1887
Volume 66 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Planar waves events recorded in a seismic array can be represented as lines in the Fourier domain. However, in the real world, seismic events usually have curvature or amplitude variability, which means that their Fourier transforms are no longer strictly linear but rather occupy conic regions of the Fourier domain that are narrow at low frequencies but broaden at high frequencies where the effect of curvature becomes more pronounced. One can consider these regions as localised “signal cones”. In this work, we consider a space–time variable signal cone to model the seismic data. The variability of the signal cone is obtained through scaling, slanting, and translation of the kernel for cone‐limited (C‐limited) functions (functions whose Fourier transform lives within a cone) or C‐Gaussian function (a multivariate function whose Fourier transform decays exponentially with respect to slowness and frequency), which constitutes our dictionary. We find a discrete number of scaling, slanting, and translation parameters from a continuum by optimally matching the data. This is a non‐linear optimisation problem, which we address by a fixed‐point method that utilises a variable projection method with ℓ constraints on the linear parameters and bound constraints on the non‐linear parameters. We observe that slow decay and oscillatory behaviour of the kernel for C‐limited functions constitute bottlenecks for the optimisation problem, which we partially overcome by the C‐Gaussian function. We demonstrate our method through an interpolation example. We present the interpolation result using the estimated parameters obtained from the proposed method and compare it with those obtained using sparsity‐promoting curvelet decomposition, matching pursuit Fourier interpolation, and sparsity‐promoting plane‐wave decomposition methods.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12533
2017-07-17
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AbramowitzM. and StegunI.A.1965. Handbook of Mathematical Function with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. Dover Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AnderssonF., CarlssonM. and TenorioL.2012. On the representation of functions with Gaussian wave packets. Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications18(1), 146–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BauschkeH.H., BurachikR.S., CombettesP.L., ElserV., LukeD.R. and WolkowiczH.2011. Fixed‐Point Algorithms for Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering. Springer Optimization and Its Applications. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BeckoucheS. and MaJ.2014. Simultaneous dictionary learning and denoising for seismic data. Geophysics79(3), A27–A31.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BlumensathT.2012. Accelerated iterative hard thresholding. Signal Processing92(3), 752–756.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BlumensathT. and DaviesM.E.2008. Iterative thresholding for sparse approximations. Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications14(5)–(6), 629–654.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BolteJ., SabachS. and TeboulleM.2014. Proximal alternating linearized minimization for nonconvex and nonsmooth problems. Mathematical Programming146(1)–(2), 459–494.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CaiJ.‐F., JiH., ShenZ. and YeG.‐B.2014. Data‐driven tight frame construction and image denoising. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis37(1), 89–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CandésE.J., DemanetL., DonohoD. and YingL.2006. Fast discrete curvelet transforms. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation5(3), 861–899.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. CandèsE.J. and WakinM.B.2008. An introduction to compressive sampling. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine25(2), 21–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. CandèsE.J., EldarY.C., NeedellD. and RandallP.2011. Compressed sensing with coherent and redundant dictionaries. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis31(1), 59–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. CandèsE.J. and Fernandez‐GrandaC.2013. Super‐resolution from noisy data. Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications19(6), 1229–1254.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. CandèsE.J. and Fernandez‐GrandaC.2014. Towards a mathematical theory of superresolution. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics67(6), 906–956.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. ČervenýV.2001. Seismic Ray Theory. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. CevherV., BeckerS. and SchmidtM.2014. Convex optimization for big data: scalable, randomized, and parallel algorithms for big data analytics. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine31(5), 32–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. ChauffertN., CiuciuP., KahnJ. and WeissP.2015. A projection algorithm on measures sets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.00229.
  17. ChenS.S., DonohoD.L. and SaundersM.A.1998. Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing20(1), 33–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. DonohoD.L., TsaigY., DroriI. and StarckJ.‐L.2012. Sparse solution of underdetermined systems of linear equations by stagewise orthogonal matching pursuit. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory58(2), 1094–1121.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. DuvalV. and PeyréG.2015. Exact support recovery for sparse spikes deconvolution. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 1–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. EkanadhamC., TranchinaD. and SimoncelliE.P.2011. Recovery of sparse translation invariant signals with continuous basis pursuit. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing59(10), 4735–4744.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. FanJ., HanF. and LiuH.2014. Challenges of big data analysis. National Science Review1(2), 293–314.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. FehlerM. and KeliherP.J.2011. SEAM Phase 1: Challenges of Subsalt Imaging in Tertiary Basins, with Emphasis on Deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. FornasierM. and RauhutH.2008. Iterative thresholding algorithms. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis25(2), 187–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. GaborD.1946. Theory of communication. Part 1: The analysis of information. Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers‐Part III: Radio and Communication Engineering93(26), 429–441.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. GayD.M. and KaufmanL.1991. Tradeoffs in algorithms for separable nonlinear least squares. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Congress on Computational and Applied Mathematics91, 157–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. GholamyA. and KreinovichV.2014. Why Ricker wavelets are successful in processing seismic data: towards a theoretical explanation. In: 2014 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Engineering Solutions, 11–16. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
  27. GolubG. and PereyraV.2003. Separable nonlinear least squares: the variable projection method and its applications. Inverse Problems19(2), R1.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. GolubG.H. and PereyraV.1973. The differentiation of pseudo‐inverses and nonlinear least squares problems whose variables separate. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis10(2), 413–432.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. GradshteynI.S. and RyzhikI.M.2007. Table of Integrals, Series, and Products, 7th edn. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier/Academic Press. Translated from the Russian, Translation edited and with a preface by A.Jeffrey and D.Zwillinger , with one CD‐ROM (Windows, Macintosh, and UNIX).
    [Google Scholar]
  30. GuoK. and LabateD.2007. Optimally sparse multidimensional representation using shearlets. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis39(1), 298–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. HerrmannF.J., WangD., HennenfentG. and MoghaddamP.P.2008. Curvelet‐based seismic data processing: a multiscale and nonlinear approach. Geophysics73(1), A1–A5.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. HintonG.E. and SalakhutdinovR.R.2006. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science313(5786), 504–507.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. HoechtG., RicarteP., BerglerS. and LandaE.2009. Operator‐oriented CRS interpolation. Geophysical Prospecting57(6), 957–979.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. KaufmanL.1975. A variable projection method for solving separable nonlinear least squares problems. BIT Numerical Mathematics15(1), 49–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. KnudsonK.C., YatesJ., HukA. and PillowJ.W.2014. Inferring sparse representations of continuous signals with continuous orthogonal matching pursuit. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1215–1223.
  36. KutyniokG. and LabateD.2012. Shearlets: Multiscale Analysis for Multivariate Data. Springer Science & Business Media.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. LiangJ., MaJ. and ZhangX.2014. Seismic data restoration via data‐driven tight frame. Geophysics79(3), V65–V74.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. MallatS.G. and ZhangZ.1993. Matching pursuits with time‐frequency dictionaries. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing41(12), 3397–3415.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. MullenK.M., VengrisM. and van StokkumI.H.M.2007. Algorithms for separable nonlinear least squares with application to modelling time‐resolved spectra. Journal of Global Optimization38(2), 201–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. NocedalJ. and WrightS.J.1999. Numerical Optimization, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. ParikhN. and BoydS.2013. Proximal algorithms. Foundations and Trends in Optimization1(3), 123–231.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. PatiY.C., RezaiifarR. and KrishnaprasadP.S.1993. Orthogonal matching pursuit: recursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition. In: Conference Record of the Twenty‐Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers 1993, 40–44. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
  43. RichtárikP. and TakáčM.2016. Parallel coordinate descent methods for big data optimization. Mathematical Programming156(1)–(2), 433–484.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. RickettJ.2014. Successes and challenges in 3D interpolation and deghosting of single‐component marine streamer data. 2014 SEG annual meeting.
  45. SchmidtM., van den BergE., FriedlanderM.P. and MurphyK.2009. Optimizing costly functions with simple constraints: a limited‐memory projected quasi‐Newton algorithm. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics 2009, Vol. 5 (eds D.van Dyk and M.Welling ), pp. 456–463. Clearwater Beach, FL.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. SlepianD.1964. Prolate spheroidal wave functions, Fourier analysis and uncertainty—IV: extensions to many dimensions; generalized prolate spheroidal functions. Bell System Technical Journal43(6), 3009–3057.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. TroppJ. and GilbertA.C.2007. Signal recovery from random measurements via orthogonal matching pursuit. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory53(12), 4655–4666.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. van den BergE. and FriedlanderM.P.2008. Probing the Pareto frontier for basis pursuit solutions. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing31(2), 890–912.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. YarmanC.E.2015. Table of representation kernels for (signal) cone‐limited functions. Internal communication. Schlumberger Cambridge Research.
  50. YarmanC.E. and FlaggG.2014. A new way to calculate the sine integral function. Internal communication. Schlumberger Cambridge Research.
  51. YarmanC.E. and FlaggG.2015. Generalization of Padé approximation from rational functions to arbitrary analytic functions—Theory. Mathematics of Computation84(294), 1835–1860.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. YenJ.L.1956. On nonuniform sampling of bandwidth‐limited signals. IRE Transactions on Circuit Theory3(4), 251–257.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. YinW., OsherS., GoldfarbD. and DarbonJ.2008. Bregman iterative algorithms for ℓ1‐minimization with applications to compressed sensing. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences1(1), 143–168.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. YingL., DemanetL. and CandèsE.2005. 3D discrete curvelet transform. In: Optics & Photonics 2005, 591413. International Society for Optics and Photonics.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12533
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12533
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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