1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. First Break
  4. Volume 39, Issue 9
  5. Article
Volume 39 Number 9
  • ISSN: 0263-5046
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2397

Abstract

Abstract

Adaptive subtraction is a well-established routine technique in seismic data processing that relies on being able to match, in some sense, one dataset to another. It is a necessary part of many processing steps such as de-noising and de-multiple. The same matching methods are also used for advanced imaging steps such as non-stationary estimation of the Hessian as part of image-domain least-squares migration. Predictions of noise are often not as accurate as we would like because there are often shortcomings in the prediction method and because pragmatic acquisition compromises are made. The ubiquity of adaptive subtraction in the seismic processing workflow means there is always motivation to improve its performance. In this work, we propose a approach for the adaptive subtraction of predicted multiple models from the input recorded data. It turns out that it is straightforward to use deep-learning networks to perform adaptive subtraction and as a result, benefit from the power of complex non-linear filters. Inspired by the idea of a we have developed a for adaptive subtraction. We demonstrate the proposed approach on synthetic and field data examples and compare the results using conventional adaptive subtraction methods to illustrate the effectiveness of our approach.

EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2021066
2021-09-01
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2021066
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Berryhill, J. R. and Kim, Y. C.
    [1986]. Deep-water peg legs and multiples: Emulation and suppression, Geophysics, 51, 2177–2184.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Dragoset, W.H. and Jericevic, Z.
    [1998]. Some remarks on surface multiple attenuation. Geophysics, 63(2), pp.772–789.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Guitton, A. and VerschuurD. J.
    [2004]. Adaptive subtraction of multiples using the L1-norm. Geophysical prospecting.52(1), 27–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, J. and Courville, A.
    [2016]. Deep learning: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Garg, A., Vos, A., Bortych, N., Gupta, D.K. and Verschuur, D.J.
    [2019]. Spatial aliasing removal using deep learning super-resolution: First Break, 37(9), 87–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Herrmann, F.J., Wang, D. and Verschuur, D.J.
    [2008]. Adaptive curvelet-domain primary-multiple separation. Geophysics, 73(3), pp. A17–A21.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Ikelle, L.T., Roberts, G. and Weglein, A.B.
    [1997]. Source signature estimation based on the removal of first-order multiples. Geophysics, 62(6), 1904–1920.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Kumar, A., Kumar, R., Hampson, G., Hartley, M. and Thompson, T.
    [2019]. Adaptive subtraction using 3D curvelets: A linear optimisation framework. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2019, 4540–4544.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Kumar, A., Hampson, G. and Thompson, T.
    [2017]. Shallow-water attenuation of multiples by inversion (SWAMI). In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 4818–4822.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Mikhailiuk, A. and Faul, A.
    [ 2018]. Deep learning applied to seismic data interpolation. 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2018, Extended abstract, 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Mandelli, S., Lipari, V., Bestagini, P. and Tubaro, S.
    [2019]. Interpolation and Denoising of Seismic Data using Convolutional Neural Networks. arXiv, 1901.07927.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Neelamani, R., Baumstein, A. and Ross, W.S.
    [2010]. Adaptive subtraction using complex-valued curvelet transforms. Geophysics, 75(4), V51–V60.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Paszke, A., Gross, S., Chintala, S., Chanan, G.,Yang, E., DeVito, Z., Lin, Z., Desmaison, A., Antiga, L. and Lerer, A.
    [2010]. Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. NIPS Autodiff Workshop: The Future of Gradient-based Machine Learning Software and Techniques.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Qu, S., Verschuur, E., Zhang, D. and Chen, Y.
    [2021]. Training deep networks with only synthetic data: Deep-learning-based near-offset reconstruction for (closed-loop) surface-related multiple estimation on shallow-water field data. Geophysics, 86(3), A39–A43.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 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, 234–241. Springer, Cham.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. SMAARTJV
    , [2001] Sigsbee 2a acoustic velocity model. SEG Research Workshop on Velocity Model Independent Imaging for Complex Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Saab, R., Wang, D., Yilmaz, O. and Hermann, F. J.
    [2007]. Curvelet-based primary-multiple separation from a Bayesian perspective. 77th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded abstract, 2510–2514
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Shin, H.C., Roth, H. R., Gao, M., Lu, L., Xu, Z., Nogues, I., Yao, J., Mollura, D. and Summers, R. M.
    [2016]. Deep convolutional neural networks for computer-aided detection. CNN architectures, dataset characteristics and transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 35(5), 1285–1298.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Siahkoohi, A., Kumar, R. and Herrmann, F.
    [2018]. Seismic data reconstruction with generative adversarial networks. 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Extended abstracts, 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Schiavon, A.P., Navarro, J.P., Vieira, M.B. and e Silva, P.M.C.
    [2019]. Low bit rate 2D seismic image compression with deep autoencoders. International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, 397–407. Springer, Cham.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Sun, J., Slang, S., Elboth, T., Larsen Greiner, T., McDonald, S. and Gelius, L.J.
    [2020]. A convolutional neural network approach to deblending seismic data. Geophysics, 85(4), WA13-WA26.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Theis, L., Shi, W., Cunningham, A. and Huszär, F.
    [2017]. Lossy image compression with compressive autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1703.00395.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Verschuur, D. J., Berkhout, A. J. and Wapenaar, C. P. A.
    [1992]. Adaptive surface-related multiple elimination. Geophysics, 57, 1166–1177.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Wang, Y.
    [2003]. Multiple subtraction using an expanded multichannel matching filter. Geophysics, 68, 346–354.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Wang, P., Jin, H., Xu, S. and Zhang, Y.
    [2011]. Model-based water-layer demultiple. 81st SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2011, 3551–3555.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Wu, X. and Hung, B.
    [2015]. High-fidelity adaptive curvelet domain primary-multiple separation. First Break, 33(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Yu, S., Ma, J. and Wang, W.
    [2019]. Deep learning for denoising. Geophysics, 84, V333-V350.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhang, M., Liu, Y. and Chen, Y.
    [2019]. Unsupervised seismic random noise attenuation based on deep convolutional neural network. IEEE Access, 13(7), 179810–179822.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2021066
Loading
Adaptive subtraction using a convolutional neural network
First Break 39, 35 (2021); https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2021066
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2021066
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2021066
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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