Next: Conclusion Up: Attenuation of the ship Previous: Abandoned strategy for attenuating

## A new fitting goal

Now, I develop the new idea of removing the tracks by adaptively subtracting them within our inversion scheme. Building on Chapter , I introduce a modeling operator for the ship tracks inside our fitting goal in equation () as follows:
 (42)
where is a drift modeling operator (leaky integration), is a new variable of the inversion. The following misfit function can then be minimized
 (43)
where estimates the interpolated map of the lake. Again, I set and do not iterate to completion. The explicit elimination of the two regularization parameters and needs to be accounted for. In practice, in the presence of crosstalks, they allow us to put the common components of the data in whichever space we choose. To accomodate my choice of , a constant = is added to the modeling operator for the drift (similar to equation () in Chapter ). Then, for the operator , I choose a leaky integration operator such that is the portion of data value that results from drift. Consistent with the way I use a rough variable to represent the smooth water depth , I now represent (for the purpose of speeding iteration) by a rougher function .The operator has the following recursive form
 (44)
The parameter controls the decay of the integration. For , leaky integration represents causal integration. The operator is then appropriate to model the secular variations implied by the different season and human conditions during the data acquisition. We simply have to choose a value of that best represents the variations between the different tracks. This task is rather difficult to achieve: if is too small, we might not be able to remove the drift and if is too big, we might remove the drift and the bathymetry. Therefore, was carefully selected by starting from , interpolating with this value, looking at the final result, and decreasing by 0.001 if necessary. I repeated this process until all the tracks were attenuated. At the end of this exhaustive search, the value removes the tracks while preserving the bathymetry. I keep this value of for all remaining results involving track attenuation. I show that the operator removes most of the vessel tracks present in Figure .

The choice of in equation () is also critical. I tried different values by starting from a very small number and increasing it slowly. I then chose the smallest value that removed enough tracks in the final image (). Nemeth et al. (2000) demonstrates that the noise (the tracks) and signal (the depth) can be separated in equation () if the two operators and do not model similar components of the data space.

fig4
Figure 5
(a) Estimated without attenuation of the tracks, i.e., equation (). (b) Estimated with the derivative along the tracks, i.e., equation (). (c) Estimated without tracks, i.e., equation (). (d) Recorder drift in model space .

fig4b
Figure 6
Close-ups of the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. (a) Estimated without attenuation of the tracks, i.e., equation (). (b) Estimated with the derivative along the tracks, i.e., equation (). (c) Estimated without tracks, i.e., equation (). (d) Recorder drift in model space .

Figures a and c display a comparison of the estimated with or without the attenuation of the vessel tracks. It is delightful that Figure c is essentially track-free without any loss of details compared to Figure a. The difference plot in Figure d between the two results corroborates this and does not show any geological feature. A close-up of Figure is displayed in Figure . The differences between the proposed techniques are clearly visible.

Comparing Figure c and Figure b, we see that the drift-modeling strategy [equation ] works much better than the noise-filtering strategy [equation ]. One possible explanation for the difference between the two results is that the modeling approach is more adaptive than the filtering of the residual. Indeed, by introducing the modeling operator, we basically look for the best that models the drift of the data on each track at each point. The price to pay is an increase of the number of unknowns in equation (). The reward is a surgically removed acquisition footprint. Notice that we can identify the ancient shorelines in the west and east parts of the lake very well.

To better understand what is done, Figures and show some segments of the input data (), the estimated noise-free data (), the estimated secular variations () and the residual () after inversion. The estimated noise-free data in Figures b and b show no remaining spikes. The effect of the track attenuation is more difficult to see because the amplitude of the drift is much smaller than the amplitude of the measurements. Notice in Figure c that the estimated drift seems to have reasonable amplitudes: the average drift is around 15 cm for an accuracy of about 10 cm for the measurements. We also observe that the estimated drift is relatively constant throughout Figure c. Now, looking at the estimated drift for another portion of the data (Figure c), notice that the drift has more variance than in Figure c and oscillates between 0 to 2 m, which is too much. In addition, the estimated drift seems to follow the bathymetry of the lake in Figure a. Decreasing would attenuate the drift component with the effect of increasing the tracks in the final image, however.

Looking closely at the residual (Figure d), the drift is large where the data are noisy (Figure a). It is possible that the day of acquisition was very windy, which is not a rare weather condition for the Sea of Galilee Volohonsky et al. (1983). Thus, the wind forces the water to pile-up on one side of the lake which can explain the lower water level on the other side. A rapid calculation shows that the seiche period for the Sea of Galilee is roughly 40 mn (assuming a lake length of 20 km and an average depth of 30 m), which is well within a day of data acquisition. In addition, the strong wind in the middle of the lake induces noisy measurements because of the waves and of the erratic movement of the ship. It is also possible that the depth sounder was not working properly that day and had problems to correctly measure the deepest part of the lake. These causes could probably explain the shape and amplitude of the estimated drift in Figure c, but we can't be absolutely sure. It is very unfortunate that no daily logs of the survey were kept in order to better interpret these results, especially for such a noisy dataset.

fig5
Figure 7
(a) Input data acquired between A1 and B1 in Figure . The ship is approximately moving bottom to top going east from A1 to B1. (b) estimated after inversion, i.e., the estimated noise-free data. (c) Estimated drift after inversion. (d) Data residual after inversion. The horizontal axis represents the measurement number.

fig6
Figure 8
(a) Input data acquired between A2 and B2 in Figure . The ship is approximately moving right to left going south from A2 to B2. (b) estimated after inversion, i.e., the estimated noise-free data. (c) Estimated drift after inversion. (d) Data residual after inversion. The horizontal axis represents the measurement number.

Next: Conclusion Up: Attenuation of the ship Previous: Abandoned strategy for attenuating
Stanford Exploration Project
5/5/2005