Prestack and poststack inversion using a physics-guided convolutional neural network

An inversion algorithm is commonly used to estimate the elastic properties, such as P-wave velocity ([Formula: see text]), S-wave velocity ([Formula: see text]), and density ([Formula: see text]) of the earth’s subsurface. Generally, the seismic inversion problem is solved using one of the traditional optimization algorithms. These algorithms start with a given model and update the model at each iteration, following a physics-based rule. The algorithm is applied at each common depth point (CDP) independently to estimate the elastic parameters. Here, we have developed a technique using the convolutional neural network (CNN) to solve the same problem. We perform two critical steps to take advantage of the generalization capability of CNN and the physics to generate synthetic data for a meaningful representation of the subsurface. First, rather than using CNN as in a classification type of problem, which is the standard approach, we modified the CNN to solve a regression problem to estimate the elastic properties. Second, again unlike the conventional CNN, which is trained by supervised learning with predetermined label (elastic parameter) values, we use the physics of our forward problem to train the weights. There are two parts of the network: The first is the convolution network, which takes the input as seismic data to predict the elastic parameters, which is the desired intermediate result. In the second part of the network, we use wave-propagation physics and we use the output of the CNN to generate the predicted seismic data for comparison with the actual data and calculation of the error. This error between the true and predicted seismograms is then used to calculate gradients, and update the weights in the CNN. After the network is trained, only the first part of the network can be used to estimate elastic properties at remaining CDPs directly. We determine the application of physics-guided CNN on prestack and poststack inversion problems. To explain how the algorithm works, we examine it using a conventional CNN workflow without any physics guidance. We first implement the algorithm on a synthetic data set for prestack and poststack data and then apply it to a real data set from the Cana field. In all the training examples, we use a maximum of 20% of data. Our approach offers a distinct advantage over a conventional machine-learning approach in that we circumvent the need for labeled data sets for training.

[1]  Tapan Mukerji,et al.  Convolutional neural network for seismic impedance inversion , 2018, GEOPHYSICS.

[2]  Xu Ji,et al.  Seismic fault detection with convolutional neural network , 2018, GEOPHYSICS.

[3]  Sergey Fomel,et al.  Automatic salt-body classification using deep-convolutional neural network , 2018, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018.

[4]  Mrinal K. Sen,et al.  Stacking velocity estimation using recurrent neural network , 2018, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018.

[5]  Sergey Fomel,et al.  Convolutional neural networks for fault interpretation in seismic images , 2018, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018.

[6]  Ghassan Al-Regib,et al.  Petrophysical property estimation from seismic data using recurrent neural networks , 2018, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018.

[7]  Mrinal K. Sen,et al.  Transdimensional seismic inversion using the reversible jump Hamiltonian Monte Carlo algorithm , 2017 .

[8]  Xishuang Dong,et al.  A scalable deep learning platform for identifying geologic features from seismic attributes , 2017 .

[9]  Tim Salimans,et al.  Weight Normalization: A Simple Reparameterization to Accelerate Training of Deep Neural Networks , 2016, NIPS.

[10]  Jian Sun,et al.  Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition , 2015, 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[11]  Thomas Brox,et al.  U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation , 2015, MICCAI.

[12]  Mrinal K. Sen,et al.  Choice of regularization weight in basis pursuit reflectivity inversion , 2015 .

[13]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge , 2014, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[14]  Mrinal K. Sen,et al.  Basis Pursuit Receiver Function , 2014 .

[15]  Trevor Darrell,et al.  Rich Feature Hierarchies for Accurate Object Detection and Semantic Segmentation , 2013, 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[16]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[17]  Mrinal K. Sen,et al.  A pre-stack basis pursuit seismic inversion , 2012 .

[18]  Rui Zhang,et al.  Seismic sparse-layer reflectivity inversion using basis pursuit decomposition , 2011 .

[19]  Kojiro Irikura,et al.  Inversion of a velocity model using artificial neural networks , 2010, Comput. Geosci..

[20]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Rectified Linear Units Improve Restricted Boltzmann Machines , 2010, ICML.

[21]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks , 2010, AISTATS.

[22]  P. Jilek,et al.  Density extraction from P-wave AVO inversion: Tuscaloosa Trend example , 2010 .

[23]  Clifford H. Thurber,et al.  Parameter estimation and inverse problems , 2005 .

[24]  Albert Tarantola,et al.  Inverse problem theory - and methods for model parameter estimation , 2004 .

[25]  Corinna Cortes,et al.  Support-Vector Networks , 1995, Machine Learning.

[26]  Mary M. Poulton,et al.  Neural networks as an intelligence amplification tool: A review of applications , 2002 .

[27]  Mrinal K. Sen,et al.  Artificial neural networks for parameter estimation in geophysics , 2000 .

[28]  G. Chavent,et al.  Pushing AVO Inversion Beyond Linearized Approximation: A New Parametrization And Crossplotting , 1999 .

[29]  Mrinal K. Sen,et al.  Automatic NMO correction and velocity estimation by a feedforward neural network , 1998 .

[30]  Jin Wang,et al.  Identification and picking of S phase using an artificial neural network , 1997, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[31]  Zehui Huang,et al.  Permeability prediction with artificial neural network modeling in the Venture gas field, offshore eastern Canada , 1996 .

[32]  Mrinal K. Sen,et al.  Global Optimization Methods in Geophysical Inversion , 1995 .

[33]  Colin MacBeth,et al.  Split shear-wave analysis using an artificial neural network ? , 1994 .

[34]  Albert Tarantola,et al.  Neural networks and inversion of seismic data , 1994 .

[35]  Tony Kusuma,et al.  A Neural Network Approach to Automate Velocity Picking , 1994 .

[36]  W. M. Moon,et al.  Reservoir Characterization Using Feedforward Neural Networks , 1993 .

[37]  Michael D. McCormack,et al.  FIRST-BREAK REFRACTION EVENT PICKING AND SEISMIC DATA TRACE EDITING USING NEURAL NETWORKS , 1993 .

[38]  Michael E. Murat,et al.  AUTOMATED FIRST ARRIVAL PICKING: A NEURAL NETWORK APPROACH1 , 1992 .

[39]  Charles L. Karr,et al.  Determination of lithology from well logs using a neural network , 1992 .

[40]  Jurandyr Schmidt,et al.  Neural network stacking velocity picking , 1992 .

[41]  R. Moll,et al.  Predicting Carbonate Permeabilities From Wireline Logs Using a Back-Propagation Neural Network , 1991 .

[42]  Lawrence D. Jackel,et al.  Backpropagation Applied to Handwritten Zip Code Recognition , 1989, Neural Computation.

[43]  D. Jackson The use of a priori data to resolve non‐uniqueness in linear inversion , 1979 .

[44]  G. Backus,et al.  Numerical Applications of a Formalism for Geophysical Inverse Problems , 1967 .