Prestack imaging of overturned reflections by reverse time migration
Downloaded 06/28/22 to 75.148.216.154. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
Biondo Biondi and Guojian Shan, Stanford University
SUMMARY
We present a simple method for computing angle-domain Common
Image Gathers (CIGs) using prestack reverse time migration. The
proposed method is an extension of the method proposed by Rick-
ett and Sava (2001) to compute CIGs by downward-continuation
shot-profile migration. We demonstrate with a synthetic example
the use of the CIG gathers for migration velocity updating. A chal-
lenge for imaging both overturned and prismatic reflections is the
discrimination of the reflection generated on either side of inter-
faces. We show how the propagation direction of the reflections
can be determined by evaluating the crosscorrelation of the source
wavefield with the receiver wavefield at time lags different than
zero. Reflections can be easily separated once their direction of
propagation is determined. We demonstrate the method by imaging
overturned events generated by a segment of dipping reflector im-
mersed in a vertically layered medium. We also applied the method
to a North Sea data set with overturned events. The results of re-
verse time prestack migration are superior to the one obtained by
a downward-continuation migration, and the CIGs obtained by ap-
plying the proposed method provide useful information for velocity
updating.
INTRODUCTION
As seismic imaging is applied to more challenging situations where
DOI:10.1190/1.1816889
the overburden is ever more complex (e.g., imaging under complex
and rugose salt bodies) and the illumination of important reflectors
is spotty, the use of all the events in the data to generate inter-
pretable images is important. Two classes of events that are of-
ten neglected, though they are also often present in complex data,
are overturned reflections (Li et al., 1983) and prismatic reflections
(Broto and Lailly, 2001). These two classes of events share the
challenge that they cannot be imaged correctly (at least in later-
ally varying media) by downward-continuation migration methods.
This obstacle can be overcome by reverse time migration (Baysal
et al., 1983), and in particular by reverse time migration of shot
profiles (Etgen, 1986).
The current status of reverse-time migration technology has some
limitations that need to be addressed before it can be used effec-
tively to image overturned and prismatic reflections. The main
challenge is the extraction of useful and robust velocity updating
information from the migrated image. In complex media, veloc-
ity is usually updated from the information provided by migrated
Common Image Gathers (CIG). Filho (1992) presented the only
other method published in the literature to compute angle-domain
CIGs (ADCIGs) by reverse time migration. He applied the method
to Amplitude Versus Angle (AVA) analysis. His method is compu-
tationally involved and it requires the identification of local plane
waves.
In this paper, we extend to reverse-time shot-profile migration the
method that Rickett and Sava (2001) proposed to compute CIGs
by downward-continuation shot-profile migration. The idea is to
compute offset-domain CIGs by a modified imaging condition that
introduces the concept of a subsurface offset. Simple testing using
synthetic data confirmed that CIGs computed by applying the pro-
posed method can be used for velocity updating. They should also
be useful for AVA analysis though we have not yet analyzed their
amplitude properties. However, for both overturned reflections and
prismatic reflections, the source wavefield and the receiver wave-
field may be propagating along opposite vertical directions at the
reflection point. For these two classes of events, the imaging prin-
ciple can be generalized to include a vertical subsurface offset as
SEG Int'l Exposition and 72nd Annual Meeting * Salt Lake City, Utah * October 6-11, 2002
well an horizontal one. Our real data example clearly shows the
utility of this development.
The proper imaging of overturned waves is further challenged by
the the need of discriminating between the image contributions of
reflections generated from either side of an interface. These two
reflections need to be separated both for imaging of reflectivity and
for robust velocity updating. We present a simple generalization of
the imaging condition that enables the determination of the prop-
agation direction of the reflections, and thus the separation of the
image contributions related to different events.
ANGLE-DOMAIN COMMON-IMAGE GATHERS
The conventional imaging condition for prestack reverse time mi-
gration is based on the crosscorrelation in time of the source wave-
field (S) with the receiver wavefield (R). The equivalent of the
stacked image is the average over sources (s) of the zero lag of this
crosscorrelation; that is:
XX
I (z, x) = Ss (t, z, x) Rs (t, z, x) , (1)
s t
where z and x are respectively depth and the horizontal axes, and t
is time. The result of this imaging condition is equivalent to stack-
ing over offsets with Kirchhoff migration.
The imaging condition expressed in equation (1) has the substan-
tial disadvantage of not providing prestack information that can be
used for either velocity updates or amplitude analysis. The conven-
tional way of overcoming this limitation is to avoid averaging over
sources, and thus to create CIGs where the horizontal axis is related
to a surface offset; that is, the distance between the source location
and the image point. This kind of CIG is known to be prone to arti-
facts even when the migration velocity is correct because the non-
specular reflections do not destructively interfere. Furthermore, in
presence of migration velocity errors and structural dips, this kind
of CIG does not provide useful information for improving the ve-
locity field.
Rickett and Sava (2001) proposed a method for creating more use-
ful angle-domain CIGs with shot profile migration using downward
continuation. Their method is related to, but it is computation-
ally more efficient than, the method introduced by de Bruin et al.
(1990). It can be easily extended to reverse time migration by a
generalization of equation (1) that crosscorrelates the wavefields
shifted with respect to each other. The prestack image becomes
function of the horizontal relative shift that has the physical mean-
ing of a subsurface offset (xh ). It can be computed as
XX  xh   xh 
I (z, x, xh ) = Ss t, z, x + Rs t, z, x − . (2)
s t
2 2
This imaging condition generates CIGs in the offset domain that
can be easily transformed to the more useful angle domain by ap-
plying the same methodology described in (Sava et al., 2001).
Reverse time migration is more general than downward contin-
uation migration because it allows events to propagate both up-
ward and downward. Therefore the ADCIG computed from re-
verse time migration can be more general than the ones computed
from downward-continuation migration. This more general imag-
ing condition is needed when the source and receiver wavefields
meet at a reflector while propagating along opposite vertical direc-
tions. This condition may occur either when imaging overturned
 Prestack imaging of overturned waves

events or imaging prismatic reflections. We analyze these situa- The corresponding ADCIG (right) shows the characteristic smile
tions in more details in the following sections. To create useful typical of an undermigrated ADCIG (and some frowning artifacts).
Downloaded 06/28/22 to 75.148.216.154. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

ADCIGs in these situations we can introduce a vertical offset (z h ) The velocity information contained in the panel on the right can be
into equation (2) and obtain easily used for velocity updating and tomographic inversion in a
similar fashion as the ADCIG obtained by downward-continuation
XX  zh xh   zh xh  migrations are used (Clapp and Biondi, 2000; Clapp, 2001).
I (z, x, z h , xh ) = Ss t, z + , x + Rs t, z − , x − .
s t
2 2 2 2
(3)
These offset-domain CIGs should be amenable to being transformed
into angle-domain CIG, by generalizing the methodology described
in (Sava et al., 2001).

Examples of ADCIG to a simple synthetic data set

To illustrate the use of the proposed method to compute ADCIG we

created a simple synthetic data set using a pseudo-spectral mod-
eling code and then migrated the recorded shots using the same
pseudo-spectral wave-propagation kernel. To avoid artifacts caused
by reflections at the boundaries we used the one-way wave-equation
boundary conditions presented in Shan (2002). We modeled and
migrated 100 shots spaced 10 m apart. The receivers were in a sym-
metric split-spread configuration with maximum offset of 2,550 m.
The model contained two reflectors: one dipping 10 degrees and
the other flat. The dipping reflector is shallower than the flat one.
The migration velocity was constant, and equal to the background
velocity.
Figure 2: Offset-domain CIG (a) and angle-domain CIG (b) ob-
Figure 1 shows the CIGS obtained using the correct migration ve- tained using the lower migration velocity. Notice the lack of focus-
DOI:10.1190/1.1816889

locity. The panel on the left is the offset-domain CIG and the panel
on the right is the angle-domain CIG. The CIGs are located at a
surface location where both reflectors are illuminated well. As ex-
pected, the image is nicely focused at zero-offset in the panel on
the left and the events are flat in the panel on the right.
Figure 1: Offset-domain CIG (a) and angle-domain CIG (b) ob-
tained using the correct migration velocity. Notice the focusing at
zero offset in (a), and the flatness of the moveout in (b).
To illustrate the usefulness for velocity updating of the proposed
method to compute ADCIGs, we have migrated the same data set
with a lower velocity ( .909 km/s). Figure 2 shows the CIGs ob-
tained using the lower migration velocity. The panel on the left
is the offset-domain CIG and the panel on the right is the angle-
domain CIG. Both reflectors are undermigrated and shifted upward.
Now in the panel on the left, the energy is not focused at zero offset,
but it is spread over a hyperbolic trajectory centered at zero offset.
ing at zero offset in (a), and the smile in (b).
PRESTACK IMAGES OF OVERTURNED REFLECTIONS
One of the main advantages of reverse-time migration methods
over downward-continuation migration methods is their capability
of imaging overturned events, even in presence of lateral velocity
variations. However, this potential has not been exploited yet for
prestack migration for several reasons. The computational cost is
an important obstacle that is slowly being removed by progress in
computer technology. In this section we will address two more fun-
damental problems. First, we need to discriminate between image
contributions from reflections generated above an interface from
the image contributions from reflections generated below the same
interface. These two reflections have usually opposite polarities
because they see the same impedance contrast from opposite di-
rections. If their contributions to the image are simply stacked to-
gether, they would tend to attenuate each other. Second, we need
to update the migration velocity from overturned reflections. Solv-
ing the first problem is crucial to the solution of the second one,
as graphically illustrated in Figure 3. This figure shows the ray-
paths for both events. It is evident that the overturned event passes
through an area of the velocity field different from the area tra-
versed by the reflection from above. The information used for up-
dating the velocity can thus be inconsistent for the two reflections,
even showing errors with opposite signs.
The reflection from above and the reflection from below can be
discriminated by a simple generalization of the imaging principle
expressed in equation (3), that includes a time lag τ in the cross-
correlation. In mathematical terms, we can generalize equation (3)
as
X  τ τ
  
zh h zh h
I (z, x, h, τ ) = S t + ,z + ,x + R t − ,z − ,x − .
t
2 2 2 2 2 2
(4)
Now the image is function of an additional variable τ , that repre-
sents the correlation lag in time.

SEG Int'l Exposition and 72nd Annual Meeting * Salt Lake City, Utah * October 6-11, 2002
 Prestack imaging of overturned waves
Downloaded 06/28/22 to 75.148.216.154. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
Figure 3: Ray paths corresponding to the reflection generated
above the reflector and the one generated below the reflector. The
rays corresponding to the source wavefield are red (dark in B&W),
lines represent the wavefronts and the rays corresponding to the
receiver wavefield are green. (light in B&W),
Examples of prestack imaging of overturned reflections
To illustrate the use of the proposed method to image overturned
reflections we created a simple synthetic data set that contains such
events. We immersed a thin high-velocity reflector in a layered
medium with a strong vertical velocity gradient (.97 s−1 ). The re-
flector is dipping 44 degrees with respect to the vertical and extends
from a surface coordinate of 1 km to a surface coordinate of 1.35
km. We modeled and migrated 20 shots spaced 50 m apart, start-
ing from the surface coordinate of 4.5 km. The receivers were in a
symmetric split-spread configuration with maximum offset of 6.4
km. Because of the relative position of the reflector with respect to
the shots, only the overturned reflections illuminate the reflector.
Figure 4 shows the image at τ = −.00525 s (left) and the image at
DOI:10.1190/1.1816889
τ = .00525 s (right). The dark lines superimposed onto the images
show the position of the reflector in the model. In these two panels
the reflector is almost as well focused as in in the image at τ =
.0 s (not shown here), but it is slightly shifted along its normal.
As expected from the theoretical discussion above, the image of
the reflector is slightly lower for the negative τ (left) than for the
positive τ (right).
Figure 5 shows an example of CIG computed by evaluating equa-
tion (4) at τ = 0. The panel on the left shows the offset-domain
CIG, and the panel on the right shows the angle-domain CIG. The
energy is correctly focused at zero offset in (a), and the event is flat
in (b), though the angular coverage is narrow because of the short
range of shot locations (1 km).
Figure 4: Images of the synthetic data set containing the overturned
reflections migrated with the correct velocity; at τ = −dt/2 (a) and
at τ = dt/2 (b) The dark segment superimposed onto the images
shows the position of the reflector in the model. Notice the slight
downward shift of the imaged reflector in (a) and the slight upward
shift of the imaged reflector in (b).
NORTH SEA DATA EXAMPLE
We applied the method to a 2-D line of a North Sea data set that
presents a difficult imaging problem caused by the interactions be-
tween the salt edge and a chalk layer. The analysis of the prestack
SEG Int'l Exposition and 72nd Annual Meeting * Salt Lake City, Utah * October 6-11, 2002
Figure 5: Offset-domain CIG (a) and angle-domain CIG (b) cor-
responding to the images in Figure 4. Notice the focusing at zero
offset in (a), and the flatness of the moveout in (b), though the angu-
lar coverage is narrow because of the short range of shot locations
(1 km).
data readily revealed the presence of overturned reflections, that
are characterized by reverse moveouts in the CMP gathers. The
migration velocity was determined by a tomographic inversion of
ADCIGs obtained by downward-continuation prestack migration
(Clapp and Biondi, 2000; Clapp, 2001). The velocity function is
complex close to the salt edge, where a velocity inversion causes
severe multipathing. Figure 6 compares the results obtained us-
ing an accurate downward-continuation prestack migration with
the results obtained using reverse time migration. The downward-
continuation migration does not image the vertical reflections be-
cause the source wavepath is overturned. On the contrary, the re-
verse time migration preserves those reflections, However, the fo-
cusing and the positioning of those overturned events is not accu-
rate because of inaccuracies in the velocity model. The velocity
model could be improved by inverting the information presents in
the ADCIGs produced using the method introduced in this paper.
Figure 7 shows three angle-domain CIGs located at surface location
of 3.8 km (left), 4.8 m (center), and 5.8 km (right). Figure 8 shows
the corresponding ADCIGs at the same surface locations. The AD-
CIG located away from the salt (3.8 km) is fairly flat, demonstrat-
ing that the velocity model is accurate for low-dip events. On the
contrary, the ADCIG located exactly at the edge of the salt (4.8 km
at a depth of about 2 km) is more difficult to interpret. It demon-
strates the need of applying the more general imaging condition
that included vertical subsurface offsets [equation (3)].
CONCLUSIONS
We presented a method to compute Common Image Gathers (CIG)
from reverse-time shot profile migration. The proposed method
generates accurate CIGs that can be used to update the migration
velocity function, both for regular reflections and for overturned
reflections.
The reflections generated from either side of an interface can be
discriminated by computing the crosscorrelation of the source wave-
field with the receiver wavefield at the non-zero time lag. This
techniques is useful for imaging both overturned reflections and
prismatic reflections.
The migration of a North Sea data set demonstrates the potential
 Prestack imaging of overturned waves
Downloaded 06/28/22 to 75.148.216.154. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

Figure 6: (a) Downward-continuation prestack migration, (b) re-

verse time prestack migration.
Figure 8: Angle-domain CIGs computed from the CIGS shown in
Figure 7.

analysis using angle CRP gathers and geologic constrains: 70th

Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. of Expl. Geophys., Expanded Ab-
stracts, 926–929.

Clapp, R. G., 2001, Geologically constrained migration

velocity analysis: Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University,
DOI:10.1190/1.1816889

http://sep.stanford.edu/research/reports/theses.html.

de Bruin, C. G. M., Wapenaar, C. P. A., and Berkhout, A. J., 1990,

Angle-dependent reflectivity by means of prestack migration:
Geophysics, 55, no. 9, 1223–1234.

Etgen, J., 1986, Prestack

reverse time migra-
tion of shot profiles: SEP–50, 151–170,
http://sep.stanford.edu/research/reports.
Figure 7: Offset-domain CIGs computed using equation (2).
Filho, C. A. C., 1992, Elastic modeling and migration in earth mod-
els: Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.

of reverse time migration for imaging overturned reflections, and Li, Z., Claerbout, J. F., and Ottolini, R., 1983, Overturned-
shows that overturned reflections are more sensitive to velocity er- wave migration by two-way extrapolation: SEP–38, 141–150,
rors than non-overturned reflections. The CIGs produced by the http://sep.stanford.edu/research/reports.
proposed method contain useful velocity information for updating
the velocity model. However, the results suggest that we may need Rickett, J., and Sava, P., 2001, Offset and angle domain common-
the computation of CIGs as a function of the vertical subsurface image gathers for shot-profile migration: 71st Ann. Internat.
offset, in addition to the horizontal subsurface offset. Meeting, Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 1115–
1118.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sava, P., Biondi, B., and Fomel, S., 2001, Amplitude-preserved
We would like to thank TotalElfFina for making the North Sea data common image gathers by wave-equation migration: 71st Ann.
set available, and the sponsors of the Stanford Exploration Project Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 296–
for their financial support. We would like also to thank Robert 299.
Clapp for giving us the migration velocity model for the North Sea
data set. Shan, G., 2002, One way
wave equation absorb-
REFERENCES ing boundary condition:
SEP–111, 225–233,
http://sep.stanford.edu/research/reports.

Baysal, E., Kosloff, D. D., and Sherwood, J. W. C., 1983, Reverse

time migration: Geophysics, 48, no. 11, 1514–1524.

Broto, K., and Lailly, P., 2001, Towards the tomographic inversion
of prismatic reflections: 71st Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl.
Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 726–729.

Clapp, R., and Biondi, B., 2000, Tau domain migration velocity

SEG Int'l Exposition and 72nd Annual Meeting * Salt Lake City, Utah * October 6-11, 2002
 This article has been cited by:

1. Dawoon Lee, Wookeen Chung, Woohyun Son, Young Seo Kim. 2022. Reproduction wavefield reverse time migration. Exploration
Downloaded 06/28/22 to 75.148.216.154. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

Geophysics 53:2, 151-168. [Crossref]

2. Milad Farshad, Hervé Chauris, Mark Noble. 2021. The importance of including density in multiparameter asymptotic linearized
direct waveform inversion: a case study from the Eastern Nankai Trough. Geophysical Journal International 228:2, 1373-1391.
[Crossref]
3. Milad Farshad, Hervé Chauris. 2021. Sparsity-promoting multiparameter pseudoinverse Born inversion in acoustic media.
GEOPHYSICS 86:3, S205-S220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
4. Jizhong Yang, Yunyue Elita Li, Yuzhu Liu, Jingjing Zong. 2020. Least-squares extended reverse time migration with randomly
sampled space shifts. GEOPHYSICS 85:6, S357-S369. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
5. Anshuman Pradhan, Nader C. Dutta, Huy Q. Le, Biondo Biondi, Tapan Mukerji. 2020. Approximate Bayesian inference of
seismic velocity and pore-pressure uncertainty with basin modeling, rock physics, and imaging constraints. GEOPHYSICS 85:5,
ID19-ID34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
6. Renhu Yang, Xu Chang, Yun Ling, Ye E. Feng, Lijian Qu. 2020. Amplitude‐compensated Laplacian filtering of reverse time
migration and its application. Geophysical Prospecting 68:4, 1089-1096. [Crossref]
7. Jizhong Yang, Yunyue Elita Li, Arthur Cheng, Yuzhu Liu, Liangguo Dong. 2019. Least-squares reverse time migration in the
presence of velocity errors. GEOPHYSICS 84:6, S567-S580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
8. Yongchae Cho, Richard L. Gibson, Jr.. 2019. Reverse time migration via frequency-adaptive multiscale spatial grids.
GEOPHYSICS 84:2, S41-S55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
9. Yongchae Cho, Richard L. Gibson, Jr.. Reverse time migration via frequency-adaptive multiscale spatial grids 4493-4497.
[Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
DOI:10.1190/1.1816889

10. Lei Fu. Subsurface-offset wave-equation migration velocity analysis with angle filtering 5223-5227. [Abstract] [Enhanced
Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
11. Yongchae Cho, Richard L. Gibson, Shubin Fu. Frequency-domain reverse time migration using generalized multiscale forward
modeling 4583-4588. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links] [Supplementary Material]
12. Lei Fu, William W. Symes. 2017. An adaptive multiscale algorithm for efficient extended waveform inversion. GEOPHYSICS
82:3, R183-R197. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
13. Carlos Alberto da Costa Filho, Andrew Curtis. 2016. Attenuating multiple-related imaging artifacts using combined imaging
conditions. GEOPHYSICS 81:6, S469-S475. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
14. Daniel E. Revelo, Reynam C. Pestana. 2016. One-step wave extrapolation matrix method for reverse time migration.
GEOPHYSICS 81:5, S359-S366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
15. Haining Yang, Na Li, Tingjun Li, Zhiming He, Qing Huo Liu. An improved reverse time migration for subsurface imaging
in layered media 1-6. [Crossref]
16. Haining Yang, Tingjun Li, Na Li, Zhiming He, Qing Huo Liu. 2016. Time-Gating-Based Time Reversal Imaging for Impulse
Borehole Radar in Layered Media. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 54:5, 2695-2705. [Crossref]
17. Patrick Siegl, Rainer Buchty, Mladen Berekovic. Revealing Potential Performance Improvements by Utilizing Hybrid Work-
Sharing for Resource-Intensive Seismic Applications 659-663. [Crossref]
18. Alan Richardson*, Alison E. Malcolm. Illumination compensation using Poynting vectors, with special treatment for multiples
3956-3961. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links] [Supplementary Material]
19. Wiktor Waldemar Weibull, Børge Arntsen. 2014. Reverse-time demigration using the extended-imaging condition.
GEOPHYSICS 79:3, WA97-WA105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
20. Yang Renhu, Ling Yun, Guo Xiangyu, Gao Jun, Zhou Xixiang. The impacts of velocity for reservoir images of reverse time
migration 1540-1544. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
21. Tianqi Hu, Xiaofeng Jia. Dual-domain wavefield reconstruction method 4683-4687. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
[PDF w/Links]
22. Wiktor Waldemar Weibull, Børge Arntsen. 2013. Automatic velocity analysis with reverse-time migration. GEOPHYSICS 78:4,
S179-S192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
23. N. D. Whitmore, Sean Crawley. Applications of RTM inverse scattering imaging conditions 1-6. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract]
[PDF] [PDF w/Links] [Supplementary Material]
 24. 2011. Direct vector-field method to obtain angle-domain common-image gathers from isotropic acoustic and elastic reverse time
migration. GEOPHYSICS 76:5, WB135-WB149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Bruno Kaelin, Carla Carvajal. Eliminating imaging artifacts in two-way migrations using pre-stack gathers 980-983. [Abstract]
Downloaded 06/28/22 to 75.148.216.154. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

[Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]

26. Sergey Fomel. 2011. Theory of 3-D angle gathers in wave-equation seismic imaging. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and
Production Technology 1:1, 11-16. [Crossref]
27. Guochang Liu, Sergey Fomel, Xiaohong Chen. 2011. Stacking angle-domain common-image gathers for normalization of
illumination. Geophysical Prospecting 59:2, 244-255. [Crossref]
28. 2011. Seismic migration of blended shot records with surface-related multiple scattering. GEOPHYSICS 76:1, A7-A13. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
29. Qunshan Zhang, George A. McMechan. Angle domain common image gathers extracted from reverse time migrated images in
isotropic acoustic and elastic media 3130-3135. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links] [Supplementary Material]
30. 2010. Moveout analysis of wave-equation extended images. GEOPHYSICS 75:4, S151-S161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. 2009. Kinematics of shot-geophone migration. GEOPHYSICS 74:6, WCA19-WCA34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. 2009. An exact adjoint operation pair in time extrapolation and its application in least-squares reverse-time migration.
GEOPHYSICS 74:5, H27-H33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. 2009. Superwide-angle one-way wave propagator and its application in imaging steep salt flanks. GEOPHYSICS 74:4, S75-S83.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. 2009. Angle-domain common-image gathers in generalized coordinates. GEOPHYSICS 74:3, S47-S56. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
35. Fuchun Gao, William Symes. Differential semblance velocity analysis by reverse time migration: Image gathers and theory
2317-2321. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links] [Supplementary Material]
DOI:10.1190/1.1816889

36. Guochang Liu, Sergey Fomel, Xiaohong Chen. Stacking angle‐domain common‐image gathers for normalization of illumination
2949-2954. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
37. 2008. Salt interpretation enabled by reverse-time migration. GEOPHYSICS 73:5, VE211-VE216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. 2008. Redatuming through a salt canopy and target-oriented salt-flank imaging. GEOPHYSICS 73:3, S63-S71. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
39. 2008. Imaging conditions for prestack reverse-time migration. GEOPHYSICS 73:3, S81-S89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Anne‐Cécile Lesage, Hongbo Zhou, Mauricio Araya‐Polo, Jose‐Maria Cela, Francisco Ortigosa. 3D reverse‐time migration with
hybrid finite difference‐pseudospectral method 2257-2261. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
41. Kwangjin Yoon, Bin Wang, Young Kim, Huimin Guan. Localized reverse time migration for salt model building 2331-2335.
[Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links] [Supplementary Material]
42. H. Guan, Z. Li, B. Wang, Y. Kim. A multi‐step approach for efficient reverse‐time migration 2341-2345. [Abstract] [Enhanced
Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
43. Guojian Shan, Biondo Biondi. Angle‐domain common‐image gathers for steep reflectors 3068-3072. [Abstract] [Enhanced
Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links] [Supplementary Material]
44. Denes Vigh*, E. William Starr, Carlos Eiffel Arbex Belem. The Advantages of Plane-Wave Reverse Time Migration 1634-1636.
[Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
45. 2007. Reverse time migration with optimal checkpointing. GEOPHYSICS 72:5, SM213-SM221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. 2007. Least-squares attenuation of reverse-time-migration artifacts. GEOPHYSICS 72:1, S19-S23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
47. Guojian Shan, Robert Clappand, Biondo Biondi. 3D plane‐wave migration in tilted coordinates 2190-2194. [Abstract] [Enhanced
Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
48. Yaxun Tang. Selective stacking in the reflection‐angle and azimuth domain 2320-2324. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
[PDF w/Links]
49. Rongrong Lu, Mark E. Willis, Xander Campman, Jonathan Ajo‐Franklin, M. Nafi Toksöz. Redatumming through a salt canopy
— Another salt‐flank imaging strategy 3054-3058. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
50. . 3. Principles of Migration Using Wavefield-continuation Methods 43-72. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
51. . 5. Advanced Methods for Prestack Depth Migration 101-128. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
 52. Shiyong Xu, Shengwen Jin. Wave equation migration of turning waves 2328-2332. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF
w/Links]
53. Xiao‐Bi Xie, Ru‐Shan Wu. A depth migration method based on the full‐wave reverse‐time calculation and local one‐way
Downloaded 06/28/22 to 75.148.216.154. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

propagation 2333-2337. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]

54. Antoine Guitton, Bruno Kaelin, Biondo Biondi. Least‐square attenuation of reverse time migration artifacts 2348-2352. [Abstract]
[Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
55. Denes Vigh, E. William Starr. Comparisons of shot‐profile vs. plane‐wave reverse time migration 2358-2361. [Abstract]
[Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
56. Guojian Shan, Biondo Biondi. Imaging steep salt flank with plane‐wave migration in tilted coordinates 2372-2376. [Abstract]
[Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
57. Bruno Kaelin, Antoine Guitton. Imaging condition for reverse time migration 2594-2598. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
[PDF w/Links]
58. . 6. Common-image Gathers 65-82. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
59. . 7. Efficient Wavefield-continuation Methods for Prestack Migration 83-102. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
60. Guojian Shan, Biondo Biondi. Imaging steeply dipping reflectors in TI media by wavefield extrapolation 1906-1909. [Abstract]
[Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
61. Sean Crawley, Dimitri Bevc. DSR wave‐equation migration for steep and overturned events 2045-2048. [Abstract] [Enhanced
Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
62. Paul Sava, Sergey Fomel. Coordinate‐independent angle‐gathers for wave equation migration 2052-2055. [Abstract] [Enhanced
Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
63. Biondo Biondi, Dimitri Bevc. Subsurface imaging of complex structures by reflection seismic data 137-148. [Crossref]
64. B. Biondi, T. Tisserant. 2004. 3D angle-domain common-image gathers for migration velocity analysis. Geophysical Prospecting
DOI:10.1190/1.1816889

52:6, 575-591. [Crossref]

65. Biondo Biondi, William W. Symes. 2004. Angle‐domain common‐image gathers for migration velocity analysis by wavefield‐
continuation imaging. GEOPHYSICS 69:5, 1283-1298. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
66. Christiaan C. Stolk, William W. Symes. 2004. Kinematic artifacts in prestack depth migration. GEOPHYSICS 69:2, 562-575.
[Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
67. Guojian Shan, Biondo Biondi. Imaging overturned waves by plane‐wave migration in tilted coordinates 969-972. [Abstract]
[Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF w/Links]
68. Biondo Biondi. 2003. Equivalence of source‐receiver migration and shot‐profile migration. GEOPHYSICS 68:4, 1340-1347.
[Citation] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
69. Paul C. Sava, Sergey Fomel. 2003. Angle‐domain common‐image gathers by wavefield continuation methods. GEOPHYSICS
68:3, 1065-1074. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]