Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.5555/3540261.3540930guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnipsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Raw nav-merge seismic data to subsurface properties with MLP-based multi-modal information unscrambler

Published: 10 June 2024 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Traditional seismic inversion (SI) maps the hundreds of terabytes of raw-field data to subsurface properties in gigabytes. This inversion process is expensive, requiring over a year of human and computational effort. Recently, data-driven approaches equipped with Deep learning (DL) are envisioned to improve SI efficiency. However, these improvements are restricted to data with highly reduced scale and complexity. To extend these approaches to real-scale seismic data, researchers need to process raw nav-merge seismic data into an image and perform convolution. We argue that this convolution-based way of SI is not only computationally expensive but also conceptually problematic. Seismic data is not naturally an image and need not be processed as images. In this work, we go beyond convolution and propose a novel SI method. We solve the scalability of SI by proposing a new auxiliary learning paradigm for SI (Aux-SI). This paradigm breaks the SI into local inversion tasks, which predicts each small chunk of subsurface properties using surrounding seismic data. Aux-SI combines these local predictions to obtain the entire subsurface model. However, even this local inversion is still challenging due to: (1) high-dimensional, spatially irregular multi-modal seismic data, (2) there is no concrete spatial mapping (or alignment) between subsurface properties and raw data. To handle these challenges, we propose an all-MLP architecture, Multi-Modal Information Unscrambler (MMI-Unscrambler), that unscrambles seismic information by ingesting all available multi-modal data. The experiment shows that MMI-Unscrambler outperforms both SOTA U-Net and Transformer models on simulation data. We also scale MMI-Unscrambler to raw-field nav-merge data on Gulf-of-Mexico to obtain a geologically sound velocity model with an SSIM score of 0.8. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first successful demonstration of the DL approach on SI for real, large-scale, and complicated raw field data.

    Supplementary Material

    Additional material (3540261.3540930_supp.pdf)
    Supplemental material.

    References

    [1]
    Enwenode Onajite. Seismic data analysis techniques in hydrocarbon exploration. Elsevier, 2013.
    [2]
    Mickaële Le Ravalec, Elodie Tillier, Sébastien Da Veiga, Guillaume Enchéry, and Véronique Gervais. Advanced integrated workflows for incorporating both production and 4d seismic-related data into reservoir models. Oil & Gas Science and Technology-Revue d'IFP Energies nouvelles, 67(2):207-220, 2012.
    [3]
    Andreas Fichtner. Full seismic waveform modelling and inversion. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010.
    [4]
    Youzuo Lin and Lianjie Huang. Acoustic-and elastic-waveform inversion using a modified total-variation regularization scheme. Geophysical Journal International, 200(1):489-502, 2014.
    [5]
    Youzuo Lin and Lianjie Huang. Ultrasound waveform tomography with a spatially variant regularization scheme. In Medical Imaging 2014: Ultrasonic Imaging and Tomography, volume 9040, page 90401M. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2014.
    [6]
    Youzuo Lin and Lianjie Huang. Quantifying subsurface geophysical properties changes using double-difference seismic-waveform inversion with a modified total-variation regularization scheme. Geophysical Supplements to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 203(3):2125-2149, 2015.
    [7]
    Jesper S Dramsch and Mikael Lüthje. Deep-learning seismic fades on state-of-the-art cnn architectures. In Seg technical program expanded abstracts 2018, pages 2036-2040. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2018.
    [8]
    Xiaoyang Rebecca Li, Nikolaos Mitsakos, Ping Lu, Yuan Xiao, C Zhan, and X Zhao. Generative inpainting network applications on seismic image compression and non-uniform sampling. In Workshop on Solving Inverse Problems with Deep Networks, NeurIPS, 2019.
    [9]
    Donald P Griffith, S Ahmad Zamanian, Jeremy Vila, Antoine Vial-Aussavy, John Solum, R David Potter, and Francesco Menapace. Deep learning applied to seismic attribute computation. Interpretation, 7(3):SE141-SE150, 2019.
    [10]
    York Zheng, Qie Zhang, Anar Yusifov, and Yunzhi Shi. Applications of supervised deep learning for seismic interpretation and inversion. The Leading Edge, 38(7):526-533, 2019.
    [11]
    F. Yang and J. Ma. Deep-learning inversion: a next generation seismic velocity-model building method. ArXiv, abs/1902.06267, 2019.
    [12]
    Yen Sun, Bertrand Denel, Norman Daril, Lory Evano, Paul Williamson, and Mauricio Araya-Polo. Deep learning joint inversion of seismic and electromagnetic data for salt reconstruction. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2020, pages 550-554. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2020.
    [13]
    Y. Wu and Y. Lin. Inversionnet: A real-time and accurate full waveform inversion with cnns and continuous crfs. arXiv: Signal Processing, 2018.
    [14]
    Renán Rojas-Gómez, Jihyun Yang, Youzuo Lin, James Theiler, and Brendt Wohlberg. Physics-consistent data-driven waveform inversion with adaptive data augmentation. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2020.
    [15]
    Mauricio Araya, Taylor Dahlke, Charlie Frogner, Chiyuan Zhang, Tomaso Poggio, and Detlef Hohl. Automated fault detection without seismic processing. The Leading Edge, 36:208-214, 03 2017.
    [16]
    Mauricio Araya, Joseph Jennings, Amir Adler, and Taylor Dahlke. Deep-learning tomography. The Leading Edge, 37:58-66, 01 2018.
    [17]
    Haibin Di, Zhen Wang, and Ghassan AlRegib. Why using cnn for seismic interpretation? an investigation. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018, pages 2216-2220. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2018.
    [18]
    Kenneth Harold Waters and Kenneth H Waters. Reflection seismology: A tool for energy resource exploration. Wiley New York, NY, 1981.
    [19]
    Öz Yilmaz. Seismic data analysis: Processing, inversion, and interpretation of seismic data. Society of exploration geophysicists, 2001.
    [20]
    Sara Mandelli, Vincenzo Lipari, Paolo Bestagini, and Stefano Tubaro. Interpolation and denoising of seismic data using convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1901.07927, 2019.
    [21]
    Oscar Calderon Agudo, Philippe Caprioli, and Dirk-Jan van Manen. A spatially compact source designature filter. GEOPHYSICS, 81:V39-V53, 02 2016.
    [22]
    Joost Van Der Neut, Maria Tatanova, Jan Thorbecke, Evert Slob, and Kees Wapenaar. Deghost-ing, demultiple, and deblurring in controlled-source seismic interferometry. International Journal of Geophysics, 2011, 2011.
    [23]
    Guust Nolet. Seismic wave propagation and seismic tomography. In Seismic tomography, pages 1-23. Springer, 1987.
    [24]
    Nikolai M Shapiro, Michel Campillo, Laurent Stehly, and Michael H Ritzwoller. High-resolution surface-wave tomography from ambient seismic noise. Science, 307(5715):1615-1618, 2005.
    [25]
    Jean Virieux and Stéphane Operto. An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics, 74(6):WCC1-WCC26, 2009.
    [26]
    Romain Brassier, Stéphane Operto, and Jean Virieux. Seismic imaging of complex onshore structures by 2d elastic frequency-domain full-waveform inversion. Geophysics, 74(6):WCC105-WCC118, 2009.
    [27]
    Xiao-Bi Xie and Hui Yang. The finite-frequency sensitivity kernel for migration residual moveout and its applications in migration velocity analysis. Geophysics, 73(6):S241-S249, 2008.
    [28]
    Sankar Kumar Nam, Subrata Chakraborty, Sanjiv Kumar Singh, and Nilanjan Ganguly. Velocity inversion in cross-hole seismic tomography by counter-propagation neural network, genetic algorithm and evolutionary programming techniques. Geophysical Journal International, 138(1): 108-124, 1999.
    [29]
    Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Deep learning, volume 1. MIT press Cambridge, 2016.
    [30]
    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 234-241. Springer, 2015.
    [31]
    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L Yuille. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(4):834-848, 2017.
    [32]
    Tomáš Mikolov, Martin Karafiát, Lukáš Burget, Jan Černockỳ, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. Recurrent neural network based language model. In Eleventh annual conference of the international speech communication association, 2010.
    [33]
    M. Louboutin, M. Lange, F. Luporini, N. Kukreja, P. A. Witte, F. J. Herrmann, P. Velesko, and G. J. Gorman. Devito (v3.1.0): an embedded domain-specific language for finite differences and geophysical exploration. Geoscientific Model Development, 12(3): 1165-1187, 2019.
    [34]
    F. Luporini, M. Lange, M. Louboutin, N. Kukreja, J. Hückelheim, C. Yount, P. Witte, P. H. J. Kelly, F. J. Herrmann, and G. J. Gorman. Architecture and performance of devito, a system for automated stencil computation. CoRR, abs/1807.03032, jul 2018.
    [35]
    Juho Lee, Yoonho Lee, Jungtaek Kim, Adam Kosiorek, Seungjin Choi, and Yee Whye Teh. Set transformer: A framework for attention-based permutation-invariant neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3744—3753. PMLR, 2019.
    [36]
    Mauricio Araya-Polo, Joseph Jennings, Amir Adler, and Taylor Dahlke. Deep-learning tomography. The Leading Edge, 37(1): 58-66, 2018.
    [37]
    Quan Huynh-Thu and Mohammed Ghanbari. Scope of validity of psnr in image/video quality assessment. Electronics letters, 44(13):800-801, 2008.
    [38]
    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600-612, 2004.
    [39]
    WH u Bakun and CM Wentworth. Estimating earthquake location and magnitude from seismic intensity data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 87(6):1502-1521, 1997.
    [40]
    Warren T Wood, W Steven Holbrook, Mrinal K Sen, and Paul L Stoffa. Full waveform inversion of reflection seismic data for ocean temperature profiles. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(4), 2008.
    [41]
    Don W Steeples and Richard D Miller. Seismic reflection methods applied to engineering, environmental, and ground-water problems. In Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 1988, pages 409-461. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1988.
    [42]
    Turgut Özdenvar and George A McMechan. Algorithms for staggered-grid computations for poroelastic, elastic, acoustic, and scalar wave equations. Geophysical Prospecting, 45(3):403-420, 1997.
    [43]
    Dimitri Komatitsch and Jeroen Tromp. A perfectly matched layer absorbing boundary condition for the second-order seismic wave equation. Geophysical Journal International, 154(1): 146-153, 2003.
    [44]
    Richard L Crout. Oil and gas platform ocean current profile data. In OCEANS 2008, pages 1-9. IEEE, 2008.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Guide Proceedings
    NIPS '21: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems
    December 2021
    30517 pages

    Publisher

    Curran Associates Inc.

    Red Hook, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 10 June 2024

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 0
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 10 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media