A regularized Wiener–Hopf filter for inverting models with magnetic susceptibility

References

1. AnandM., GibsonS.A., Subba RaoK.V., KeellyS.P. and DickinA.P.2003. Early Proterozoic melt generation process beneath the Intra‐cratonic Cuddapah Basin, Southern India. Journal of Petrology44(12), 2139–2172.
   [Google Scholar]
2. AnilK., HeamanL.M. and ManikyambaC.2007. Neoproterozoic kimberlites in south India: a possible link to 1.1 Ga global magmatism. Precambrian Research154, 192–204.
   [Google Scholar]
3. BackusG.E. and GilbertJ.F.1970. Uniqueness in the inversion of inaccurate gross earth data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A266, 123–192. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1970.0005.
   [Google Scholar]
4. DimriV.P.1978. On some applications of information and filter theory concepts to geophysical interpretation, particular to gravity studies . PhD thesis, Indian School of Mines, India.
5. DimriV.P.1986. On the time varying Wiener filter. Geophysical Prospecting34, 904–912.
   [Google Scholar]
6. DimriV.P.1992. Deconvolution and Inverse Theory. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, London, New York, Tokyo.
   [Google Scholar]
7. DimriV.P. and SrivastavaK.1987. Ideal performance criteria for deconvolution operators. Geophysical Prospecting35, 539–547.
   [Google Scholar]
8. DimriV.P. and SrivastavaK.1990. The optimum gate length for the time varying deconvolution operator. Geophysical Prospecting38, 405–410.
   [Google Scholar]
9. FediM., HansenP.C. and PaolettiV.2007. Ambiguity and depth resolution in potential field inversion. SIMAI Congress2. doi: 10.1685/CSC06155, ISSN 1827‐9015.
   [Google Scholar]
10. FitzgeraldD.J., ArgastD., PatersonR. and HolsteinH.2010. Full tensor magnetic gradiometry processing and interpretation developments. EGM 2010 International Workshop Session: Advances in Instrumentation and Data Acquisition, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
11. GanguliS.S. and DimriV.P.2013. Interpretation of gravity data using eigen image with Indian case study: a SVD approach. Journal of Applied Geophysics95, 23–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.05.004.2013.05.004.
    [Google Scholar]
12. GoodwinA.M.1996. Principles of Precambrian Geology. Academic Press: London, 327pp.
    [Google Scholar]
13. GrantF.S. and WestG.F.1965. Interpretation Theory in Applied Geophysics. McGraw‐Hill: New York, NY.
    [Google Scholar]
14. GunnP.J.1972. Application of Wiener filters to transformations of gravity and magnetic fields. Geophysical Prospecting20, 860–871.
    [Google Scholar]
15. HouG., SantoshM., QianX., ListerG.S. and LiJ.2008. Configuration of the Late Paleoproterozoic supercontinent Columbia: insights from radiating mafic dyke swarms. Gondwana Research14, 395–409.
    [Google Scholar]
16. KarshH. and BayrakY.2003. Using the Wiener–Levinson algorithm to suppress ground‐roll. Journal of Applied Geophysics55, 187–197.
    [Google Scholar]
17. KumarA., Padma KumariV.M., DayalA.M., MurthyD.S.N. and GopalanK.1993. Rb–Sr ages of Proterozoic kimberlites of India, evidence for contemporaneous emplacement. Precambrian Research62, 227–237.
    [Google Scholar]
18. MallD.M., PandeyO.P., ChandrakalaK. and ReddyP.R.2008. Imprints of a Proterozoic tectonothermal anomaly below the 1.1 Ga kimberlitic province of Southwest Cuddapah basin, Dharwar craton (Southern India). Geophysical Journal International172, 422–438.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Nagaraja RaoB.K., RajurkarS.T., RamalingaswamyG. and Ravindra BabuB.1987. Stratigraphy, structure and Evolution of the Cuddapah basin. Purana Basins of India. Geological Society of India Memoirs6, 33–86.
    [Google Scholar]
20. NegiJ.G., DimriV.P. and GardeS.C.1973. Ambiguity assessment of gravity interpretation for inhomogeneous multi‐layer sedimentary basin. Journal of Geophysical Research78, 3281–3286.
    [Google Scholar]
21. OppenheimA.V. and SchaferR.W.1989. Discrete Time Signal Processing. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Radhakrishna MurthyI.V.1998. Gravity and magnetic interpretation in exploration geophysics. Geological Society of India Memoirs40.
    [Google Scholar]
23. RadhakrishnaT., KrishnenduN.R. and BalasubramonianG.2007. Mafic dyke magmatism around the Cuddapah Basin: age constraints, petrological characteristics and geochemical inference for a possible magma chamber on the south‐western margin of the basin. Journal of Geological Society of India70, 194–206.
    [Google Scholar]
24. RobinsonE.A. and TreitelS.1980. Geophysical Signal Analysis. Prentice‐Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
25. SecomandiM., PaolettiV., AielloG., FediM., MarsellaE., RuggieriS.et al. 2003. Analysis of the magnetic anomaly field of the volcanic district of the Bay of Naples, Italy. Marine Geophysical Researches24, 207–221.
    [Google Scholar]
26. SmithS.W.1997. The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing. California Technical Publishing. ISBN 0–9660176–6–8.
    [Google Scholar]
27. TikhonovA.N. and ArseninV.Y.1977. Solution of Ill‐Posed Problems. Winston & Sons: Washington ISBN 0–470–99124–0.
    [Google Scholar]
28. TreitelS.1974. An ideal performance property of the multichannel Wiener filter. Journal of Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists10, 71–73.
    [Google Scholar]
29. TreitelS. and LinesL.R.1982. Linear inverse theory and deconvolution. Geophysics47, 1153–1159.
    [Google Scholar]
30. WaldenA.T.1988. Robust deconvolution by modified wiener filtering. Geophysics53, 186–191.
    [Google Scholar]
31. ZhenJ. and ShiguoW.2011. Potential fields and their partial derivatives produced by a 2D homogeneous polygonal source: a summary with some revisions. Geophysics76(4), L29–L34.
    [Google Scholar]