1887

Abstract

Summary

Deconvolution with the L1 norm, based on a sparse reflectivity assumption, enjoys better stability and sparsity than those methods using the conventional L2 norm. Although such L1-regularized problem can be efficiently solved by alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM), it may yield suboptimal solution due to the convex approximation of L1 norm to the L0 norm. To alleviate this issue, we introduce the nonconvex L1–L2 metric, which exhibits a better approximation to the L0 norm than L1 norm, to the deconvolution processing and present a L1–L2-regularized deconvolution for sparse reflectivity recovery. The proposed L1–L2-regularized deconvolution can be decomposed into two convex subproblems via difference of convex algorithm (DCA), which can be solved respectively by gradient method and ADMM. Compared with the L1-regularized deconvolution, the proposed L1–L2-regularized deconvolution has better accuracy and fidelity. The synthetic examples demonstrate the superior performance of the L1–L2-regularized deconvolution over the L1-regularized deconvolution. The field data experiment further verifies the practicability of the L1–L2-regularized deconvolution.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901196
2019-06-03
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Berkhout, A.J.
    [1977] Least-squares inverse filtering and wavelet deconvolution. Geophysics, 42(7), 1369–1383.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyd, S., Parikh, N., Chu, E., Peleato, B. and Eckstein, J.
    [2011] Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 3(1), 1–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Candes, E.J., Romberg, J.K. and Tao, T.
    [2006] Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements. Communications on pure and applied mathematics, 59(8), 1207–1223.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Donoho, D.L.
    [2006] Compressed sensing. IEEE Transactions on information theory, 52(4), 1289–1306.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Esser, E., Lou, Y. and Xin, J.
    [2013] A method for finding structured sparse solutions to nonnegative least squares problems with applications. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 6(4), 2010–2046.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gholami, A. and Sacchi, M.D.
    [2012] A fast and automatic sparse deconvolution in the presence of outliers. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 50(10), 4105–4116.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lari, H.H. and Gholami, A.
    [2019] Nonstationary blind deconvolution of seismic records. Geophysics, 84(1), V1–V9.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lines, L.R. and Ulrych, T.J.
    [1977] The old and the new in seismic deconvolution and wavelet estimation. Geophysical Prospecting, 25(3), 512–540.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lou, Y. and Yan, M.
    [2016] Fast L1–L2 Minimization via a Proximal Operator. Journal of Scientific Computing, 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Tao, P.D. and An, L.T.H.
    [1998] A DC optimization algorithm for solving the trust-region subproblem. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 8(2), 476–505.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Taylor, H.L., Banks, S.C. and McCoy, J.F.
    [1979] Deconvolution with the L1 norm. Geophysics, 44(1), 39–52.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901196
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901196
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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