The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Simply denoise: Wavefield reconstruction via jittered undersampling
Abstract
We present a new, discrete undersampling scheme designed to favor wavefield reconstruction by sparsity-promoting inversion with transform elements localized in the Fourier domain. The work is motivated by empirical observations in the seismic community, corroborated by results from compressive sampling, that indicate favorable (wavefield) reconstructions from random rather than regular undersampling. Indeed, random undersampling renders coherent aliases into harmless incoherent random noise, effectively turning the interpolation problem into a much simpler denoising problem. A practical requirement of wavefield reconstruction with localized sparsifying transforms is the control on the maximum gap size. Unfortunately, random undersampling does not provide such a control. Thus, we introduce a sampling scheme, termed jittered undersampling, that shares the benefits of random sampling and controls the maximum gap size. The contribution of jittered sub-Nyquist sampling is key in formu-lating a versatile wavefield sparsity-promoting recovery scheme that follows the principles of compressive sampling. After the behavior of the jittered-undersampling scheme in the Fourier domain is analyzed, its performance is studied for curvelet recovery by sparsity-promoting inversion (CRSI). The findings on synthetic and real seismic data indicate an improvement of several decibels over recovery from regularly undersampled data for the same amount of data collected.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
Donoho, D. L. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.2006.871582 · Cited by 23,994
Donoho, D. L. (2004) · Cited by 16,703
Candes, E. J., Romberg, J., & Tao, T. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.2005.862083 · Cited by 15,639
Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements
Candès, E. J., Romberg, J. K., & Tao, T. (2006) · Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics · doi:10.1002/cpa.20124 · Cited by 7,036
Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging
Lustig, M., Donoho, D., & Pauly, J. M. (2007) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.21391 · Cited by 6,952
An iterative thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems with a sparsity constraint.
Daubechies, I., Defrise, M., & De Mol, C. (2004) · Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics · doi:10.1002/cpa.20042 · Cited by 4,958
Verdú, S. (1998) · Cited by 4,711
Figueiredo, M. A. T., Nowak, R. D., & Wright, S. J. (2007) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/jstsp.2007.910281 · Cited by 3,524
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.
(1923) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1093/ej/33.130.269 · Cited by 3,219
Metadata
- Authors
- Hennenfent, G., & Herrmann, F. J.
- Venue
- Geophysics
- Publisher
- Society of Exploration Geophysicists
- Published
- 2008-01-01
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- V19-V28
- ISSN
- 0016-8033 (ISSN-L)
- 1942-2156
- OpenAlex
- W2050826786
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 12.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Simply denoise: Wavefield reconstruction via jittered undersampling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1190/1.2841038
- The paper
- Hennenfent, G., & Herrmann, F. J. (2008). Simply denoise: Wavefield reconstruction via jittered undersampling. Geophysics. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2841038
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.