Predictive deconvolution
Learning objectives
- Explain the prediction-error view of multiples: predict the trace at lag L, subtract
- Read a trace autocorrelation to identify the multiple period
- Pick prediction lag and operator parameters for water-bottom and peg-leg multiples
- Distinguish predictive decon from spiking decon and know when to use which
Spiking deconvolution of §2.6 collapses the source wavelet toward a spike. Its cousin, predictive deconvolution, uses the same Wiener framework for a very different goal: remove events that can be predicted from earlier parts of the trace. The classic target is a water-bottom multiple — same wavelet, same reflectivity, just delayed by the two-way-time through the water column, appearing over and over at a fixed period.
1. The predictable-error idea
Given a trace s[n], design a filter p[n] of length Lop that predicts s[n] from earlier samples s[n − α − k], where α is the prediction lag and k = 0, 1, …, Lop−1. The prediction error
is the part of the trace that cannot be predicted from its history. Anything periodic with period α cancels; anything new (primaries below the multiples, noise, unpredictable reflectivity) is preserved.
Setting α = 1 recovers spiking decon. Setting α = multiple period targets that multiple. Two settings, one operator.
2. Reading the autocorrelation
A periodic event produces a bump in the autocorrelation at the lag equal to its period. The trace below has primaries at 0.40 s and 1.00 s and a matching multiple train 240 ms later (amplitude 0.75 of the primary). The autocorrelation has a clear secondary peak at 240 ms — that is the signature of the multiple.
Slide the prediction lag to 240 ms (where the teal and red lines coincide in the autocorrelation plot) and adjust the subtract-amp to 0.75. The output panel goes nearly flat at the multiple locations: the prediction captured them, and subtraction removed them. The primaries (marked “P”) are preserved because they are not predictable from earlier samples.
3. How to find the lag
- Autocorrelation peak. Compute Rss over a window containing the multiple train. The highest secondary peak after lag 0 gives the multiple period. This is the universal approach.
- Physics. For water-bottom multiples in marine data, α = 2 · water depth / v_water. If you know the bathymetry, you know α up to a few samples.
- Peg-leg multiples. Peg-legs are primaries that have made one extra bounce between a shallow reflector and the sea surface. They appear at the primary time plus 2 · shallow reflector depth / v. If the sea bottom is at 0.15 s TWT, every primary gets a peg-leg 300 ms later.
4. Practical parameter picking
- Prediction lag — from the autocorrelation bump or physics.
- Operator length — a few samples longer than the wavelet duration. Too long absorbs primary energy.
- Design window — containing the multiples, NOT containing just primaries (otherwise the operator does not have multiple energy to learn from).
- White noise ε — same stabilization as spiking decon. 0.1–1 % typical.
- Apply to gathers, not stacks. Multiples are periodic in the trace domain but their NMO velocity differs from primaries; on a stack, they are already NMO-flattened and harder to separate.
5. Where predictive decon fails
- Variable water depth. Marine data over variable bathymetry — the multiple period changes across the survey. A single lag does not work; per-trace lag is needed. SRME (§4.2) handles this more robustly.
- Amplitude-time-variant multiples. Peg-legs have different amplitudes depending on the transmission path. Adaptive subtraction (§4.4) is preferred.
- Inter-bed multiples. Not surface-related; require model-based prediction (Part 4).
- Short period vs primary duration. If multiples arrive before the primary wavelet fully dies, predictive decon damages primary amplitudes.
6. Spiking vs predictive — side by side
Spiking decon (α = 1): compress the wavelet to a spike. Primary tool to sharpen resolution.
Predictive decon (α = multiple period): remove a specific multiple family. Primary tool to attenuate water-bottom and peg-leg multiples before NMO / migration.
The two are often applied in sequence: predictive decon to kill multiples, then spiking decon to sharpen what is left. Each reduces the complexity the other has to deal with.
Predictive decon predicts the trace at a chosen lag and subtracts the prediction; the lag is read from the autocorrelation bump, and α = multiple period is what separates it from spiking decon.
Where this goes next
Section §2.8 closes Part 2 with surface-consistent deconvolution — applying the same surface-consistent decomposition we used for residual statics (§2.4) to the design of a trace-by-trace decon operator. One source-side operator per shot, one receiver-side per receiver, one offset-side per offset bin, one trace-residual. Robust when the wavelet varies across the survey.
References
- Robinson, E. A. (1957). Predictive decomposition of seismic traces. Geophysics, 22, 767.
- Treitel, S., Robinson, E. A. (1966). The design of high-resolution digital filters. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Electron., 4, 25.
- Robinson, E. A., Treitel, S. (2008). Digital Imaging and Deconvolution. SEG.
- Wiggins, R. A. (1978). Minimum entropy deconvolution. Geoexploration, 16, 21.
- Yilmaz, Ö. (2001). Seismic Data Analysis (2 vols.). SEG.