GEOPHYSICS. VOL. 52. NO.8 (AUGUST 1987); P. 1138-1148. 10 FIGS.
Downloaded 04/30/13 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
A case for upward continuation as a standard separation filter
for potential-field maps
80 Holm Jacobsen*
ABSTRACT
Separation filtering is incomplete even under the ideal
synthetic condition of known power spectra of the re-
gional and residual fields. I have designed some Wiener
filters, which minimize the inevitable separation error,
from previous statistical source models of Naidu, and
Spector and Grant. This formulation includes the classic
separation filters of Strakhov and of Elkins as Wiener
filters.
A proposed generalization of Wiener filters, denoted
as uniformly suboptimum filters, quantitatively supports
the statement that a wide span of separation problems
may be solved adequately using some convenient, small
standard filter family.
A uniform random-source model without assumed
vertical correlations invokes upward continuation
filters. In addition to this role as a Wiener filter, the
upward continuation operator is given by elementary
functions in both space and wavenumber domains, is
numerically stable, and is also physically comprehen-
sible when applied to real, nonrandom anomalies.
In view of these distinguishing features, I propose to
use the upward continuation operator to build a con-
venient, standard family of separation filters.
INTRODUCTION
The separation of regional and residual fields has been a
vital subject in gravity and magnetics for decades. One es-
tablished procedure is to separate regional and residual fields
through convolution with what I denote as a "separation
filter" (e.g., Nettleton, 1954; Gupta and Ramani, 1982). An-
other common procedure when deriving a regional field is the
more or less manual operation of profile or contour smooth-
ing (e.g., Gupta and Ramani, 1980). These two approaches are
complementary in the sense that filtering can be based on a
few general assumptions, whereas "smoothing" is more akin
Manuscript received by the Editor January 9,1985; revised manuscript received January 27,1987.
*Geophysical Laboratory, University of Aarhus, Finlandsgade 6, DK-8200 Aarhus N., Denmark.
D 1987 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
1138
to local modeling and interpretation in which more infor-
mation external to the gravity-magnetic maps is integrated
into the process, either implicitly or explicitly. An example of
the latter is the "stripping" procedure (e.g., Hammer, 1963;
Hermes, 1986).
Without entering into a general discussion of the various
possible definitions of regional and residual fields, I merely use
the term "residual" for the field modeled by a shallow to
intermediate source distribution, and the term "regional" for
the field with a deeper origin. In formal terms, the observed
field f~ is the sum of the regional field f.eg' the residual f.es' and
an aggregate noise fno;,.,
fa (r) = f.eg (r) + hes (r) + fno;se (r). (I)
Except in Appendix B, I use the continuous variables r in the
space domain and k in the wavenumber domain; this descrip-
tion is asymptotically valid for dense sampling of the fields.
The relationship between a potential field and its sources
precludes almost any conclusion without assumptions. An im-
plicit assumption in separation filtering, being a shift-invariant
operation, is that the fields have some kind of spatial uniform-
ity. This assumption is made explicit by stating that the
regional and residual fields and the noise are realizations of
stationary random processes, so that the problem of their
separation can be approached through conventional Wiener
optimum filtering (Appendices A and B). I specify the power
spectra, denoted P ceg ' Pres' and P nolse e through statistical
models of their source densities; examples include the statis-
tical source ensembles of Spector (1968), Naidu (1968), Spector
and Grant (1970), and Pedersen (1978). The various noise con-
tributions, including errors in terrain correction, undersamp-
ling of very shallow sources, and simple measurement errors,
are modeled pragmatically as one aggregate noise field with a
constant power spectrum.
Several previous works (e.g., Strakhov, 1964a, b; Spector,
1968; Clarke, 1969; and Gupta and Rarnani, 1980, 1982) con-
tain related approaches leading to related but different ration-
al filters. Many other works have used entirely ad hoc filters
for the separation. However, in a practical separation situ-
 Potential-field Separation Filter 1139

ation no ingenuity in the selection of a filter can secure its and (4) gives the wavenumber expression for the optimum
optimality. I address this problem quantitatively in this study filter for extraction of the regional
through a formulation termed "uniformly suboptimum fil-
ters." It is shown that, for given power spectra, the choice of
an adequate filter does contain considerable freedom. Thus, a
small standard family of filters may suffice for convenient and
adequate separation filtering in the sense stated in the follow- This filter, which is an approximate low-pass filter, shows a
Downloaded 04/30/13 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

ing requirements. marked variability in cutoff wavenumber and cutoff sharpness,

as illustrated in Figure 1.
DEMANDS FOR A STANDARD SEPARATION FILTER Now assume that the regional and residual fields originate
at basically the same depth Zo' but allow their density power
Virtually any standardization in geophysical processing spectra to differ as
makes it easier for interpreters to share experience and con-
(6)
clusions concerning sets and types of data. This is especially
relevant when integrating various types of processed geophysi- and
cal maps.
(7)
The objectivity in the interpretation is supported if the
standard-processed maps are physically comprehensible. For The optimum filter for extraction of the residual field is then
potential-field quantities, this is exemplified by magnetic maps
(8)
reduced to the pole or transformed into pseudogravity maps,
upward and downward continuation maps, and (to some which is an approximate second-derivative filter for wavenum-
extent) maps of spatial derivatives of the field. Simple band- bers up to the characteristic wavenumber k o == (S I/S2)1/2
pass filtering, though mathematically comprehensible and where the regional and residual fields have equal power. For
well-defined, is not readily comprehensible in physical terms. wa venumbers above k o ' this filter levels off toward a stable
A Wiener filter is a natural choice in separation if it has been value of one. This high-pass property is modified into an ex-
designed from realistic power spectra of the regional and ponential decay when allowing for a white measurement
residual fields. Subsequent local modeling based on the noise:
processed data requires that the separator be mathematically
and numerically explicit, a condition which argues against Pnoise(k) = S3; (9)
using manual smoothing of contours to obtain the regional
field. These demands act as guidelines in this investigation. Hres(k) = Pres(k)![Preg(k) + Pres(k) + Pnoise(k)]
SEPARATION FILTERS FOR THIN-SHEET
RANDOM SOURCE DISTRIBUTIONS = S2![St/k2 + S2 + S3 exp (2kZ o)} (10)

The modeling of sources is limited here to assemblages of Figure 2 shows some typical wavenumber responses.
mutually uncorrelated, thin source distributions. A thin sheet
at depth z containing a stationary random density distribution
with power spectrum S(k) produces a field at the surface with
the power spectrum (e.g., Naidu, 1968)
P(k) = CS(k) exp (- 2kz). (2)
The exponential factor is the familiar effect of upward con-
tinuation from this equivalent stratum onto the measurement
plane. k is the norm of the wave vector k, and C is a constant 1.0 +--=:::::--~==----.i~
depending on the type of potential field and the choice of C1I
units. C is suppressed in all the following expressions. 'U
....
:::J
Q.
Optimum separation filters for two sheets E 0.5
o
~
An elementary test is to model the regional and residual C1I
~
fields using two mutually uncorrelated sheets with source
i.L
strengths Sreg and Sres independent of k (i.e., white noise), at
0.0-t------r----=::::::-r----=:::;=:::::::3!I---1
depths Zreg > zres' Thus o 1 2 3 4
(3) Wavenumber kz res
and FIG. 1. Wiener optimum filters of equation (5) with low-pass
character. These are closely related to the filters of Strakhov
(4) (1964a, b) and Naidu (1966, 1967) (see Appendix B). The
curves are parameterized by the normalized sheet separation
Appendix A shows how power spectra imply optimum filters. ~ == (zreg - zreJ/zreS' and the relative amplitude of the residual
Application of equations (A-16) and (A-17) to equations (3) sources 0" == (SresiSreg)I/2.
 1140 Jacobsen

Historical filters.-In equation (5) the special case of Zre< ~ 0

corresponds to the classical problem of rejecting white noise ,/
from a field with an exponentially decaying spectrum. This is 1.0 .. '
-/
I

also the power spectrum of the field originating in one buried ~

Cb '-1
~,
singularity, as treated by Clarke (1969). Strakhov (l964a, b) "U
and Naidu (1966) use this field of a singularity as an approxi- :t::
:J
"til

e~' --. --
mation of the signal field, and Naidu (1966) furthermore as- Q. 11/
.. ' 0
E 0.5 ;;l
Downloaded 04/30/13 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

sumes that the noise contamination is while. In Appendix B, I Cl il o

show that the filters derived by Naidu (1966) are in fact ...
Cb
"'I
Wiener filters for this type of model. This settles the question ~
of whether Naidu's filters could be superior to filters optimum iL: --.
in the Wiener sense (Naidu, 1966; Meyer, 1974). One may 0.0
0 1 2 3 4
therefore also consider Figure I as a display of wavenumber
responses of these "Strakhov-Naidu" type filters for densely Wavenumber k/ko
sampled data.
The power spectra of equations (6) and (7) model important FIG. 2. Wiener optimum filters of equation (10) approximating
a second vertical derivative. The curves are parameterized by
special cases of the block ensembles of Spector and Grant
the normalized noise amplitude o =' (S3/S2)1/2, and the nor-
(1970). Their factor <S2(r, 9), which accounts for the finite malized depth S=' Zo ko where ko =' (S ,/S2)1/2. Circles show
width of blocks, is approximated here with k- 2 , as recom- the classical Elkins approximation for comparison (redrawn
mended by Pedersen (1978), for profile data and two- from Gupta and Ramani, 1982).
dimensional (2-D) sources. Their thickness factor <e2
(r , 9) is
constant for thick bodies and decays as k - 2 for thin bodies.
Thus Pres(k) corresponds to magnetic prisms of great depth
extent (basement structures) and Pres(k) corresponds to lami-
nar prisms. In this sense equation (10) describes a filter family
which enhances magnetic laminar structures in the presence of Power spectrum of surface field:

a magnetic basement and white noise. In addition, I note that

these filters are similar to the approximate second-derivative
filter of Elkins (1951) (dots in Figure 2), which is considered by
some (e.g., Grant, 1972) to be quite effective as a residual
operator when compared to more exact second-derivative op-
erators.
These examples demonstrate the flexibility of the Wiener-
filter approach in generating familiar looking filters, and how pz
specific source properties such as depth, thickness, and lateral
variation patterns affect the filter design. However, the selec-
tion of values of source parameters must be justified from case
to case by prior geologic knowledge. It is less obvious how to
choose them a priori for a standard filter design, since this Power spectrum of individual sheets:
problem calls for less dedicated source models.
FIG. 3. The sandwich source distribution. A source power
spectrum of S(k) for the individual sheets implies a field power
Construction of the sandwich source distribution
spectrum at the surface as shown.

Consider a sandwich of many, say N, thin sheets with a

small vertical spacing ,1z, in which all sheets have the power
spectrum S(k) (see Figure 3). Because I assume no correlation
between the density distributions in separate layers, the
crosspowers between their fields vanish and the power spec- .......... ·-Zz~
trum of the whole sandwich is thus (a) Ib) Ie)

where z, denotes the depth to the top of the sandwich. Simi-

larly, ZIJ =' Z, + N,1z denotes the depth to the bottom. The sum
(11) is readily computed as a quotient sum, and approximating
.r
residua I sources
------Zo
regional sources
...........-Zzo

- - - - - - - Zo
interval
- - - - - - - z~
residual sources
- - - - - -
regional sources
Zo

1 - exp (- 2k,1z) by 2k,1z, I get

FIG. 4. The geometry of upward continuation levels and the
associated depths for estimates of (a) the regional field,
(b) the field from an interval, and (c) the regional field at the
depth Zo'
 Potential-field Separation Filter 1141

where
So(k) == S(k)/(2k~z).
This model is "self-similar" in the sense that it may be split at
any depth Zo between z, and Zb into two uncorrelated models,
both with power spectra of the form of equation (12).
Downloaded 04/30/13 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
I note that the optimum filter for estimation of the field
originating below Zo and measured at the depth Zo is given by
(13)
[equation (17) in Clarke, 1969]
Hreg.z.,(k) = exp (kzo)Hreg(k) = exp (-kzol, (18)
which actually is an upward continuation as well and is there-
fore quite stable. This may be viewed as a sound solution to

Optimum separation filters the problem of downward continuation through sources.

of the sandwich source distribution Figure 4 contains these geometrical relationships.

Assume that a sandwich source distribution constitutes the
whole earth half-space corresponding to z, = 0 and Zb ---+ OCJ in
equation (12), and consider the residual field as originating
from sources above a level Zo' and the regional field as origi-
nating below this level Zo' Then
Preg(k) = So(k) exp (-2kz),
Pres(k) = So(k{ 1 - exp (-2kZ o ) }
and the optimum filter for the extraction of the regional is
which is the wavenumber expression for upward continuation
to the height 2zo above the measurement plane, independent
of So(k),
In general the filter for extraction of the field from a slab or
interval between Zo and z~ is
Hslab (k) = exp ( - 2kz o ) - exp ( - 2kz~).
This is the wavenumber response for taking the difference
between upward continuations of the field.
Space-domain example.-Figure 5 illustrates the space-
domain performance of these filters on synthetic data. A large
bandwidth is emphasized by selecting
(19)
which corresponds to assuming that the individual sheets are
(14) white noise. This choice is arbitrary and does not influence the
filters. A regional field and a residual field are generated
(15) through spectral coloring of Gaussian random numbers using
equations (14) and (15) with splitting depth Zo = 1 km. 200
km profiles of these fields are plotted in Figure 5a with a
(16) sample distance of 0.5 km. Their sumfo' playing the part of an
observed field, is separated, using equation (17), into estimates
of the residual and the regional fields, the latter shown as a
full curve in the lower frame of Figure 5b. The recovery of the
actual regional, shown as dots, is incomplete for two principal
reasons. The filter should stop all of the residual, but actually
some transmission of this noise does take place. Conversely,
the filter should pass the regional completely, but actually the
(17)
filter does distort this desired signal. Thus if a reduction of one
effect is attempted, the other is aggravated. The Wiener opti-
mum filter used here minimizes the sum e of this noise trans-

50 km 50 km

lel

50 km
Zo= 1km

50 km 50 km

FIG. 5. (a) Assembling the synthetic fields originating below and above the splitting depth Zo = 1 km. (b) Separation by
upward continuation to the level of 2 km. The dotted curve in the lower frame shows the actual regional. (c) The
separation error e is composed of the transmitted residual and the distortion of the desired regional.
 1142 Jacobsen

miSSIOn en t and signal distortion esd ' These two effects and DISCUSSION
their sum are plotted in Figure 5c.
Assumptions behind the filter design
Suboptimum separation filters
The a priori ignorance of the power spectra of the constit-
uent fields may be relieved by estimating the spectra from the
To assess how critical it is to deviate from the optimum pertinent measurements (e.g., Horton et al., 1964; Spector and
filter for given power spectra, I introduce families of filters
Downloaded 04/30/13 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Grant, 1970). A further step is to use these smoothed periodo-

uniformly suboptimum at the level l; as defined by equation
(A-20) (Appendix A). The concept is that the rms estimation
error committed by a member is less than l; times worse than
the optimum; fulfilling this at all wavenumbers justifies the
prefix" uniform."
I now consider uniformly suboptimum regional separation
filters for the sandwich source distribution. From equations
(A-18), (14), and (15), I get the uniformly extreme suboptimum
filters
H: (k) = exp (- 2kz o)
1/ 2
grams directly in the Wiener filter design equation (A-8) or
(A-16) (Clarke, 1969; Gupta and Ramani, 1980, 1982). Al-
though this "data-adaptive" approach may be elegant, it is
not satisfactory for a standard for several reasons. The data
affect the filter design so that the "filtered" map does not
depend linearly on the data, and this complicates a visual
appraisal. Furthermore, this procedure is not explicit math-
ematically, and is still based on more or less arbitrary assump-
tions of the general shapes of the power spectra.
Throughout this investigation, I have assumed that fields
originating at different levels have zero correlation. Should
firm geologic evidence (e.g., Jachens and Griscom, 1985) sup-

[
±(21) + 1>2)1 /2 exp (-2kz o) - exp (-4kz o)
J , (20) port some nonzero cross-spectrum, this may be readily incor-
porated in the filter design [equation (A-IO)]. However,
common features such as faults, salt domes, and isostatic

which are plotted in Figure 6 for selected values of l; (heavy

lines). Some typical ad hoc averaging functions for profile data
are also shown (thin lines). Their space-domain signatures are
rather different. With their widths properly adjusted, however,
["" hopt=Cylind~r gravity resp,
-20
,/\-.
-10 0 X/Z.1O

the Gaussian bell and the triangle function turn out to be

.... Gaussian b~
well-contained by the envelopes of l; = 0.10. This means that -20 -10 0 XlZoIO
Q>
their faculty of separating regional fields from residual fields is U

only slightly poorer than the optimum, assuming a sandwich

.a
=a 0.5
.. Triangle
-20 10
~
0 XlZoIO
source distribution. Even the boxcar moving-average oper-
ation and the ideal low-pass operation are well-contained by
a
~
:!::
the I> = 0.42 envelope, indicating that they also perform fairly
i.L 0.0
well.
This discussion reveals that the families of uniformly sub-
optimum filters allow a remarkable variability. In particular, 0.0 1.0 2.0
there is room for a substantial tradeoff between transmission Wavenumber
of the residual and distortion of the regional. A straight-
forward exercise shows that minimum noise transmission is
achieved for

. {H E- (k) for H E- (k) ? 0

Hm,n(k) = (21)
E - 0 for H E- (k) < 0,
..Ideal low-pass filter

and that minimum signal distortion is achieved for

: ... Moving average
-20
. . .-10 r:=J
0 X/Z.10
Q>
max = {HE+ (k) for H E+ (k) ~ 1 U

HE (k) - 1 for H + (k) > 1.

(22) ~
E g-0.5
e
...
Space-domain example.-The performance of the extremes ~
of equations (21) and (22) is displayed in Figure 7 for the level i.L 0.0
I> = 0.42, together with the optimum estimate from Figure 5.
Obviously these estimates of the regional field have very dif-
ferent characters. Their differences are also clearly reflected in 0.0 1.0 2.0
the differing noise transmission ent and signal distortion esd in Wavenumber kz"
the three cases. The remarkable feature is that the total sepa- FIG. 6. Conventional ad hoc filters compared to envelopes of
ration error e is quite comparable in magnitude in the three uniformly suboptimum regional filters for the sandwich source
cases. distribution. The I> levels shown are (a) 0.10 and (b) 0.42.
 Potential-field Separation Filter
movements represent both positive and negative vertical
correlations, and thus zero correlation (i.e., uncorrelated thin
sheets) is actually a rather neutral a priori assumption.
Furthermore, by assuming the thin sheets are distributed uni-
formly in the half-space, we have not a priori forced the
sources away from any region or level in the subsurface.
Downloaded 04/30/13 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Upward continuation for random and nonrandom fields
These assumptions of random fields in effect led to the opti-
mum separation filters of equations (16), (17), and (18), which
were recognized to be compositions of elementary upward
continuations. This theoretical justification is complemented
when considering nonrandom fields. In general a filtered
anomaly loses its physical and quantitative interpretation,
whereas the filtrations dealt with here retain a physical mean-
ing as measurements of the anomalous field at definite heights
in the space domain. This holds for random fields, for com-
puted responses from nonrandom modeling bodies, and for
measurements of an actual deterministic potential field. Data
filtered in this way are therefore also suited directly to quanti-
tative, nonrandom modeling and interpretation, because the
min
ho.42* fo hopt *
.r-f rog .•.•..
..: ....
";.:" \:,:.....
50 km
ent ent
FIG. 7. The tradeoff between signal distortion and noise transmission for filters suboptimum at the 0.42 level. The
actual (synthetic) regional field originating below 2 0 = 1 km is shown as dots.
1143
processing is accounted for conveniently and correctly by
mere vertical shifting of datum levels.
The class of filters which commits close to minimal separa-
tion errors is not very restrictive (Figures 6 and 7). This ob-
served freedom in the filter design supports the proposal that
a relatively small family of upward continuation-based filters
will comply with most requirements.
Heuristic application
A systematic application of the above findings is illustrated
in Figure 8. The synthetic surface field originates in six con-
tiguous slabs with interfaces at depths of 0.1,0.3, I, 3, and 10
km. The left panel shows 50 km profiles of these constituent
fields modeled using equations (12) and (19).
The middle panel shows a sequence of upward continu-
ations of the surface field to heights ranging from 0.2 to 20 km
(full curves). These frames are both an inspection of the mea-
sured field in five consecutive hypothetical airborne surveys,
and referring to equation (16), an examination of the estimated
surface field of the earth stripped of more and more of the
overburden-a "strip filtering." The fields of the actual
max
fa hO.42* fa
50 km
ent
 1144 Jacobsen

Nominal Nominal
Source "Flight" stripping "Gradiometer" sounding
interval: eleva ticn. depth: span: interval:
Downloaded 04/30/13 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

10km-co 20 km 10 km 20km-00 10km -00

..........................

3 -10km

6 km 3 km 2 -20 km 1-10 km
+
+

1 - 3 km ,,
,
,
2 km
\
,, 0.6-6.0 kml 10.3-3.0 km

03 -1.0km
"
,
I
... ~
I

,,
I

02-20 km 01-10 km

01-0.3km

0.0 -0.1km 00-0.2 km 00 - 0.1 km

The synthetic data

10km
I---------< - The sum of the separa ted fields

FIG. 8. Heuristic illustration of processing based on upward continuation. Because the data are synthetic (left panel),
the estimates shown as full curves in the middle and right panels may be compared to the actual fields shown as
broken curves. The fields shown in the double frames comprise a natural, generalized separation of the data.
 Potential-field Separation Filter
stripped half-space are shown as dashed lines at the nominal
stripping depths of 1, 3, and 10 km.
The right panel shows subtractions of the upward continu-
ations. These frames may be understood both as probings of
the measured field with a very large gradiometer, and, refer-
ring to equation (17), as estimates of the surface fields from
intervals in the subsurface-a ..sounding filtering." Dotted
Downloaded 04/30/13 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
curves show the actual fields from the sources at the nominal
depth intervals of 0.3-3 km, 1-10 km, and 10 km-co. The four
double frames, which have contiguous nominal sounding in-
tervals filling the half-space and a sum exactly equal to the
underlying measured field, represent a general alternative to a
field separation into just one regional field and one residual
field.
Does it work?-The belief is often expressed that some in-
genious band-pass filtering can produce the field from the
geologic structures inside a depth interval. Strictly speaking,
this is precluded owing to the fundamental ambiguity of
potential-field sources. Nevertheless, practical experience indi-
cates that in some sense the filtering does work. The small
family of stripping-sounding filters used in Figure 8 represents
a theoretical attempt to reconcile these positions.
The success of any separation filtering depends entirely on
the differences in wavenumber contents of the fields to be
separated. The obvious stripping-sounding errors for random
data seen in Figures 5 and 8 are therefore logical expressions
of the information loss resulting from mixing random signals
with overlapping spectra. Similar limitations prevail for non-
random data, as illustrated in Figure 9. The sounding filter
focusing between 1 km and 10 km depths is applied to the
anomalies from three line sources. The filter obviously does
not manage to reject the shallow source and the deep source
completely, and it even distorts the desired intermediate
source considerably.
Clearly one must be extremely careful when basing quantita-
tive statements on separation filtered data. Qualitatively, how-
ever, separation filtering remains powerful as a support in
anomaly detection and pattern discrimination. In this respect
the stripping-sounding filters perform adequately, as in Figure
8, frame 0.3-3 km, where many actual features are in fact
FIG. 9. The effects on single anomalies of a sounding filter
focusing between I km and 10 km depths. The filtered anoma-
lies (full curves), which originate from line sources at depths of
0.5, 5, and 50 km, had equal amplitudes before filtering
(dashed curves).
1145
recovered, and in Figure 9, where the anomaly originating
inside the sounding interval stands out more prominently after
the filtering.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The search for standard separation filters was performed
among Wiener optimum filters for statistical source distri-
butions based on thin sheets of random source density.
Approximate low-pass filters and approximate second
vertical-derivative filters were invoked for the separation of
the fields from just two sheets. Many random sheets filling the
half-space in a uniform distribution comprise a source modei,
which is less committed and therefore more satisfactory for the
present purpose. The associated optimum separation filters
turn out to be based on upward continuation.
The upward continuation operator has additional virtues:
(a) It is readily comprehensible in physical terms for
both random fields and nonrandom anomalies.
(b) It is given by simple, explicit expressions in both
the space domain and the wavenumber domain.
(c) It is a numerically stable operation.
(d) Extensions to other measurement geometries are
well studied (e.g., spherical coordinates).
(e) It forms a natural link between ground surveys,
airborne surveys, and satellite data.
(f) Subsequent quantitative modeling (e.g., quantita-
tive overburden stripping) is permitted through a simple
shift of the datum plane.
Moreover, the demands stipulated in this study are seen to be
met. Thus it is proposed that a small family of standard sepa-
ration filters is based on the upward continuation operator, as
exemplified in Figure 8.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Dr. L. B. Pedersen (University of Uppsala, Sweden),
Dr. S. A. Petersen (Norsk Hydro; Norway), and Dr. P. H.
Nielsen (University of Aarhus, Denmark) for many stimulating
discussions during the preparation of this paper. Dr. D.
Penney (University of Aarhus, Denmark) improved the En-
glish of the text. Further important clarifications of this manu-
script resulted from helpful comments by the editors and
reviewers.
REFERENCES
Clarke, G. K. C; 1969, Optimum second-derivative and downward-
continuation filters: Geophysics, 34, 424-437.
Elkins, T. A., 1951, The second derivative method of gravity interpre-
tation: Geophysics, 16,29-50.
Grant, F. S., 1972, Review of data processing and interpretation
methods in gravity and magnetics, 1964-·1971: Geophysics, 37,647-
661.
Gupta, V. K., and Rarnani, N., 1980, Some aspects of regional-
residual separation of gravity anomalies in a Precambrian terrain:
Geophysics,45,1412-1426.
- - 1982, Optimum second vertical derivatives in geologic map-
ping and mineral exploration: Geophysics, 47, 1706-1715.
Hammer, S., 1963, Deep gravity interpretation by stripping: Geo-
physics, 28, 369-378.
Hermes, H. J., 1986, Calculation of pre-Zechstein Bouguer anomaly in
northwest Germany: First Break, 4, no. II, 13-22.
Horton. C. W., Hempkins, W. B., and Hoffman, A. A. J., 1964, A
statistical analysis of some aeromagnetic maps from the Northwest-
ern Canadian Shield: Geophysics, 29, 582-601.
 1146 Jacobsen

Jachens, R. C, and Griscom, A., 1985, An isostatic residual gravity
niap of California-A residual map for interpretation of anomalies
from intracrustal sources, in Hinze, W. 1., Ed., The utility of re-
gional gravity and magnetic anomaly maps. Soc. Explor, Geophys.,
347-360.
Meyer, F. D., i 974" Filter techniques in gravity interpretation: Ad-
vances in Geophys., 17, 187-261.
Naidu, P. S., 1966, Extraction of potential field signal from a back-
ground of random noise by Strakhov's method: 1. Geophys. Res.,
71, 5987-5995.
Downloaded 04/30/13 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Nettleton, L. L., 1954, Regionals, residuals, and structures: Geophys-
ics, 19, 1-22.
Pedersen, L. B., 1978, A statistical analysis of potential fields using a
vertical circular cylinder and a dike: Geophysics, 43, 943-953.
Spector, A., 1968, Spectral analysis of aeromagnetic data: Ph.D.
thesis, Univ. of Toronto.
Spector, A., and Grant, F. S., 1970, Statistical models for interpreting
aeromagnetic data: Geophysics, 35, 293-302.
Strakhov, V. N., 1964a, The smoothing of observed strengths of po-
tential fields, I: Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR, Geophys. Ser., (English

- - 1967, Two-dimensional Strakhov's filter for extraction of po- trans.) no. 10, 897-904.
tential field signal: Geophys. Prosp., IS, 135-150. - - 1964b, The smoothing of observed strengths of potential
- - 1968, Spectrum of the potential field due to randomly distrib- fields, II: Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR, Geophys. Ser. (English trans.) no.
uted sources: Geophysics, 33, 337-345. 11,986-995.

APPENDIX A
OPTIMUM AND SUBOPTIMUM FILTERING IN BRIEF

fo (r), fl (r), ... , .r.

(r), ... shall denote zero mean stationary where the superscript asterisk denotes complex conjugation.
random processes such that An optimum Wiener filter hop! (r) is required to minimize the
expected square of the estimation error <Dee (0), and a heuristic
(A-l) derivation is conveniently performed in the Fourier domain
using
denotes autocorrelations and crosscorrelations, where E[···J
stands for expectation value, and (A-6)

Prm(k) == f:<Drm(r) exp (-ik . r) dr (A-2) The integrand which was elaborated in equation (A-S) is readi-
ly seen to have the minimum value
denotes the autopowers and crosspowers. integrations are
single or double depending on whether profile data or areal
Pee.op,(k) = {(PooP l , -I P oI 2)/Poo}(k)
1 (A-?)

data are considered. for the well-known filter

(A-S)
Optimum filters
Thus the filter also minimizes the whole integral (A-6) as de-
Let h *fo (r) be a convolution estimate of fl (r), where the sired.
estimating filter h(r) has the wavenumber response H(k). The These general equations will describe the separation process
estimation error when one assumes that the observed field fo (r) is the sum of a
(A-3) desired field/,(r) and a contaminating field/2 (r),

(A-9)
then depends on h(r) and has the autocorrelation
Then equation (A-S) takes the general form
<D"e(r) == t{e(r)e(o)]
= <DII(r) + (h * h) * <D oo (r) - h * <Dol(r)

- (h * <D O I )( -r), (A-4)

(A-lO)
*
where h h denotes autocorrelation of functions. The error Further important simplifications result if fl(r) and /2 (r) are
power spectrum is mutually uncorrelated, i.e.,
Pee(k) = P1,(k) + IH(k)12 P oo (k ) (A-II)

- H(klPol(k) - [H(klPol(k)]*, (A-S) In this case it is instructive to split the estimation error into a
signal distortion (subscript sd) and a noise transmission
 Potential-field Separation Filter 1147

(subscript nt) 1.5

+ ent(r), (A-12)

where 0 is the Dirac delta function. The autocorrelation of e(r) 0.

E
c:l
IS
,-0.5
[(0 - h)*(o - QJ
......
Downloaded 04/30/13 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

<1>ee(r) = h)}<1>II(r) + [h * h} <1> 22 (r) LL

Band-pass/band-s! op

<1>sd (r) + <1>nt (r). (A-13)

The autocorrelation has the power spectrum

- 0.5
Pee(k) = [1 1- HI PI I + IHI P22}k)
2 2
003 0.1 0.3 1 3 10 30
Relative noise amplitude R = J~/~1 .
+ (A-14)

which attains the minimum FIG. A-I. Envelopes of uniformly suboptimum filters. The
dashed curve demonstrates that ideal band-passjband-stop fil-
ters generally exist that are uniformly suboptimum at the 0.42
(A-IS) level.

for the Wiener optimum filter

Hopt(k) = 1/[1 + R 2(k)}

(A-16)

where
Every other filter h(r) with a wavenumber response satis-
(A-17) fying

(A-20)
denotes the relative rms noise amplitude at each wavenumber. at all k is in the rms error sense uniformly closer than E x 100
percent to the optimum. I call such h(r) "uniformly subopti-
Uniformly suboptimum filters mum" at the level E with respect to the pertinent signal and
noise spectra, and hc± (r) are extreme in this sense.
With the optimum filter defined, I consider Figure A-I summarizes the relations between filter ampli-
suboptimum filters as follows. Let E > 0 and let the two filters tudes of these optimum and suboptimum filters as functions of
hc+(r) and hc-(r) have the wavenumber responses (k) and n; the relative rms noise amplitude R(k). The optimum filter am-
H c- (k) given by
plitude (E = 0.00) shows a smooth transition through a decade
around R = 1. For growing E values, a progressively wider
H; (k) == [I ± (26 + 62)1!2R(k)J/[1 + R 2(k)} (A-18) envelope is permitted for uniformly suboptimum filter ampli-
tudes, especially in this transition decade.
These responses are the two real roots of the equation The special significance of the envelope of E = 0.42 ~
)'2 - I is in containing the boxcar weight function. This
[11- HI + IHI 2 2R 2}k) = [0 + E)2R2j(1 + R 2)} k), (A-19) shows that, in general, for uncorrelated signal and noise there
always exists a filter composed of ideal passbands and stop-
which, by equations (A-14) and (A-IS), expresses that the rms bands which is uniformly suboptimum at the 0.42 level. An-
separation error of H c± (k) is exactly E x 100 percent above the other general consequence of these envelopes is the possibility
optimum value at each k, and so they also have exactly of a substantial tradeoff between signal distortion and noise
E x 100 percent" worse" integrated rms error. transmission, as was demonstrated in Figure 5.

APPENDIX B
FINITE IMPULSE RESPONSE OPTIMUM FILTERS

Optimum finite impulse response filters of the type space domain by minimizing
M
h(r) = I hi o(r - r.), (B-1) (B-2)
i= 1

with picked sampling points r., are conveniently derived in the which by equation (A-4) leads to the well-known Toeplitz-like
 1148 Jacobsen

normal equations (Clarke, 1969) which leads to M linear equations and one nonlinear equa-
M tion,
I hj <lJ oo (r, - r) = <lJ 10 (r), j = I, ... , M. (8-3) M
i= I
I hj<p(x j - x) +!..hj = <P(x). j = I, ... , M (8-8)
For an uncorrelated sum of signal and noise along equa- i= I

tions (A-9) and (A-II), the normal equations of (8-3) become

= c, (8-9)
j~1 h{ <lJ11(f j -
Downloaded 04/30/13 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

f) + <lJ 22 (r, - r)J = <lJ\\(r). (8-4)

where <p is the autocorrelation of the supposed signal

On Strakhov-Naidu filters <p(x) == m * mix). (8-10)

Equations (8-8) and (8-9) define the Stakhov-Naidu filter

Conversely, one may view any filter as a Wiener optimum coefficients h, and the Lagrangian multiplier A. Together they
filter provided that its coefficients hi satisfy an equation simi- satisfy equation (8-8), rewritten using Kronecker delta oij as
lar to equation (8-4). Thus. I demonstrate here that the profile
filters derived by Naidu (1966) based on a theory by Strakhov
(l964a, b) are Wiener optimum filters in this sense.
ji
l
h{<p(x i - x) + AOij] = <P(x), j=I, ... ,M; (8-11)

For a supposed signal mix) depending on the lateral coordi-

nate x, the approach of Naidu (1966) is to minimize the distor- and which is in the required form of equation (8-4) with
tion

and (8-12)
(8-5)
A for x = 0
<lJ 2 2 (x) = { . .
subject to the auxiliary condition o for x = (Xi - x), I =IJ.

Thus the Strakhov-Naidu filter is a Wiener optimum filter of

which has the effect that a supposed white noise is reduced by
the factor c. Introducing the Lagrangian multiplier A, the rela-
tion
must be minimized subject to
type (8-1) which estimates a signal process with auto-
correlation <p(x) in the presence of a noise uncorrelated be-
tween grid points and with variance A, which for a fixed mix),
is a function of c.
Naidu (1966) assumes mix) to be a cylinder response from a
depth d, which incidentally makes <p(x) the autocorrelation of
a white-noise random sheet of line sources at the same depth
d. This causes the connection to the filters given by equation
(5) in the continuous limit. Similar reasoning connects the 2-D
filters of Naidu (1967) to the filters given here.