Three-dimensional (3D) diffraction processing aims at superresolution by imaging small-scale geological features of the subsurface localized as points and space curves. In analogy to the (anti-) stationary phase filtering, we separate images of points from images of lines by weighting the Kirchhoff migration. In addition to the deviation from the specularity and Snell's law, the new summation weights verify the conformity of seismic traces to Keller's law of edge diffraction. In addition to that, the configuration of the reflectors determines the diffraction phase reversal pattern specific to isolated lines, edges and wedges. To counteract the summation of the opposite phases in 3D, we provide extra alternating factors for edge and wedge diffraction. All these weights require local orientation of diffractors and reflectors, which we simultaneously retrieve from the full-wave image by a modification of the slant-stack search. Synthetic examples show the benefits of the proposed techniques.
{"title":"3D Point, Line, Edge and Wedge Diffraction Separation in Kirchhoff Imaging","authors":"Pavel Znak, Dirk Gajewski","doi":"10.1111/1365-2478.70115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.70115","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Three-dimensional (3D) diffraction processing aims at superresolution by imaging small-scale geological features of the subsurface localized as points and space curves. In analogy to the (anti-) stationary phase filtering, we separate images of points from images of lines by weighting the Kirchhoff migration. In addition to the deviation from the specularity and Snell's law, the new summation weights verify the conformity of seismic traces to Keller's law of edge diffraction. In addition to that, the configuration of the reflectors determines the diffraction phase reversal pattern specific to isolated lines, edges and wedges. To counteract the summation of the opposite phases in 3D, we provide extra alternating factors for edge and wedge diffraction. All these weights require local orientation of diffractors and reflectors, which we simultaneously retrieve from the full-wave image by a modification of the slant-stack search. Synthetic examples show the benefits of the proposed techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":12793,"journal":{"name":"Geophysical Prospecting","volume":"73 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1365-2478.70115","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145750592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Arkoprovo Biswas, Roman Pašteka, Michael S. Zhdanov, Anand Singh, Yunus Levent Ekinci, Çağlayan Balkaya
{"title":"GP special issue - Advances in Geophysical Modeling and Interpretation for Mineral Exploration","authors":"Arkoprovo Biswas, Roman Pašteka, Michael S. Zhdanov, Anand Singh, Yunus Levent Ekinci, Çağlayan Balkaya","doi":"10.1111/1365-2478.70114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.70114","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12793,"journal":{"name":"Geophysical Prospecting","volume":"73 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145695241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gabriel B. Gutierrez, Carlos A. Astudillo, Otávio O. Napoli, Daniel B. de Miranda, Alan Souza, João P. Navarro, Edson Borin
The transformative impact of deep-learning architectures on machine learning has been substantial. Recently, a wide range of studies have successfully applied these methods to seismic facies segmentation using well-established public datasets, such as F3 and SEAM AI. However, many of these works lack detailed descriptions of their methodologies and implementation details, including dataset partitioning, hyperparameter settings and other critical aspects. The lack of reproducibility information makes fair comparison between studies quite difficult, as methodological details can heavily affect the results obtained. In this work, we discuss this problem and present a fair comparison between five state-of-the-art models commonly used in the literature: DeepLab V3, DeepLab V3+, Segmenter, SegFormer and SETR. We found that the SETR model has promising performance on both the F3 and SEAM AI datasets and convolutional neural network models offer a higher performance to parameter count ratio compared to the transformer models.
{"title":"On the Performance Evaluation of Deep Learning Models for Seismic Facies Segmentation","authors":"Gabriel B. Gutierrez, Carlos A. Astudillo, Otávio O. Napoli, Daniel B. de Miranda, Alan Souza, João P. Navarro, Edson Borin","doi":"10.1111/1365-2478.70104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.70104","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The transformative impact of deep-learning architectures on machine learning has been substantial. Recently, a wide range of studies have successfully applied these methods to seismic facies segmentation using well-established public datasets, such as F3 and SEAM AI. However, many of these works lack detailed descriptions of their methodologies and implementation details, including dataset partitioning, hyperparameter settings and other critical aspects. The lack of reproducibility information makes fair comparison between studies quite difficult, as methodological details can heavily affect the results obtained. In this work, we discuss this problem and present a fair comparison between five state-of-the-art models commonly used in the literature: DeepLab V3, DeepLab V3+, Segmenter, SegFormer and SETR. We found that the SETR model has promising performance on both the F3 and SEAM AI datasets and convolutional neural network models offer a higher performance to parameter count ratio compared to the transformer models.</p>","PeriodicalId":12793,"journal":{"name":"Geophysical Prospecting","volume":"73 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1365-2478.70104","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145686149","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}