I attended at talk recently at the TGS office in Houston, TX, by Marianna Raunch. During this talk, a statement was made that for "very large" velocity inversions, semblance (or other similar statistical methods) "break" (or do not work) for accurately determining VRMS. Why is this?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You may have to ask Marianna Raunch what she was specifically getting at. I know when I worked with semblence picking software in the late 90s, it was generally agreed that different approaches worked in different places. Eg. a neural net autopicker worked when tested in the Gulf of Mexico but behaved poorly in the North Sea. Similarly, some locations required 4th order NMO in addition to VRMS (I actually implemented a 4th order NMO autopicker)- but at the time most picking was just VRMS. $\endgroup$ – winwaed Jul 30 '19 at 22:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.