1887
Volume 62, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Wave‐equation based methods, such as the estimation of primaries by sparse inversion, have been successful in the mitigation of the adverse effects of surface‐related multiples on seismic imaging and migration‐velocity analysis. However, the reliance of these methods on multidimensional convolutions with fully sampled data exposes the ‘curse of dimensionality’, which leads to disproportional growth in computational and storage demands when moving to realistic 3D field data. To remove this fundamental impediment, we propose a dimensionality‐reduction technique where the ‘data matrix’ is approximated adaptively by a randomized low‐rank factorization. Compared to conventional methods, which need for each iteration passage through all data possibly requiring on‐the‐fly interpolation, our randomized approach has the advantage that the total number of passes is reduced to only one to three. In addition, the low‐rank matrix factorization leads to considerable reductions in storage and computational costs of the matrix multiplies required by the sparse inversion. Application of the proposed method to two‐dimensional synthetic and real data shows that significant performance improvements in speed and memory use are achievable at a low computational up‐front cost required by the low‐rank factorization.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12113
2014-02-21
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AravkinA. Y. and van LeeuwenT.2012. Estimating nuisance parameters in inverse problems. IOPscience, Inverse Problems28(11).
  2. BerkhoutA. J.1980. Seismic Migration, Imaging of Acoustic Energy by Wave Field Extrapolation, vol. 14a: theoretical aspects. Elsevier second edition 1982 and third edition 1985.
  3. BerkhoutA. J. and VerschuurD. J.1997. Estimation of multiple scattering by iterative inversion, part I: theoretical considerations. Geophysics62, 1586–1595.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CaiafaC. F. and CichockiA.2010. Generalizing the column‐row matrix decomposition to multi‐way arrays. Linear Algebra and its Applications433, 557–573.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CandesE. and RechtB.2009. Exact matrix completion via convex optimization. Foundations of Computational Mathematics9, 717–772.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CandèsE. J., RombergJ. and TaoT.2006. Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics59(8), 1207–1223.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ChandrasekaranS., DewildeP., GuM., LyonsW. and PalsT.2006. A fast solver for hss representations via sparse matrices. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications29, 67–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. ChiuJ. and DemanetL.2012. Sublinear randomized algorithms for skeleton decompositions. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 34(3).
  9. van DedemE.J.2002. 3D surface‐related multiple prediction. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.
  10. DemanetL., LetourneauP.D., BoumalN., CalandraH., ChiuJ., and SnelsonS.2012. Matrix probing: a randomized preconditioner for the wave‐equation Hessian. Journal of Apllied Computational Harmonic Analysis32, 155–168.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DonohoD. L.2006. Compressed sensing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory52, 1289–1306.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. EngquistB. and YingL.2010. Fast directional algorithms for the Helmholtz kernel. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics234, 1851–1859.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GandyS., RechtB. and YamadaI.2011. Tensor completion and low‐n‐rank tensor recovery via convex optimization. Inverse Problems27, 025010.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. van GroenestijnG.J.A. and VerschuurD.J.2009. Estimating primaries by sparse inversion and application to near‐offset data reconstruction. Geophysics74, A23A28.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HabashyT. M., AbubakarA., PanG. and BelaniA.2010. Full‐waveform seismic inversion using the source‐receiver compression approach. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, SEG, 1023–1028.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HalkoN., MartinssonP. G. and TroppJ. A.2011. Finding structure with randomness: Probabilistic algorithms for constructing approximate matrix decompositions. SIAM Review53(2), 217–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HerrmannF. J.2010. Randomized sampling and sparsity: Getting more information from fewer samples. Geophysics75, WB173–WB187.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HerrmannF. J., BoenigerU. and VerschuurD. J.2007. Non‐linear primary‐multiple separation with directional curvelet frames. Geophysical Journal International170, 781–799.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HerrmannF. J., ErlanggaY. A. and LinT.2009. Compressive simultaneous full‐waveform simulation. Geophysics74, A35.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. HerrmannF. J. and WangD.2008. Seismic wavefield inversion with curvelet‐domain sparsity promotion. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, SEG, 2497–2501.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. KinnegingN. K., BudejickyV., WapenaarC. P. A. and BerkhoutA. J.1989. Efficient 2D and 3D shot record redatuming. Geophysical Prospecting37, 493–530.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. KoldaT. G. and BaderB. W.2009. Tensor decompositions and applications. SIAM Review51, 455–500.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. van LeeuwenT., AravkinA. and HerrmannF.J.2011. Seismic waveform inversion by stochastic optimization. International Journal of Geophysics689041.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LiX., AravkinA. Y., van LeeuwenT. and HerrmannF. J.2011. Fast randomized full‐waveform inversion with compressive sensing. Geophysics (in press).
    [Google Scholar]
  25. LinL., LuJ. and YingL.2011. Fast construction of hierarchical matrix representation from matrix‐vector multiplication. Journal of Computational Physics230, 4071–4087.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. LinT. T. and HerrmannF. J.2011. Estimating primaries by sparse inversion in a curvelet‐like representation domain. Presented at the 73th Annual International Meeting, EAGE, European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, Expanded abstracts.
  27. LinT. T. Y. and HerrmannF. J.2012. Robust estimation of primaries by sparse inversion via ℓ1 minimization. (in preparation).
  28. MinatoS., MatsuokaT., TsujiT., DraganovD., HunzikerJ. and WapenaarK.2011. Seismic interferometry using multidimensional deconvolution and crosscorrelation for crosswell seismic reflection data without borehole sources. Geophysics76, SA19–SA34.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. OropezaV. E. and SacchiM. D.2010. A randomized SVD for multichannel singular spectrum analysis (MSSA) noise attenuation. SEG, Expanded Abstracts29, 3539–3544.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. VerschuurD. J., BerkhoutA. J. and WapenaarC. P. A.1992. Adaptive surface‐related multiple elimination. Geophysics57, 1166–1177.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. WasonH., HerrmannF. J. and LinT. T.2011. Sparsity‐promoting recovery from simultaneous data: a compressive sensing approach. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, SEG, 6–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. WegleinA. B., CarvalhoF. A. and StoltP. M.1997. An iverse scattering series method for attenuating multiples in seismic reflection data. Geophysics62, 1975–1989.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12113
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12113
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Factorization; Primaries; Sparse inversion

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