Figures to
show in (a) the input data, in (b) the estimated dips with L-BFGS-B
and no constraints, in (c) the estimated positive dips and in (d),
the estimated negative dips. The same clip is applied for
all the color plots within each Figure. Warm colors
represent positive dips whereas cold colors represent negative dips.
Figures
and
illustrate
that the dip estimation program with bounds work as expected, but they do not
represent real challenges where, for example, multiple events with
different slopes overlap.
Figure shows how the bounds can improve the
local dip values. In Figure
a, when no bounds are used,
a clear cut difference between positive and negative
dips is visible. Applying bounds in Figures
b
and
c, the dip estimation program is
able to locate the dips of interest when aliasing is present.
On a CMP gather in Figure a, two lines
cross at a location where the dips should be positive.
If no bounds are applied, Figure
b shows
that negative dips are found instead. Applying bounds in Figure
c, strong positive dips are now recovered.
We are able to estimate positive dips beyond aliasing, thus improving
on the existing program. Similar conclusions can be made on Figure
.
It might happen that we cannot separate dips as easily as we could
in Figures ,
and
. For example, Figure
displays some earthquake data from Professor Peter Shearer for which
positive and negative dips do not clearly separate (see, for instance,
where the two black lines cross). The problem here stems from the fact
that the event with negative dips (in blue) is much stronger
than the overlapping event with positive dips at this location.
Finally, Figure shows a dip decomposition
of the data in Figure
a. This illustrates the ability
to select a small range of dips that goes beyond the simple
positive/negative constraints of the preceding examples.