pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24760 · v1 · pith:BRZAHYTFnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · ⚛️ physics.geo-ph · physics.optics

Offset-continuation-trajectory stacking based on common-reflection-point kinematics for five-dimensional prestack dataset regularization and enhancement

Tiago A. Coimbra , Rodrigo Bloot , Caian Benedicto , Nicholas T. Okita , Jorge H. Faccipieri Junior This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 21:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.geo-ph physics.optics
keywords seismic data regularizationprestack datasetoffset-continuation-trajectorycommon-reflection-pointtraveltime stacking5D seismicphysics-informed interpolationwavefront kinematics
0
0 comments X

The pith

The offset-continuation-trajectory operator reconstructs missing traces in five-dimensional prestack seismic data by stacking along physically consistent common-reflection-point traveltime surfaces.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a physics-informed method for regularizing and enhancing 5D prestack seismic datasets that suffer from irregular sampling and noise. It derives stacking trajectories from wavefront propagation, isochronous surfaces, specular reflection, and diffraction kinematics instead of relying on purely mathematical interpolation. All kinematic parameters are estimated directly from the data using global coevolutionary optimization. A sympathetic reader would care because better preservation of physical consistency in the reconstructed data can support more reliable subsequent imaging and interpretation steps. Tests on synthetic and field datasets show gains in signal-to-noise ratio and structural continuity without introducing artificial events.

Core claim

The central claim is that the offset-continuation-trajectory (OCT) operator, grounded in common-reflection-point (CRP) kinematics, reconstructs missing traces and enhances spatial continuity in 5D prestack datasets. It achieves this by stacking seismic events along traveltime surfaces derived from wavefront propagation, isochronous surface geometry, specular reflection, and diffraction kinematics, with all parameters estimated directly from the input data via global coevolutionary optimization. Applications demonstrate improved signal-to-noise ratio, enhanced structural continuity, and reliable recovery of unrecorded amplitudes while preserving both reflection and diffraction kinematics.

What carries the argument

The offset-continuation-trajectory (OCT) operator, a multi-parameter CRP traveltime stacking operator that derives coherent trajectories from wavefront propagation, isochronous surface geometry, specular reflection, and diffraction kinematics, with parameters estimated via global coevolutionary optimization.

If this is right

  • Missing traces in 5D prestack datasets are reconstructed while preserving reflection and diffraction kinematics.
  • Signal-to-noise ratio and structural continuity improve on both synthetic and field data without creation of artificial events.
  • The method supplies a geologically consistent alternative to purely mathematical interpolation techniques.
  • Data fidelity for subsequent imaging and quantitative interpretation steps increases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same kinematic stacking principle could be adapted to regularize other multidimensional geophysical datasets that obey similar wavefront and reflection rules.
  • Errors in the recovered amplitudes might propagate into downstream velocity model building or amplitude-versus-offset analysis.
  • The optimization step could be replaced by faster local search methods if the global coevolutionary approach proves computationally limiting on very large surveys.

Load-bearing premise

Kinematic parameters estimated directly from the input data via global coevolutionary optimization accurately capture the true subsurface wave propagation without overfitting noise or producing biased traveltime surfaces.

What would settle it

A synthetic test in which the reconstructed amplitudes or continuity visibly degrade relative to a known true model when the optimization step is replaced by random or noise-contaminated parameter values would falsify the claim that the estimated surfaces remain physically consistent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24760 by Caian Benedicto, Jorge H. Faccipieri Junior, Nicholas T. Okita, Rodrigo Bloot, Tiago A. Coimbra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic representation of the acquisition geometry. The measurement plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Variation of midpoint position as a function of half-offset for a 2D acquisition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Midpoint and half-offset apertures (2∆m, 2∆h) in the time domain for a sample located at (m0, h0, t0) over a reflection surface for a 2D acquisition. Note that the OCT trajectory varies across midpoints as a function of half-offset. 37 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Synthetic velocity model in depth (m/s) used for dataset simulation and algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of CMP gathers from the original dataset (left) and the OCT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Inline comparison between the original dataset with multi-azimuth and an offset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Crossline comparison between the original dataset with multi-azimuth and an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Single trace comparison between the original dataset (solid blue line) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Kinematic parameter V0 (top), ax (center), and ay (bottom) obtained for the ZO section on inline and crossline directions. 43 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Inline comparison between the original dataset with multi-azimuth and an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Crossline comparison between the original dataset with multi-azimuth and an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of time-slices at 1432 (top) and 1652 ms (bottom) from the original [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Real dataset acquisition geometry with source (left) and receiver (right) po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of CMP gathers from the real dataset (left) and after OCT regu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison between stacked sections from the original dataset (left) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of time-slices at 420 (top), 724 (center), and 1048 ms (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Influence of OCT regularization on velocity analysis for traces near the azimuth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Influence of OCT regularization on velocity analysis for traces near the azimuth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Prestack seismic data regularization and enhancement are critical steps for reliable imaging and inversion, particularly in five-dimensional (5D) dataset geometries affected by irregular sampling, noise contamination, and incomplete spatial coverage. These limitations often degrade event continuity and compromise the physical consistency of conventional interpolation methods. This study introduces a physics-informed framework for 5D prestack dataset reconstruction based on a multi-parameter common-reflection-point (CRP) traveltime stacking operator. The proposed offset-continuation-trajectory (OCT) operator derives coherent stacking trajectories from wavefront propagation, isochronous surface geometry, specular reflection, and diffraction kinematics. All kinematic parameters are estimated directly from the data through a global coevolutionary optimization strategy. The method reconstructs missing traces and enhances spatial continuity by stacking seismic events along physically consistent traveltime surfaces, preserving both reflection and diffraction kinematics. Applications to synthetic and field datasets demonstrate improved signal-to-noise ratio, enhanced structural continuity, and reliable recovery of unrecorded amplitudes without introducing artificial events. The results indicate that incorporating physically constrained traveltime models into the regularization process provides a robust, geologically consistent alternative to purely mathematical interpolation techniques, thereby improving data fidelity for subsequent imaging and quantitative interpretation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a physics-informed framework for 5D prestack seismic data regularization and enhancement using an offset-continuation-trajectory (OCT) operator derived from common-reflection-point (CRP) traveltime stacking. The OCT operator constructs coherent stacking trajectories from wavefront propagation, isochronous surface geometry, specular reflection, and diffraction kinematics, with all multi-parameter kinematic parameters estimated directly from the input data via global coevolutionary optimization. The method claims to reconstruct missing traces, enhance spatial continuity, improve SNR, and recover unrecorded amplitudes on synthetic and field datasets without introducing artificial events, providing a geologically consistent alternative to purely mathematical interpolation.

Significance. If the central claims hold under rigorous validation, the work could offer a meaningful advance in seismic processing by embedding physical wave-propagation constraints into data regularization, potentially yielding more reliable inputs for imaging and inversion. The explicit use of multiple kinematic principles (wavefront, isochronous, specular, diffraction) is a conceptual strength, though the data-driven parameter estimation requires careful scrutiny to confirm independence from the regularization target.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: the claims of improved SNR, enhanced structural continuity, and reliable amplitude recovery on synthetic and field datasets are asserted without any quantitative metrics, error bars, baseline comparisons (e.g., against existing 5D interpolation methods), or validation details, which is load-bearing for evaluating whether the OCT operator actually outperforms conventional approaches.
  2. Method description (kinematic estimation step): kinematic parameters are obtained via global coevolutionary optimization performed on the same input traces that are subsequently regularized; this introduces a circularity in which the traveltime surfaces used for stacking are shaped by a fit to the very data being enhanced, undermining the claim that the trajectories are independently 'physically consistent'.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the multi-parameter kinematic vector and the explicit form of the OCT stacking operator should be defined with an equation early in the methods section to improve reproducibility.
  2. The manuscript should clarify whether the coevolutionary optimization includes any regularization term that prevents overfitting to noise, as this directly affects the physical-consistency argument.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and strengthen the validation of our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: the claims of improved SNR, enhanced structural continuity, and reliable amplitude recovery on synthetic and field datasets are asserted without any quantitative metrics, error bars, baseline comparisons (e.g., against existing 5D interpolation methods), or validation details, which is load-bearing for evaluating whether the OCT operator actually outperforms conventional approaches.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by quantitative support. In the revised version, we will add specific metrics (e.g., SNR gains, RMS error reductions, structural similarity indices) with error bars from repeated trials, plus direct comparisons against established 5D methods such as minimum-weighted-norm interpolation and Fourier POCS. Validation details on the synthetic and field examples will be summarized concisely in the abstract while preserving its length. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Method description (kinematic estimation step): kinematic parameters are obtained via global coevolutionary optimization performed on the same input traces that are subsequently regularized; this introduces a circularity in which the traveltime surfaces used for stacking are shaped by a fit to the very data being enhanced, undermining the claim that the trajectories are independently 'physically consistent'.

    Authors: We acknowledge the concern about potential circularity. The coevolutionary optimization is performed exclusively on the recorded input traces to determine the multi-parameter kinematic model that best satisfies the physical constraints (wavefront propagation, isochronous surfaces, specular reflection, and diffraction). These parameters are then used to define stacking trajectories that enforce consistency across the entire 5D volume, including at unrecorded locations. In the revision we will expand the methods section with a flowchart and pseudocode clarifying this separation, and we will add a robustness test showing that parameter estimates remain stable under added noise before stacking is applied. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's method estimates kinematic parameters from input data via optimization and applies them within an explicit physics-based model (wavefront propagation, isochronous surfaces, specular reflection, diffraction kinematics) to define stacking trajectories for regularization. This does not reduce the reconstructed output to the inputs by construction, nor does it present fitted values as independent predictions. No self-definitional equations, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling appear in the abstract or described chain. The approach is a standard data-driven interpolation constrained by stated physical relations, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on fitting multiple kinematic parameters from the data and on standard assumptions about seismic wave propagation; no independent external benchmarks or machine-checked derivations are referenced in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • multi-parameter kinematic parameters
    Estimated directly from the data through global coevolutionary optimization to define the OCT stacking trajectories.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Wavefront propagation, isochronous surface geometry, specular reflection, and diffraction kinematics provide accurate descriptions of seismic event traveltimes.
    Invoked to derive the OCT operator from CRP traveltime stacking.
invented entities (1)
  • Offset-continuation-trajectory (OCT) operator no independent evidence
    purpose: To generate coherent stacking trajectories for 5D data reconstruction and enhancement.
    Introduced as the core new operator in the framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5764 in / 1327 out tokens · 27719 ms · 2026-06-25T21:27:11.040527+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [2]

    R. H. Stolt, A. B. Weglein, Seismic Imaging and Inversion: Appli- cation of Linear Inverse Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139056250

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139056250 2012

  2. [3]

    Ma, J.-P

    C. Ma, J.-P. Huang, Z.-X. Qiao, S.-F. Li, W.-S. Duan, G.-L. Lei, Irreg- ularly seismic data interpolation based on deep learning with integrated channel-spatial attention mechanism, Petroleum Science

  3. [4]

    J. Park, S. Kim, S. J. Seol, J. Byun, Improving generalization perfor- mance of deep learning–based seismic data interpolation, Geophysical Prospecting 73 (5) (2025) 1534–1551. 30

    2025

  4. [5]

    B. Liu, M. Sacchi, Minimum weighted norm interpolation of seismic records, Geophysics 69 (6) (2004) 1560–1568.doi:10.1190/1.1836829

    work page doi:10.1190/1.1836829 2004

  5. [6]

    H. Kaur, N. Pham, S. Fomel, Seismic data interpolation using cycle- gan, in: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2019, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2019, pp. 2202–2206

    2019

  6. [7]

    B. Wang, N. Zhang, W. Lu, J. Wang, Deep-learning-based seismic data interpolation: A preliminary result, Geophysics 84 (1) (2019) V11–V20

    2019

  7. [8]

    Mikhailiuk, A

    A. Mikhailiuk, A. Faul, Deep learning applied to seismic data inter- polation, in: 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2018, Vol. 2018, European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2018, pp. 1–5

    2018

  8. [9]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801580

    Öz Yilmaz, Seismic Data Analysis: Processing, Inversion, and Inter- pretation of Seismic Data, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2001. doi:https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801580

    work page doi:10.1190/1.9781560801580 2001

  9. [10]

    F. J. Herrmann, D. Wang, G. Hennenfent, P. P. Moghaddam, Curvelet- based seismic data processing: A multiscale and nonlinear approach, Geophysics 73 (1) (2008) A1–A5.doi:https://doi.org/10.1190/1. 2799517

    work page doi:10.1190/1 2008

  10. [11]

    Trickett, F-xy Cadzow noise suppression, in: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2008, pp

    S. Trickett, F-xy Cadzow noise suppression, in: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2008, pp. 2586–2590.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1190/1.3063880

    2008

  11. [12]

    N. S. Neidell, M. T. Taner, Semblance and other coherency measures for multichannel data, Geophysics 36 (3) (1971) 482–497.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1190/1.1440186

    work page doi:10.1190/1.1440186 1971

  12. [13]

    Trad, Five-dimensional interpolation: Recovering from acquisition constraints, Geophysics (2009) 1ND–Z107doi:10.1190/1.3245216

    D. Trad, Five-dimensional interpolation: Recovering from acquisition constraints, Geophysics (2009) 1ND–Z107doi:10.1190/1.3245216

    work page doi:10.1190/1.3245216 2009

  13. [14]

    Spitz, Seismic trace interpolation in the F-X domain, Geophysics 56 (6) (1991) 785–794.doi:10.1190/1.1443096

    S. Spitz, Seismic trace interpolation in the F-X domain, Geophysics 56 (6) (1991) 785–794.doi:10.1190/1.1443096

    work page doi:10.1190/1.1443096 1991

  14. [15]

    R. Abma, N. Kabir, 3D interpolation of irregular data with a POCS al- gorithm, Geophysics 71 (6) (2006) E91–E97.doi:10.1190/1.2369988. 31

    work page doi:10.1190/1.2369988 2006

  15. [16]

    T. A. Coimbra, J. Schleicher, A. Novais, Offset-continuation stacking: Theory and proof of concept, Geophysics 81 (5) (2016) V387–V401. doi:10.1190/geo2015-0473.1

    work page doi:10.1190/geo2015-0473.1 2016

  16. [17]

    F. J. Herrmann, G. Hennenfent, Non-parametric seismic data recovery with curvelet frames, Geophysical Journal International 173 (1) (2008) 233–248.doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03698. x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2007.03698 2008

  17. [18]

    S. Xu, Y. Zhang, D. Pham, G. Lambaré, Antileakage fourier transform for seismic data regularization, Geophysics 70 (6) (2005) V87–V95.doi: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1993713

    work page doi:10.1190/1.1993713 2005

  18. [19]

    Kreimer, M

    N. Kreimer, M. D. Sacchi, A tensor higher-order singular value decom- position for prestack seismic data noise reduction and reconstruction, Geophysics 77 (3) (2012) V113–V122.doi:https://doi.org/10.1190/ geo2011-0399.1

    2012

  19. [20]

    Fomel, Seismic data regularization with differential offset continu- ation, Geophysics 68 (2) (2003) 430–760.doi:https://doi.org/10

    S. Fomel, Seismic data regularization with differential offset continu- ation, Geophysics 68 (2) (2003) 430–760.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1190/1.1567243

    2003

  20. [21]

    Biondi, 3D Seismic Imaging, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2006.doi:https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801689.fm

    B. Biondi, 3D Seismic Imaging, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2006.doi:https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801689.fm

    work page doi:10.1190/1.9781560801689.fm 2006

  21. [22]

    Metamorphictestingoflarge languagemodelsfornaturallanguageprocessing.doi:10.48550/arXiv

    J. Ribeiro, N. Okita, T. A. Coimbra, J. H. Faccipieri, Ultra-fast travel- time parameters search by a coevolutionary optimization approach us- ing graphics processing units, arXiv 2304.11399.doi:10.48550/ARXIV. 2304.11399. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2304.11399

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv

  22. [23]

    Klem-Musatov, A

    K. Klem-Musatov, A. M. Aizenberg, J. Pajchel, H. B. Helle, Edge and Tip Diffractions: Theory and Applications in Seismic Prospecting, So- ciety of Exploration Geophysicists, 2003.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1190/1.9781560801627.fm

    2003

  23. [24]

    Hubral, Time migration—some ray theoretical aspects, Geophysical Prospecting 25 (4) (1977) 738–745.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2478.1977

    P. Hubral, Time migration—some ray theoretical aspects, Geophysical Prospecting 25 (4) (1977) 738–745.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2478.1977. tb01200.x. 32

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2478.1977 1977

  24. [25]

    T. A. Coimbra, J. H. Faccipieri, J. H. Speglich, L.-J. Gelius, M. Tygel, Enhancement of diffractions in prestack domain by means of a finite- offset double-square-root traveltime, Geophysics 84 (1) (2019) V81–V96. doi:10.1190/geo2018-0160.1

    work page doi:10.1190/geo2018-0160.1 2019

  25. [26]

    D. Hale, N. R. Hill, J. Stefani, Imaging salt with turning seismic waves, Geophysics 57 (11) (1992) 1453–1462.doi:10.1190/1.1443213

    work page doi:10.1190/1.1443213 1992

  26. [27]

    T. A. Coimbra, J. H. Faccipieri, D. S. Rueda, M. Tygel, Common- reflection-point time migration, Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 60 (3) (2016) 500–530.doi:10.1007/s11200-015-0392-1. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11200-015-0392-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11200-015-0392-1 2016

  27. [28]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441702

    D.Hale, Dip-moveoutbyfouriertransform, GEOPHYSICS49(6)(1984) 741–757.doi:10.1190/1.1441702. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441702

    work page doi:10.1190/1.1441702 1984

  28. [29]

    Direct full waveform inversion of DAS fiber-optic data,

    N. Okita, T. Coimbra, J. Faccipieri, Ultra-fast diffraction separation in the five-dimensional domain, in: 85th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2024, p. 1–5.doi:10.3997/2214-4609.202410027. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202410027

    work page doi:10.3997/2214-4609.202410027 2024

  29. [30]

    Ribeiro, T

    J. Ribeiro, T. A. Coimbra, N. T. Okita, G. B. Ignácio, M. Tygel, Using adaptive differential evolution algorithm to improve parameter estima- tion in seismic processing: extended results, Brazilian Journal of Geo- physics 38 (3).doi:10.22564/rbgf.v38i3.2059. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.22564/rbgf.v38i3.2059

    work page doi:10.22564/rbgf.v38i3.2059 2059

  30. [31]

    T. A. Coimbra, J. H. Faccipieri, L.-J. Gelius, M. Tygel, Enhancement of stacked sections using zo crs parameters, in: 14th International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society & EXPOGEF, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-6 August 2015, Brazilian Geophysical Society, 2015, p. 1251–1255.doi:10.1190/sbgf2015-249. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1190/sbgf2015-249

    work page doi:10.1190/sbgf2015-249 2015

  31. [32]

    J. H. Faccipieri, T. A. Coimbra, L.-J. Gelius, M. Tygel, Stacking apertures and estimation strategies for reflection and diffraction en- hancement, Geophysics 81 (4) (2016) V271–V282.doi:10.1190/ 33 geo2015-0525.1. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1190/geo2015-0525.1 34 Figure 1: Schematic representation of the acquisition geometry. The measurement plane is denote...

    work page doi:10.1190/geo2015-0525.1 2016