Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (2)
Document Type
Conference Type
- Konferenzartikel (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Geophysik (2) (remove)
Open Access
- Closed (2)
Seismic data has often missing traces due to technical acquisition or economical constraints. A compete dataset is crucial in several processing and inversion techniques. Deep learning algorithms, based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have shown alternative solutions that overcome limitation of traditional interpolation methods e.g. data regularity, linearity assumption, etc. There are two different paradigms of CNN methods for seismic interpolation. The first one, so-called deep prior interpolation (DPI), trains a CNN to map random noise to a complete seismic image using only the decimated image itself. The second one, referred as standard deep learning method, trains a CNN to map a decimated seismic image into a complete one using a dataset of complete and artificially decimated images. Within this research, we systematically compare the performance of both methods for different quantities of regular and irregular missing traces using 4 datasets. We evaluate the results of both methods using 5 well-known metrics. We found that DPI method performs better than the standard method if the percentage of missing traces is low (10%) and otherwise if the level of decimation is high (50%).
In this work, we explore three deep learning algorithms apply to seismic interpolation: deep prior image (DPI), standard, and generative adversarial networks (GAN). The standard and GAN approaches rely on a dataset of complete and decimated seismic images for the training process, while the DPI method learns from a decimated image itself, without training images. We carry out two main experiments, considering 10%, 30%, and 50% of regular and irregular decimation. The first tests the optimal situation for the GAN and the standard approaches, where training and testing images are from the same dataset. The second tests the ability of GAN and standard methods to learn simultaneously from three datasets, and generalize to a fourth dataset not used during training. The standard method provides the best results in the first experiment, when the training distribution is similar to the testing one. In this situation, the DPI approach reports the second best results. In the second experiment, the standard method shows the ability to learn simultaneously and effectively three data distributions for the regular case. In the irregular case, the DPI approach is more effective. The GAN approach is the less effective of the three deep learning methods in both experiments.