Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The workflow of the proposed method.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Model parameters.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Model data example: (a) geological model and (b) synthetic seismic data.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Seismic attributes of model data: (a) sweetness, (b) instantaneous amplitude, (c) structure tensor, (d) total energy, (e) gradient magnitude, (f) relative impedance, (g) instantaneous frequency, (h) instantaneous phase.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The confusion matrix of sensitive seismic attributes: (a) sweetness, (b) instantaneous amplitude and (c) structure tensor.

Where tag 1 denotes cave reservoir, tag 2 denotes non-reservoir.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

The iterations of GA.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

The fusion results:

(a) PCA and (b) GA-KPCA.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

The confusion matrix:

(a) PCA and (b) GA-KPCA.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 2.

Sensitivity analysis of characterization accuracy and convergence under different fusion thresholds.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 8.

Field seismic data, the dashed black line denotes well trajectory.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Sensitive seismic attributes of field data: (a) sweetness, (b) instantaneous amplitude, (c) structure tensor and (d) total energy.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

The iterations of GA for field data.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

The fusion result of field data:

(a) PCA and (b) GA-KPCA.

More »

Fig 11 Expand