Next: BANDLIMITED DATA
Up: Nichols: Dealiasing band limited
Previous: Mapping back to the
The amplitude spectra displaying in the previous spectrum were created
using a ``direct'' slant stack. The transformation to the slant stack
domain was performed using the traditional ``sum along lines''
operator plus a rho filter.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/394b1/394b1b1b6349d4be5b0c08c2c4a8b1f510b23aef" alt="\begin{displaymath}
U(p,\tau) =
\rho(\tau) * \sum_{i=1}^{nx} U(x_i,t=\tau-px)\end{displaymath}"
Where the rho filter is defined as
.
The problems with using this approach have been well documented
Kostov (1990). The limited aperture and sampling in the
x-t domain cause artifacts. Irregular sampling in x is not well
handled by the direct stacking procedure. The alternative is to
perform a least squares inverse slant stack. This method assumes that
we can exactly perform the mapping from
to x-t and casts
the mapping from x-t to
as an inverse problem. This is most
conveniently calculated in the frequency domain.
The operator that maps from
to
is L,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3b898/3b898120aa178ab97ef87ac0b51b90fd4dc21a35" alt="\begin{displaymath}
L(p_i,x_j,\omega) = e^{-i \omega p_i x_j }\end{displaymath}"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f5eef/f5eef7062455fa7210287c4512aff2d7e297c568" alt="\begin{displaymath}
U(x,\omega) = L\, U(p,\omega)\end{displaymath}"
Given the data in the x-t domain we must construct a mapping to the
domain that ``best'' reconstructs the x-t data. The misfit
function for the reconstruction is defined as a least-squares error.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bccb3/bccb35e87eebe0a41ca18723499cc938dba42a67" alt="\begin{displaymath}
\vert\vert L\, U(p,\omega)\ -\ U(x,\omega) \vert\vert^2\end{displaymath}"
Minimization of this misfit is equivalent to solving the inverse
problem,
. The solution for the overdetermined
problem is,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9e6e7/9e6e7cb8a1e2d18455ff89b176355249e6fc541c" alt="\begin{displaymath}
U(p,\omega) = (L^HL)^{-1}L^HU(x,\omega),\end{displaymath}"
and for the underdetermined problem it is,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9e535/9e535595f491ff9b8c59cb8bcfdddb3093d51ea5" alt="\begin{displaymath}
U(p,\omega) = L^H(LL^H)^{-1}U(x,\omega).\end{displaymath}"
Where LH is the conjugate transpose of L.
The operator (LHL) has a Toeplitz form when the data is regularly
sampled in p. This makes the inversion cheap to solve using Levinson
recursion. A problem with this method is that the operator LHL
becomes singular when the data is aliased. Kostov suggests two ways to
overcome this problem, ``Aliasing can be overcome by using prior
information, either in the form of an interval of wavenumbers smaller
than twice the Nyquist wavenumber, or by introducing ``a priori''
information via a model-covariance matrix.'' (I would suggest that
the first statement can be modified to allow multiple wavenumber
intervals as long as the total width does not exceed twice the Nyquist
wavenumber and no two intervals occur at positions that are the alias
of one another.)
My first solution to the problem is to constrain the solution to
be non-zero only in those places that I have defined as unaliased. I
define a masking operator, M, that is one where the data is not
aliased and zero where it is aliased. I then solve the least squares
problem,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c5ec7/c5ec75458812b7aabd82a40f1ebfab297327165b" alt="\begin{displaymath}
min \vert\vert L\,M\,U(p,\omega)\ -\ U(x,\omega) \vert\vert^2.\end{displaymath}"
The equivalent inverse problem with the solutions,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ee7c0/ee7c09daad8626b3c633201266df39b3bd2bb193" alt="\begin{displaymath}
U(p,\omega) = (M^HL^HLM)^{-1}M^HL^HU(x,\omega),\end{displaymath}"
and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6ce6/a6ce64188490d0c2acd6a8b5ac8a5edee1155424" alt="\begin{displaymath}
U(p,\omega) = M^HL^H(LMM^HL^H)^{-1} U(x,\omega),\end{displaymath}"
does not have the same Toeplitz structure as the unmasked problem
so a different solution method must be used. I use a simple conjugate
gradient algorithm Hestenes and Steifel (1952) to solve the minimization
problem. This problem is solved separately for each frequency so the
size of each problem is only
and the convergence is
rapid. The masking accelerates convergence at high frequencies because
the problem is now better determined, there is no ambiguity between
aliased and unaliased dips at each frequency. Figure
shows the
spectrum of the least squares inverse slant stack
using the masking function. All the energy is concentrated at the
correct dip and the amplitude spectrum is flat.
Figure
has three frames. The top frame is the
original x-t domain data. The middle frame is the reconstruction of
the x-t data from the masked least squares inverse slant stack. The
bottom frame is the difference between the two panels plotted at the
same scale. The reconstruction has been completely successful. I am
not limited to reconstructing the data at the original trace spacing,
the data can be modeled in the x-t domain at an arbitrary regular or
irregular trace spacing.
single-lsq
Figure 5 spectrum of the least squares
transform using the masked operator.
|
| data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/447d2/447d2feab2ecda190a14a16fc3e72d92ea2532b1" alt="single-lsq" |
single-lsqrec
Figure 6 Top: original data. Middle:
reconstructed data using the masked least squares operator. Bottom:
difference between the two plots.
Next: BANDLIMITED DATA
Up: Nichols: Dealiasing band limited
Previous: Mapping back to the
Stanford Exploration Project
11/18/1997