Seismic diffraction events contain high‐wavenumber information that is critical for imaging small‐scale discontinuities, yet their weak amplitudes are often obscured by strong reflection energy. Diffusion models offer a powerful framework for diffraction separation, but their iterative reverse‐diffusion sampling is computationally expensive. In contrast, supervised encoder–decoder separators enable efficient single‐pass inference but rely heavily on the quality and diversity of paired training data. To combine the advantages of both paradigms, we propose a diffusion‐prior‐regularized encoder–decoder separator that retains single‐pass inference while exploiting a frozen pretrained diffusion model as a statistical prior during training. The diffusion prior guides predicted diffraction wavefields towards the learned distribution of clean diffraction wavefields and is not required at inference time. Quantitative synthetic experiments demonstrate that the proposed method achieves higher separation accuracy than the supervised encoder–decoder baseline. Results on the Sigsbee2A benchmark further show reduced structural leakage, while the field‐data example provides a diagnostic comparison of component similarity. Because ground‐truth labels are unavailable for the field data, these results are interpreted as diagnostics rather than direct validation. On the synthetic test set, the conditional diffusion model achieves the highest accuracy but incurs substantially higher computational cost. In comparison, the proposed separator provides a more practical accuracy–efficiency trade‐off, maintaining competitive accuracy while significantly reducing inference time relative to the conditional diffusion model and approaching the computational efficiency of the supervised encoder–decoder separator.
Full waveform inversion (FWI) estimates subsurface velocity from seismic recordings, but its ill-posedness and nonlinearity make accurate reconstruction strongly dependent on initialization and prior information. Diffusion posterior sampling provides a learned geological prior, yet directly coupling its denoiser to the...
Chen Min, Hao-Wen Jiang, Zheng Ma et al.· 0 citations
Seismic data are widely used in subsurface energy exploration. However, several factors affect seismic data quality. Seismic data reconstruction is essential when acquisition is incomplete because missing sources or receivers produce subsampled shot-gathers with incomplete trace coverage that degrades data quality an...
L. Rodríguez-López, Paul Goyes-Peñafiel, L. Galvis et al.· The Leading Edge· 0 citations
Seismic data augmentation is critical for training robust deep learning (DL) models for fault detection and characterization, yet conventional approaches remain inadequate. Geometric transforms, e.g., flips or rotations, and noise injection fail to capture realistic seismic textures, while physics-based forward modelin...
Tolulope Q. Agbaje, N. Pham, A. Sansal et al.· 0 citations
Seismic data resolution is crucial for subsurface imaging. But factors such as the finite bandwidth of seismic sources, wavelet interference and noise often degrade the clarity of reflectors, making their detection challenging. Although recent advances in seismic data processing methods have shown promise in enhancing...
Seismic data are inevitably contaminated by random noise arising from various sources, which seriously degrades the quality of subsequent data processing, inversion, and interpretation. Deep learning has emerged as an effective approach for seismic random noise attenuation. However, these methods are often susceptible...
Yun-Hong Wang, Rui-Hua Chen, Jun Lin et al.· IEEE Geoscience and Remote S...· 0 citations
Seismic data interpolation is crucial for improving data quality and ensuring reliable subsurface interpretation. While deep learning methods have shown strong potential for this task, they often struggle to preserve the spatial continuity and global consistency of seismic data under complex missing conditions, leading...