Zhang2018 PDF

GEOPHYSICS
Downloaded 06/30/18 to 128.123.44.23. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
A denoising framework for microseismic and reflection

seismic data based on block matching
Journal: Geophysics
Manuscript ID GEO-2017-0782.R2
Manuscript Type: Technical Paper
Keywords: 3D, microseismic, noise, signal processing
Area of Expertise: Signal Processing
This paper presented here as accepted for publication in Geophysics prior to copyediting and composition.
© 2018 Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
Page 1 of 37 GEOPHYSICS
1
2
3
4
5 A Denoising Framework for Microseismic and Reflection Seismic
6
7
Data based on Block Matching
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 Chao Zhang1,2, Mirko van der Baan2
15
16
17 1
18
College of Communication Engineering, Jilin University, Changchun, China
19
2
20 Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
21
22 Email: cz1@ualberta.ca; mirko.vanderbaan@ualberta.ca
23
24
25
26 Original paper date of submission: December 2, 2017
27
28
29
30 ABSTRACT
31
32
33
Microseismic and seismic data with low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) affect the accuracy and
34
35 reliability of processing results and their subsequent interpretation. Thus, denoising is of great
36
37 importance. We propose an effective denoising framework for surface (micro)-seismic data using
38
39
block matching. The novel idea of the proposed framework is to enhance coherent features by
40
41
42 grouping similar 2D data blocks into 3D data arrays. The high similarities in the 3D data arrays
43
44 benefit any filtering strategy suitable for multidimensional noise suppression. We test the
45
46 performance of this framework on synthetic and field data with different noise levels. The results
47
48
49 demonstrate that the block-matching-based framework achieves state-of-the-art denoising
50
51 performance in terms of incoherent-noise attenuation and signal preservation.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 1
60
GEOPHYSICS Page 2 of 37
1
2
3 INTRODUCTION
4
5
6 Numerous techniques exist for increasing the quality of reflection seismic and microseismic
7
8 data recorded on the surface (Bednar, 1983; Canales, 1984; Eisner et al., 2008; Vera Rodriguez
9
10 et al., 2012; Sabbione et al., 2015; Velis et al., 2015; Han and van der Baan, 2015; Li et al., 2016;
11
12
13
Wang et al., 2016; Mousavi and Langston, 2016; Mousavi and Langston, 2017). Most of these
14
15 algorithms generally enhance laterally (locally) coherent features, thus eliminating random noise.
16
17 Many signals of interest are not only laterally coherent but also show repetitive features (Figure
18
19
1), such as similar frequency contents, waveforms and/or dips (Canales, 1984; Van der Baan and
20
21
22 Paul, 2000). Ignoring the repetitive nature of such events thus produces sub-optimal techniques
23
24 for quality enhancement. The performance of all methods enhancing lateral coherence can be
25
26 greatly increased by first applying block matching (Figure 1) to identify repetitive features
27
28
29 (Buades et al., 2005; Dabov et al., 2007).
30
31 In this paper, we introduce a framework to combine detection of repetitive features by block
32
33 matching with techniques for enhancing lateral coherence for incoherent-noise suppression,
34
35
36
which is inspired by classical block matching and 3-D collaborative filtering (BM3D, Dabov et
37
38 al., 2007) and non-local means filtering (NLMF, Buades et al., 2005). The framework consists of
39
40 three key steps: block matching, filtering, and aggregation (Figure 2). Block matching finds
41
42
repetitive features and groups them together to form a 3D array. After that, filtering is applied to
43
44
45 enhance the lateral coherence. The final denoised data are obtained by weighted averaging of all
46
47 overlapping block estimates (that is, aggregation).
48
49 We first describe the principle of block matching and then explain the framework of how to
50
51
52 combine this with various methods for enhancing the lateral coherence. We illustrate the
53
54 framework on synthetic and field data examples.
55
56
57
58
59 2
60
1
2
3 THEORY
4
5
6
7 The proposed framework exploits both local and non-local coherency of signals by
8
9 grouping similar signal blocks into 3D arrays (groups). The grouping is done by block matching
10
11 which exploits non-local similarities. Then, the noise is attenuated by filtering these groups using
12
13
14 a coherence-boosting-filtering technique. The algorithm contains three steps: grouping, filtering,
15
16 and aggregation (Figure 2).
17
18
19
Block matching
20
21
22
23 The first step is grouping. The basic idea of block matching is to find blocks containing
24
25 features similar to the reference block. This is achieved by pairwise testing the similarity
26
27
28
between the reference block and candidate blocks located at different spatial locations using the
29
30 Euclidean distance. Then, the blocks are grouped together to form a 3D array. We consider noisy
31
32 data z of the following form:
33
34
z ( x) = y( x) + η ( x), x ∈ X ,
35
36
37 (1)
38
39 where y is the true signal and η is the noise with variance σ 2 . For 2D data, x is a 2D coordinate
40
41
42 that belongs to the 2D data domain referred to as X ⊂ Z 2 , Z 2 denotes the space of 2D integers.
43
44 Likewise, for 3D data x becomes a 3D coordinate that belongs to the 3D data domain. We first
45
46
47 extract a reference block Z x with fixed size N1 × N2 from z . This reference block is located at the
R
48
49
coordinate xR . Even for 3D data, the reference block will be a 2D window such that after
50
51
52 grouping always 3D data volumes are generated. The 2D reference block can, however, be
53
54 extracted from a vertical cross section or horizontal time slice. Then we search for similar blocks
55
56
57
58
59 3
60
1
2
3 Z x located at different positions x as measured by the Euclidean distance d , calculated as :
4
5
6 2
d ( Z xR , Z x ) = Z xR − Z x ,
7 2
8
9 (2)
10
11
12 where ⋅ 2
denotes the l 2 - norm. Blocks Z x and Z x are respectively located at xR and x ∈ X .
R
13
14
15
The blocks whose distance from the reference one is smaller than a given threshold τ match are
16
17 considered mutually similar and are subsequently grouped (Lebrun, 2012). Using the d -distance
18
19
20
in equation 2, the result of block matching is a set S xR that contains the coordinates of the blocks
21
22 that are similar to Z xR . That is,
23
24
25 S xR = { x ∈ X : d ( Z xR , Z x ) ≤ τ match } , (3)
26
27
28 where the fixed threshold τ match is the maximum d - distance for two blocks to be considered
29
30 similar. After obtaining set S xR , a group is formed by combining the matched noisy
31
32
33 blocks Z x∈S x to form a 3D array of size N1 × N 2 × N S x , where N S x denotes the number of blocks
34 R R R
35
36 similar to the reference one. For notational convenience, we will abbreviate Z x∈S x as Z S x .
R R
37
38
39 The matching process of similar blocks is illustrated in Figure 1. We select a reference
40
41 block Z xR (red box) and some candidate blocks Z x test (black and gray boxes) which are extracted
42
43
44 at regular intervals from the reference block in both the horizontal and vertical directions. The
45
46 candidate and reference blocks have identical sizes. Then, we calculate the Euclidean distance
47
48 (using equation 2) between the reference block and each candidate block separately and identify
49
50
51 blocks which are similar to the reference block Z xR . For example, the candidate blocks with
52
53 black outlines (Figure 1a) are similar to the reference one and blocks with gray outlines are
54
55
56 dissimilar ones. Finally, we group the similar blocks into a stack as shown in Figure 1b. Several
57
58
59 4
60
1
2
3 groups of similar blocks are constructed by repeating the process of block matching using
4
5
6 different reference blocks extracted at regular intervals from the full dataset. To reduce the
7
8 computational cost it is recommended to limit the search domain from which candidate blocks
9
10 are extracted, for instance, by evaluating similarity only within a fixed temporal and/or spatial
11
12
13
distance from the reference block.
14
15
16 Filtering
17
18
19
The second step is filtering. After groups of similar signal blocks have been formed, any
20
21
22 filtering strategy suitable for multidimensional data can be applied for denoising. Some examples
23
24 include: f-x deconvolution (Canales, 1984), median filtering (Bednar, 1983), mean filtering
25
26 (Kundu et al. 1984), local singular value decomposition (Bekara and Van der Baan, 2007), time-
27
28
29 frequency thresholding (Donoho, 1992) using either basis pursuit (Chen et al. 2001; Tary et al.,
30
31 2014) or wavelet transforms (Donoho, 1995).
32
33 Block matching combined with weighted averaging of matched blocks Z S x , also known as
34 R
35
36 non-local means filtering (NLMF), is the simplest technique (Buades et al., 2005). In this method,
37
38
39 the estimate Yˆx R , is simply the weighted average of matched blocks Z S x :
R
40
41
42 Yˆx R = ∑ w x Z x , x ∈ S xR , (4)
x
43
44
45 where the weights wx are determined by the squared Gaussian weighted Euclidean distance
46
47
between the reference block and each matched block. For details see Bonar and Sacchi (2012).
48
49
50 The estimate Yˆx R replaces the original reference block.
51
52
53
Alternatively, wavelet transforms combined with amplitude thresholding have proven to be
54
55 a very versatile strategy for denoising (Cao and Chen, 2005; Zhang and Ulrych, 2003). This can
56
57
58
59 5
60
1
2
3
4 be combined with block matching. In this case, a 3D array of block-wise estimates YˆSx are
R
5
6
created by applying a forward transform T , followed by thresholding ϒ , and then an inverse
7
8
9 transform T-1 onto the matched array Z S x . That is,
10 R
11
12
YˆS x = Τ −1  ϒ  Τ  Z S x    ,
13 R    R   
14
15
(5)
16
17
18 where ϒ can be any effective thresholding function. In this paper, we adopt the hard-threshold
19
20 operator with threshold λσ for its simplicity of implementation, where λ is an adjustment factor
21
22
and σ is the standard deviation of the noise. This threshold, thus, is proportional to the noise level.
23
24
25 The adjustment factor is chosen after judicious tests to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio
26
27 enhancement. The noise level is often estimated from the median of the fine-scale (or high-
28
29 frequency) coefficients. See Donoho (1992) for strategies to determine this threshold. The
30
31
32 processed array YˆSx has the same dimensions as the original array Z S x .
33
R R
34
35 In a more general setting, the operator T can be any transform in which case the operator
36
37 ϒ becomes a filtering operation. For instance, if operators T and ϒ equal the Fourier transform
38
39
and linear prediction filtering, respectively, then equation 5 describes application of predictive
40
41
42 deconvolution (Canales, 1984) on an array of matched blocks. Likewise, operator T can describe
43
44 empirical mode decomposition followed by some filtering to produce an enhanced image
45
46 (Bekara and Van der Baan, 2007; Han and van der Baan, 2015), or median filtering in some
47
48
49 domain (Bednar, 1983).
50
51 A more sophisticated technique consists of applying block matching, followed by a wavelet
52
53 transform, coefficient thresholding, and then Wiener filtering in two stages (Lebrun, 2012;
54
55
56
Zhang et al., 2017). This is known as block matching plus 3D collaborative filtering (BM3D).
57
58
59 6
60
1
2
3 The first stage consists again of applying equation 5, often using a biorthogonal wavelet (Singh
4
5
6 et al., 2011) as the operator T .
7
8 The second stage mimics the first stage but with two differences. The first difference is that
9
10 the new 3D groups are built with the unprocessed noisy data, but the Euclidean distances
11
12
13
between blocks are computed from the filtered data obtained from equation 5. The second
14
15 difference is that the wavelet coefficients of the new 3D groups are processed by Wiener filtering
16
17 instead of a mere threshold in the transform domain. For details see Dabov et al. (2007).
18
19
The BM3D scheme decreases the computational efficiency compared with classic filtering
20
21
22 methods which makes it expensive. Thus, we will also compare results if solely equation 5 is
23
24 used in a single step without additional Wiener filtering. Yet, we replace the biorthogonal
25
26 wavelet transform with a 3D shearlet transfrom (Guo and Labate, 2010; Zhang and van der Baan,
27
28
29 2018 ) because the directional characteristic of the shearlet transform can achieve a sparser
30
31 representation compared with the biorthogonal wavelet transform.
32
33
34
Aggregation
35
36
37
38 The last step is aggregation. After processing all groups, the processed block estimates
39
40
YˆSx are returned to their original positions. Filtered data portions are likely to have been matched
41 R
42
43 with multiple reference windows. A weighted average of block-wise estimates located in the
44
45
46 same position is required. The final estimate yˆ ( x) computed by a weighted average of the block-
47
48 wise estimates can be expressed as:
49
50 nx
51
52
∑ w yˆ ( x) i i
53 yˆ ( x) = i =1
nx
, x∈ X, (6)
54
55
∑ wi
i =1
56
57
58
59 7
60
1
2
3
4
where yˆi ( x) are the estimates at position x obtained from all processed blocks, where index i
5
6 serves as a unique identifier; nx is the total number of estimates at position x ; wi is the weight
7
8
9 which depends on where group estimate yˆi ( x) comes from. NLMF is a special case of equation
10
11
12
6 which is obtained per position x , that is nx = 1 (Buades et al., 2005).
13
14 There are various options for the weight w , namely:
15
16 Option 1:
17
18
19  1
 xR , if N har ≥ 1
xR
20
21
wxR =  N har
, (7)
22  1,
 otherwise
23
24
25 xR
where Nhar is the number of retained (nonzero) coefficients in a 3D array Z S x after hard-
26 R
27
28 thresholding and wxR is the weight associated with all involved blocks in this array. The rationale
29
30
31 in this weighting scheme is that if fewer coefficients are retained then a high similarity exists
32
33 between blocks (Lebrun, 2012). This scheme is only applicable to thresholding-based approaches.
34
35 Option 2:
36
37
38  1
39  , if d xR , x ≥ 1
40
wxR =  d xR , x
, (8)
41  1,
 otherwise
42
43
44 where d xR , x is the Euclidean distance between the block at position x and the reference block at
45
46
47 position xR which is defined in equation 2. This emphasizes more similar blocks. The correlation
48
49
coefficient between both blocks is a viable alternative in this case.
50
51
52
53 EXAMPLES
54
55
56
57
58
59 8
60
1
2
3 Synthetic data
4
5
6 To illustrate the denoising framework, we test it on a simple 2D synthetic example which
7
8 consists of various continuous and discontinuous events, as shown in Figure 3a. The sample
9
10 interval of this data set is 1 ms. In this example, we use band-pass filtering to color the noise and
11
12
13
create a more realistic and difficult example because it prevents simple gains in signal-to-noise
14
15 enhancement by eliminating noise outside of the bandwidth of the signals. It also creates a time
16
17 structure in the noise. The band-pass filtering ranges from 10 Hz to 80 Hz. The data
18
19
contaminated with band-passed-filtered noise with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of -6 dB are
20
21
22 shown in Figure 3b. The SNR is defined as:
23
24
∑
2
y ( x)
25 SNR(dB) = 10 log10 x
∑ ,
2
26
x
yˆ ( x) − y ( x)
27
28
29 (9) where y ( x) is the original signal and yˆ( x) is the denoised signal.
30
31 We will illustrate the performance of block matching followed by various filtering
32
33
34 techniques, including (i) NLMF (Bonar and Sacchi, 2012), (ii) BM3D (Dabov et al., 2007) and
35
36 (iii) coefficient thresholding using the 3D shearlet transform (Guo and Labate, 2010), (iv) f-x
37
38 deconvolution (Canales, 1984). To show the power of blocking matching, we make a comparison
39
40
41
of filtering methods with and without using blocking matching. The counterpart of NLMF
42
43 without block matching is local means filtering (Kundu et al. 1984). The idea of local means
44
45 filtering is simply to replace the value of each data point with the mean value of its neighbors,
46
47
including itself. The mean is computed in sliding windows of 5 traces by 5 time samples. For
48
49
50 amplitude thresholding without block matching we use a 2D wavelet transform using bior1.5
51
52 mother wavelets (Singh et al., 2011) to decompose the noisy data into 3 scales. The adjustment
53
54 factor λ in the threshold is 150. The standard deviation of the noise is estimated from the
55
56
57
58
59 9
60
1
2
3 median of the fine-scale signal coefficients in the wavelet transform. For the 2D shearlet
4
5
6 transform, without block matching, the decomposition scale is also 3 and the adjustment factor
7
λ is 100. Finally, f-x deconvolution without block matching is implemented between 10 Hz and
8
9
10 60 Hz. The length of the autoregressive operator is 10 samples. The denoising results of these
11
12
13
four methods are shown in Figure 4a, 4c, 4e, and 4g, respectively. The events are generally
14
15 recovered by these four methods; f-x deconvolution performs best in SNR enhancement.
16
17 However, the results of these four methods are sub-optimal because they only emphasize
18
19
laterally (locally) coherent features.
20
21
22 Next, we take the repetitive features into account using block matching. The four previous
23
24 methods then become respectively the NLMF, BM3D, blocking matching with shearlet
25
26 transform, blocking matching with f-x deconvolution. The NLMF estimates each block by a
27
28
29 weighted average of matched blocks instead of averaging within a window. In the NLMF, we
30
31 use reference windows of 5 traces by 5 time samples with a step size of 1 in both time and space.
32
33 To reduce search times we limit the local search window for finding similar blocks to 9 traces
34
35
36
and 9 time samples. For BM3D, the reference window size is 16 traces by 16 time samples, and
37
38 the search window is 82 traces by 82 time samples. The search step size is again 1 in all
39
40 directions. The maximum threshold for the distance between two similar blocks is 2000. To
41
42
reduce computation times of both the searches and the transforms, we restrict the maximum size
43
44
45 of a group by setting an upper bound of 12. The 3D wavelet transform in BM3D is implemented
46
47 by a biorthogonal 2D wavelet transform (the mother wavelet is ‘bior1.5’) across the matched
48
49 blocks and a 1D haar wavelet transform along the third dimension of a group (Dabov et al.,
50
51
52 2007). The adjustment factor λ in the threshold is 1500. For the block matching with shearlet
53
54 transform and f-x deconvolution, we use a reference window of 32 time samples and 6 traces
55
56
57
58
59 10
60
1
2
3 with a step size of 8 in the time direction and 2 in the space direction, and the search window is
4
5
6 96 time samples by 32 traces. The maximum threshold for the distance between two similar
7
blocks is 2000. The maximum number of similar blocks is 12. The adjustment factor λ used in
8
9
10 the shearlet transform is 500. After block matching, f-x deconvolution is applied by aligning the
11
12
13
reference and candidate blocks in the spatial direction. This is done because of the small block
14
15 size used. For larger block sizes either applying f-x deconvolution in both the spatial and
16
17 candidate block directions or use of f-x-y deconvolution may be desirable. The parameter
18
19
settings of each block-matching-based method are chosen after numerous tests to optimize the
20
21
22 trade-off between SNR enhancement and reduction of computational complexity.
23
24 The results obtained by these methods using block matching are shown in Figure 4b, 4d, 4f,
25
26 and 4h, respectively. The laterally coherent features are better enhanced and there is less
27
28
29 background noise when compared with the results of previous four filtering methods without
30
31 block matching. There is an obvious improvement in visual performance by block matching
32
33 combined with either the shearlet transform or f-x deconvolution.
34
35
36
A statistical comparison of these methods before and after block matching in terms of SNR,
37
38 root mean square error (RMSE), and computation time are listed in Table 1 and Table 2,
39
40 respectively. Without block matching, f-x deconvolution, local means filtering and shearlet based
41
42
thresholding work well (Figure 4). However, as expected, most block-matching-based methods
43
44
45 have higher SNRs and smaller RMSEs than the methods without blocking matching. But block-
46
47 matching-based methods need more computation time compared with classic filtering methods.
48
49 In this example, f-x deconvolution with block matching obtains the best trade-off between signal
50
51
52 enhancement and computation times, unless computation speed is of paramount importance, in
53
54 which case f-x deconvolution without block matching is preferred. F-x deconvolution works very
55
56
57
58
59 11
60
1
2
3 well in this example because of the strong lateral coherence between individual events and the
4
5
6 existence of few discontinuous/broken events (Bekara and Van der Baan, 2007).
7
8
9 Field-data applications
10
11
12
13
To test the feasibility of the proposed denoising framework, we apply it to the Z-component
14
15 of field microseismic data recorded at the surface using three-component receivers, as shown in
16
17 Figure 5. The sample interval of this data set is 4 ms. The three curved signals originated from
18
19
the same event recorded at different cross lines. The microseismic event is severely disrupted by
20
21
22 various types of noise, such as ringing noise and low-frequency interference. In this example, we
23
24 again compare the proposed block-matching-based denoising methods with local mean filtering,
25
26 biorthogonal 2D wavelet transform, 2D shearlet transform, and f-x deconvolution. The reference
27
28
29 window size of local mean filtering is 5 traces by 5 time samples. The adjustment factor λ for
30
31 the biorthogonal 2D wavelet transform and 2D shearlet transform are 6 and 1.2, respectively. F-
32
33 x deconvolution is implemented between 10 Hz and 60 Hz using a length of 10 samples for the
34
35
36 autoregressive operator. In the NLMF, we use a reference window of 5 traces by 5 time samples
37
38 with a step size of 1 in both time and space. The search window is 9 traces and 9 time samples.
39
40 For BM3D, the reference window size is 16 traces by 16 time samples, and the search window is
41
42
43
32 traces by 32 time samples. The search step size is again 1 in all directions. The maximum
44
45 threshold for the distance between two similar blocks is 2000. The maximum number of similar
46
47 blocks is 12. The adjustment factor λ in the BM3D threshold is 10. For the block matching with
48
49
shearlet transform and f-x deconvolution, we use a reference window of 32 time samples and 3
50
51
52 traces with a step size of 2 in the time direction and 1 in the space direction, and the search
53
54 window is 96 time samples by 32 traces. The maximum threshold for the distance between two
55
56
57
58
59 12
60
1
2
3 similar blocks and the maximum number of similar blocks are the same as the ones used in the
4
5
6 BM3D. The adjustment factor λ used in the shearlet transform is 6. The parameters are again
7
8 chosen after judicious testing. We will address the influence of the various parameters on SNR
9
10 enhancement and computational costs in the discussion.
11
12
13
The denoising results of these methods are shown in Figure 6. Local mean filtering and f-x
14
15 deconvolution can not recover the events due to complicated noise interference. Local means
16
17 filtering even creates strong weakly dipping coherent signals that are not visible in the original
18
19
data. It thus introduces strong signal artifacts. The events can be generally recovered by the
20
21
22 biorthogonal 2D wavelet transform and the 2D shearlet transform, but the low-frequency
23
24 interference are not effectively attenuated. Also there are horizontal spike-like artifacts in their
25
26 filtering results. Conversely, the block-matching-based methods have significantly improved
27
28
29 signal quality without introduction of unwanted filtering artifacts. The ringing noise and low-
30
31 frequency interference are better suppressed. The computation times of the six techniques are
32
33 listed in Table 3. BM3D has a lower computation cost among the block-matching-based methods
34
35
36
due to the smaller search window. In this example, BM3D seems to be the most competitive in
37
38 terms of computation time and noise suppression. The NLMF comes second with a bit more
39
40 remnant noise at essentially the same computational cost. F-x deconvolution does not work well
41
42
here because of the highly discontinuous nature of the events.
43
44
45 Finally, we verify the performance of the proposed denoising framework on a stacked
46
47 section from Alaska (Geological Survey, 1981) with a sample interval of 4 ms, which is shown
48
49 in Figure 7. Although the events become continuous after stacking, the data still contain
50
51
52 noticeable random and coherent noise, such as high-energy linear dipping events, which reduce
53
54 the SNR of the seismic data. Again, all eight processing techniques are applied for comparison.
55
56
57
58
59 13
60
1
2
3 The reference window size of local mean filtering is 5 traces by 5 time samples. The adjustment
4
5
6 factor λ for the biorthogonal 2D wavelet transform and 2D shearlet transform are 4 and 1.2,
7
8 respectively. F-x deconvolution is implemented between 0 Hz and 200 Hz with again an operator
9
10 of length 10. In the NLMF, we use a reference window of 5 traces by 5 time samples with a step
11
12
13
size of 1 in both time and space. The search window is 9 traces and 9 time samples. For BM3D,
14
15 the reference window size is 16 traces by 16 time samples, and the search window is 82 traces by
16
17 82 time samples. The search step size is again 1 in all directions. The maximum threshold for the
18
19
distance between two similar blocks is 6e7. The maximum number of similar blocks is 12. The
20
21
22 adjustment factor λ in the threshold is 10. For the block matching with shearlet transform and f-
23
24 x deconvolution, we use a reference window of 32 time samples and 6 traces with a step size of 4
25
26
in the time direction and 2 in the space direction, and the search window is 40 time samples by
27
28
29 20 traces. The maximum threshold for the distance between two similar blocks and the
30
31 maximum number of similar blocks are the same as the ones used for BM3D. The adjustment
32
33 factor λ used in the shearlet transform is 5.
34
35
36 The denoised results are shown in Figure 8. All these methods enhance the SNR of the input
37
38 data by suppressing noise interference and making events clearer. The proposed block-matching-
39
40 based denoising methods achieve a cleaner background and the event continuity is better
41
42
43
enhanced compared with the methods without block matching, as highlighted in the rectangles.
44
45 Next, we show the difference sections in Figure 9. As can be seen from Figure 9a, substantial
46
47 reflection information is lost after local mean filtering since it removes high-frequency signal
48
49
due to the imposed smoothing. The NLMF does not suffer from this draw back because the
50
51
52 averaging takes places across matching blocks instead of adjacent traces (Figure 9e). F-x
53
54 deconvolution without block matching removes some strongly dipping events as well as the
55
56
57
58
59 14
60
1
2
3 curved diffractions which is less desirable. Block matching alleviates this issue to a certain
4
5
6 extent (Figure 9d and 9h). The wavelet-based methods remove random noise if no block
7
8 matching is used (Figure 9b and 9c) and also some strongly dipping events with block matching
9
10 (Figure 9f and 9g), although there is a hint of low-frequency horizontal events in the difference
11
12
13
section of block matching with shearlet transform (Figure 9g). Compared with the biorthogonal
14
15 2D wavelet transform and the 2D shearlet transform, f-x deconvolution, the block-matching-
16
17 based methods suppress more high-energy coherent interference. The computation times of the
18
19
eight methods are listed in Table 4. Depending on the desired outcome either the wavelet-based
20
21
22 methods without block matching or NLMF or BM3D which include block matching are likely
23
24 preferred in this field example in terms of quality enhancement and computational efficacy.
25
26 DISCUSSION
27
28
29 Block matching enhances coherent features by grouping similar 2D data blocks into 3D data
30
31 arrays. All parameters influence both SNR enhancement and computational costs to a certain
32
33 degree. We use BM3D to investigate their exact influence using a square reference block for
34
35
36
convenience.We add strong white Gaussian noise to the synthetic model shown in Figure 3a,
37
38 yielding an SNR of -10 dB. This noisy data are used for testing. The adjustment factor λ in the
39
40 threshold is 2.1. All non-mentioned parameters are identical to the those used in the synthetic
41
42
example. The influence of (1) the reference block size, (2) step size in space and time, (3) search
43
44
45 window size, (4) maximum number of similar blocks kept and (5) the distance threshold to
46
47 distinguish similar blocks on SNR, RMSE and computation time are listed in Tables 5-9,
48
49 respectively.
50
51
52 The reference block size is the key parameter (Table 5). Computation times increase
53
54 dramatically with increasing block size. There is however a sweet spot in terms of SNR
55
56
57
58
59 15
60
1
2
3 enhancement. Many random structures become repetitive if too small block sizes are used. It
4
5
6 then also becomes difficult to enhance coherency by lateral filtering. However, recognition of
7
8 coherent features becomes more challenging if block sizes are too large. Intermediate sizes thus
9
10 work best. Both the search window and the step size have a greater influence on computation
11
12
13
time than quality enhancement (Table 6 and 7). Computation times decrease with increasing step
14
15 size and decreasing size of the search windows as expected. Computation times can be greatly
16
17 reduced without unduly affecting SNR enhancement by fine-tuning these two parameters. For
18
19
finely sampled data a step size larger than 1 in each direction may work well. As expected
20
21
22 computation times and SNR enhancement increase with an increasing maximum number of
23
24 similar blocks kept. The max number is usually set between 12 and 36 to keep a reasonable
25
26 trade-off between noise suppression and computation time (Table 8). As seen from Table 9, the
27
28
29 distance threshold does not have a significant influence on computation time and quality
30
31 enhancement when it is larger than a certain value.
32
33 Block matching can increase data quality substantially. A disadvantage is that it
34
35
36
significantly increases the computation times both due to the implemented search routine and
37
38 due to the additional amount of filtering operations. One interesting approach to reduce search
39
40 times would be to implement a random extraction of test blocks instead of an exhaustive search
41
42
using regular step sizes. If the reference blocks are still extracted systematically and at regular
43
44
45 intervals, the random selection of a constant number of reference blocks will still adequately
46
47 sample the entire dataset for repetitive structures with sufficient likelihood to extract multiple
48
49 times the same test block. This would allow also for a larger search area.
50
51
52 The identification of matching blocks using the Euclidean distance, equation 2, becomes a
53
54 bottleneck in performance for very low-quality data (under -10 dB) because identifying similar
55
56
57
58
59 16
60
1
2
3 structures then becomes challenging. For this reason, various implementations do not use the
4
5
6 original blocks but those after some temporary pre-filtering such as wavelet-based amplitude
7
8 thresholding schemes (Dabov et al., 2007). The pre-filtering is, however, only used for
9
10 identification of similar blocks; the actual filtering operations are done on the original data
11
12
13
within each array. Clearly, any pre-filtering will help in the matching step.
14
15
16 CONCLUSIONS
17
18
19
The repetitive nature of seismic events can be exploited to enhance data quality. Block
20
21
22 matching can identify repetitive features and group them together to form a 3D array. This
23
24 repetition of non-local features works greatly in the favor of coherency-enhancing filtering
25
26 techniques to suppress random and incoherent noise but at the expense of increased
27
28
29 computational costs, mostly due to the required search paths across the observed data to identify
30
31 matching blocks. This can be reduced by decreasing the size of the reference blocks as well as
32
33 the allowed search domain. Tests on synthetic, real microseismic and reflection seismic data
34
35
36
show the promise of this framework for noise reduction and event recovery.
37
38
39 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
40
41
42
The authors thank the financial support provided by the sponsors of the Microseismic
43
44
45 Industry Consortium. This research is also financially supported by the National Natural Science
46
47 Foundations of China (under grants 41730422, 41704102, 41574096) and International
48
49 Postdoctoral Exchange Fellowship Program. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their
50
51
52 comments and suggestions. We also thank the U.S. Geological Survey for providing the field
53
54 section and the ShearLab for their software (http://www.shearlab.org/software).
55
56
57
58
59 17
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
REFERENCES
14
15
16 Buades, A, B. Coll, and J.M. Morel, 2005, Image denoising by non-local averaging. IEEE
17
18 International Conference on Acoustics: IEEE, 25-28.
19
20
21 Bekara, M., and M. Van der Baan , 2007, Local singular value decomposition for signal
22
23 enhancement of seismic data: Geophysics, 72, V59-V65.
24
25 Bednar, J. B., 1983, Applications of median filtering to deconvolution, pulse estimation,
26
27
and statistical editing of seismic data: Geophysics, 48,1598-1610.
28
29
30 Bonar, D., and M. Sacchi, 2012, Denoising seismic data using the nonlocal means
31
32 algorithm: Geophysics, 77, A5-A8.
33
34
35
36
37 Canales, L., 1984, Random noise reduction: 54th Annual International Meeting, SEG,
38
39 Expanded Abstracts, 525-527.
40
41 Chen, S. S., D. L. Donoho, and M. A. Saunders 2001, Atomic decomposition by basis
42
43
44 pursuit: SIAM Rev., 43, 129-159.
45
46 Cao, S., and X. Chen, 2005, The second-generation wavelet transform and its application
47
48 in denoising of seismic data: Applied geophysics, 2, 70-74.
49
50
Donoho, D. L., 1992, Wavelet Thresholding and W.V.D: A 1 0-minute tour: International
51
52
53 Conference on Wavelet and Applications. Toulouse, France.
54
55 Donoho D. L., 1995, De-noising by soft-thresholding: IEEE transactions on information
56
57
58
59 18
60
1
2
3 theory, 41, 613-627.
4
5
6 Dabov, K., A. Foi, V. Katkovnik, and K. Egiazarian, 2007, Image denoising by sparse 3-D
7
8 transform-domain collaborative filtering: IEEE Transactions on image processing, 16,

9
10 2080-2095.
11
12
13
Eisner, L., D. Abbott, W. Barker, J. Lakings, and M. Thornton, 2008, Noise suppression for
14
15 detection and location of microseismic events using a matched filter: 78th Annual
16
17 International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1431-1435.
18
19
Guo, K., and D. Labate, 2007, Optimally sparse multidimensional representation using
20
21
22 Shearlets: SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 39, 298-318.
23
24 Guo, K., and D. Labate, 2010, Optimally sparse 3D approximations using shearlet
25
26 Representations: Electronic Research Announcements in Mathematical Sciences, 17 ,
27
28
29 125-137.
30
31 Geological Survey, U.S., 1981, http://wiki.seg.org/wiki/ALASKA_2D_LAND_LINE_31-81,
32
33 accessed 2 January 2015.
34
35
36
Han, J., and M. van der Baan, 2015, Microseismic and seismic denoising via ensemble
37
38 empirical mode decomposition and adaptive thresholding: Geophysics, 80, KS69-KS80.
39
40 Lebrun, M., 2012, An analysis and implementation of the BM3D image denoising method:
41
42
Image Processing On Line, 2, 175-213.
43
44
45 Li, H., R.Wang, S. Cao, Y. Chen, and W. Huang, 2016, A method for low-frequency noise
46
47 suppression based on mathematical morphology in microseismic monitoring:
48
49 Geophysics, 81, no.3, V159-V167.
50
51
52 Kundu, A., S. Mitra, and P. Vaidyanathan, 1984, Application of two-dimensional generalized
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 19
60
1
2
3 mean filtering for removal of impulse noises from images: IEEE transactions on acoustics,
4
5
6 speech, and signal processing, 32, 600-609.
7
8 Mousavi, S. M., and C. A. Langston, 2016, Hybrid Seismic Denoising Using Wavelet Block
9
10 Thresholding and Higher Order Statistics: Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 106,
11
12
13
no. 4, 1380-1393.
14
15 Mousavi, S. M., and C. A. Langston, 2017, Automatic Noise-Removal/Signal-Removal Based on
16
17 the General-Cross-Validation Thresholding in Synchrosqueezed domains, and its application
18
19
on earthquake data, Geophysics, 82, V211-V227.
20
21
22 Singh, P., P. Singh, and R. K. Sharma, 2011, JPEG image compression based on Biorthogonal,
23
24 Coiflets and Daubechies Wavelet Families: International Journal of Computer Applications,
25
26 13,1748-2382.
27
28
29 Sabbione, J. I., M.D. Sacchi, and D. R. Velis, 2015, Radon transform-based microseismic event
30
31 detection and signal-to-noise ratio enhancement: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 113, 51-63.
32
33 Tary, J-B., R.H. Herrera , J. Han, and M. Van der Baan, 2014, Spectral estimation - What is new?
34
35
36
What is next? Reviews of Geophysics, 52, 723-749.
37
38 Van der Baan, M., and A. Paul, 2000, Recognition and reconstruction of coherent energy with
39
40 application to deep seismic reflection data: Geophysics, 2000, 65, 656-667.
41
42
Vera Rodriguez, I., D. Bonar,and M., Sacchi, 2012, Microseismic data denoising using a 3C
43
44
45 group sparsity constrained time-frequency transform: Geophysics, 77, V21 -V29.
46
47 Velis, D., J. I. Sabbione, and M. D. Sacchi, 2015, Fast and automatic microseismic phase-arrival
48
49 detection and denoising by pattern recognition and reduced-rank Filtering: Geophysics, 80,
50
51
52 WC25-WC38.
53
54 Wang, H, M. Li and X. Shang, 2016, Current developments on micro-seismic data processing.
55
56
57
58
59 20
60
1
2
3 Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 32, 521-537.
4
5
6 Zhang, R, and T. J. Ulrych, 2003, Physical wavelet frame denoising: Geophysics, 68 ,
7
8 225-231.
9
10 Zhang, C. , M. van der Baan, Y. Li, and X.C. Xu, 2017, Microseismic and Seismic Denoising
11
12
13
Using Block Matching and 3-D Collaborative Filtering: 87th Annual International Meeting,
14
15 SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 5022-5026.
16
17 Zhang, C, and M. van der Baan, 2018, Multicomponent Microseismic Data Denoising by 3D
18
19
Shearlet Transform: Geophysics, 83, no.3, 1-7.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 21
60
1
2
3
4
5
6 LIST OF FIGURES
7
8
9 1. Illustration of grouping blocks from noisy microseismic data corrupted by white Gaussian
10
11 noise. (a) Noisy microseismic data (SNR=-2 dB). Red box: reference block; black and gray
12
13
14 boxes: candidate blocks. (b) Grouping of the blocks which are similar to the reference block. The
15
16 four blocks behind the reference block are black candidate blocks shown in Figure 1a.
17
18 2. Flowchart of the proposed framework.
19
20
21 3. The synthetic model. (a) Noise-free data. (b) Noisy data (SNR=-6dB) contaminated with
22
23 band-passed-filtered noise.
24
25 4. Filtered sections for the synthetic example. Left column: No block matching. Right column:
26
27
Corresponding filtering techniques with block matching. Result after denoising using (a) local
28
29
30 means filtering (no block matching), (b) the NLMF method, (c) the biorthogonal wavelet
31
32 transform (no block matching), (d) the BM3D method, (e) the shearlet transform (no block
33
34 matching), (f) block matching and shearlet transform, (g) f-x deconvolution (no block matching),
35
36
37 (h) blocking matching and f-x deconvolution. The results in the right column are after combining
38
39 block-matching with the left filtering methods.
40
41 5. The field surface microseismic record.
42
43
44
6. The results of field surface microseismic record. Result after denoising using (a) local means
45
46 filtering (no block matching), (b) the NLMF method, (c) the biorthogonal wavelet transform (no
47
48 block matching), (d) the BM3D method, (e) the shearlet transform (no block matching), (f) block
49
50
matching and shearlet transform, (g) f-x deconvolution (no block matching), (h) blocking
51
52
53 matching and f-x deconvolution.
54
55
56
57
58
59 22
60
1
2
3 7. A real stacked section which is taken from the Alaska 2D line with both random and coherent
4
5
6 noise.
7
8 8. The results for the stacked section. First row: No block matching. Second row: Corresponding
9
10 filtering techniques with block matching. Result after denoising using (a) local means filtering
11
12
13
(no block matching), (b) the biorthogonal wavelet transform (no block matching), (c) the
14
15 shearlet transform (no block matching), (d) f-x deconvolution (no block matching), (e) the
16
17 NLMF method, (f) the BM3D method, (g) block matching and shearlet transform, (h) blocking
18
19
matching and f-x deconvolution.
20
21
22 9. Difference sections. First row: No block matching. Second row: Corresponding filtering
23
24 techniques with block matching. Difference section after (a) local means filtering (no block
25
26 matching), (b) the biorthogonal wavelet transform (no block matching), (c) the shearlet
27
28
29 transform (no block matching), (d) f-x deconvolution (no block matching), (e) the NLMF
30
31 method, (f) the BM3D method, (g) block matching and shearlet transform, (h) blocking matching
32
33 and f-x deconvolution.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 23
60
1
2
3
4
5
6 LIST OF TABLES
7
8
9 1. The computation time, SNR, and RMSE of different filtering methods without block matching
10
11
of Figure 4.
12
13
14 2. The computation time, SNR, and RMSE of different filtering methods using block matching
15
16 of Figure 4.
17
18 3. The computation time of different filtering methods in Figure 6.
19
20
21 4. The computation time of different filtering methods in Figure 8.
22
23 5. Influence of the size of the reference block.
24
25 6. Influence of the step size in both time and space.
26
27
28
7. Influence of the search window size.
29
30 8. Influence of the maximum number of similar blocks kept.
31
32 9. Influence of the maximum threshold for the distance between two similar blocks.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 24
60
1
2
3
4 Table 1. The computation time, SNR, and RMSE of different filtering methods
5
6 without block matching of Figure 4.
7
8
9
10
11 Method SNR (dB) RMSE computation time (s)
12
13 Local means filtering 1.2518 0.2191 0.08
14
15
Biorthogonal wavelet
16 -4.8280 0.4417 0.48
17 transform
18
19 Shearlet transform 1.9637 0.2050 4.22
20
21 f-x deconvolution 3.8453 0.1626 0.10
22
23
24
25
Table 2. The computation time, SNR, and RMSE of different filtering methods using
26
27
28 block matching of Figure 4.
29
30
31
32
33 Method SNR (dB) RMSE computation time (s)
34
35 NLMF 0.2250 0.2499 80.13
36
37
BM3D -0.8157 0.2826 758.52
38
39
40 Blocking matching
4.8657 0.1448 441.27
41 with shearlet transform
42
43 Blocking matching
44 5.9800 0.1274 82.36
45 with f-x deconvolution
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53 Table 3. The computation time of different filtering methods in Figure 6.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Method computation time (s)
4
5
Local means filtering 1.77
6
7
Biorthogonal wavelet transform 0.23
8
9
10 Shearlet transform 3.06
11
12 f-x deconvolution 0.03
13
14 NLMF 6.47
15
16
BM3D 6.23
17
18
19 Blocking matching with
20 99.23
21 shearlet transform
22
23 Blocking matching with f-x
24 29.11
deconvolution
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 Table 4. The computation time of different filtering methods in Figure 8.
33
34
35
36
37
Method computation time (s)
38
39
40 Local means filtering 0.42
41
42 Biorthogonal wavelet transform 0.55
43
44 Shearlet transform 3.15
45
46 f-x deconvolution 0.12
47
48
NLMF 29.60
49
50
51 BM3D 418.80
52
53 Blocking matching with
182.25
54 shearlet transform
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Blocking matching with f-x
4 69.66
deconvolution
5
6
7
8
9 Table 5. Influence of the size of the reference block.
10
11
12
13 Size computation time (s) SNR (dB) RMSE
14
15 4 27.93 -3.3436 0.3711
16
17 8 72.85 5.2860 0.1376
18
19 16 758.52 6.8497 0.1150
20
21
32 2968.45 4.7553 0.1463
22
23
24
25 Table 6. Influence of the step size in both time and space.
26
27
28
29 Step size computation time (s) SNR (dB) RMSE
30
31 1 758.52 6.8497 0.1150
32
33 2 197.25 6.5646 0.1189
34
35
36
4 56.99 6.2841 0.1228
37
38 8 19.76 5.8130 0.1298
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Table 7. Influence of the search window size.
46
47
48 Size computation time (s) SNR (dB) RMSE
49
50
51 40 234.93 5.9576 0.1274
52
53 80 732.98 6.8253 0.1153
54
55 120 1454.03 7.1049 0.1117
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 160 2357.25 7.2211 0.1102
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Table 8. Influence of the maximum number of similar blocks kept.
11
12
13 Maximum
14 computation time (s) SNR (dB) RMSE
15 number
16
17 12 758.52 6.8497 0.1150
18
19 24 826.28 7.4811 0.1070
20
21 36 923.50 7.8554 0.1024
22
23
24
64 1180.76 8.0225 0.1005
25
26
27
28
29 Table 9. Influence of the maximum threshold for the distance between two similar
30
blocks.
31
32
33
34 Maximum
35 computation time (s) SNR (dB) RMSE
36 distance
37
38 500 482.40 3.9525 0.1605
39
40 1000 725.93 5.1404 0.1401
41
42 2000 758.52 6.8497 0.1150
43
44
3000 760.27 6.8497 0.1150
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Figure 1. Illustration of grouping blocks from noisy microseismic data corrupted by white Gaussian noise. (a)
26 Noisy microseismic data (SNR=-2 dB). Red box: reference block; black and gray boxes: candidate blocks.
(b) Grouping of the blocks which are similar to the reference block. The four blocks behind the reference
27 block are black candidate blocks shown in Figure 1a.
28
29 92x50mm (300 x 300 DPI)
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Figure 2. Flowchart of the proposed framework.
46
47 96x134mm (300 x 300 DPI)
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Figure 3. The synthetic model. (a) Noise-free data. (b) Noisy data (SNR=-6dB) contaminated with band-
20 passed-filtered noise.
21
22 52x19mm (300 x 300 DPI)
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Figure 4. Filtered sections for the synthetic example. Left column: No block matching. Right column:
46 Corresponding filtering techniques with block matching. Result after denoising using (a) local means filtering
47 (no block matching), (b) the NLMF method, (c) the biorthogonal wavelet transform (no block matching), (d)
48 the BM3D method, (e) the shearlet transform (no block matching), (f) block matching and shearlet
49 transform, (g) f-x deconvolution (no block matching), (h) blocking matching and f-x deconvolution.
50
209x310mm (300 x 300 DPI)
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 Figure 5. The field surface microseismic record.
31
32 49x35mm (300 x 300 DPI)
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Figure 6. The results of field surface microseismic record. Result after denoising using (a) local means
46 filtering (no block matching), (b) the NLMF method, (c) the biorthogonal wavelet transform (no block
47 matching), (d) the BM3D method, (e) the shearlet transform (no block matching), (f) block matching and
48 shearlet transform, (g) f-x deconvolution (no block matching), (h) blocking matching and f-x deconvolution.
49
209x310mm (300 x 300 DPI)
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Figure 7. A real stacked section which is taken from the Alaska 2D line with both random and coherent
46 noise.
47
48 57x72mm (300 x 300 DPI)
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Figure 8. The results for the stacked section. First row: No block matching. Second row: Corresponding
29 filtering techniques with block matching. Result after denoising using (a) local means filtering (no block
30 matching), (b) the biorthogonal wavelet transform (no block matching), (c) the shearlet transform (no
31 block matching), (d) f-x deconvolution (no block matching), (e) the NLMF method, (f) the BM3D method, (g)
32 block matching and shearlet transform, (h) blocking matching and f-x deconvolution.
33
121x80mm (300 x 300 DPI)
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Figure 9. Difference sections. First row: No block matching. Second row: Corresponding filtering techniques
29 with block matching. Difference section after (a) local means filtering (no block matching), (b) the
30 biorthogonal wavelet transform (no block matching), (c) the shearlet transform (no block matching), (d) f-x
31 deconvolution (no block matching), (e) the NLMF method, (f) the BM3D method, (g) block matching and
32 shearlet transform, (h) blocking matching and f-x deconvolution.
33
121x80mm (300 x 300 DPI)
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
DATA AND MATERIALS AVAILABILITY
Data associated with this research are available and can be obtained by contacting the corresponding
author.

Zhang2018 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Zhang2018 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

GEOPHYSICS

A denoising framework for microseismic and reflection

Manuscript Type: Technical Paper

Keywords: 3D, microseismic, noise, signal processing

Area of Expertise: Signal Processing

8 transform-domain collaborative filtering: IEEE Transactions on image processing, 16,

S-ar putea să vă placă și