This disclosure relates generally to the field of geophysical prospecting and, more particularly, the seismic data processing. Specifically, the invention is a method for accelerating full wavefield inversion of seismic data to infer a subsurface model of velocity or other physical property.
Full wavefield inversion (FWI) is a nonlinear inversion technique that recovers the earth model by minimizing the mismatch between the simulated and the observed seismic wavefields. Due to its huge computational cost, current implementation of FWI often utilizes local optimization techniques to optimize the model parameters. A widely used local optimization technique is the gradient-based first-order approach, such as steepest descent and nonlinear conjugate gradient (Tarantola, 1984). The gradient-only first-order approach is relatively efficient, because it requires computing only the gradient of the objective function, a vector containing the first-order partial derivatives of the objective function with respect to the model parameters, but its convergence is usually slow.
The convergence can be significantly improved by using the second-order optimization technique, which uses not only the gradient information, but also the curvature information of the objective function. The main difference between the first- and the second-order approach is that the second-order approach preconditions the gradient with the inverse of the Hessian, such as Gauss-Newton/Newton method (Pratt, 1998), or the inverse of a projected Hessian, such as the subspace approach (Kennett, 1988). The Hessian is a matrix containing second-order partial derivatives of the objective function with respect to the model parameters. The second-order approach is attractive not only because of its fast convergence rate, but also because of its capability to properly scale the gradient for different parameters and provide meaningful updates for parameters with different units in the context of multi-parameter inversion. The parameter scaling using the Hessian can be crucial in multi-parameter inversion, especially when one wants to simultaneously invert multiple parameters. Computing the inverse of the Hessian or the Hessian itself or even the product of the Hessian and a vector, however, is very expensive, and it is the main obstacle that prevents the second-order approach from being widely used in practice.
In the present invention, the full Hessian is replaced with a banded matrix, assuming that the Hessian is sparse and the most significant entries are around its diagonals and subdiagonals. By doing so, the action of the Hessian on a vector, i.e., Hessian-vector product, becomes a sparse matrix multiplying a vector, and it can be very efficiently calculated. Computing the action of the Hessian-vector product is the main building block in both the Gauss-Newton/Newton approach and the subspace approach. Therefore, reducing the computational cost of the action of the Hessian-vector product is essential to reducing the cost of the second-order approach.
Review of the Second-Order Approach
The Gauss-Newton/Newton approach requires solving the following linear system at every nonlinear iteration:
Hgnew=g, (1)
where H is the Hessian matrix, g is the gradient, and gnew is the preconditioned new gradient. The above equation is usually solved iteratively using the linear conjugate gradient algorithm, where the Hessian-vector product needs to be computed at each linear iteration. Equation (1) may be inverted to get the preconditioned gradient. This may be done iteratively, and a typical algorithm for doing so may be found on page 111 of Numerical Optimization, by Nocedal and Wright (2000), which may be summarized as follows:
Instead of solving equation (1), which is huge (for example, if the model contains N parameters to be inverted for, and each parameter has M samples, the Hessian then contains N2×M2 samples), the subspace approach projects the Hessian into a lower-dimensional space, hence a much smaller linear system to solve. For the case of inverting two parameters, it results in a 2×2 system as shown in equation (2). Because of the projection, the subspace approach uses less second order information. In the subspace approach, a projected Hessian needs to be inverted at every nonlinear iteration. For simplicity, taking inverting two parameters as an example, the following two-by-two system may be solved at every nonlinear iteration (generalization to inversion of more than two parameters is straightforward).
where α and β are constants used to scale different gradient components as discussed later; and g is the gradient containing components of both parameters
where g1 and g2 are the gradients for the first and the second parameter. Vectors s1 and s2 are the basis vectors defined as follows:
where 0 denotes a vector containing zeros. Once the two-by-two system (equation 3) is solved, we get the preconditioned new gradient as follows:
gnew=−αs1−αs2. (4)
The construction of the two-by-two system requires computing two Hessian-vector products, i.e., Hs1 and Hs2. In general, if the subspace approach is used to invert N parameters, a Hessian-vector product needs to be evaluated N times at every nonlinear iteration.
Therefore, the cost of either Gauss-Newton/Newton or the subspace approach is directly related to the cost of computing the Hessian-vector product. The Hessian-vector product is usually computed using linearized modeling (Born modeling) followed by an adjoint modeling or using the finite difference approximation, both of which requires calling the simulator to do wavefield forward/adjoint modelings. The computational cost is typically two FWI gradient evaluations. An example of such a method is PCT patent application publication WO 2013/081752, by Lee and Baumstein, which approximates the exact Hessian-vector product using finite-difference approximations at a cost roughly equivalent to two FWI gradient calculations, which involves wavefield propagation as well. The present invention instead replaces the exact Hessian using a PSF-approximated Hessian as described below. Since the PSF-approximated Hessian of the present invention is very sparse and moreover does not need to be recomputed every time, the cost of computing its product with a vector is significantly smaller than computing the product of the exact Hessian and the vector.
In one embodiment, the invention is a method for inverting measured geophysical data to infer a subsurface model of one or more physical properties, comprising:
(a) using a subsurface property model, computing an objective function measuring misfit between model-simulated data and the measured geophysical data, wherein the model-simulated data are generated using a computer;
(b) computing a gradient of the objective function with respect to parameters of the model;
(c) preconditioning the gradient by multiplying at least one vector by a Hessian matrix, said Hessian matrix resulting from an operator of second derivatives with respect to parameters of the model operating on the objective function, wherein the Hessian matrix is approximated by a banded matrix obtained by neglecting matrix elements in the Hessian matrix that are not close to its diagonals or sub-diagonals according to a selected diagonal-proximity criterion;
(d) using the preconditioned gradient to update the model; and
(e) repeating (a)-(d) at least once using the updated model.
In another embodiment, the invention is a second-order optimization method, using both gradient and second derivative operators, for inverting geophysical data to infer a subsurface model of one or more physical properties, comprising:
(a) using a subsurface property model, computing an objective function measuring misfit between model-simulated data and the measured geophysical data, wherein the model-simulated data are generated using a computer;
(b) computing a gradient of the objective function with respect to parameters of the model;
(c) preparing a vector containing isolated point diffractors to sample a Hessian matrix, the Hessian matrix comprising second partial derivatives of the objective function with respect to parameters of the model;
(d) constructing a PSF-approximated Hessian by computing a product of the Hessian matrix and the vector containing isolated point diffractors;
(e) preconditioning the gradient by solving a Gauss-Newton/Newton equation or a subspace equation using the PSF-approximated Hessian; and
(f) using the preconditioned gradient to update the model.
A major objective of parameter estimation by data inversion is to use the resulting subsurface model in prospecting for hydrocarbons.
The present invention and its advantages will be better understood by referring to the following detailed description and the attached drawings in which:
Due to patent law restrictions on the use of color,
Approximating the Hessian Using Point-Spread Functions (PSFs)
A method is disclosed below for pre-calculating an approximate Hessian and storing it either in computer hard disk or memory. The approximate Hessian is then retrieved when needed for computing its product with a vector. Since the approximate Hessian is very sparse, its product with a vector is therefore very efficient to calculate. Once the approximate Hessian is computed and stored either in disk or memory, computing its product with a vector requires no simulator calls at all. The pre-calculated approximate Hessian can also be reused in the subsequent steps whenever necessary.
The product of the Hessian and an arbitrary vector a can be expressed as follows:
For the case of Gauss-Newton Hessian using the L2-norm objective function, each component of the Gauss-Newton Hessian can be expressed as follows in the frequency domain:
where * denotes taking the matrix adjoint, xs, xr and ω are the source location, receiver location and frequency, respectively; ∂d(xs, xs, ω)/∂m(x) is the sensitivity kernel containing first-order partial derivatives of the simulated data d with respect to model parameter m(x). It is obvious that each component of the Hessian is the correlation of the sensitivity kernel itself, therefore it reaches its maximum when x=y (autocorrelation). For a typical surface seismic acquisition geometry, it is reasonable to assume that the Hessian has the most significant entries when y is close to x, and that when y is far away from x, its contribution is small and hence can be ignored. With this assumption, the equation of Hessian-times-vector can be rewritten as follows:
where h is the distance between x and y. The user selects h, and the selection will represent a trade-off between thorough sampling of one column of the Hessian matrix and simultaneously sampling other columns of the matrix. h can be smaller when the Hessian matrix is more diagonally dominant, and bigger when the matrix is less diagonally dominant. For example, the Hessian tends to be less diagonally dominant for low frequency data compared to high frequency data. Also, the Hessian tends to be more diagonally dominant if the subsurface is well illuminated and less diagonally dominant when it is not. For each model point x, only Hessian elements close to x are used to compute the Hessian-vector product.
This assumption also means each column of the exact Hessian can be approximately extracted by computing the product of the exact Hessian and vector(s) containing isolated point diffractors. (A point diffractor as it is represented in the following equations is a spike with amplitude 1.) This utilizes the fact that the i'th column of the Hessian matrix can be conveniently extracted by computing the product of the Hessian with a vector containing a spike at the i'th element but zeros elsewhere, as illustrated by the following equation:
Similarly, the j'th column of the Hessian matrix can be extracted by using a vector containing a spike at the j'th element but zeros elsewhere as follows:
Thanks to the linearity of the problem, if spikes are put at both the i'th and the j'th elements of the vector and zeros elsewhere and the product of the Hessian and this vector is computed, one then gets the sum of the i'th and j'th columns of the matrix as follows:
Because the Hessian matrix can be assumed to be diagonal dominant as discussed above, the elements in each column of the matrix that are far away from the diagonal elements are therefore very small, i.e., H(x, x+h)≈0, when |h| in the physical space is large. So an element, HId, where k=1, 2, . . . , M, in the first column in the right hand side of equation (10), can be neglected if the physical location where the kth element in the 1-D vector space corresponds to (the vector shown in equations (8)-(10) is a 1-D vector, but the physical space is two dimensional for 2-D problems and three dimensional for 3-D problems, so there has to be a mapping from physical space to the 1-D vector space) is relatively far away from the physical location where ith element in the 1-D vector space corresponds to. Similarly, an element, Hkj, where k=1, 2, . . . M, in the second column in the right hand size of equation (10), can be neglected if the physical location of the kth element in the physical space is relatively far away to the physical location where the jth element in the 1-D vector space corresponds. Equation (10) can then be written as follows:
where the boxes denote the nearby elements whose corresponding physical locations in the physical space are close to the corresponding diagonal elements (where the spikes are located). As can be seen from equation (11), two columns with certain approximations to the exact Hessian matrix have been extracted by computing the product of the exact Hessian and a vector containing two spikes but zeros elsewhere. The two approximate Hessian columns can be obtained by windowing the vector in the right hand side of equation (11) where the two spikes are located. Similarly, more columns of the Hessian matrix can be simultaneously extracted by putting more spikes in the vector used for computing the Hessian-vector product. The distances between these spikes or diffractors determine the maximum number of elements that can be extracted from each column of the Hessian matrix.
This is illustrated in
Hessian columns that are not covered by the isolated point diffractors can be obtained through interpolation. The response of the exact Hessian to each point diffractor is also known as point-spread function (PSF) (Lecomte, 2008). This approximate Hessian may be referred to hereafter as the “PSF-approximated Hessian.” Its computation occurs at step 82 in the invention embodiment of
For the case of two parameter inversion, it is necessary to compute the Hessian-vector product containing isolated point diffractors twice in order to get the PSF-approximated Hessian, as explained by the following equations.
where p is the vector containing isolated point diffractors and 0 is a vector containing zeros. By extracting PSFs from H11p, H21p, H12p and H22p, the PSF-approximated Hessian can be built for the entire Hessian matrix, not just the Hessian for the parameter itself (H11 and H22), but also the Hessian for the cross parameters (H21 and H12).
In general, calculating the PSF-approximated Hessian for N parameters requires computing the Hessian-times-vector N times. Once the approximate Hessian or the PSFs are calculated, they can be stored (step 83 in
Practical Considerations and Further Extensions
The PSFs are extracted only at locations where the point diffractors are located. Because these point diffractors are isolated, not every image point has a PSF. In other words, not every column of the Hessian is approximated. This can be easily solved by spatially interpolating the PSFs. The filters are preferably interpolated “on the fly” when needed (step 99 in
Another important consideration is the symmetry of the PSF-approximated Hessian. Because the exact Hessian, by definition, is symmetric, it is desirable for the approximate Hessian to also be symmetric. However, since each PSF approximates a column of the Hessian matrix, unless each column of the exact Hessian is exactly the same, this approximation cannot guarantee that the PSF-approximated Hessian is symmetric. Following are two different examples of ways to symmetrize the PSF-approximated Hessian. Any other symmetrizing technique that may be found is within the scope of the invention. The first option is to replace the upper half elements of the PSF-approximated Hessian with the lower half elements by flipping up the elements in the lower half along the diagonal line. Or, alternatively, replace the lower half elements with its upper half elements by mirror reflecting the elements in the upper half through the diagonal line to replace the elements in the lower half. The second option is to compute both the product of the PSF-approximated Hessian and a vector and the product of the transpose of the PSF-approximated Hessian and the same vector, and then average the two results together. This effectively symmetrizes the PSF-approximated Hessian by averaging its upper and lower half elements.
The exact Hessian is computed based on current model parameters. In an inversion workflow, the model parameters are updated at the end of each iteration. Therefore, in theory, the Hessian needs to be updated as well when the model parameters are updated to more accurately reflect the curvature information of the objective function. However, if the model updates are not significant after each iteration, it is reasonable to assume that the changes of the Hessian can be neglected, at least for a small number of iterations. Therefore, in some embodiments of the invention, the PSF-approximated Hessian is not recomputed every iteration, but instead, for example, once every several iterations. Another option is to update the PSF-approximated Hessian using a quasi-Newton scheme (Nocedal and Wright, 2000, pages 194-199).
The term “exact Hessian” (also referred to herein as “the Hessian”) does not mean that approximations cannot be made. For example, the Lee-Baumstein method (WO 2013/081752) may be used to compute the product of the exact Hessian and the vector of point diffractors.
A method such as that disclosed in the above-discussed WO 2013/081752 approximates the product of the exact Hessian and a vector, e.g. a gradient of the objective function. It does not explicitly compute an approximate Hessian, but instead, it computes the Hessian-vector product in an approximate way. The PSF-approximated Hessian of the present invention, on the other hand, approximates the Hessian itself, and computes explicitly an approximate Hessian. Then this approximate Hessian is used to compute the Hessian-vector product. For purposes of the above terminology distinction between the “Hessian” and the “Hessian-vector product,” the term “vector” in “Hessian-vector product” means a vector of the same size as the model parameters, for example the gradient of the objective function. A PSF-approximated Hessian may be built by first computing the product of the exact Hessian and the sampling vector of point diffractors, and then windowing and interpolating. A method such as that disclosed in WO 2013/081752, however, can be used in an embodiment of the present invention to compute the PSF-approximated Hessian, i.e. to perform step 82, because the method of WO 2013/081752 approximates the product of the exact Hessian and a vector, and for this purpose the vector can be the sampling vector of point diffractors.
A typical workflow of using the PSF-approximated Hessian in an inversion framework can be summarized as follows:
1. Prepare vector(s) containing isolated point diffractors—step 81 in
2. Build the PSF-approximated Hessian by computing the action(s) of the Hessian to vector(s) containing isolated point diffractors—step 82. The subsurface model is needed in this step because this step computes the product of the exact Hessian and the sampling vector, and computing the exact Hessian-vector product requires simulation.
3. Start nonlinear iteration (refer to the flow chart of
(a) Compute the gradient of the objective function—step 92.
(b) Solve the Gauss-Newton/Newton equation or the subspace equation using the PSF-approximated Hessian to get the preconditioned gradient—step 93.
(c) Find the search direction using the preconditioned gradient—step 94.
(d) Perform a line search to find an optimal step length—step 95.
(e) Update the model—step 96.
(f) Recalculate the PSF-approximated Hessian or update the PSF using a quasi-Newton scheme (optional)—step 97.
The window size, i.e., the choice of h in Eqn. (7), may be used at two different places in the present invention. One is when preparing the point diffractors. In that case, the window size, i.e. h, determines the maximum number of elements in a particular Hessian column that can be extracted when building the PSF-approximated Hessian. The choice of h, however, will not affect the computational efficiency of building the PSF-approximated Hessian at all, because when calling the simulator to compute the product of the exact Hessian and a vector, it always uses the full Hessian (all of its off-diagonal elements). The choice of h affects only the accuracy of the extracted Hessian columns, or PSFs. The second place where the choice of h matters is when the precomputed PSF-approximated Hessian is used to compute the Hessian-vector product. In that case, the maximum h that can be used for computing the Hessian-vector product is the window size that was used in preparing the point diffractors. But smaller window sizes can also be used for computing the Hessian-vector product. A smaller window size results in faster computation of the product of the PSF-approximated Hessian and a vector, because smaller window size means fewer off-diagonal elements of the PSF-approximated Hessian are used in the computation. Naturally, smaller window size results in a less accurate approximation. Thus there is a compromise between accuracy (resolution) and computing speed, but this arises only at the stage when the PSF-approximated Hessian is used for computing the Hessian-vector product, and not when the point diffractors are being prepared.
A second example illustrates multi-parameter acoustic VTI inversion. In this case, the anisotropy parameter δ is assumed to be known and accurate, and the goal is to simultaneously invert for P-wave velocity νp and the other anisotropy parameter ε. The subspace approach was used in this example, where the action of the Hessian upon a vector was computed using the PSF-approximated Hessian.
The foregoing application is directed to particular embodiments of the present invention for the purpose of illustrating it. It will be apparent, however, to one skilled in the art, that many modifications and variations to the embodiments described herein are possible. All such modifications and variations are intended to be within the scope of the present invention, as defined in the appended claims. Persons skilled in the art will readily recognize that in preferred embodiments of the invention, at least some of the steps in the present inventive method are performed on a computer, i.e. the invention is computer implemented.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/874,574, filed Sep. 6, 2013, entitled Accelerating Full Wavefield Inversion with Nonstationary Point Spread Functions, the entirety of which is incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3812457 | Weller | May 1974 | A |
3864667 | Bahjat | Feb 1975 | A |
4159463 | Silverman | Jun 1979 | A |
4168485 | Payton et al. | Sep 1979 | A |
4545039 | Savit | Oct 1985 | A |
4562650 | Nagasawa et al. | Jan 1986 | A |
4575830 | Ingram et al. | Mar 1986 | A |
4594662 | Devaney | Jun 1986 | A |
4636957 | Vannier et al. | Jan 1987 | A |
4675851 | Savit et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4686654 | Savit | Aug 1987 | A |
4707812 | Martinez | Nov 1987 | A |
4715020 | Landrum, Jr. | Dec 1987 | A |
4766574 | Whitmore et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
4780856 | Becquey | Oct 1988 | A |
4823326 | Ward | Apr 1989 | A |
4924390 | Parsons et al. | May 1990 | A |
4953657 | Edington | Sep 1990 | A |
4969129 | Currie | Nov 1990 | A |
4982374 | Edington et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
5260911 | Mason et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5469062 | Meyer, Jr. | Nov 1995 | A |
5583825 | Carrazzone et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5677893 | de Hoop et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5715213 | Allen | Feb 1998 | A |
5717655 | Beasley | Feb 1998 | A |
5719821 | Sallas et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5721710 | Sallas et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5790473 | Allen | Aug 1998 | A |
5798982 | He et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5822269 | Allen | Oct 1998 | A |
5838634 | Jones et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5852588 | de Hoop et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5878372 | Tabarovsky et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5920838 | Norris et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5924049 | Beasley et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5999488 | Smith | Dec 1999 | A |
5999489 | Lazaratos | Dec 1999 | A |
6014342 | Lazaratos | Jan 2000 | A |
6021094 | Ober et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6028818 | Jeffryes | Feb 2000 | A |
6058073 | VerWest | May 2000 | A |
6125330 | Robertson et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6219621 | Hornbostel | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6225803 | Chen | May 2001 | B1 |
6311133 | Lailly et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6317695 | Zhou et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327537 | Ikelle | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6374201 | Grizon et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381543 | Guerillot et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6388947 | Washbourne et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6480790 | Calvert et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6522973 | Tonellot et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6545944 | de Kok | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6549854 | Malinverno et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6574564 | Lailly et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6593746 | Stolarczyk | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6662147 | Fournier et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6665615 | Van Riel et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6687619 | Moerig et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6687659 | Shen | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6704245 | Becquey | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6714867 | Meunier | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6735527 | Levin | May 2004 | B1 |
6754590 | Moldoveanu | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6766256 | Jeffryes | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6826486 | Malinverno | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6836448 | Robertsson et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6842701 | Moerig et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6859734 | Bednar | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6865487 | Charron | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6865488 | Moerig et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6876928 | Van Riel et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6882938 | Vaage et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6882958 | Schmidt et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6901333 | Van Riel et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6903999 | Curtis et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6905916 | Bartsch et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6906981 | Vauge | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6927698 | Stolarczyk | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6944546 | Xiao et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6947843 | Fisher et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6970397 | Castagna et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6977866 | Huffman et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6999880 | Lee | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7046581 | Calvert | May 2006 | B2 |
7050356 | Jeffryes | May 2006 | B2 |
7069149 | Goff et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7027927 | Routh et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7072767 | Routh et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7092823 | Lailly et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7110900 | Adler et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7184367 | Yin | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7230879 | Herkenoff et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7271747 | Baraniuk et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7330799 | Lefebvre et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7337069 | Masson et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7373251 | Hamman et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7373252 | Sherrill et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7376046 | Jeffryes | May 2008 | B2 |
7376539 | Lecomte | May 2008 | B2 |
7400978 | Langlais et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7436734 | Krohn | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7480206 | Hill | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7584056 | Koren | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7599798 | Beasley et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7602670 | Jeffryes | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7616523 | Tabti et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7620534 | Pita et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7620536 | Chow | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7646924 | Donoho | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7672194 | Jeffryes | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7672824 | Dutta et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7675815 | Saenger et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7679990 | Herkenhoff et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7684281 | Vaage et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7710821 | Robertsson et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7715985 | Van Manen et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7715986 | Nemeth et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7725266 | Sirgue et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7791980 | Robertsson et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7835072 | Izumi | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7840625 | Candes et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7940601 | Ghosh | May 2011 | B2 |
8121823 | Krebs et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8248886 | Neelamani et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8428925 | Krebs et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8437998 | Routh et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8688381 | Routh et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
20020099504 | Cross et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020120429 | Ortoleva | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020183980 | Guillaume | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20040199330 | Routh et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040225438 | Okoniewski et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050234718 | Ouimet | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060235666 | Assa et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070036030 | Baumel et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070038691 | Candes et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070274155 | Ikelle | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080175101 | Saenger et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080306692 | Singer et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006054 | Song | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090067041 | Krauklis et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090070042 | Birchwood et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083006 | Mackie | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090164186 | Haase et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090164756 | Dokken et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090187391 | Wendt et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090248308 | Luling | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090254320 | Lovatini et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090259406 | Khadhraoui et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100008184 | Hegna et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100018718 | Krebs et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100039894 | Abma et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100054082 | McGarry et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100088035 | Etgen et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100103772 | Eick et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100118651 | Liu et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100142316 | Keers et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100161233 | Saenger et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100161234 | Saenger et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100185422 | Hoversten | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100208554 | Chiu et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100212902 | Baumstein et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100265797 | Robertsson et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100270026 | Lazaratos et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100286919 | Lee et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299070 | Abma | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110000678 | Krebs et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110040926 | Donderici et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110051553 | Scott et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110090760 | Rickett et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110131020 | Meng | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110134722 | Virgilio et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110182141 | Zhamikov et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110182144 | Gray | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110191032 | Moore | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110194379 | Lee | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110222370 | Downton et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110227577 | Zhang et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110235464 | Brittan et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110238390 | Krebs et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110246140 | Abubakar et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110267921 | Mortel et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110267923 | Shin | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110276320 | Krebs et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110288831 | Tan et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110299361 | Shin | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110320180 | Al-Saleh | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120010862 | Costen | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120014215 | Saenger et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120014216 | Saenger et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120051176 | Liu | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120073824 | Routh | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120073825 | Routh | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120082344 | Donoho | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120143506 | Routh et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120215506 | Rickett et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120275264 | Kostov et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120275267 | Neelamani et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120290214 | Huo et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120314538 | Washbourne et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120316790 | Washbourne et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120316844 | Shah et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130081752 | Kurimura et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130185032 | Archer | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130238246 | Krebs et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130311149 | Tang et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130311151 | Plessix | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20140350861 | Wang et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140358504 | Baumstein et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140372043 | Hu et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150012221 | Bansal et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150057938 | Krohn et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2 796 631 | Nov 2011 | CA |
1 094 338 | Apr 2001 | EP |
1 746 443 | Jan 2007 | EP |
2 390 712 | Jan 2004 | GB |
2 391 665 | Feb 2004 | GB |
WO 2006037815 | Apr 2006 | WO |
WO 2007046711 | Apr 2007 | WO |
WO 2008042081 | Apr 2008 | WO |
WO 2008123920 | Oct 2008 | WO |
WO 2009067041 | May 2009 | WO |
WO 2009117174 | Sep 2009 | WO |
WO 2010085822 | Jul 2010 | WO |
WO 2011040926 | Apr 2011 | WO |
WO 2011091216 | Jul 2011 | WO |
WO 2011093945 | Aug 2011 | WO |
WO 2012024025 | Feb 2012 | WO |
WO 2012041834 | Apr 2012 | WO |
WO 2012083234 | Jun 2012 | WO |
WO 2012134621 | Oct 2012 | WO |
WO 2012170201 | Dec 2012 | WO |
WO 2013081752 | Jun 2013 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Nocedal et al., “Numerical Optimization,” 2nd Edition (2006), pp. 1-664 [retrieved from http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-0-387-40065-5]. |
Flectcher et al., “Inversion After Depth Imaging” (Nov. 4-9, 2012), 2012 SEG Annual Meeting, pp. 1-5 [retrieved from https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SEG-2012-0427]. |
Abt, D.L. et al. (2010), “North American lithospheric discontinuity structured imaged by Ps and Sp receiver functions”, J. Geophys. Res., 24 pgs. |
Akerberg, P., et al. (2008), “Simultaneous source separation by sparse radon transform,” 78th SEG Annual International Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2801-2805. |
Aki, K. et al. (1980), “Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods vol. I—Chapter 7—Surface Waves in a Vertically Heterogenous Medium,” W.H. Freeman and Co., pp. 259-318. |
Aki, K. et al. (1980), “Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods vol. I,” W.H. Freeman and Co., p. 173. |
Aki et al. (1980), “Quantitative Seismology, Theory and Methods,” Chapter 5.20, W.H. Freeman & Co., pp. 133-155. |
Amundsen, L. (2001), “Elimination of free-surface related multiples without need of the source wavelet,” Geophysics 60(1), pp. 327-341. |
Anderson, J.E. et al. (2008), “Sources Near the Free-Surface Boundary: Pitfalls for Elastic Finite-Difference Seismic Simulation and Multi-Grid Waveform Inversion,” 70th EAGE Conf. & Exh., 4 pgs. |
Barr, F.J. et al. (1989), “Attenuation of Water-Column Reverberations Using Pressure and Velocity Detectors in a Water-Bottom Cable,” 59th Annual SEG meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 653-656. |
Baumstein, A. et al. (2009), “Scaling of the Objective Function Gradient for Full Wavefield Inversion,” SEG Houston 2009 Int'l. Expo and Annual Meeting, pp. 224-2247. |
Beasley, C. (2008), “A new look at marine simultaneous sources,” The Leading Edge 27(7), pp. 914-917. |
Beasley, C. (2012), “A 3D simultaneous source field test processed using alternating projections: a new active separation method,” Geophsyical Prospecting 60, pp. 591-601. |
Beaty, K.S. et al. (2003), “Repeatability of multimode Rayleigh-wave dispersion studies,” Geophysics 68(3), pp. 782-790. |
Beaty, K.S. et al. (2002), “Simulated annealing inversion of multimode Rayleigh wave dispersion waves for geological structure,” Geophys. J. Int. 151, pp. 622-631. |
Becquey, M. et al. (2002), “Pseudo-Random Coded Simultaneous Vibroseismics,” SEG Int'l. Exposition and 72th Annl. Mtg., 4 pgs. |
Ben-Hadj-Ali, H. et al. (2009), “Three-dimensional frequency-domain full waveform inversion with phase encoding,” SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2288-2292. |
Ben-Hadj-Ali, H. et al. (2011), “An efficient frequency-domain full waveform inversion method using simultaneous encoded sources,” Geophysics 76(4), pp. R109-R124. |
Benitez, D. et al. (2001), “The use of the Hilbert transform in ECG signal analysis,” Computers in Biology and Medicine 31, pp. 399-406. |
Berenger, J-P. (1994), “A Perfectly Matched Layer for the Absorption of Electromagnetic Waves,” J. of Computational Physics 114, pp. 185-200. |
Berkhout, A.J. (1987), “Applied Seismic Wave Theory,” Elsevier Science Publishers, p. 142. |
Berkhout, A.J. (1992), “Areal shot record technology,” Journal of Seismic Exploration 1, pp. 251-264. |
Berkhout, A.J. (2008), “Changing the mindset in seismic data acquisition,” The Leading Edge 27(7), pp. 924-938. |
Beylkin, G. (1985), “Imaging of discontinuities in the inverse scattring problem by inversion of a causal generalized Radon transform,” J. Math. Phys. 26, pp. 99-108. |
Biondi, B. (1992), “Velocity estimation by beam stack,” Geophysics 57(8), pp. 1034-1047. |
Bonomi, E. et al. (2006), “Wavefield Migration plus Monte Carlo Imaging of 3D Prestack Seismic Data,” Geophysical Prospecting 54, pp. 505-514. |
Boonyasiriwat, C. et al. (2010), 3D Multisource Full-Waveform using Dynamic Random Phase Encoding, SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting, pp. 1044-1049. |
Boonyasiriwat, C. et al. (2010), 3D Multisource Full-Waveform using Dynamic Random Phase Encoding, SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting, pp. 3120-3124. |
Bunks, C., et al. (1995), “Multiscale seismic waveform inversion,” Geophysics 60, pp. 1457-1473. |
Burstedde, G. et al. (2009), “Algorithmic strategies for full wavefon 'inversion: 1D experiments,” Geophysics 74(6), pp. WCC17-WCC46. |
Chavent, G. et al. (1999), “An optimal true-amplitude least-squares prestack depth-migration operator,” Geophysics 64(2), pp. 508-515. |
Choi, Y. et al. (2011), “Application of encoded multisource waveform inversion to marine-streamer acquisition based on the global correlation,” 73rd EAGE Conference, Abstract, pp. F026. |
Choi, Y et al. (2012), “Application of multi-source waveform inversion to marine stream data using the global correlation norm,” Geophysical Prospecting 60, pp. 748-758. |
Clapp, R.G. (2009), “Reverse time migration with random boundaries,” SEG International Exposition and Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2809-2813. |
Dai, W. et al. (2010), “3D Multi-source Least-squares Reverse Time Migration,” SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting, pp. 3120-3124. |
Delprat-Jannuad, F. et al. (2005), “A fundamental limitation for the reconstruction of impedance profiles from seismic data,” Geophysics 70(1), pp. R1-R14. |
Dickens, T.A. et al. (2011), RTM angle gathers using Poynting vectors, SEG Expanded Abstracts 30, pp. 3109-3113. |
Donerici, B. et al. (1005), “Improved FDTD Subgridding Algorithms Via Digital Filtering and Domain Overriding,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 53(9), pp. 2938-2951. |
Downey, N. et al. (2011), “Random-Beam Full-Wavefield Inversion,” 2011 San Antonio Annual Meeting, pp. 2423-2427. |
Dunkin, J.W. et al. (1973), “Effect of Normal Moveout on a Seismic Pluse,” Geophysics 38(4), pp. 635-642. |
Dziewonski A. et al. (1981), “Preliminary Reference Earth Model”, Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 25(4), pp. 297-356. |
Ernst, F.E. et al. (2000), “Tomography of dispersive media,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am 108(1), pp. 105- 116. |
Ernst, F.E. et al. (2002), “Removal of scattered guided waves from seismic data,” Geophysics 67(4), pp. 1240-1248. |
Esmersoy, C. (1990), “Inversion of P and SV waves from multicomponent offset vertical seismic profiles”, Geophysics 55(1), pp. 39-50. |
Etgen, J.T. et al. (2007), “Computational methods for large-scale 3D acoustic finite-difference modeling: A tutorial,” Geophysics 72(5), pp. SM223-SM230. |
Fallat, M.R. et al. (1999), “Geoacoustic inversion via local, global, and hybrid algorithms,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105, pp. 3219-3230. |
Fichtner, A. et al. (2006), “The adjoint method in seismology I. Theory,” Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 157, pp. 86-104. |
Forbriger, T. (2003), “Inversion of shallow-seismic wavefields: I. Wavefield transfoimation,” Geophys. J. Int. 153, pp. 719-734. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/286,107, filed May 23, 2014, Hu et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/329,431, filed Jul. 11, 2014, Krohn et al. |
Gao, H. et al. (2008), “Implementation of perfectly matched layers in an arbitrary geometrical boundary for leastic wave modeling,” Geophysics J. Int. 174, pp. 1029-1036. |
Gibson, B. et al. (1984), “Predictive deconvolution and the zero-phase source,” Geophysics 49(4), pp. 379-397. |
Godfrey, R. J. et al. (1998), “Imaging the Foiaven Ghost,” SEG Expanded Abstracts, 4 pgs. |
Griewank, a. (1992), “Achieving logarithmic growth of temporal and spatial complexity in reverse automatic differentiation,” 1 Optimization Methods and Software, pp. 35-54. |
Griewank, A. (2000), Evaluating Derivatives: Principles and Techniques of Algorithmic Differentiation, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 49 pgs. |
Griewank, A. et al. (2000), “Algorithm 799: An implementation of checkpointing for the reverse or adjoint mode of computational differentiation,” 26 ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, pp. 19-45. |
Griewank, A. et al. (1996), “Algorithm 755: A package for the automatic differentiation of algorithms written in C/C++,” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 22(2), pp. 131-167. |
Haber, E. et al. (2010), “An effective method for parameter estimation with PDE constraints with multiple right hand sides,” Preprint—UBC http://www.math.ubc.ca/˜haber/pubs/PdeOptStochV5.pdf. |
Hampson, D.P. et al. (2005), “Simultaneous inversion of pre-stack seismic data,” SEG 75th Annual Int'l. Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 1633-1637. |
Heinkenschloss, M. (2008), :“Numerical Solution of Implicity Constrained Optimization Problems,” CAAM Technical Report TR08-05, 25 pgs. |
Helbig, K. (1994), “Foundations of Anisotropy for Exploration Seismics,” Chapter 5, pp. 185-194. |
Herrmann, F.J. (2010), “Randomized dimensionality reduction for full-waveform inversion,” EAGE abstract G001, EAGE Barcelona meeting, 5 pgs. |
Holschneider, J. et al. (2005), “Characterization of dispersive surface waves using continuous wavelet transforms,” Geophys. J. Int. 163, pp. 463-478. |
Hu, L.Z. et al. (1987), “Wave-field transformations of vertical seismic profiles,” Geophysics 52, pp. 307-321. |
Huang, Y. et al. (2012), “Multisource least-squares migration of marine streamer and land data with frequency-division encoding,” Geophysical Prospecting 60, pp. 663-680. |
Igel, H. et al. (1996), “Waveform inversion of marine reflection seismograms for P impedance and Poisson's ratio,” Geophys. J. Int. 124, pp. 363-371. |
Ikelle, L.T. (2007), “Coding and decoding: Seismic data modeling, acquisition, and processing,” 77th Annual Int'l. Meeting, SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 66-70. |
Jackson, D.R. et al. (1991), “Phase conjugation in underwater acoustics,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89(1), pp. 171-181. |
Jing, X. et al. (2000), “Encoding multiple shot gathers in prestack migration,” SEG International Exposition and 70th Annual Meeting Expanded Abstracts, pp. 786-789. |
Kennett, B.L.N. (1991), “The removal of free surface interactions from three-component seismograms”, Geophys. J. Int. 104, pp. 153-163. |
Kennett, B.L.N. et al. (1988), “Subspace methods for large inverse problems with multiple parameter classes,” Geophysical J. 94, pp. 237-247. |
Krebs, J.R. (2008), “Fast Full-wavefield seismic inversion using encoded sources,” Geophysics 74(6), pp. WCC177-WCC188. |
Krohn, C.E. (1984), “Geophone ground coupling,” Geophysics 49(6), pp. 722-731. |
Kroode, F.T. et al. (2009), “Wave Equation Based Model Building and Imaging in Complex Settings,” OTC 20215, 2009 Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, TX, May 4-7, 2009, 8 pgs. |
Kulesh, M. et al. (2008), “Modeling of Wave Dispersion Using Continuous Wavelet Transforms II: Wavelet-based Frequency-velocity Analysis,” Pure Applied Geophysics 165, pp. 255-270. |
Lancaster, S. et al. (2000), “Fast-track ‘colored’ inversion,” 70th SEG Ann. Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 1572-1575. |
Lazaratos, S. et al. (2009), “Inversion of Pre-migration Spectral Shaping,” 2009 SEG Houston Int'l. Expo. & Ann Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2383-2387. |
Lazaratos, S. (2006), “Spectral Shaping Inversion for Elastic and Rock Property Estimation,” Research Disclosure, Issue 511, pp. 1453-1459. |
Lazaratos, S. et al. (2011), “Improving the convergence rate of full wavefield inversion using spectral shaping,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 30, pp. 2428-2432. |
Lecomte, I. (2008), “Resolution and illumination analyses in PSDM: A ray-based approach,” The Leading Edge, pp. 650-663. |
Lee, S. et al. (2010), “Subsurface parameter estimation in full wavefield inversion and reverse time migration,” SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting, pp. 1065-1069. |
Levanon, N. (1988), “Radar Principles,” Chpt. 1, John Whiley & Sons, New York, pp. 1-18. |
Liao, Q. et al. (1995), “2.5D full-wavefield viscoacoustic inversion,” Geophysical Prospecting 43, pp. 1043-1059. |
Liu, F. et al. (2007), “Reverse-time migration using one-way wavefield imaging condition,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 26, pp. 2170-2174. |
Liu, F. et al. (2011), “An effective imaging condition for reverse-time migration using wavefield decomposition,” Geophysics 76, pp. S29-S39. |
Maharramov, M. et al. (2007) , “Localized image-difference wave-equation tomography,” SEG Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 3009-3013. |
Malmedy, V. et al. (2009), “Approximating Hessians in unconstrained optimization arising from discretized problems,” Computational Optimization and Applications, pp. 1-16. |
Marcinkovich, C. et al. (2003), “On the implementation of perfectly matched layers in a three-dimensional fourth-order velocity-stress finite difference scheme,” J. of Geophysical Research 108(B5), 2276. |
Martin, G.S. et al. (2006), “Marmousi2: An elastic upgrade for Marmousi,” The Leading Edge, pp. 156-166. |
Meier, M.A. et al. (2009), “Converted wave resolution,” Geophysics, 74(2):doi:10.1190/1.3074303, pp. Q1-Q16. |
Moghaddam, P.P. et al. (2010), “Randomized full-waveform inversion: a dimenstionality-reduction approach,” 80th SEG Ann. Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 977-982. |
Mora, P. (1987), “Nonlinear two-dimensional elastic inversion of multi-offset seismic data,” Geophysics 52, pp. 1211-1228. |
Mora, P. (1987), “Elastic Wavefield Inversion,” PhD Thesis, Stanford University, pp. 22-25. |
Mora, P. (1989), “Inversion = migration + tomography,” Geophysics 64, pp. 888-901. |
Nazarian, S. et al. (1983), “Use of spectral analysis of surface waves method for determination of moduli and thickness of pavement systems,” Transport Res. Record 930, pp. 38-45. |
Neelamani, R., (2008), “Simultaneous sourcing without compromise,” 70th Annual Int'l. Conf. and Exh., Eage, 5 pgs. |
Neelamani, R. (2009), “Efficient seismic forward modeling using simultaneous sources and sparsity,” SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2107-2111. |
Nocedal, J. et al. (2006), “Numerical Optimization, Chapt. 7—Large-Scale Unconstrained Optimization,” Springer, New York, 2nd Edition, pp. 165-176. |
Nocedal, J. et al. (2000), “Numerical Optimization-Calculating Derivatives,” Chapter 8, Springer Verlag, pp. 194-199. |
Ostmo, S. et al. (2002), “Finite-difference iterative migration by linearized waveform inversion in the frequency domain,” SEG Int'l. Expo. & 72nd Ann. Meeting, 4 pgs. |
Park, C.B. et al. (1999), “Multichannel analysis of surface waves,” Geophysics 64(3), pp. 800-808. |
Park, C.B. et al. (2007), “Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW)—active and passive methods,” The Leading Edge, pp. 60-64. |
Pica, A. et al. (2005), “3D Surface-Related Multiple Modeling, Principles and Results,” 2005 SEG Ann. Meeting, SEG Expanded Abstracts 24, pp. 2080-2083. |
Plessix, R.E. et al. (2004), “Frequency-domain finite-difference amplitude preserving migration,” Geophys. J. Int. 157, pp. 975-987. |
Porter, R.P. (1989), “Generalized holography with application to inverse scattering and inverse source problems,” In E. Wolf, editor. Prowess in Optics XXVII, Elsevier, pp. 317-397. |
Pratt, R.G. et al. (1998), “Gauss-Newton and full Newton methods in frequency-space seismic waveform inversion,” Geophys. J Int. 133, pp. 341-362. |
Pratt, R.G. (1999), “Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain, Part 1: Theory and verification in a physical scale model,” Geophysics 64, pp. 888-901. |
Rawlinson, N. et al. (2008), “A dynamic objective function technique for generating multiple solution models in seismic tomography,” Geophys. J Int. 178, pp. 295-308. |
Rayleigh, J.W.S. (1899), “On the transmission of light through an atmosphere containing small particles in suspension, and on the origin of the blue of the sky,” Phil. Mag. 47, pp. 375-384. |
Romero, L.A. et al. (2000), Phase encoding of shot records in prestack migration, Geophysics 65, pp. 426-436. |
Ronen S. et al. (2005), “Imaging Downgoing waves from Ocean Bottom Stations,” SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 963-967. |
Routh, P. et al. (2011), “Encoded Simultaneous Source Full-Wavefield Inversion for Spectrally-Shaped Marine Streamer Data,” SEG San Antonio 2011 Ann. Meeting, pp. 2433-2438. |
Ryden, N. et al. (2006), “Fast simulated annealing inversion of surface waves on pavement using phase-velocity spectra,” Geophysics 71(4), pp. R49-R58. |
Sambridge, M.S. et al. (1991), “An Alternative Strategy for Non-Linear Inversion of Seismic Waveforms,” Geophysical Prospecting 39, pp. 723-736. |
Schoenberg, M. et al. (1989), “A calculus for finely layered anisotropic media,” Geophysics 54, pp. 581-589. |
Schuster, G.T. et al. (2010), “Theory of Multisource Crosstalk Reduction by Phase-Encoded Statics,” SEG Denver 2010 Ann. Meeting, pp. 3110-3114. |
Sears, T.J. et al. (2008), “Elastic full waveform inversion of multi-component OBC seismic data,” Geophysical Prospecting 56, pp. 843-862. |
Sheen, D-H. et al. (2006), “Time domain Gauss-Newton seismic waveform inversion in elastic media,” Geophysics J. Int. 167, pp. 1373-1384. |
Shen, P. et al. (2003), “Differential semblance velocity analysis by wave-equation migration,” 73rd Ann. Meeting of Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 4 pgs. |
Sheng, J. et al. (2006), “Early arrival waveform tomography on near-surface refraction data,” Geophysics 71, pp. U47-U57. |
Sheriff, R.E.et al. (1982), “Exploration Seismology”, pp. 134-135. |
Shih, R-C. et al. (1996), “Iterative pre-stack depth migration with velocity analysis,” Terrestrial, Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences 7(2), pp. 149-158. |
Shin, C. et al. (2001), “Waveform inversion using a logarithmic wavefield,” Geophysics 49, pp. 592-606. |
Simard, P.Y. et al. (1990), “Vector Field Restoration by the Method of Convex Projections,” Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing 52, pp. 360-385. |
Sirgue, L. (2004), “Efficient waveform inversion and imaging: A strategy for selecting temporal frequencies,” Geophysics 69, pp. 231-248. |
Soubaras, R. et al. (2007), “Velocity model building by semblance maximization of modulated-shot gathers,” Geophysics 72(5), pp. U67-U73. |
Spitz, S. (2008), “Simultaneous source separation: a prediction-subtraction approach,” 78th Annual Int'l. Meeting, SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2811-2815. |
Stefani, J. (2007), “Acquisition using simultaneous sources,” 69th Annual Conf. and Exh., EAGE Extended Abstracts, 5 pgs. |
Symes, W.W. (2007), “Reverse time migration with optimal checkpointing,” Geophysics 72(5), pp. P.SM213-SM221. |
Symes, W.W. (2009), “Interface error analysis for numerical wave propagation,” Compu. Geosci. 13, pp. 363-371. |
Tang, Y. (2008), “Wave-equation Hessian by phase encoding,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 27, pp. 2201-205. |
Tang, Y. (2009), “Target-oriented wave-equation least-squares migration/inversion with phase-encoded Hessian,” Geophysics 74, pp. WCA95-WCA107. |
Tang, Y. et al. (2010), “Preconditioning full waveform inversion with phase-encoded Hessian,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 29, pp. 1034-1037. |
Tarantola, A. (1986), “A strategy for nonlinear elastic inversion of seismic reflection data,” Geophysics 51(10), pp. 1893-1903. |
Tarantola, A. (1988), “Theoretical background for the inversion of seismic waveforms, including elasticity and attenuation,” Pure and Applied Geophysics 128, pp. 365-399. |
Tarantola, A. (2005), “Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation,” SIAM, pp. 79. |
Tarantola, A. (1984), “Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation,” Geophysics 49, pp. 1259-1266. |
Trantham, E.C. (1994), “Controlled-phase acquisition and processing,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 13, pp. 890-894. |
Tsvankin, I. (2001), “Seismic Signatures and Analysis of Reflection Data in Anisotropic Media,” Elsevier Science, p. 8. |
Valenciano, A.A. (2008), “Imaging by Wave-Equation Inversion,” A Dissertation, Stanford University, 138 pgs. |
van Groenestijn, G.J.A. et al. (2009), “Estimating primaries by sparse inversion and application to near-offset reconstruction,” Geophyhsics 74(3), pp. A23-A28. |
van Manen, D.J. (2005), “Making wave by time reversal,” SEG International Exposition and 75th Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 1763-1766. |
Verschuur, D.J. (2009), Target-oriented, least-squares imaging of blended data, 79th Annual Int'l. Meeting, SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2889-2893. |
Verschuur, D.J. et al. (1992), “Adaptive surface-related multiple elimination,” Geophysics 57(9), pp. 1166-1177. |
Verschuur, D.J. (1989), “Wavelet Estimation by Prestack Multiple Elimination,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 8, pp. 1129-1132. |
Versteeg, R. (1994), “The Marmousi experience: Velocity model determination on a synthetic complex data set,” The Leading Edge, pp. 927-936. |
Vigh, D. et al. (2008), “3D prestack plane-wave, full-waveform inversion,” Geophysics 73(5), pp. VE135-VE144. |
Wang, Y. (2007), “Multiple prediction through inversion: Theoretical advancements and real data application,” Geophysics 72(2), pp. V33-V39. |
Wang, K. et al. (2009), “Simultaneous full-waveform inversion for source wavelet and earth model,” SEG Int'l. Expo. & Ann. Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2537-2541. |
Weglein, A.B. (2003), “Inverse scattering series and seismic exploration,” Inverse Problems 19, pp. R27-R83. |
Wong, M. et al. (2010), “Joint least-squares inversion of up- and down-going signal for ocean bottom data sets,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 29, pp. 2752-2756. |
Wu R-S. et al. (2006), “Directional illumination analysis using beamlet decomposition and propagation,” Geophysics 71(4), pp. S147- S159. |
Xia, J. et al. (2004), “Utilization of high-frequency Rayleigh waves in near-surface geophysics,” The Leading Edge, pp. 753-759. |
Xie, X. et al. (2002), “Extracting angle domain information from migrated wavefield,” SEG Expanded Abstracts21, pp. 1360-1363. |
Xie, X.-B. et al. (2006), “Wave-equation-based seismic illumination analysis,” Geophysics 71(5), pp. S169-S177. |
Yang, K. et al. (2000), “Quasi-Orthogonal Sequences for Code-Division Multiple-Access Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 46(3), pp. 982-993. |
Yoon, K. et al. (2004), “Challenges in reverse-time migration,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 23, pp. 1057-1060. |
Young, J. et al. (2011), “An application of random projection to parameter estimation in partial differential equations,” SIAM, 20 pgs. |
Zhang, Y. (2005), “Delayed-shot 3D depth migration,” Geophysics 70, pp. E21-E28. |
Ziolkowski, A. (1991), “Why don't we measure seismic signatures?,” Geophysics 56(2), pp. 190-201. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150073755 A1 | Mar 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61874574 | Sep 2013 | US |