REFERENCES

Biondi, B., and Sava, P., 1999, Wave-equation migration velocity analysis: SEP-100, 11-34.

Claerbout, J. F., 1985, Imaging the Earth's Interior: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Claerbout, J., 1999, Geophysical estimation by example: Environmental soundings image enhancement: Stanford Exploration Project, http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/prof/.

Clapp, R. G., 2001, Geologically constrained migration velocity analysis: Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.

Liu, W., Popovici, A., Bevc, D., and Biondi, B., 2001, 3-D migration velocity analysis for common image gathers in the reflection angle domain: 71st Annual Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 885-888.

Mosher, C., Jin, S., and Foster, D., 2001, Migration velocity analysis using angle image gathers: 71st Annual Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 889-892.

Sava, P., and Biondi, B., 2000, Wave-equation migration velocity analysis: Episode II: SEP-103, 19-47.

Sava, P., and Biondi, B., 2001, Born-compliant image perturbation for wave-equation migration velocity analysis: SEP-110, 91-102.

Sava, P., and Fomel, S., 2000, Angle-gathers by Fourier Transform: SEP-103, 119-130.

Sava, P., 2000, A tutorial on mixed-domain wave-equation migration and migration velocity analysis: SEP-105, 139-156.

Sava, P., 2001, oclib: An out-of-core optimization library: SEP-108, 199-224.

Wang, G. Y., 1997, Wave scattering and diffraction tomography in complex media: Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.

Woodward, M. J., 1992, Wave-equation tomography: Geophysics, 57, no. 01, 15-26.

 

01.perturbation
Figure 5 Anomaly of 1$\%$: linear and non-linear image perturbations (left/right); zero offset section (top) and selected angle-gathers (bottom) corresponding to the locations of the vertical lines in the upper panel. Large differences between the linear and non-linear image perturbations indicate situations in which we violate the Born approximation.

 

01.inversion Figure 6 Anomaly of 1$\%$: inversion from the non-linear image perturbation (7) using the explicit (top), bilinear (middle) and implicit (bottom) WEMVA operators.

 

05.perturbation
Figure 7 Anomaly of 5$\%$: linear and non-linear image perturbations (left/right); zero offset section (top) and selected angle-gathers (bottom) corresponding to the locations of the vertical lines in the upper panel. Large differences between the linear and non-linear image perturbations indicate situations in which we violate the Born approximation.

 

05.inversion Figure 8 Anomaly of 5$\%$: inversion from the non-linear image perturbation (7) using the explicit (top), bilinear (middle) and implicit (bottom) WEMVA operators.

 

20.perturbation
Figure 9 Anomaly of 20$\%$: linear and non-linear image perturbations (left/right); zero offset section (top) and selected angle-gathers (bottom) corresponding to the locations of the vertical lines in the upper panel. Large differences between the linear and non-linear image perturbations indicate situations in which we violate the Born approximation.

 

20.inversion Figure 10 Anomaly of 20$\%$: inversion from the non-linear image perturbation (7) using the explicit (top), bilinear (middle) and implicit (bottom) WEMVA operators.

 

40.perturbation
Figure 11 Anomaly of 40$\%$: linear and non-linear image perturbations (left/right); zero offset section (top) and selected angle-gathers (bottom) corresponding to the locations of the vertical lines in the upper panel. Large differences between the linear and non-linear image perturbations indicate situations in which we violate the Born approximation.

 

40.inversion Figure 12 Anomaly of 40$\%$: inversion from the non-linear image perturbation (7) using the explicit (top), bilinear (middle) and implicit (bottom) WEMVA operators.