Non-linear primary-multiple separation with directional curvelet frames

SUMMARY Predictive multiple suppression methods consist of two main steps: a prediction step, during which multiples are predicted from seismic data, and a primary-multiple separation step, during which the predicted multiples are ‘matched’ with the true multiples in the data and subsequently removed. This second separation step, which we will call the estimation step, is crucial in practice: an incorrect separation will cause residual multiple energy in the result or may lead to a distortion of the primaries, or both. To reduce these adverse effects, a new transformed-domain method is proposed where primaries and multiples are separated rather than matched. This separation is carried out on the basis of differences in the multiscale and multidirectional characteristics of these two signal components. Our method uses the curvelet transform, which maps multidimensional data volumes into almost orthogonal localized multidimensional prototype waveforms that vary in directional and spatio-temporal content. Primaries-only and multiples-only signal components are recovered from the total data volume by a non-linear optimization scheme that is stable under noisy input data. During the optimization, the two signal components are separated by enhancing sparseness (through weighted l1-norms) in the transformed domain subject to fitting the observed data as the sum of the separated components to within a user-defined tolerance level. Whenever, during the optimization, the estimates for the primaries in the transformed domain correlate with the predictions for the multiples, the recovery of the coefficients for the estimated primaries will be suppressed while for regions where the correlation is small the method seeks the sparsest set of coefficients that represent the estimation for the primaries. Our algorithm does not seek a matched filter and as such it differs fundamentally from traditional adaptive subtraction methods. The method derives its stability from the sparseness obtained by a non-parametric (i.e. not depending on a parametrized physical model) multiscale and multidirectional overcomplete signal representation. This sparsity serves as prior information and allows for a Bayesian interpretation of our method during which the log-likelihood function is minimized while the two signal components are assumed to be given by a superposition of prototype waveforms, drawn independently from a probability function that is weighted by the predicted primaries and multiples. In this paper, the predictions are based on the data-driven surface-related multiple elimination method. Synthetic and field data examples show a clean separation leading to a considerable improvement in multiple suppression compared to the conventional method of adaptive matched filtering. This improved separation translates into an improved stack.

[1]  J. Claerbout,et al.  Robust Modeling With Erratic Data , 1973 .

[2]  Douglas W. Oldenburg,et al.  Wavelet estimation and deconvolution , 1981 .

[3]  T. Ulrych,et al.  Analytic minimum entropy deconvolution , 1982 .

[4]  J. R. Berryhill,et al.  Deep-water peg legs and multiples: Emulation and suppression , 1986 .

[5]  C. Vogel Computational Methods for Inverse Problems , 1987 .

[6]  J. W. Wiggins,et al.  Attenuation of complex water-bottom multiples by wave-equation-based prediction and subtraction , 1988 .

[7]  J. Wang,et al.  Subsurface imaging using magnetotelluric data , 1988 .

[8]  D. J. Verschuur,et al.  Adaptive surface-related multiple elimination , 1992 .

[9]  Timothy S. Murphy,et al.  Harmonic Analysis: Real-Variable Methods, Orthogonality, and Oscillatory Integrals , 1993 .

[10]  D. Donoho Unconditional Bases Are Optimal Bases for Data Compression and for Statistical Estimation , 1993 .

[11]  P. M. van den Berg,et al.  Seismic applications of acoustic reciprocity , 1993 .

[12]  Mauricio D. Sacchi,et al.  Minimum entropy deconvolution with frequency-domain constraints , 1994 .

[13]  D. Donoho,et al.  Translation-Invariant De-Noising , 1995 .

[14]  David L. Donoho,et al.  De-noising by soft-thresholding , 1995, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[15]  Arthur B. Weglein,et al.  Internal multiple attenuation using inverse scattering: Results from prestack 1 & 2D acoustic and elastic synthetics , 1996 .

[16]  Mauricio D. Sacchi,et al.  Estimation of the discrete Fourier transform, a linear inversion approach , 1996 .

[17]  D. J. Verschuur,et al.  Estimation of multiple scattering by iterative inversion, Part I: Theoretical considerations , 1997 .

[18]  Arthur B. Weglein,et al.  Source signature estimation based on the removal of first-order multiples , 1997 .

[19]  W. S. Ross,et al.  Multiple suppression — Beyond 2‐D. Part II: Application to subsalt multiples , 1997 .

[20]  D. J. Verschuur,et al.  Estimation of multiple scattering by iterative inversion; Part II, Practical aspects and examples , 1997 .

[21]  Arthur B. Weglein,et al.  An inverse-scattering series method for attenuating multiples in seismic reflection data , 1997 .

[22]  W. S. Ross Multiple suppression: Beyond 2‐D. Part I: Theory , 1997 .

[23]  Hart F. Smith A Hardy space for Fourier integral operators , 1998 .

[24]  Paul Tseng,et al.  Block coordinate relaxation methods for nonparamatric signal denoising , 1998, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[25]  Michael A. Saunders,et al.  Atomic Decomposition by Basis Pursuit , 1998, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[26]  S. Mallat A wavelet tour of signal processing , 1998 .

[27]  Dmitri Lokshtanov Multiple suppression by data‐consistent deconvolution , 1999 .

[28]  E. Candès,et al.  Curvelets: A Surprisingly Effective Nonadaptive Representation for Objects with Edges , 2000 .

[29]  Luc T. Ikelle An analysis of 2D and 3D inverse scattering multiple attenuation , 2000 .

[30]  Daniel Trad Implementations and applications of the sparse Radon transform , 2001 .

[31]  Tadeusz J. Ulrych,et al.  Implementations And Applications Of The Sparse Radon Transform , 2001 .

[32]  Nam-Yong Lee,et al.  Wavelet methods for inverting the Radon transform with noisy data , 2001, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[33]  K. Bube,et al.  An operator decomposition approach for the separation of signal and coherent noise in seismic wavefields , 2001 .

[34]  E. Candès,et al.  Recovering edges in ill-posed inverse problems: optimality of curvelet frames , 2002 .

[35]  Robert D. Nowak,et al.  An EM algorithm for wavelet-based image restoration , 2003, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[36]  I. Daubechies,et al.  An iterative thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems with a sparsity constraint , 2003, math/0307152.

[37]  Yanghua Wang,et al.  Multiple subtraction using an expanded multichannel matching filter , 2003 .

[38]  Ray Abma,et al.  Weighted subtraction for diffracted multiple attenuation , 2003 .

[39]  Mauricio D. Sacchi,et al.  Latest views of the sparse Radon transform , 2003 .

[40]  A. Guitton,et al.  Adaptive subtraction of multiples using the L1‐norm , 2004 .

[41]  E. Candès,et al.  New tight frames of curvelets and optimal representations of objects with piecewise C2 singularities , 2004 .

[42]  E. Candès,et al.  The curvelet representation of wave propagators is optimally sparse , 2004, math/0407210.

[43]  Felix J. Herrmann,et al.  Curvelet-domain multiple elimination with sparseness constraints , 2004 .

[44]  D. Donoho,et al.  Redundant Multiscale Transforms and Their Application for Morphological Component Separation , 2004 .

[45]  J. Tropp JUST RELAX: CONVEX PROGRAMMING METHODS FOR SUBSET SELECTION AND SPARSE APPROXIMATION , 2004 .

[46]  F. Herrmann,et al.  Robust Curvelet-Domain Primary-Multiple Separation with Sparseness Constraints , 2005 .

[47]  E. Candès,et al.  Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements , 2005, math/0503066.

[48]  Lexing Ying,et al.  3D discrete curvelet transform , 2005, SPIE Optics + Photonics.

[49]  D. Donoho,et al.  Simultaneous cartoon and texture image inpainting using morphological component analysis (MCA) , 2005 .

[50]  Felix J. Herrmann,et al.  Seismic denoising with nonuniformly sampled curvelets , 2006, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[51]  Yaakov Tsaig,et al.  Extensions of compressed sensing , 2006, Signal Process..

[52]  Laurent Demanet,et al.  Fast Discrete Curvelet Transforms , 2006, Multiscale Model. Simul..

[53]  Michael Elad,et al.  Why Simple Shrinkage Is Still Relevant for Redundant Representations? , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[54]  Michael Elad,et al.  Stable recovery of sparse overcomplete representations in the presence of noise , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[55]  David L Donoho,et al.  Compressed sensing , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[56]  Joel A. Tropp,et al.  Just relax: convex programming methods for identifying sparse signals in noise , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[57]  A. Gisolf,et al.  Fourier reconstruction of marine-streamer data in four spatial coordinates , 2006 .