MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004444798 · doi:10.4043/14077-ms

Reducing Spatial Aliasing in Wave-Equation Multiple Attenuation

2002· article· en· W2004444798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jianwu Jiao, Pierre Léger, J. S. Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultipleDeconvolutionAliasingAttenuationExtrapolationAlgorithmWave equationComputer scienceSeismic migrationReflection (computer programming)Time domainFrequency domainFilter (signal processing)GeologyMathematical analysisMathematicsPhysicsSeismologyOpticsArithmeticComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Multiples are a major problem in offshore seismic exploration. Wave-equation methods are a popular tool for multiple attenuation, but behave poorly in the presence of spatial aliasing. This paper will propose a method to reduce the effect of spatial aliasing. It does this by first applying a linear transformation to the wave equation. This transformation reduces dips in the data, but does not involve approximations, nor does it change the form of the equation. Wave extrapolation is then performed using an efficient Kirchhoffstyle phase-shift operation. The modeled multiples are adaptively subtracted from the original traces with a multichannel constrained filter. The proposed method has givengood results on a data set from the East Coast of Canada. Introduction The basic model in seismic processing assumes that reflection data consists of primaries only. If multiples are not removed they can be misinterpreted as, or interfere with, primaries. Therefore the attenuation of multiple reflections has been an important research subject and many methods have been developed. The methods can be classified into two types: those that exploit the periodic nature of multiples, and those that exploit the moveout differences between multiple and primary reflections. The first category includes predictive deconvolution in the x-t or ?-? domain. Predictive deconvolution assumes that the multiples are periodic within an application window and that the primary events are not - that is, the multiples can be predicted and thereby subtracted from the seismic records. In the prestack x-t domain, water bottom multiples are periodic only for zero offset traces and flat-water bottoms. To achieve periodicity of multiples for far-offset traces, transforms such as the ?-? transform or the radial trace method must be applied. Still, for shallow water depths (shorter period multiples), periodicity only holds in a limited window. Predictive deconvolution can introduce spurious events and needs to be applied with care. It is more effective for removing "ringing" multiple energy than longer period waterbottom multiples. The second category includes methods in the F-K, K-L and ?-? domains. While these methods are routinely used and can be very effective, there have a number of problems. All of these methods lose effectiveness when the velocity discrimination between primary events and multiples is small. This is the case at near offsets where there is little or no separation of primary and multiple events, and at all offsets when there is little velocity difference. Their effectiveness is further reduced when the seismic events violate the modeling assumptions (non-hyperbolic events for F-K and K-L, or non-parabolic events after NMO for ?-?). Recently there has been interest in techniques based on wave theory, which can be considered extensions of conventional predictive deconvolution. Multiples are predicted by either wavefield extrapolation1,2,3 or wavefield inversion4. They are then subtracted from the original data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207