‐defocusing: an outlook on seismic superresolution. Geophysics, 69(6), 1478–1490.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Klokov, A., Baina, R. and Landa, E. (2010) Separation and imaging of seismic diffractions in dip‐angle domain. 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, Expanded Abstracts, p. CP161.
  30. Klokov, A. and Fomel, S. (2012) Separation and imaging of seismic diffractions using migrated dip‐angle gathers. Geophysics, 77(6), S131–S143.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Knerr, S., Personnaz, L. and Dreyfus, G. (1990) Single‐layer learning revisited: a stepwise procedure for building and training a neural network. In: Soulié, F.F. and Hérault, J. (Eds.) Neurocomputing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 41–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kozlov, E., Barasky, N., Korolev, E., Antonenko, A. and Koshchuk, E. (2004) Imaging scattering objects masked by specular reflections. 74th SEG Annual International Meeting, Denver, CO, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 1131–1134.
  33. Krey, T. (1952) The significance of diffraction in the investigation of faults. Geophysics, 17(4), 843–858.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Landa, E. (2007) Beyond Conventional Seismic Imaging. Houten, The Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Landa, E., Fomel, S. and Moser, T. (2006) Path‐integral seismic imaging. Geophysical Prospecting, 54, 491–503.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Landa, E., Fomel, S. and Reshef, M. (2008) Separation, imaging, and velocity analysis of seismic diffractions using migrated dip‐angle gathers. 78th SEG Annual International Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 2176–2180.
  37. Li, R., Liu, W., Yang, L., Sun, S., Hu, W., Zhang, F.et al., (2018) DeepUNet: a deep fully convolutional network for pixel‐level sea‐land segmentation. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 11, 3954–3962.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lian, S., Luo, Z., Zhong, Z., Lin, X., Su, S. and Li, S. (2018) Attention guided U‐Net for accurate iris segmentation. Journal of Visual Communication, 56, 296–304.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lowney, B., Lokmer, I., O'Brien, G.S. and Bean, C.J. (2020) Direct diffraction separation by deep learning on pre‐migrated seismic data. 1st EAGE Annual Conference Online. Houten, The Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, pp. 1–5.
  40. Maciel, S. and Biloti, R. (2014) Detection of diffractions in seismic sections using Support Vector Classifiers. 74th SEG Annual International Conference, Denver, CO, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 4816–4820.
  41. Martini, F., Bean, C.J., Dolan, S. and Marsan, D. (2001) Seismic image quality beneath strongly scattering structures and implications for lower crustal imaging. Geophysical Journal International, 145, 423–435.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Miller, J., Agena, W., Haines, S. and Hart, P. (2016) Processing of multi‐channel seismic reflection data acquired in 2013 for seismic investigation of gas hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Open‐File Report.
  43. Moser, T.J. and Howard, C. (2008) Diffraction imaging in depth. Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 627–641.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Nguyen, T., Le, T., Vu, H. and Phung, D. (2017) Dual discriminator generative adversarial nets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 1, 2670–2680.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. O'Brien, G.S. (2020) Common image gather conditioning using cycle generative adversarial networks. Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 1758–1770.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Oliveira, D., Ferreira, R., Silva, R. and Brazil, E. (2018) Interpolating seismic data with conditional generative adversarial networks. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 15, 1952–1956.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Popovici, A., Sturzu, I. and Moser, T. (2015) High‐resolution diffraction imaging of small‐scale fractures in shale and carbonate reservoirs. Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, San Antonio, TX, pp. 1121–1129.
  48. Radford, A., Metz, L. and Chintala, S. (2016) Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks. International Conference on Learning Representations, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
  49. Reshef, M. and Landa, E. (2009) Post‐stack velocity analysis in the dip‐angle domain using diffractions. Geophysical Prospecting, 57, 811–821.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. and Brox, T. (2015) U‐Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer‐Assisted Intervention, Boston, MA, pp. 234–241.
  51. Sankesara, H. (2019) UNet: introducing symmetry in segmentation. Accessed September 16, 2020. Available at: https://towardsdatascience.com/u‐net‐b229b32b4a71.
  52. Schwarz, B. (2019a) An introduction to seismic diffraction. In: C.Schmelzbach (Ed.) Advances in Geophysics: Recent Advances in Seismology. New York: Academic Press. pp. 1–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Schwarz, B., (2019b) Coherent wavefield subtraction for diffraction separation. Geophysics, 84(3), V157‐V168.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Serfaty, Y., Itan, L., Levy, R. and Koren, Z. (2018) Application of deep learning along directional image gathers for high‐definition classification of subsurface features. 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Shekhar, A. (2019) What are L1 and L2 loss functions? Accessed October 3, 2020. Available at: https://afteracademy.com/blog/what‐are‐l1‐and‐l2‐loss‐functions.
  56. Sun, J., Slang, S., Elboth, T., Larsen Greiner, T., McDonald, S. and Gelius, L.J. (2020)Attenuation of marine seismic interference noise employing a customized U‐Net. Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 845–871.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Tiwari, Y., Rasool, A. and Hajela, G. (2020) Machine learning with generative adversarial networks. Second International Conference on Inventive Resarch in Computing Applications (ICIRCA), Expanded Abstracts, pp. 543–548.
  58. Tran, N., Tran, V., Nguyen, B. and Yang, L. (2019) Self‐supervised GAN: analysis and improvement with multi‐class minimax game. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 13253–13264.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Triezenberg, P. J., Hart, P.E. and Childs, J. R. (2016)National Archive of Marine Seismic Surveys (NAMSS): A USGS data website of marine seismic reflection data within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. s.l.: U.S. Geological Survey Data Release.
  60. Trorey, A.W. (1970)A simple theory for seismic diffractions. Geophysics, 35(5), 762–784.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Tschannen, V., Ettrich, N., Delescluse, M. and Keuper, J. (2020) Detection of point scatterers using diffraction imaging and deep learning. Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 830–844.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Xu, R., Zhou, Z., Zhang, W. and Yu, Y. (2017) Face transfer with generative adversarial network. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Manchester, Expanded Abstracts.
  63. Yuan, Y., Si, X. and Zheng, Y. (2020) Ground roll attenuation using generative adversarial networks. Geophysics, 85(4), IJA–Z18.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhang, T., Fu, H., Zhao, Y., Cheng, J., Guo, M., Gu, Z.et al., (2019) SkrGAN: sketching‐rendering unconditional generative adversarial networks for medical imaging synthesis. International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer‐Assisted Intervention, Lima, Peru, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 777–785.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13086
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13086
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Data processing , Imaging and Seismics
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