Neural network-based low-frequency data extrapolation

O. Ovcharenko, V. Kazei, D. Peter, T. Alkhalifah
December 4, 2017
Neural network-based low-frequency data extrapolation

oleg.ovcharenko@kaust.edu.saLow-frequency data extrapolation
Outline
Low-frequency data

Artiﬁcial Neural Networks
Results for a crop from BP 2004
Application for bandwidth extension

Acquisition data
Lack of low-frequency data

- Due to instrumental limitations

- Due to noise

Low-frequency data in FWI
- Inverts large-scale velocity structures

- Less chance to get stuck in local minima

- Reveals deep model structures / below salt
fHigh
fLow
Multiple
local minima
Smooth
(Kazei et al., 2016)

FWI without low frequencies
Modifications of misfit/gradient
(Warner et al., 2015; Leeuwen & Herrmann, 2014; Métivier et al., 2016)

(Alkhalifah, 2015, 2016; Kazei, et al., 2016)

etc…

Pros:
- Established workflow

- Relative robustness

Cons:
- Computational costs

- Prone to event mismatching

FWI without low frequencies
Extrapolation of low-frequency data
Pros:
- Cheaper computations

Cons:
- Not well explored robustness

- Waveﬁeld approximations
(Smith et al., 2008; Hu et al., 2014; Li & Demanet, 2015, 2016)

etc…

Low-frequency extrapolation
Beat tone inversion

(Hu et al., 2014)
Bandwidth extension for atomic events

(Li & Demanet, 2015, 2016)
Bandwidth extension using

Continuous Wavelet Transform

(Smith et al., 2008)
This work: Low-frequency data extrapolation using Artiﬁcial Neural Network

Supervised
Classiﬁcation etc.
Regression
Regression trees etc.
Artiﬁcial Neural Networks
Machine Learning
Learning paradigms Statistical tasks Methods
Unsupervised
Reinforcement

Feed-forward ANN
Input Hidden Output
x1
x2
x3
x4
Layers:
Neuron
Bias
Weight
a.k.a.

Multilayer Perceptron
t1
t2
t3
Training

=

tuning up weights
w
b
w

Feed-forward ANN
1
-1
a(wx+ bw0)
wx+ bw0
Activation function a(x) = tanh(x)
x1
w4
w1
x2
x3
x4
b w0
w2
1. Dot product of input and weight vectors + bias
2. Substitution into activation function

Feed-forward ANN
Input Hidden Output
x1
x2
x3
x4
Layers:
t1
t2
t3
+ =
W x b

Training Feed-forward ANN
Training inputs Training outputs
Minimize L2 norm

Neural Networks pros and cons
- Lots of parameters

- Hard to interpret

- Comp. costs for training
+ Good for highly-nonlinear problems

+ Good for large inputs

+ Data-driven

+ Easy to implement and parallelize
Not a magic wand, use with care
Pros Cons

Selection of network conﬁguration
Neural-Network architecture

Feature selection

Training parameters

Trial-and-Error approach

Main idea
High-frequency data
Predict data on single low-frequency from multiple high-frequency data
Low frequency dataNeural network

Data selection

Source Receivers
Real
Imag
Single source single frequency
Amplitude

Source Receivers
Real
Imag
Single source single frequency

Multi-source single frequency
NSRC
NREC
NSRC
NREC

f1
f2
f3
f4
f0
Raw training data
Real
Imag
High-frequency data Low frequency data

Raw training data
INPUT
OUTPUT
INPUT
OUTPUT
Real
Imag
Features
Features

Data processing
Normalization de-Normalization
By oﬀset Data-driven
Real
Imag

Before
After
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Features Features
Data processing
Overlap of multiple data for conﬁguration
Train
True

Random model generation

Random model generation
- Random Gaussian ﬁeld

- Flat bathymetry

- Fixed model size

- Permissible velocity range

- Use data for each src-rec pair
Sampling multidimensional model space
The more diverse data is - the better

Main idea
High-frequency data for

random velocity
models
Low-frequency data for

random velocity
models
Predict data on single low-frequency from multiple high-frequency data
NSRC*NFREQ training
samples from a single
random velocity model

Results
Crop from BP 2004 velocity model

(Billette and Brandsberg-Dahl, 2005)

True vs Predicted 0.5 Hz
High-frequencies:
2.41, 3.14, 3.5, 4.07 Hz

Low-frequency:
0.5 Hz
Re
Im
Phase
NSRC
NREC
fn+1=k fn (Sirgue, Pratt, 2004)
λ ~ depth

True vs Predicted 0.5 Hz
Re
Im

Real part

0.5 Hz from 2.4 - 4 Hz

0.84 Hz from 2.4 - 4 Hz

1.42 Hz from 2.4 - 4 Hz

Phase

Beta-version of single frequency FWI at 0.5 Hz
True Initial
True 0.5 HzPred 0.5 Hz

Computational facts
48000

total
960 240
NN: 3 hidden layers

- 2 * N inputs

- 2 * N outputs

- 1 * N outputs

Batch size: 1024

Learning rate: 0.005

Optimizer: Adam

Weight regularization: 0.005
NVIDIA Quadro K2200TensorFlow 1.3.0Python 3.6 Keras 2.0.5Matlab R2016b
Initialization “xavier”

(Glorot & Bengio, 2010)
Training time ~ 5 min

Prediction time ~ 5 sec
Training data generation
~ 40 min on 24 cores

Conclusions

Conclusions
• Phase is predicted better than amplitude

• Lower frequencies are better predicted

• Model generator is crucial

• Current network type and architecture are not optimal

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Professor Xiangliang Zhang, Professor Gerhart Pratt,
Basmah Altaf, Jubran Akram, SMI and SWAG groups at KAUST for
fruitful discussions.

• Phase is predicted better than amplitude

• Lower frequencies are better predicted

• Model generator is crucial

• Current network type and architecture are not optimal
Next steps:
• Improve data generator

• Search for optimal conﬁguration

• Explore stability

• Compare with other techniques
Conclusions

The End
Automated fault detection
(Araya-Polo et al., 2017)
Salt body picking
(Guillen et al., 2017)
Mapping reservoirs on
migrated seismic
(Bougher, 2016)
Facies classiﬁcation
and reservoir properties prediction
(Hall, 2017; Ahmed et al., 2010)
Event detection
(Akram et al., 2017)
Interpolation of missing data
(Jia and Ma, 2017)
Denoising
(Zhang et al, 2017)
Some NN applications in geophysics
Inversion of seismic, DC data etc.
(Röth, Tarantola, 1994;
Neyamadpour et al., 2009)

Links
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93JB01563/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93JB01563/full

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5584501/ﬁgures

https://library.seg.org/doi/abs/10.1190/1.3298443

https://library.seg.org/doi/abs/10.1190/segam2017-17761195.1

https://library.seg.org/doi/full/10.1190/tle36030208.1

https://library.seg.org/doi/abs/10.1190/segam2015-5931401.1

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11200-010-0027-5

http://blackecho.github.io/blog/machine-learning/2016/02/29/denoising-autoencoder-
tensorﬂow.html

https://www.slim.eos.ubc.ca/content/machine-learning-applications-geophysical-data-analysis


https://library.seg.org/doi/pdf/10.1190/tle35100906.1



Assumptions made
+ Explicit assumption about source signature
ω ω

Stack of images to an image, GAN?

Neural network-based low-frequency data extrapolation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Neural network-based low-frequency data extrapolation

Similar to Neural network-based low-frequency data extrapolation (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Neural network-based low-frequency data extrapolation