You are on page 1of 20

CWP-658

Tutorial on seismic interferometry. Part I: Basic principles and applications
K. Wapenaar1, D. Draganov1, R. Snieder2, X. Campman3 & A. Verdel3
1 Department 2 Center

of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands for Wave Phenomena, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado 80401, USA 3 Shell International Exploration and Production B.V., Rijswijk, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT

In part I of this two-part tutorial we explain the basic principles of seismic interferometry (also known as Green’s function retrieval) step-by-step and discuss its applications. We start with a 1D example (a plane wave propagating along the x-axis) and show that the crosscorrelation of the responses at two receivers along the x-axis gives the Green’s function of the direct wave between these receivers. The 1D analysis continues with the introduction of the different aspects of interferometry with transient sources (as in exploration seismology) and with noise sources (as in passive seismology). Next we discuss 2D and 3D direct wave interferometry and show that the main contributions to the retrieved Green’s function come from sources in Fresnel zones around stationary points. The main application of direct wave interferometry is the retrieval of seismic surface wave responses from ambient noise and the subsequent tomographic determination of the surface-wave velocity distribution of the subsurface. In a classic paper, Claerbout showed that the autocorrelation of the transmission response of a layered medium gives the reflection response of that medium. This is essentially 1D reflected wave interferometry. We discuss this extensively as an introduction to 2D and 3D reflected wave interferometry. One of the main applications of reflected wave interferometry is the retrieval of the seismic reflection response from ambient noise and the subsequent imaging of the reflectors in the subsurface. A common aspect of direct and reflected wave interferometry is that virtual sources are created at positions where there are only receivers, without requiring knowledge of the subsurface medium parameters nor of the positions of the actual sources. Key words: seismic interferometry

INTRODUCTION In this two-part tutorial we give an overview of the basic principles and the underlying theory of seismic interferometry and discuss applications and new advances. The term “seismic interferometry” refers to the principle of generating new seismic responses of virtual sources⋆ by crosscorrelating seismic observations at different receiver locations. One can distinguish between
⋆ In the literature on seismic interferometry, the term “virtual source” often refers to the method of Bakulin and Calvert

controlled-source and passive seismic interferometry. Controlled-source seismic interferometry, pioneered by Schuster (2001), Bakulin and Calvert (2004) and others,
(2004, 2006) which is discussed extensively in Part II. Note, however, that creating a virtual source is the essence of virtually all seismic interferometry methods (see e.g. Schuster (2001), who already used this terminology). In this paper (Parts I and II) we use the term “virtual source” whenever appropriate. When it refers to Bakulin and Calvert’s method we will mention this explicitly.

222

K. Wapenaar, et al.
try the normal-mode approach breaks down. Throughout this paper we consider seismic interferometry (or Green’s function retrieval) in open systems, including half-spaces below a free surface. Instead of a treatment per field of application or a chronological discussion, we have chosen for a setup in which we explain the principles of seismic interferometry step by step. In Part I we start with the basic principles of 1D direct-wave interferometry and conclude with a discussion of the principles of 3D reflected-wave interferometry. We discuss applications in controlled-source as well as passive interferometry and, where appropriate, we review the historical background. To stay focussed on seismic applications, we refrain from a further discussion of the normal-mode approach, nor do we discuss the many interesting applications of Green’s function retrieval in underwater acoustics (e.g. Roux and Fink (2003), Sabra et al. (2005c), Brooks and Gerstoft (2007)).

comprises a new processing methodology for seismic exploration data. Apart from crosscorrelation, controlledsource interferometry also involves summation of correlations over different source positions. Passive seismic interferometry, on the other hand, is a methodology for turning passive seismic measurements (ambient seismic noise or (micro-) earthquake responses) into deterministic seismic responses. Here we further distinguish between retrieving surface-wave transmission responses (Campillo and Paul, 2003; Shapiro and Campillo, 2004; Sabra et al., 2005a) and exploration-type reflection responses (Claerbout, 1968; Scherbaum, 1987b; Draganov et al., 2007, 2009). In passive interferometry of ambient noise, no explicit summation of correlations over different source positions is required, since the correlated responses are a superposition of simultaneously acting uncorrelated sources. In all cases, the response that is retrieved by crosscorrelating two receiver recordings (and summing over different sources) can be interpreted as the response that would be measured at one of the receiver locations as if there were a source at the other. Because such a point-source response is equal to a Green’s function convolved with a wavelet, seismic interferometry is also often called “Green’s function retrieval”. Both terminologies are used in this paper. The term interferometry is borrowed from radio astronomy, in which it refers to crosscorrelation methods applied to radio signals from distant objects Thompson et al. (2001). The name Green’s function honors George Green who, in a privately published essay, introduced the use of impulse responses in field representations Green (1828). Challis and Sheard (2003) give a brief history of Green’s life and theorem. Ram´ ırez and Weglein (2009) review applications of Green’s theorem in seismic processing. Early successful results of Green’s function retrieval from noise correlations were obtained in the field of ultrasonics Weaver and Lobkis (2001, 2002). The experiments were done with diffuse fields in a closed system. Here “diffuse” means that the amplitudes of the normal modes are uncorrelated but have equal expected energies. Hence, the crosscorrelation of the field at two receiver positions does not contain cross-terms of unequal normal modes. The sum of the remaining terms is proportional to the modal representation of the Green’s function of the closed system Lobkis and Weaver (2001). Hence, the crosscorrelation of a diffuse field in a closed system converges to its impulse response. Later it was recognized, e.g. Godin (2007), that this theoretical explanation is akin to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (Callen and Welton, 1951; Rytov, 1956; Rytov et al., 1989; Le Bellac et al., 2004). The Earth is a closed system, but at the scale of global seismology the wavefield is far from diffuse. At the scale of exploration seismology, an ambient noise field may have a diffuse character, but the encompassing system is not closed. Hence, for seismic interferome-

DIRECT-WAVE INTERFEROMETRY 1D analysis of direct-wave interferometry We start our explanation of seismic interferometry by considering an illustrative 1D analysis of direct-wave interferometry. Figure 1a shows a plane wave, radiated by an impulsive unit source at x = xS and t = 0, propagating in the rightward direction along the x-axis. We assume that the propagation velocity c is constant and the medium is lossless. There are two receivers along the x-axis, at xA and xB , respectively. Figure 1b shows the response observed by the first receiver at xA . We denote this response as G(xA , xS , t), where G stands for Green’s function. Throughout this paper we use the common convention that the first two arguments in G(xA , xS , t) denote the receiver and source coordinates, respectively (here xA and xS ), whereas the last argument denotes time (t) or angular frequency (ω ). In our example this Green’s function consists of an impulse at tA = (xA − xS )/c, hence G(xA , xS , t) = δ (t − tA ), where δ (t) is the Dirac delta function. Similarly, the response at xB is given by G(xB , xS , t) = δ (t − tB ), with tB = (xB − xS )/c (Figure 1c). Seismic interferometry involves the crosscorrelation of responses at two receivers, in this case at xA and xB . Looking at Figure 1a, it appears that the raypaths associated with G(xA , xS , t) and G(xB , xS , t) have the path from xS to xA in common. The traveltime along this common path cancels in the crosscorrelation process, leaving the traveltime along the remaining path from xA to xB , i.e., tB − tA = (xB − xA )/c. Hence, the crosscorrelation of the responses in Figures 1b and 1c is an impulse at tB − tA , see Figure 1d. This impulse can be interpreted as the response of a source at xA , observed by a receiver at xB , i.e., the Green’s function G(xB , xA , t). An interesting observation is that the propagation velocity (c) and the position of the actual source (xS ) need not be

analogous to equation 2. observed at xB . then the responses at xA and xB can be written as u(xA . (2) 0 d) t 0 tB  t A t Figure 1. −t). G(xB . This is interpreted as the response of a source at xA . t+t′ )G(xA . (a) A plane wave traveling rightward along the x-axis. −t). x′ S . the figures show only 4 s of a total of 160 s of noise). which would be canceled in the crosscorrelation. xS . Figures 2a and 2b show the responses at xA and xB . (d) Crosscorrelation of the responses at xA and xB . Hence. t) ∗ G(xA . except that now an impulsive unit source at x = x′ S radiates a leftward-propagating plane wave. including noise. This is indeed the Green’s function G(xB . t) ∗ s(t) and u(xB . defined as G(xB . The crosscorrelation of these responses gives ′ δ (t − (t ′ B − tA )) = δ (t + (xB − xA )/c).. t) ∗ G(xA . The traveltimes along the common path from xS to xA compensate each other. t) = δ (t − tA ). for the configuration of Figure 3a we obtain the following Green’s function representation ′ G(xB . Note that the source is not necessarily an impulse. t′ )dt′ . convolved with the autocorrelation of the source function. xS . respectively. This illustrates that direct-wave interferometry can be used for tomographic inversion. t) ∗ u(xA . t). we have obtained the following 1D Green’s function representation G(xB . Figure 3b is ′ the response at xA . convolved with SN (t). i. Hence.6 s) we obtain an estimate of the propagation velocity between the receivers (2000 m/s). By dividing the distance between the receivers (1200 m) by the traveltime estimated from the bandlimited Green’s function (0. Similarly. This is the Green’s function G(xA . convolved with Ss (t). t) ∗ G(xA . In this numerical example the distance between the receivers is 1200 m and the propagation velocity is 2000 m/s. xS .6 s. xS .6 s (the traveltime from xA to xB ). the autocorrelation of the noise N (t). we have obtained a bandlimited version of the Green’s function. xS . Ss (t) = s(t) ∗ s(−t). In words: if the source function is a wavelet instead of an impulse. t) = G(xB . We denote the crosscorrelation of the impulse responses at xA and xB as G(xB . xS . Similarly. x′ S . xS . which is equal to the time-reversed Green’s function G(xB . given by G(xA . t) = G(xB . xS . This is equal to the left-hand side of equation 1. tS . It also shows why seismic interferometry is often called Green’s function retrieval. i. xS . ′ ′ with tA = (xS − xA )/c. −t). (3) . Let us discuss this example a bit more precisely. −t) = R G(xB . hence. xS . xS .. −t) = G(xB .6 s delayed with respect to the response at xA in Figure 2a (similar as the impulse in Figure 1c is delayed with respect to the impulse in Figure 1b). xA . The asterisk denotes temporal convolution. xS . xS . xS . the impulse response between xA and xB . the traveltime between these receivers is 0. The correlation is shown in Figure 2c. xS . x′ S . t) ∗ G(xA . of a bandlimited noise source N (t) at xS (the central frequency of the noise is 30 Hz.. then the crosscorrelation of the responses at two receivers gives the Green’s function between these receivers. The response observed by a receiver at xA . In Figure 3a we consider the same configuration as in Figure 1a.Tutorial on seismic interferometry.e. independent of the propagation velocity and the length of this path. respectively. Crosscorrelation of these noise responses gives. t) ∗ s(t). 1D example of direct-wave interferometry. xA . xS . Note that from registrations at two receivers of a noise field from an unknown source in a medium with unknown propagation velocity. with tB = (xS − xB )/c (Figure 3c). Substituting R the delta functions into the right-hand side gives δ (t + t′ − tB )δ (t′ − tA )dt′ = δ (t − (tB − tA )) = δ (t − (xB − xA )/c). xS . hence G(xB . which indeed reveals a bandlimited impulse centered at t = 0. but the time-reversal of the second Green’s function turns the convolution into a correlation. xA . t) and u(xB . Until now we considered a single plane wave propagating in the positive x-direction. the noise response at xB in Figure 2b is 0. if the source impulse would occur at t = tS instead of at t = 0. t) ∗ Ss (t) = u(xB . Since we started this derivation with the crosscorrelation of the Green’s functions. As a consequence.e. −t).e. (b). Part I a) 223 xS b) xA xB x 0 c) tA tB t If the source function is defined by some wavelet s(t). (c) As in (b). Let Ss (t) be the autocorrelation of the wavelet. but for a receiver at xB . i. propagating from xA to xB . xA . xA . t) gives the right-hand side of equation 1. emitted by an impulsive source at x = xS and t = 0. This principle holds true for any source function. t) = δ (t − tB ). the impulses observed at xA and xB would be shifted by the same amount of time. xS . Then the crosscorrelation of u(xA . known. −t). also the absolute time tS at which the source emits its pulse needs not be known. (1) This representation formulates the principle that the crosscorrelation of observations at two receivers (xA and xB ) gives the response at one of those receivers (xB ) as if there were a source at the other (xA ). xA . convolved with Ss (t). t). t) = G(xA . the response at xB is ′ ′ ′ G(xB . t).

t) ∗ G(xA .02 −0.5 2 2. t) = P2 (j ) j =1 G(xB . xA .04 −0. (i) (i) (5) 0 d) tB ' tB ' '  tA t 0 t Figure 3. see Figures 5a . xS . (i) (i) (4) where xS for i = 1. a) xA b) xB tA ' xS' x G(xB . because this representation better resembles the 2D and 3D representations we encounter later. These j =1 responses are shown in Figures 4b and 4c for an impulsive source (s(t) = δ (t)). xS .02 0 −0. which is equal to G(xB . xA . As in Figure 1.06 a) 0.5 1 1. Then the responses at x A and xB are given P (i) by u(xA . t) ∗ Ni (t) and u(xB .2 0 0. {G(xB . (c) The crosscorrelation. analogous to equation 2. t) ∗ N (t). however.4 −0.4 0.5 2 2. As in Figure 1. xA . xS . xS . t) = G(xA . t) + G(xB . xS . The right-hand sides of equations 4 and 5 state that the crosscorrelation is applied to the responses of each source separately. xA . xA . xS . contains two crossterms ′ at tB − t′ A and tB − tA which have no physical meaning. For the 1D situation this combination may not seem very useful. respectively. −t)} ∗ Ss (t) = 2 X i=1 0 c) t u(xB .0 -0. xA . −t). t) ∗ s(t). xS . t) + G(xB . t) is the causal response of an impulse at t = 0 (meaning it is non-zero only for t > 0). −t) = 2 X i=1 G(xB . −t) (which is non-zero only for t < 0). The crosscorrelation in (d) contains crossterms which have no physical meaning. The crosscorrelation in (d) is interpreted as the time-reversed Green’s function G(xB .06 0. −t) ∗ Ss (t) for small |t| (depending on the length of the autocorrelation function Ss (t)). t) ∗ Nj (t).224 K. xA . Wapenaar. If the source function is a wavelet s(t) with autocorrelation Ss (t).04 −0.1 0. xA . t) ∗ Ss (t) can be extracted from the left-hand side of equation 5. As in Figures 1 and 3. Figure 4. We analyze it here. Hence G(xB . but this time for a leftwardtraveling impulsive plane wave. after which the summation over the sources is carried out. et al. 2 stands for xS and x′ S .5 3 3.04 0. but for a receiver at xB .e. i.and leftward-traveling impulsive plane waves. respectively. We can combine equations 1 and 3 as follows G(xB .1 0 1 2 3 t (s) b) b) 0.6 0. xS .. shown in Figure 4d. with SN (t) the autocorrelation of the noise. we obtain. xA . Hence.5 4 t −0. t) ∗ Ss (t) may have some overlap with G(xB . respectively. t) = G ( x . t) ∗ u(xA . xS .1 0.06 −0. This is different for noise sources. Note that since G(xB . G(xB . x . −t).08 0.5 t (s) tB '  tA ' tB '  t A 0 t B  t A' tB  t A t Figure 2. Then at xA would be given by P2the response (i) u(xA .06 −0.6 −0. but with simultaneously rightward. Suppose the sources at xS and x′ S would act simultaneously. t) can be resolved from the left-hand side of equation 4 simply by extracting the causal part. (b) As in (a). (a) The response observed at xA . xA . t) = G (xB . −t). The crosscorrelation of these responses.5 4 xA tA tB ' tA ' xB xS' x −0. t) ∗ SN (t).2 0.08 xS 0 0.02 0 0 0. as illustrated in Figure 4a. Consider two simultaneously acting noise sources N1 (t) and N2 (t) at xS and x′ S .08 −0. but this time for a noise source N (t) at xS .08 0. t ) ∗ s(t) and the response A i=1 P2S (j ) at xB by u(xB . for impulsive or transient sources the order of crosscorrelation and summation matters.04 0. xA . except for small distances |xB − xA |.02 0 −0.5 3 3. xA .5 0 0. t) = 2 i=1 G(xA . Let us see why. it does not overlap with (i) Here G(xB .1 c) 0 1 2 3 t (s) c) 50 40 30 0 d) −0. For impulsive sources or transient wavelets s(t) these steps should not be interchanged. a) 0.8 1 tB t 20 10 0 −10 −20 −30 −1 -1. Hence.8 −0.5 1 1. u(xA .

1 0.5 4 0 1 2 3 t (s) b) 0.04 0.04 −0. gives the Green’s function between xA and xB plus its time-reversed version. at Cold Lake. For a more precise derivation. xA . −t)} ∗ SN (t) = u(xB . Alberta. with two receivers at xA and xB . This expression shows that the crosscorrelation of two observed fields at xA and xB . For the cross correlation of the responses at xA and xB we may now write fiX 2 X 2 ˙ ¸ (j ) u(xB .06 0.Tutorial on seismic interferometry. In the following we mainly use heuristic arguments.2 0. Despite the relative simplicity of our 1D analysis of direct-wave interferometry. Miyazawa et al. we can make a number of observations about seismic interferometry that also hold true for more general situations: • We can distinguish between interferometry for impulsive or transient sources on the one hand (equations 4 and 5) and interferometry for noise sources on the other hand (equation 7). Canada.and leftward-propagating noise fields.06 −0. In the case of impulsive or transient sources. (2008) applied equation 7 with xA and xB at different depths along a borehole in the presence of industrial noise.5 0 0.and S -waves.6 −0. Note that a simple time differentiation of the Green’s functions would turn the symmetric response into an anti-symmetric one and vice versa (see Wapenaar and Fokkema (2006) for a more detailed discussion on this aspect). −t) . −t) 225 a) 0. we refer to Snieder (2004). illustrated with a numerical example. In the case of uncorrelated noise sources a single crosscorrelation suffices.08 −0.5 2 2. From the arrival times in the Green’s functions they derived the different propagation velocities and were able to accurately quantify shearwave splitting.04 −0. Note that. t) ∗ G(xA . the responses of each of these sources must be crosscorrelated separately. Part I and 5b. The crossterms. • It appears that an isotropic illumination of the receivers is required to obtain a time-symmetric response between the receivers (of which the causal part is the actual response). based on stationary-phase analysis.and leftwardpropagating waves.1 0 0. the response in Figure 5b is not a shifted version of that in Figure 5a (unlike the responses in Figures 2a and b). see Figure 5c.8 1 = 2 X i=1 -1. In the numerical example the duration of the noise signals is again 160 s (only 4s of noise is shown in Figures 5a and 5b). As in Figure 4.04 0.6 0. −t). (i) (i) t (s) Combining this with equation 4 we finally obtain {G(xB .02 0 −0. In 1D.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 2 2. The propagation velocity c is 2000 m/s and the medium is again assumed to be loss- .06 0. t) ∗ u(xA .4 −0. In practice the ensemble averaging is replaced by integrating over sufficiently long time. because each of these responses is the superposition of a rightward.0 -0. xS . where δij is the Kronecker delta function and · denotes ensemble averaging. but this time with simultaneously rightward. xA . −t) = G(xB . they retrieved separate Green’s functions for P .08 0. t) + G(xB . t) − G(xB . (7) Figure 5. 2D and 3D analysis of direct-wave interferometry We extend our discussion of direct-wave interferometry to configurations with more dimensions. after which a summation over the sources takes place. t) ∗ u(xA . −t). The horizontal dashed line corresponds to the 1D configuration of Figure 1a. “isotropic illumination” means equal illumination by rightward. hence Nj (t) ∗ Ni (−t) = δij SN (t).5 4 0 1 2 3 t (s) c) 20 15 10 5 ∗ Ni (−t) fl (6) 0 −5 −10 −1 −0.02 −0. do not contribute because the noise sources N1 (t) and N2 (t) are uncorrelated.and a leftwardpropagating wave. We assume that the noise sources are uncorrelated.5 3 3. By choosing for u different components of multicomponent sensors in the borehole.8 −0. This is merely a result of differently defined Green’s functions. convolved with the autocorrelation of the noise. The crosscorrelation in (c) contains no crossterms. In 2D and 3D it means equal illumination from all directions (discussed in next subsection). xS .5 G(xB . • Instead of the time-symmetric response G(xB . xS .4 0.08 −0. xA . Consider the 2D configuration shown in Figure 6a.2 0 0. xA . each of which is the superposition of rightward.1 0 0. xS .1 0. −t) ∗ SN (t).08 0.and leftward-traveling uncorrelated noise fields. in the literature we often encounter an anti-symmetric response G(xB . the latter with different polarizations.06 −0. xA .02 −0.02 0 −0. t) + G(xB .5 3 3. t) ∗ Nj (t) j =1 i=1 (i) ∗G(xA . 1200 m apart (the boldface x denotes a Cartesian coordinate vector). xA . unlike in Figure 4d.

(e) The sum of the correlations in (d).0 1 −300 −200 −100 0 100 200 300 Figure 6.6 0.2 00 0. (f) Single crosscorrelation of the responses at xA and xB of simultaneously acting uncorrelated noise sources.5 0.4 −0.4 0.0 -90 2 −50 0 0 50 90 100 150 180 200 IS 270 250 d) −1 -1.4 0.01 -90 0 0 50 90 100 150 180 200 IS 270 250 1. (a) Distribution of point sources.2 -0.8 e) -1. The main contributions come from sources in the Fresnel zones indicated in (a) and (d).8 −0. (d) Crosscorrelation of the responses at xA and xB .2 1.2 c) 00 0.6 0.0 −0. The thick dashed lines indicate the Fresnel zones.8 1.6 -0.6 1. a) 3000 90 o 2000 1000 0 o 0 xA IS −2000 −1000 0 xB 180 o −1000 −2000 −3000 −3000 90 o 1000 2000 3000 b) 00 0.2 0.5 1.5 −0.4 0.2 00 0.2 00 0.2 -0.6 −0.5 0.6 0. isotropically illuminating the receivers at xA and xB . xA .5 1.0 -90 2 0 0 50 90 100 150 180 200 250 IS 270 2. 2D example of direct-wave interferometry.5 −0.6 −0.0 −1 −0.8 t −50 t −0.226 K.6 0.4 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. This is interpreted as {G(xB .5 0. (c) Responses at xB . xA .8 t −50 1.6 −0.0 −0. et al.5 0.8 1 0.5 −0.5 0.4 −0.6 0.0 −11 1.8 2.2 0. −t)} ∗ Ss (t).8 t 0. t) + G(xB .4 −0.4 −0.8 f) -1.2 1.4 1. The duration of the noise signals was 9600 s.8 −0. The dashed lines indicate again the Fresnel zones.4 0.8 0.01 1.2 0 0. Wapenaar.6 t 1. .8 1.0 1 1. (b) Responses at xA as a function of the (polar) source coordinate φS .

{G(xB . surface waves can be seen as an approximate solution of a 2D wave equation with a frequency-dependent propagation velocity. Such a gather is often called a “correlation gather”. Snieder et al.. As long as only the fundamental mode is considered. in situations with few primary sources but many secondary sources only the late coda is used for Green’s function retrieval Campillo and Paul (2003). These two events are again interpreted as the response of a source at xA . Yao et al.e. These Fresnel zones are denoted by the thick dashed lines in Figures 6a and 6d. It is. xA . Note that the symmetry of the responses in Figures 6e and 6f relies again on the isotropic illumination of the receivers. the sources (in 2D or 3D) are not necessarily primary sources. When many seismometers are available. 2009. however. this can be repeated for any combination of two seismometers. of which the fundamental mode is usually the strongest. (2009).. Figure 7. Note that the traveltimes in this correlation gather vary smoothly with φS . that is. whereas the distance rS to the center of the slice is chosen randomly between 2000 and 3000 m. Of course what has been demonstrated here for a 2D distribution of sources also holds for a 3D source distribution. Fan and Snieder (2009) show an example where the scattered waves excited by a single source are equipartitioned. φS ). surface waves consist of several propagating modes. One of the most widely used applications of directwave interferometry is the retrieval of seismic surface waves between seismometers and the subsequent tomographic determination of the surface-wave velocity distribution of the subsurface. on the net power-flux of the illuminating wavefield being (close to) zero (van Tiggelen.. These responses are crosscorrelated (for each source separately) and the crosscorrelations are shown in Figure 6d. (2005).e. This is because in the crosscorrelation process only the time difference along the paths to xA and xB matters. Analogous to equation 5 we sum the crosscorrelations of all sources. only every 16th trace is shown). but where the crosscorrelation of those scattered waves does not resemble the Green’s function at all. emitting transient signals with a central frequency of 30 Hz. The white triangles represent over . plus its time-reversed version. These secondary sources are not independent. Shapiro and Campillo (2004). The response in Figure 6e has been obtained by summing crosscorrelations of independent transient sources.e. in the sense that energy propagates equally in all directions. the source at φS = 180o plays the same role as the planewave source at x′ S in Figure 3a and leads to the trace at φS = 180o in Figure 6d with a signal at −0.25o ). analogous to equation 7. This approach has been pioneered by Campillo and Paul (2003).a) and Shapiro et al. The responses at the two receivers at xA and xB are shown in Figures 6b and 6c. The crossterms disappear when the noise sources are uncorrelated. despite the randomness of the traveltimes in Figures 6b and 6c. The angle φS is equidistantly sampled (∆φS = 0. t) + 227 G(xB . the positions of the sources are denoted by (rS . as a function of the (polar) source coordinate φS (for display purposes.6 and −0. For this source the crosscorrelation gives a signal at |xB − xA |/c = 0. but also the sources in Fresnel zones around these angles. In other words. see Figure 6f. Instead of plane-wave sources. scatterers in a homogeneous embedding. Part I less. Hence. we have many point sources denoted by the small black dots. a single crosscorrelation of noise observations at xA and xB gives. Hence. 2004. i. 2006. respectively. xA . Weaver et al. southeast of Lake Tahoe. distributed over a “pineapple slice”. hence. which leads to the time-symmetric response in Figure 6e. Perton et al. where Ss (t) is the autocorrelation of the source wavelet. not only the sources exactly at φS = 0o and φS = 180o contribute to these events. by considering the 2D configuration of Figure 6a as a plan view. where SN (t) is the autocorrelation of the noise. Because the sources have a finite frequency content. (2005b. t) + G(xB . 2009. the response of which is observed by all other seismometers. The noise between the two events in Figure 6e is due to the fact that the traveltime curve in Figure 6d is not 100 % smooth because of the randomness of the source positions in Figure 6a. i. 2003. −t)} ∗ SN (t). reproduced with permission from Lin et al. i. shows a beautiful example of the Rayleighwave response of a virtual source.6s. 2009).6 s. xA . 2007.. California. but the late coda of the multiply scattered response reasonably resembles a diffuse wave field.. observed at xB .. but can also be secondary sources. Note that the events in all traces outside the Fresnel zones in Figure 6d interfere destructively and hence give no coherent contribution in Figure 6e. The Green’s function of the fundamental mode of the direct surface wave can thus be extracted by crosscorrelating ambient noise recordings at two seismometers.. again as a function of φS . Malcolm et al. with two events at 0. not clear how well a scattering medium should be illuminated by different sources for the scatterers to act as independent secondary sources.6 s. Note that the source in Figure 6a with φS = 0o plays the same role as the plane-wave source at xS in Figure 1a. In that case all sources in Fresnel volumes rather than Fresnel zones contribute to the retrieval of the direct wave between xA and xB . Furthermore. xA . In layered media. the analysis above holds for ambient surface-wave noise. we can replace the transient sources by simultaneously acting noise sources. In Figure 6d it can be seen that the centers of these Fresnel zones are the stationary points of the traveltime curve of the crosscorrelations. Using the same arguments as in the previous subsection. {G(xB . which is seen in the trace at φS = 0o in Figure 6d. Similarly. we sum all traces in Figure 6d. In polar coordinates.. Sabra et al.Tutorial on seismic interferometry. −t)} ∗ Ss (t). S´ anchezSesma et al.. each seismometer can be turned into a virtual source.

the spatial autocorrelation function obtained from the circular array reveals the local surface-wave velocity as a function of frequency and. The white triangles represent over 400 seismometers (USArray stations). 2008). (2006. 1965) and Toks¨ oz (1964) on the spatial autocorrelation method (SPAC). (2008). Bensen et al. southeast of Lake Tahoe. Yao et al. The success of these applications is explained by the fact that surface waves are by far the strongest events in ambient seismic noise. Stehly et al. The shown response was obtained by crosscorrelating three years of ambient noise. . xA . More recent discussions on the SPAC method are given by Okada (2003. recorded at the station denoted by the star.228 K. Since this noise is coming from the ocean. 1998. Brenguier et al. propagating as plane waves in all directions. An important difference with the interferometry approach is that the distances between the receivers in the SPAC method are usually smaller than half a wavelength Henstridge (1979). with that recorded at all other stations. (2007) have shown that it is possible to retrieve the Rayleigh-wave velocity as a function of frequency. (2009) and Picozzi et al. In the past couple of years the applications of direct surface-wave interferometry have expanded spectacularly. −t)∗SN (t) (note that the location and shape of the Fresnel zone is different for each combination of stations). Kang and Shin (2006). Lin et al. plus a seismometer at the center of the circle. Ocean-generated ambient seismic noise (Longuet-Higgins. Assuming a distribution of uncorrelated fundamental-mode Rayleigh waves. From noise measurements at the Piton de la Fournaise volcano they retrieved the Rayleigh-wave group velocity distribution as a function of frequency and used this to derive a 3D S-wave velocity model of the interior of the volcano. 2006) and Asten (2006). This means that the crosscorrelation of the noise between any two stations does not yield time-symmetric results like those in Figure 6. Wapenaar. xA . California Lin et al. Bensen et al. making it a local method. it is possible to retrieve either G(xB . However. (2005. we mention Larose et al.b). Note that direct surface-wave interferometry has an interesting link with early work by Aki (1957. whereas in direct-wave interferometry the distances are assumed much larger than the wavelength because otherwise the stationary-phase arguments would not hold. et al. (2009). In the next section we show that the retrieval of reflected waves from ambient seismic noise is an order more difficult. Gou´ edard et al. Responses like this are used for tomographic inversion of the Rayleigh-wave velocity of the crust and for the measurement of azimuthal anisotropy in the crust. Without any claim of completeness. (2008a. (2006). Webb. Figure 7. Two snapshots of the Rayleigh-wave response of a virtual source (the white star). The amplitudes exhibit azimuthal variation due to the anisotropic illumination. An interesting discussion on the relation between the SPAC method and seismic interferometry is given by Yokoi and Margaryan (2008). (2008). 2006) was recorded between October 2004 and November 2007. Ma et al. (2009). t)∗SN (t) or G(xB .. Gerstoft et al. it is far from isotropic. 1950. The snapshots shown in Figures 7a and 7b were obtained by crosscorrelating the noise recorded at the station denoted by the star with that recorded at all other stations. (2008). Li et al. The SPAC method employs a circular array of seismometers. 2006). the local depth-dependent velocity profile. Liang and Langston (2008). 400 seismometers (USArray stations). as long as one of the Fresnel zones is sufficiently covered with sources. subsequently. (2007) have combined these approaches to 3D tomographic inversion.

Basic principle of reflected-wave interferometry Schuster (2001. Hence. (b) The transmission response T (t). Part I a) b) c) 229 a) 1 r W r Figure 8. (d) Configuration. The causal part is. (a) A subsurface source emits a wave to the surface where it is received by a geophone. An impulsive unit source in the lower half-space emits a vertically upward-propagating plane wave. Figure 8a shows a source in the subsurface which radiates a transient wave to the Earth’s surface. which is further delayed due to the propagation along the additional path from receiver 1 via the scatterer to receiver 2. The trace contains the wavelet. Let us see how this method deals with multiple reflections. From transmission to reflection response (1D). reflected upward again by a scatterer in the subsurface. (c) The autocorrelation T (t) ∗ T (−t). apart from a minus sign. the propagation along this common path is eliminated. To this end we consider a configuration consisting of a homogeneous lossless layer. see Figure 9a. The wave is re- . The trace contains the delayed source wavelet. explains the basic principle of reflected wave interferometry very well. The propagation paths in Figures 8a and 8b have the path from the subsurface source to the first receiver in common. The result is interpreted as the reflection response of a source at the position of the first geophone. (a) Simple layered medium with an upgoing plane wave radiated by a source in the lower half-space. sandwiched between a free surface and a homogeneous lossless halfspace. leaving the path from receiver 1 via the scatterer to receiver 2 (Figure 8c). c) r 6 G (t ) r4 r 2 r2 't 0 r4 r6 t 3 r 5 r 3 r  R(t ) r r r 5  R(t ) d) G (t ) R(t )  R(t ) T (t ) Figure 9. observed by the second geophone. (b) A second geophone receives a reflected wave. the reflection response R(t). reproduced in Figure 8. 2009). where τ is the transmission coefficient of the interface (we use lower-case symbols for local transmission and reflection coefficients). (c) Crosscorrelation eliminates the propagation along the path from the source to the first geophone. where it is received by a geophone. used to derive the same relation for an arbitrarily layered medium. the first arrival is given by τ δ (t − t0 ). observed at the free surface. which reaches the surface after a time t0 . the result can be interpreted as a reflection experiment with a source at the position of the first geophone. Since it was transmitted by a single interface on its way to the surface. By crosscorrelating the two traces (Schuster denotes this by ⊗). Figure 8b shows how the wave is reflected downward by the surface. and received by a second geophone at the Earth’s surface. of which the reflection response is received by the second geophone. b) T (t ) 0 W 't t0 r 2W r 4W r 6W t 3  rW  r W  r 5W REFLECTED-WAVE INTERFEROMETRY 1D analysis of reflected-wave interferometry The figure on the cover of Schuster’s book on seismic interferometry Schuster (2009). This arrival is represented by the impulse at t = t0 in Figure 9b.Tutorial on seismic interferometry.

for an upp particle velocity. The total downgoing wavefield below the lowest interface is given by the global transmission response T (t). 3∆t etc. √ going wave. we obtain r 2 δ (t − 2∆t).and downgoing waves (Frasier. Hence. which was necessary to get the time-symmetric response. The net power-flux just below the free surface is given by ˆD ˆ∗ − U ˆU ˆ∗ D = = ˆ )(1 − R ˆ ∗) − R ˆR ˆ∗ (1 − R ˆ−R ˆ ∗.and leftward-propagating waves. with ∆t = 2∆z/c. Figure 9b shows the total upgoing wavefield reaching the free surface. which of course only holds in lossless media. For timelags 2∆t. Here the illuminating wavefield is an impulsive downgoing plane wave at the free surface (denoted by δ (t) in Figure 9d). It is denoted as T (t).230 K. or R (t ) + R (− t ) = δ (t ) − T (t ) ∗ T (− t ). We obtain the simplest result if we consider so-called “power-flux normalized” up. the righthand side of equation 10 is equal to the net power-flux ˆT ˆ ∗ . Because we consider a lossless medium. etc. This is represented by the impulse at t = 0 in Figure 9c. whereas the right-hand side of equation 8 is a single autocorrelation. We assume again that the downgoing and upgoing waves are flux-normalized. Note the analogy of equation 8 with the expression for direct-wave interferometry. and amplitudes a0 = τ . however. τ = (1 − r )(1 + r ) = 1 − r 2 (which is by the way also the transmission coefficient for a downgoing wave). ror. including all its multiples. We assumed already in our discussions of direct-wave interferometry that the medium was lossless. Hence. illuminating the medium from the free surface. Kennett et al. 1983. which removes the requirement of having sources at both sides of the receivers to obtain a time-symmetric response. the next arrival reaching the surface is −rτ δ (t − t0 − ∆t). It can easily be shown that equation 8 holds for arbitrary horizontally layered media. Hence. we have T (t) ∗ T (−t) = δ (t) − R(t) − R(−t). To this end consider the configuration shown in Figure 9d. 1978. hence T (t) ∗ T (−t). these impulses together (except the one at t = 0) represent the global reflection response R(t) of a downgoing plane wave. equation 4. Note. or that . the global transmission response of the downgoing plane wave source at the free surface is equal to that of an upgoing plane wave source below the lowest interface Frasier (1970). a1 = −rτ . where capital T stands for the global transmission response. The main difference is that the right-hand side of equation 4 is a superposition of crosscorrelations of rightward. 1994). 1 − R ˆ−R ˆ∗ = T ˆT ˆ∗. Seismic interferometry for a vertically propagating plane wave reduces to evaluating the autocorrelation of the global transmission response. Chapman. It consists of an infinite series of impulses with regular intervals ∆t (starting at t0 ). Since the net power-flux is independent of depth. Similarly. we can use the principle of power conservation to derive a relation between the wavefields at the top and the bottom of the configuration. Ursin. a2 = r 2 τ . is implicitly present in the coda of the transmission response. This can be understood intuitively if one bears in mind that the reflection response. 1970. etc. Wapenaar. In Part II we also encounter approaches that account for losses. T or ˆ+R ˆ∗ = 1 − T ˆT ˆ∗ . the causal part of the autocorrelation is equal to −R(t). The autocorrelation for time-lag ∆t is (a1 a0 + a2 a1 + a3 a2 + · · ·)δ (t − ∆t) = −rτ 2 (1 + r 2 + r 4 + · · ·)δ (t − ∆t) = −rδ (t − ∆t). The power-flux is most easily defined in the frequency domain. Most approaches to seismic interferometry rely on the assumption that the medium is lossless. R (11) This expression shows that the global reflection response can be obtained from the autocorrelation of the global transmission response. but in the present derivation the essence of this assumption has become manifest. 1−R ∗ (10) where the asterisk denotes complex conjugation. This simply means that we define the local transmission coefficient τ as the squareroot of the product of the transmission coefficients for acoustic pressure and Hence. The autocorrelation for zero time-lag is 2 2 2 2 2 4 6 (a 2 0 + a1 + a2 + a3 + ···)δ (t) = τ (1+ r + r + r + ···)δ (t) = 2 2 −1 τ (1 − r ) δ (t) = δ (t). The upgoing wave arriving at the free surface is the global reflection response R(t). which is reflected downward by the free surface with reflection coefficient −1. −r 3 δ (t − 3∆t). see Figure 9b. Taking everything together. Hence. In both cases the left-hand side is a superposition of a causal response and its time-reversed version. which has now been proven to hold for arbitrarily layered media. in the lower half-space. that the free surface in Figure 9a acts as a mir- Because complex conjugation in the frequency domain corresponds to time-reversal in the time domain. Note that the central assumption in this derivation is the conservation of acoustic power.. the total downgoing wavefield just below the surface is D(t) = δ (t) − R(t). To this end we define the Fourier transform of a time-dependent function as Z ∞ ˆ(ω ) = f f (t) exp(−jωt)dt. Apart from an overall minus-sign. (8) where ω is the angular frequency and j the imaginary unit. the acausal part is −R(−t). (9) −∞ flected downward by the free surface (reflection coefficient −1) and subsequently reflected upward by the interface (reflection coefficient r ). Hence. et al. and the total upgoing wavefield is U (t) = R(t). where ∆z is the thickness of the first layer and c its propagation velocity. the inverse Fourier transform of this equation gives again equation 8. which is represented by the impulse at ∆t in Figure 9c. a3 = −r 3 τ .

Schuster and Zhou. 2D and 3D analysis of reflected-wave interferometry Claerbout conjectured for the 2D and 3D situation that “by crosscorrelating noise traces recorded at two locations on the surface.2 0.S = −300 m. We should note here that equation 8 for arbitrarily layered media was derived more than 40 years ago by Jon Claerbout at Stanford University Claerbout (1968). The traveltime curve connecting these events is stationary at x1. Basic principle of reflected-wave interferometry revisited. Daneshvar et al. This is interpreted as the reflection response of a source at xA . Cole (1995) and Poletto and Petronio (2003. Early applications of equation 12. For example. equation 8 can be modified for transient or noise signals. In the next subsection we show that the latter assumption can be relaxed in 2D and 3D configurations.1 300 !x 1.S = −300 m has its specular reflection point at one of the geophone positions. This equation shows that the autocorrelation of passive noise measurements gives the reflection response of a transient source at the surface. Let us briefly review his line of thought (Schuster. Note that this statement could be applied literally to direct-wave interferometry. 2004. but the conjecture was already mentioned in the PhD thesis by Cole (1995)). see the discussion on acoustic daylight imaging on his website http://sepwww. . First.6 0. It was silently assumed that the first geophone is located precisely at the specular reflection point of the drawn ray in Figure 8b.7 -1000 −1000 -500 −500 0 0 500 500 1000 1000 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50 o x1.4 0. consider again the configuration shown in Figure 8. so in a 1D crosscorrelation process the traveltime along this ray cancels. Claerbout’s 1D relation (equation 8) and his con- 231 x A 0 xB xD ?300 b) 00 0. some more successful than others.5 0. with N (t) representing the noise signal emitted by the source in the lower half-space. Schuster et al. 2006).and SV-waves in a horizontally layered elastic medium. 2006).b).3 0. Of course this terminology was not used at that time and the links between direct-wave and reflected-wave interferometry were discovered several years later.stanford. (1993) and Rickett and Claerbout (1999) applied crosscorrelations to noise observations at the surface of the Sun and were able to retrieve helioseismological shot records. observed by a receiver at xB . Analogous to equations 5 and 7.. as discussed in the previous section. (1995). In practice the source position and hence the position of the specular reflection point are unknown. Scherbaum (1987a. but it should lie below the lowest interface. we obtain from equation 8 {R(t) + R(−t)} ∗ SN (t) = SN (t) − u(t) ∗ u(−t) .edu/sep/jon/. However. As a consequence. (12) where SN (t) is the autocorrelation of the noise. During a sabbatical in 2000 at Stanford University he analyzed the conjecture by the method of stationary phase.7 0. Then. The thick dashed lines indicate the Fresnel zone. jecture for the 3D situation inspired Jerry Schuster at the University of Utah.2 t AB 0.1 0 c) 0 0. when there are multiple (unknown) sources in the subsurface. Haskell (1953) and others. are discussed by Baskir and Weller (1975). His expression looks slightly different because he did not use flux-normalization. analogous to equation 7.4 0. 2001.2 0. (a) Configuration with multiple sources in the subsurface. For his derivation he used a recursive method introduced by Thomson (1950). S Figure 10. Quite remarkable indeed! Note again that the position of the actual source does not need to be known. the ray in Figure 8a coincides with the first branch of the ray in Figure 8b.S 0.Tutorial on seismic interferometry. Later he proposed the shorter derivation using energy conservation.6 t 0. but Claerbout’s conjecture concerned reflectedwave interferometry. Only the ray emitted by the source at x1. (b) Crosscorrelations of the responses at xA and xB as a function of the source coordinate x1.5 0. Part I use the essence of this assumption to estimate loss parameters. let u(t) = T (t) ∗ N (t) be the upgoing wavefield at the surface. Duvall et al.4 0.6 0.3 0. which leaves the traveltime of the reflection response. we can construct the wavefield that would be recorded at one of the locations if there was a source at the other” (this citation is from Rickett and Claerbout (1999).S . Frasier (1970) generalized Claerbout’s result for obliquely propagating plane P. (c) The sum of the correlations in (b).

closer to the target than the original sources. the main contribution comes from an area (the Fresnel zone. Each diagram shows that crosscorrelation of the trace recorded at A with the one at B . Wapenaar.S = −300 m where the traveltime curve is stationary (indicated by the vertical arrow). the other contributions cancel.S . redatuming is known as a process that brings sources and/or receivers from the acquisition level to another depth level. as illustrated in Figure . hence this is the specular ray. This gives the correlation gather shown in Figure 10b. In the Appendix we give a simple proof that the stationary point of the traveltime curve in a correlation gather corresponds to the source from which the rays to xA and xB leave in the same direction. consider the situation depicted in Figure 10a. 1984). and summing over source locations. leads to the response of a source at A. as long as the array of sources contains a source that emits a specular ray via xA and the scatterer to xB . the source has been repositioned from its unknown position at depth to a known position xA at the surface. contains an impulse at tAB and can be interpreted as the reflection response that would be measured at xB if there was a source at xA . The ray that leaves the source at x1. which is the traveltime from xA via the scatterer to xB . In seismic interferometry. The rays leaving the other sources have their specular reflection points left and right from xA (the solid rays in Figure 10a). In exploration geophysics. To see this. This example shows that it is possible to reposition (or “redatum”) sources without knowing the velocity model and the position of the original sources. in which the horizontal axis denotes the source coordinate x1.S = −300 m shows an impulse (indicated by the vertical arrow) at tAB . shown in Figure 10c. in which there are multiple noise sources buried in the subsurface. using extrapolation operators based on a macro velocity model Berryhill (1979. The trace at x1. The impulses in the surrounding traces arrive before tAB . the sum of the correlations. Some examples of interferometric redatuming Schuster (2009). except for the source at x1.S = −300 m reflects at xA (the position of the first geophone) on its way to the scatterer at xD and the second geophone at xB . indicated by the dashed lines) around the point x1. The direct arrivals at xA follow the dashed paths and do not coincide with the solid rays. it is again possible to extract the reflection response.232 K. Note that this procedure works for any xA and xB . a) VSP −> SWP Transform VSP Primary source VSP well b) SSP −> VSP Transform SSP Primary VSP Direct VSP Primary VSP Direct SWP Primary B A B B A B A well B 11111 00000 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 reflector 111111 000000 11 A 00 000000 111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 salt body B 11111 00000 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 well A 111111 000000 000000 111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 well 11111 00000 11 A 00 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 well 11111 00000 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 well well c) SSP −> SSP Transform 11 SSP Primary SSP Multiple SSP Primary 00 A B A B A B d) VSP −> Xwell Transform 11 Xwell Direct VSP Direct VSP Direct 00 111111 000000 000000 111111 000000 111111 A B wells 111111 000000 000000 111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 reflector 11111 00000 00000 11111 11 00 00000 11111 00000 11111 11111 00000 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 A 11 00 11111 00000 00000 11111 00000 11111 B wells A 11111 00000 00000 11111 00000 11111 B Figure 11. In other words.S . If we sum the traces for all x1. et al. For each of the sources we crosscorrelate the direct arrival at xA with the scattered wave recorded at xB . Hence.S = −300 m.

observed at xA(B) at the free surface. (b) When the sources are simultaneously acting.6 0. An arbitrary inhomogeneous lossless medium is sandwiched between a free surface and a homogeneous lower half-space.4 0. the reflection response R(xB . Consider the configuration in Figure 12a.Tutorial on seismic interferometry. t) ∗ T (xA . Xiao et al. (a) Arbitrary inhomogeneous lossless medium. t) is now retrieved from the direct crosscorrelation of the observations at xA and xB .8 0.. VSP data. Part I 10.6 1. xA . the reflection response R(xB .8 0.8 0.6 0. He et al. Claerbout’s conjecture for the 3D situation can be proven along similar lines. (2007). −t) ≈ δ (xH. 2007.6 0. (2009). which is why they are also called power reciprocity theorems. Hornby and Yu. Fokkema and van den Berg (1993). Apart from that. −t). (2006b). The example discussed in Figure 10 deals only with primary reflections and therefore confirms Claerbout’s conjecture only partly. the extrapolation operator comes directly from the data (in this example the observed direct wave at xA ).. The 1D analysis in the previous subsection showed that not only primary reflections.8 1. According to equation 14..2 0. Surface multiples can be turned into primaries at the position of missing traces Wang et al. 2007). Impul- 233 a) xA xB b) x (Si ) xA xB 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 1.2 0.6 1. (13) i Here xH. xA . a socalled power reciprocity theorem is used as the starting point. followed by a summation for all source positions.6 0. t) + R(xB .8 1. Halliday et al.8 2 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 2 −10 −70 −60 0 −50 10 −40 20 −30 2 −20 −70 −10 −600 −50 10 −40 20 −30 −20 2 −10 −70 0 −60 10 −50 20 −40 −30 2 −20 −70 −10 −60 0 −50 10 −40 20 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 Figure 12.2 1. 2006..8 1. is discussed in Part II of this paper.2 0. Interferometry can be used to turn multiples in VSP data into primaries and in this way enlarge the illuminated area (Yu and Schuster. t) is the upgoing transmission response of an impulsive point source (i) at xS in the subsurface. xS . Crosscorrelation of refracted waves gives virtual refractions which can be used for improved estimation of the subsurface parameters Dong et al. xS . We mention some examples. Figure 11 shows some examples. Surface waves can be predicted by interferometry and subsequently subtracted from exploration seismic data Curtis et al. the derivation makes use of a correlation-type reciprocity theorem for (flux-normalized) one-way wavefields Wapenaar and Grimbergen (1996). (2009). 2007. xA . Instead of using the principle of power conservation. One can distinguish between convolution.A and xH. Halliday et al.8 0. can be applied to a wide range of configurations (mostly for controlled-source data). known as the “virtual source method” Bakulin and Calvert (2004. an acoustic reciprocity theorem formulates a relation between two acoustic states de Hoop (1988).6 0. The right-hand side of equation 13 involves a crosscorrelation of transmission responses at xA and (i) xB for each source xS .2 1.A )δ (t) X (i) (i) − T (xB . The time-symmetric response on the left-hand side is the reflection response that would be recorded at xB if there was a source at xA .6 1. (2007) or into singlewell reflection profiles to improve salt-flank delineation and imaging (Willis et al. Schuster (2009) systematically discusses all possible interferometric transformations between surface data. 2006. Mikesell et al. For this configuration we derived Wapenaar et al. 2008). xS . From transmission to reflection response (3D). implicitly present in the coda of the transmission response. 2006. In the years following his sabbatical. His work inspired many other researchers to develop interferometric methods for exploration geophysics.6 1. According to equation 13.and correlation-type theorems. but also all multiples are recovered from the autocorrelation of the transmission response. mutually uncorrelated noise sources.4 1. with sources in the homogeneous lower half-space and receivers at xA and xB at the free surface.8 1 1 1 1 1 1. indicated in Figure 10. sive sources are distributed along a horizontal plane in this lower half-space.4 0. 2006). The main approximation is the negligence of evanescent waves. Lu et al. .2 0. (2002.B denote the horizontal components (i) of xA and xB .4 0. (2009). Because reflection and transmission responses are defined for downgoing and upgoing waves. In his recent book. xA . Schuster showed that the interferometric redatuming concept.. (2006a).8 1. 2004) R(xB . plus its time-reversed version.4 0. T (xA(B) . (2010).2 1. t). In general. is retrieved by crosscorrelating transmission responses observed at xA and xB and summing over the sources. respectively. Its coda includes all surface-related and internal multiple reflections (only a few rays are shown in Figure 12a).4 1.4 0. Jiang et al. The theorems of the correlation type reduce to power-conservation laws when the two states are chosen identical. the observed responses at xA and xB are each a superposition of transmission responses. Another approach to interferometric redatuming of controlled-source data. Xue et al.4 1.2 1.4 1.2 0. Dong et al.B − xH. (2006).2 1. single well profiles and cross-well data. VSP data can be transformed into crosswell data Minato et al.4 1.

(2009). Hohl and Mateeva (2006). (b) For comparison. Chaput and Bostock (2007) and Tonegawa et al. (2006). Torii et al. Moreover. whereas the physical response of these deeper reflectors shows up correctly in R(xB . after further suppression of the surface waves. Although equations 13 and 14 have been derived for the situation in (i) which the sources at xS lie all at the same depth (Figure 12a). 2009). (a) Reflection response (shot record). 2001. Draganov et al. see Figure 12b (each dashed ray represents a complete transmission response). Each receiver channel represents a group of 48 vertical-component geophones. then the at xA and P responses (i) xB are given by u(xA . xA . decomposition mainly involves the application of an angle-dependent amplitude filter. We use equation 14 to retrieve the reflection response. −t) . which are unraveled by equation 13 from the coda of the transmission responses. because in the crosscorrelation process only the time difference matters (we used a similar reasoning for direct-wave interferometry to explain why the traveltime curves in Figure 6d remained smooth). Wapenaar. (2006). despite the initial assumption that the medium is homogeneous below the sources. xA . Rondenay. xS .B − xH. 2006). Draganov et al. In the acoustic approximation. Nevertheless. arbitrarily selected from a total of 11 hours of noise. application of equation 14 requires decomposition of the filtered geophone data of Figure 13b into the upgoing transmission response. t) ∗ Nj (t).A )SN (t) − u(xB . When the impulsive sources are replaced by uncorrelated noise sources. designed to suppress surface waves. Mercier et al. (b) The same noise window. Later this has also been explained with theoretical arguments Wapenaar and Fokkema (2006). surface-related and internal multiple reflections. xA . Since it is very difficult to obtain true amplitude . arbitrarily selected from a total of 11 hours of noise. Using a similar derivation as the one that transformed equation 4 into equation 7 we obtain from equation 13 {R(xB . an active shot record measured at the same location. We conclude this section with an example of retrieving exploration-like seismic reflection data from ambient noise. The link between teleseismic coda imaging and seismic interferometry has been exploited by Kumar and Bostock (2006). obtained by crosscorrelating 11 hours of ambient noise Draganov et al. Relative traveltime (s) the retrieved reflection response R(xB . these equations remain approximately valid when the depths are randomly distributed (as in Figure 12b). xA . t) = j T (xB . these surface waves were caused by traffic on a road intersecting the line at x1 =14 km. A S t) ∗ Ni (t) i P (j ) and u(xB . et al. (a) 10 s of ambient noise. (2007). It is interesting to note that in the teleseismic community it has been independently recognized that the coda of transmission responses from distant sources contains reflection information that can be used to image the Earth’s crust (Bostock et al. (2007.. a) 0 1 x1 (km) Horizontal o distance (km) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 b) 0 1 0 2 1 (km) Horizontal distance 4 6 o x (km) 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Relative traveltime (s) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t(s) 10 t(s)9 10 where SN (t) is the autocorrelation of the noise. Figure 13. the main events in Figure 13a are parts of the surface waves that fell outside the suppression band of the geophone groups. x . 2001. B (km) b) o x1. Libya. 2001.. Shragge et al. a) o x1. recorded by Shell in a desert area near Ajdabeya. Nowack et al. This equation shows that the direct crosscorrelation of passive noise measurements gives the reflection response of a transient source at the free surface. recorded in a desert area near Ajdabeya. Bandpass and k-f filtering was used to suppress the surface waves further. Figure 13a shows 10 s of noise. recorded along a line of 20 km. see Figure 13b. t). t) contains all primary. t) + R(xB . t) = T ( x . The main events are remnants of surface waves caused by traffic at x1 =14 km. −t)} ∗ SN (t) ≈ δ (xH. Equations 13 and 14 have been used by various authors to turn ambient seismic noise into explorationlike seismic reflection data Draganov et al. (2004) showed with numerical examples that the randomness of the source depths helps to suppress non-physical ghosts related to reflectors below the sources. (2009). B (km) t (s) t (s) Figure 14. Libya.234 K. t) ∗ u(xA .. Strictly speaking. 2006.

(2009). Using equation 14. and the travel time from that source to the receiver at xB by tB . The main strength is that this “information unraveling” neither requires knowledge of the subsurface medium parameters nor of the positions or timing of the actual sources. FIG. The sources involved in interferometry are located on the surface indicated by the dashed line in Figure A-1. the Dutch Technology Foundation STW. the reflections retrieved from the ambient noise (Figure 14a) correspond quite well with those in the active shot gather (Figure 14b). with xA fixed (x1. Note that. We first keep q2 fixed and consider only variations in q1 . Moreover. We thank associate editor Sven Treitel and reviewers Jerry Schuster. Last. the processing consists of simple crosscorrelations and is almost entirely data-driven. Kasper van Wijk and Mark Willis for their valuable comments and suggestions. but information hidden in noise or in a complex scattering coda. see Figure A-1. whether we consider controlled-source or passive interferometry. is reorganized into easy interpretable responses that can be further processed by standard tomographic inversion or reflection imaging methodologies. Mike Ritzwoller and Wiley-Blackwell (publisher of Geophysical Journal International) for permission to show the snapshots of the virtual Rayleigh-wave response (Figure 7). and indicate recent and new advances. This surface. An active seismic reflection experiment. results (Figures 13 and 14) and Shell in Libya for collecting and making available the passive data. We are grateful to Fan-Chi Lin. applied science division of NWO and the Technology Program of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (grant VENI. In seismic interferometry. A and B. functions of the source position q1 . (A1) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is supported by the Netherlands Research Centre for Integrated Solid Earth Science (ISES). and by the NSF through grant EAS-0609595. A-1 Two rays. virtual sources are created at positions where there are only receivers. ∂q1 ∂q1 ∂q1 (A2) .08115). see Draganov et al. This means that the traveltime tcorr of the crosscorrelation for a given source position is given by tcorr (q1 ) = tB (q1 ) − tA (q1 ). t) is retrieved from the noise. but not least. that propagate from a common point on the surface with sources (dashed line) and their take-off angles at this source surface. review a mathematically sound derivation.Tutorial on seismic interferometry.5 s are shown in Figure 14a. Jerry Schuster is acknowledged for providing Figure 11. xA . which helped improve this paper.A = 1 km) and xB chosen variable (x1. is in 3D parameterized by two orthogonal coordinates q1 and q2 . of which the first 2. which need not be planar. is shown in Figure 14b. particularly in the red shaded areas. Of course no new information is generated by interferometry.B = x1. the traveltimes of the signals that are crosscorrelated are subtracted. we thank the Libyan National Oil Company for permission to publish the Ajdabeya data The condition that the traveltime is stationary means that ∂tcorr (q1 ) ∂tB (q1 ) ∂tA (q1 ) = − = 0. We have shown that. In Part II we discuss the relation between interferometry and time-reversed acoustics.A = 1 km denotes the position of the virtual source. This propagation may be direct. carried out with the source at the same position. For more details about this experiment as well as a pseudo 3D reflection image obtained from the ambient noise. or it may involve bounces off reflectors or scatterers. These travel times are. Part I responses from ambient noise anyway. in general. the decomposition step is skipped. the fate of these rays is irrelevant for the argument presented here. APPENDIX A: STATIONARY-PHASE ANALYSIS We give a simple proof that the stationary point of the traveltime curve in a correlation gather corresponds to the source from which the rays to the receivers at xA and xB leave in the same direction. 235 q1 ray A iB iA ray B CONCLUSIONS We have discussed the basic principles of seismic interferometry in a heuristic way. a seismic shot record R(xB . The travel time from a given source to the receiver at xA is denoted by tA . Consider two rays A and B that propagate from an arbitrary source point to the two receivers. The red star at x1.B = 0 · · · 4 km).

Brenguier. 56. R. 2003. 1951. Wapenaar. N. SEG.. Aki.. 158–159. Challis. Sheng. and A. and Y. 2006. F. H. and N. 3-D surface wave tomography of the Piton de la Fournaise volcano using seismic correlations: Geophysical Research Letters. 1980. L. Expanded Ab- A standard derivation Aki and Richards (1980) relates the slowness along the surface to the take-off angle ∂tA (q1 ) sin iA = . Vol. no. hence. 60. Sheard. G. E. 1957. M. Wave-equation datuming: Geophysics. The same reasoning applies to variations with the orthogonal source coordinate q2 . Wapenaar. Claerbout. F. 71. B. J. M. B05306–1–B05306– 21. P. N. A. 1968. Cole. V153–V162. Welton. 1979. K. Multiparameter two-dimensional inversion of scattered teleseismic body waves. 2783–2786. 9. 1082–1092. and M. Baskir. 2007. Ferrazzini. Dong. 30. Sato. 665–666. Campillo. 34. G. H. Chaput. Schuster. R. Inserting this in equation (A-2) implies that at the stationary point iA = iB . Irreversibility and generalized noise: Physical Review. 1995. G. (A4) This means that at the stationary source point the rays take off in the same direction. This means that the rays take off in the same direction as measured in two orthogonal planes. Broadband ambient noise surface wave tomography across the United States: Journal of Geophys- . thesis. 113. T. Schuster. Aki. Seismic interferometry . Bakulin. S. Ocean acoustic interferometry: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1995. 1877–1882. 1988. K. 2006. R. 2006a. Chapman. 1975. G. Seismic interferometry using non-volcanic tremor in Cascadia: Geophysical Research Letters. Campillo. 33. A. Weller. 71. T. S. Berryhill. Gerstoft. K. the rays have the same direction in three dimensions. L02305–1–L02305–5. Dong. Long-range correlations in the diffuse seismic coda: Science. Daneshvar. 1178–1186. 2008.D. 3377–3385. M. K. A. 2007. Brooks. Calvert. 1984. 44. 2007. Virtual source: new method for imaging and 4D below complex overburden: 74th Annual International Meeting. Snieder. Lin. Interferometric prediction and least squares subtraction of surface waves: 76th Annual International Meeting. 2477–2480. and R. 2003. P. T. 30771–30782. Synthesis of a layered medium from its acoustic transmission response: Geophysics. A note on the use of microseisms in determining the shallow structures of the earth’s crust: Geophysics. Time-domain reciprocity theorems for acoustic wave fields in fluids with relaxation: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. D. and P. Shapiro. 2007. M.. 169. M. References Aki. and J. Yang. Passive seismic and drill-bit experiments using 2-D arrays: Ph. The virtual source method: Theory and case study: Geophysics. Theory for oblique incidence: Journal of Geophysical Research. C. M. 2006b. Reflection/transmission coefficients reciprocities in anisotropic media: Geophysical Journal International.. E.. 121. Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves. Callen. 84. and F. S. Bensen. SEG. Calvert. and R. and C. R. L. 415–457. Shapiro. ical Research . J. and V. Levshin. Expanded Abstracts.. H. Passive seismic imaging using microearthquakes: Geophysics. Quantitative seismology. Freeman and Company. Expanded Abstracts. 2001. S.turning noise into signal: The Leading Edge.Solid Earth. Gerstoft. 498–501. 2006. M. G. On bias and noise in passive seismic data from finite circular array data processed using SPAC methods: Geophysics. J. 49. M. 35. M. 1994. R. J. and T.H. 2064–2066. and P. 1965.. 41–46. L. M. San Fransisco. Bostock. Sourceless reflection seismic exploration (abstract of paper presented at the 44th Annual International SEG Meeting): Geophysics. 106. Ritzwoller.236 K. Curtis. 6.. J. M. 25. A similar expression holds for tB . Shapiro. Barmin. He.. Bensen. 34. H. W.. Rondenay. ∂q1 c (A3) with c the propagation velocity. Wave-equation datuming before stack: Geophysics.. F. Processing seismic ambient noise data to obtain reliable broad-band surface wave dispersion measurements: Geophysical Journal International. A. Stanford University. M. H. A. Richards.. Paul. Nercessian. Clay. Savage. with special reference to microtremors: Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute.. Berryhill. and G. P. Bakulin. SI139–SI150. Therefore. 2004. 1. A. de Hoop. 34–40. et al. 116. the rays radiating from the stationary source position are parallel. and K. 299. Asten. and M. D. A. no. The Green of Green functions: Physics Today. I: W. C. Shragge. 83. L07304–1–L07304– 5. 1329–1344. S. SEG. 264–269. and G. 40. Theory and practice of refraction interferometry: 76th Annual International Meeting. Bostock.. A.. Ritzwoller. Moschetti.. 1239–1260.. 547– 549. The reasoning above was applicable to variations in the source coordinate q1 . A.

A. M. Harvey. Larose. Jefferies. Stehly. Robertsson. 3D wave-equation interferometric migration of VSP freesurface multiples: Geophysics.. He. 760–763. P. H. 282. Wapenaar. M. Migration methods for imaging different-order multiples: Geophysical Prospecting. Ritzwoller. 2008b. Le Bellac. A. Y. and A. Expanded Abstracts. F. L.. C. Duvall. L04305–1–L04305–4. Cross-correlation of random fields: mathematical approach and applications: Geophysical Prospecting. F. 26. J. D.. Wapenaar. P. 1978.. Halliday. Passive seismic reflectivity imaging with ocean-bottom cable data: 76th Annual International Meeting. T. W. L. J. K. Ambient noise Rayleigh wave tomography in western Sichuan and eastern Tibet: Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Haskell. 2004. Mulder. Jiang. Fehler. E. K. Liang. Godin. Roux. D. C. and D. 72. Mortessagne. 2007. and G. Yu. 2006.-J. van Tiggelen.. 2007. 3021–3025. 2009. Lunar subsurface investigated from correlation of seismic noise: Geophysical Research Letters. W. 43. Convergence of the two-point correlation function toward the Green’s function in the context of a seismic-prospecting data set: Geophysics. Draganov. Strobbia. Lin. 590–593. A. and J. and M. Snieder. 73. 1560–1563. 34. E.Tutorial on seismic interferometry. 1993. J. Curtis. A. 197–219. Fan. Gou´ edard. P. Nakamura. 179. A63–A67. Wang. Margerin. Seismic interferometry on background-noise field data: 76th Annual International Meeting. and M. 2006. Mulder. Tanter. R. 2007. van den Berg.. 1993. 1232–1244. 201–211. Shapiro. D. 74. and P. Derode. F. Weaver. Part I stracts. Wapenaar. 1953. B03309–1–B03309–18. Vermeer. and C. A. Sabra. J. Expanded Abstracts. G.Solid Earth.-S. Robertsson. P. T. 2. L. J. Reflection images from ambient seismic noise: Geophysics. Verdel... and G. M. 71. L. Wapenaar. Singer. EL96–EL102. Surface-wave tomography from ambient seismic noise of accelerograph networks in southern Korea: Geophysical Research Letters. Woodhouse.. Ambient seismic noise tomography and structure of eastern North America: Journal of Geophysical Research . Press. D. 44. van Manen. Curtis. Frasier. Campillo.-C. C.. Required source distribution for interferometry of waves and diffusive fields: Geophysical Journal International. Interferometric surface-wave isolation and removal: Geophysics. 1828. and M. M. S. Paul. 430–432.. W. S. Equilibrium and non-equilibrium statistical thermodynamics: Cambridge Univ. Larose.-C. no. Cambridge. (accepted). B. The dispersion of surface waves 237 on multilayered media: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 6. Bostock.. H. and J. 9. Mateeva. Larose.-J.. Hohl. Shapiro. Su. A. D. Hornby. and J. 2009. M. Sheng.. J. Moschetti. SI23–SI31. Verdel.-Y. E. Gou´ edard. Draganov. Correlation of random wave fields: An interdisciplinary review: Geophysics. L17303–1–L17303–5. S195–S203.. V47– V53. Shin.. K. and R. Fokkema. and J. no. Amsterdam. Thorbecke. 2006. van Manen. L. 71. Yu. Roux. Draganov. Kennett. W. Kumar. Roux. Time-distance helioseismology: Nature. Halliday. Thorbecke. Henstridge. 281–298. 121. T. 1970. 2004. L. Green’s functions extraction and surface-wave tomography from microseisms in southern California: Geophysics. A.. Passive seismic imaging in the presence of white noise sources: The Leading Edge. 2007. R. Huang. Khan. Kuperman. Campillo. Brenguier. Interferometric imaging of a salt flank using walkaway VSP data: The Leading Edge. Gerstoft. Interferometric ground-roll removal: Attenuation of scattered surface waves in single-sensor data: Geophysics. 23. 111. Singer. 33. Margerin. Symmetries in the reflection and transmission of elastic waves: Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society.. F.. N. Seismic applications of acoustic reciprocity: Elsevier. T. B. E. N. A69–A73. G. H. 2008. M. Campillo. 75. C. Colin de Verdi` ere. 2006. O. E. P. K. L. 2007.. 72. P. F. Y. J. and Z. SI11– SI21. 2009. D. Schuster. A. Snieder.. 889–892. 362. Stehly. A signal processing method for circular arrays: Geophysics. Draganov. S´ anchez-Sesma. Green. 2006. 2006. F. Z. Verdel. 173. Y. W. 1–19. and M. . A. D. X. 2009.. Glushchenko. J. G.Solid Earth. M. 1979. A. 2010. A. D. 179–184. and K. B. SEG. 375–393. 52. and M. Emergence of the acoustic Green’s function from thermal noise: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. UK. Retrieval of reflections from seismic background-noise measurements: Geophysical Research Letters. P. 35. Langston. N.. N. C. Surface wave tomography of the western United States from ambient seismic noise: Rayleigh and Love wave phase velocity maps: Geophysical Journal International. Batrouni. 2007. and A. 55. Kerry. Campman. 2005. M. G. Li. 2008a. Pomerantz. Discrete time solution of plane P-SV waves in a plane layered medium: Geophysics. and A. J. 32. P. J. Ritzwoller. W. O. and R. H. L16201–1–L16201–4. Lin. Transmission to reflection transformation of teleseismic wavefields: Journal of Geophysical Research . 113. B08306–1–B08306–9. no. Schuster. and B. Hornby. SEG. Hornby. Kang. A. 56. M. L. Campillo. An essay on the application of mathematical analysis to the theories of electricity and magnetism: Privately published. and R. D.. A. 215–230. and J. G. and J. M. and M. 2008. B. N. 17–34.

L. A13–A17. and V. Part I. M. 2008. Y. Azuma. Y. Canada: Geophysics. Weaver. L. C. Theory of efficient array observations of microtremors with special reference to the SPAC method: Exploration Geophysics. M. Okada. H. Claerbout. M. 2694–2714. Two perspectives on equipartition in diffuse elastic fields in three dimensions: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. R. Dasgupta. Gerstoft. Bostock. Longuet-Higgins.. 1905–1923. K. X. 73–85. S. no. 2009. K. 96. The virtual refraction: Useful spurious energy in seismic interferometry: Geophysics. Rytov. T. S. 2009. Testing community velocity models for Southern California using the ambient seismic field: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Kuperman. 2001. 71. J. seismic network: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Amer- Eikonal tomography: surface wave tomography by phase front tracking across a regional broad-band seismic array: Geophysical Journal International. L14311–1–L14311–4. A. 1999. Seismic imaging of the site response using microearthquake recordings. Characterization of shallow geology by highfrequency seismic noise tomography: Geophysical Journal International. 1956. F. J. Tsuchiyama. 1987a. Calvert. K.. J. E. M. Snieder. and wavelet estimation: A tutorial: Geophysics. van Tiggelen. Rickett. A theory for the generation of microseisms: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. and B. 2008. Venkataraman. D35–D40. 2007. 957–960. P. G. and L. and R. 015601(R)–1–015601(R)–4. SI95–SI102. A. Poletto. A. 2006. van Wijk. Green’s theorem as a comprehensive framework for data reconstruction. 77. F. Berlin. Iwamoto. S.. M. Mercier.. 2003. 70. and R. S. S. and T. 2009. Campillo. Scales. 3. 73. D. 2006.. Petronio. Beroza. Method: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 164–174. D. N. O.. 243. G. Matsuoka. A. Kuperman. M. 164–174. Southwest Germany. L03310– 1–L03310–5. Rodr´ ıguezCastellanos. 1357–1361. 2009. 371.-P. G. and L. Elastodynamic 2D Green function retrieval from cross-correlation: Canonical inclusion problem: Geophysical Research Letters. H. Roux. M. T. Mikesell. 1. and A. 1211– 1214. Malcolm. equipartitioned waves: Physical Review E. 1125–1130. Expanded Abstracts. H. The microtremor survey method: Society of Exploration Geophysicists. M.. 2001. G. I. 2006. Green’s function estimation using secondary sources in a shallow water environment: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Strollo. Okajima. Tatarskii. 98. A. 1–35. 30795–30807. J. Fink. Scherbaum.. 1–10. Roux. 2006. Acoustic daylight imaging via spectral factorization: Helioseismology and reservoir monitoring: The Leading Edge. Transmitted and reflected waves in tunnel SWD: 73rd Annual International Meeting. Okada... ——– 1987b. and M.. 1406–1416. S. P.. M. 2006. Baig. Rytov. 2003. 71. et al. Alberta. wavefield separation. Arrival-time structure of the time-averaged ambient noise cross-correlation function in an oceanic waveguide: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 8. Willis. J. Improved green’s functions for passive-source structural studies: Geophysics. P. and G. Part II.and S-wave propagation and observation of shearwave splitting from noise data at Cold Lake. Nowack. Sheng. Application to the Swabian Jura. no. W. J. A. Seismic imaging of the site response using microearthquake recordings. 1091–1110. Perton. 110. 113. F. Redatuming through a salt canopy and target-oriented salt-flank imaging: Geophysics. R. Surface wave tomography from microseisms in Southern California: Geophysical Research Letters. G. 1950. Expanded Abstracts. 2005a. 33. 117. ——– 2005b. 176. S. I. Extracting the Green function from diffuse. A. F. Rondenay. 74.. Extracting timedomain Green’s function estimates from ambient seismic noise: Geophysical Research Letters. Seismic interferometry with a TBM source of transmitted and reflected waves: Geophysics. and A. Lu. . S´ anchez-Sesma. Campillo.. 32. 2008. Weglein.238 K. On the emergence of the Green’s function in the correlations of a diffuse field: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Picozzi. Wapenaar. 106. Nobuoka. Onishi. Kravtsov. B. 73. seismic interferometry. Sabra. Minato. 1989. J. SI85–SI93. Fehler. Ma. Multiparameter two-dimensional inversion of scattered teleseismic body waves. 2004. A. J. and A. M. 2003. and J. Weaver. S. 110. 2005c. M. 126. Series A. Campman. 3011–3017. 3: Elements of random fields: Springer. P´ erez-Ruiz.. S´ anchez-Sesma. SEG. P. and A.. K. Application of seismic interferometry to extract P. On thermal fluctuations in distributed systems: Doklady Akademii nauk SSSR. 74. 37. F. Lobkis. L13305–1–L13305–6. Principles of statistical radiophysics. Prieto. Petronio. 3. and J. 18. and F. and M.. Schuster.. C. M. M. A. AjoFranklin. 32. 177.. G. R. L. and W. Sabra. Correlation migration using Gaussian beams of scattered teleseismic body waves: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Poletto. Parolai. C. Miyazawa. and T. A. Haney. regularization. and J. Bostock. Cross-well seismic survey without borehole source: 77th Annual International Meeting. Roux. Shragge. and M.-M. D. Application to the Cascadia 1993 data set: Journal of Geophysical Research. A. W35–W62. no.. Ram´ ırez. Bindi. SEG.. Luz´ on. S63–S71.

and N. K. T. K.. 2003. Snieder. Stehly. 1996. 48. R. Xue. Stehly. A. 71. J. Webb. B. 1817–1826. Schuster. . A7– A11. Wapenaar. and M. R. Weaver. Rickett. Surface-wave array tomography in SE Tibet from ambient seismic noise and two-station analysis I. 307. T. and D. Yao. Multiparameter two-dimensional inversion of scattered teleseismic body waves. M. SI103–SI110. 157. S.. J. 2269–2272. SI197–SI207. C. 126. Y. 2002. SI1–SI8. and G. Aizawa. 75. Luo. 169–177.... I. EAGE. 2006. and J. Nishida. Schuster. Artman. Weaver. Broadband seismology and noise under the ocean: Reviews of Geophysics. 71. 127. M. T. 74. 111. 21. G. R.. X. M.. Numerical examples: Journal of Geophysical Research. 1615–1618. and J. Ito. Phase velocity maps: Geophysical Journal International. M. Expanded Abstracts. SI221– SI229. 838–852. A. Thomson. 2009. Campman. Seismic interferometry: Cambridge University Press. 036103–1–036103–14. L. 1983. Wegler. L. 1362–1366. Asano. M. Interferometric prediction and subtraction of surface waves with a nonlinear local filter: Geophysics. Green function retrieval and time reversal in a disordered world: Physical Review Letters. K. Campillo. K. Salt-flank delineation by interferometric imaging of transmitted P. M. V. Schuster. 435–439. van der Hilst. N. 179–194. 2006. Swenson Jr. M. R.and S-waves: Geophysics. J. B. 69. Campillo. 2004. W. and T. and M. N. and J. C. Interferometry and synthesis in radio astronomy: Wiley-Interscience. 2004. Snieder. Green’s function representations for seismic interferometry: Geophysics. Transmission of elastic waves through a stratified solid medium: Journal of Applied Physics. and U.. Unified Green’s function retrieval by cross-correlation. and O. Theory of acoustic daylight imaging revisited: 72nd Annual International Meeting. A. 2001. G. and M. and G. Yamanaka. Emergence of broadband Rayleigh waves from correlations of the ambient seismic noise: Geophysical Research Letters. 2009. and C. 1950. Expanded Abstracts. and M. van Tiggelen. 2002. Y. Draganov. 178. de Hoop. de Hoop. 2006. C.. J. A theoretical overview of model-based and correlation-based redatuming methods: Geophysics. Yao.. connection with energy principles: Physical Review E. 2008. S. 91. Tonegawa. D. van der Hilst. T.. 2007.. 2006. 39. Lobkis. V. K. J. Sheng. M. Part I ica. SEG. M.. High-resolution surface-wave tomography from ambient seismic noise: Science. Rondenay. 77.. Wang. K. Seismic interferometry of teleseismic Swave coda for retrieval of body waves: an application to the Philippine Sea slab underneath the Japanese Islands: Geophysical Journal International. T. T. Y. Y. D. Wilson. T. and M. A study of the seismic noise from its long-range correlation properties: Journal of Geophysical Research. Weaver.. R. 31. M.. Toks¨ oz. Kimura. 2006. 2005. Shragge. G. E. Application of seis- 239 mic interferometry to natural earthquakes measured by small-scale array: 77th Annual International Meeting. Wapenaar. SI37–SI45. 2001. and G. Y. 154–177. 2007. Beghein. Relations between reflection and transmission responses of three-dimensional inhomogeneous media: Geophysical Journal International. Y. and M. 1924–1944.. H. Ritzwoller. 2006. Teleseismic shot-profile migration: Geophysics. L. M. J. 106. N. Torii. B. Draganov. Wapenaar. Yu. Matsuoka. Ursin. T. K. 2001. Thompson. 40. Watanabe. 1964. B10306–1–B10306–12. A novel application of time-reversed acoustics: Salt-dome flank imaging using walkaway VSP surveys: Geophysics. Moran. New York.. Thorbecke. Extended Abstracts. H. 2009. and S. On the correlation of non-isotropically distributed ballistic scalar diffuse waves: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. T. L. B. SI33–SI46. 2004. Schuster.. and J. and K. Schuster.. Dong. Toks¨ oz. 156. H. L07614–1–L07614–4. T.. I. Shapiro. 71. T. 71. 2001. 2. 71. 2009..Tutorial on seismic interferometry. Onishi. L. 732–744. Xiao. Microseisms and an attempted application to exploration: Geophysics... 1574– 1586. N. Wapenaar. 2009. Campillo. 1063–1081. On the emergence of the Green’s function in the correlations of a diffuse field: pulse-echo using thermal phonons: Ultrasonics. and G. Grimbergen. 134301–1– 134301–4.. 74. Zhou. Fokkema. Willis. Lu. D. Interferometric interpolation of missing seismic data: Geophysics. Interferometric/daylight seismic imaging: Geophysical Journal International. W. Campillo. and O. Thorbecke. 2006. T. Schuster. P. SEG. 166. Fokkema. Shapiro. Zhou. G. J. R. Schuster. 89–93. Shragge. T. 243904–1–243904–4. Ultrasonics without a source: Thermal fluctuation correlations at MHz frequencies: Physical Review Letters. G. 046610–1– 046610–8. Extracting the Green’s function from the correlation of coda waves: A derivation based on stationary phase: Physical Review E. 30783–30793.. and R. Froment. Shirashi. Zhang. Shiomi. Lobkis. 2004. 87. Session: A32. X. 1998. Shapiro. T. 36. Reciprocity theorems for one-way wave fields: Geophysical Journal International. S. K.. Wapenaar. Takeda. R. R. 105–142. Review of elastic and electromagnetic wave propagation in horizontally layered media: Geophysics. Bostock. Theory of daylight/interferometric imaging: tutorial: 63rd Annual International Meeting.

M. X. Margaryan. T. H. 71. 2008. Crustal and upper-mantle structure: Geophysical Journal International. de Hoop. coda waves. and S. and ambient noise in SE Tibet: Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. T. 435–451. 2009. 2006. and R. Campman. Consistency of the spatial autocorrelation method with seismic interferometry and its consequence: Geophysical Prospecting. J. van der Hilst. S1–S11. 173. and G. Schuster. . Estimation of surface wave Green’s functions from correlation of direct waves. 1–11. Yao. 56. V. 205–219. Wapenaar. Yokoi. Yu.240 K.. D. et al. 177. Crosscorrelogram migration of inverse vertical seismic profile data: Geophysics. Surface-wave array tomography in SE Tibet from ambient seismic noise and two-station analysis II.