AccScience Publishing / JSE / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/JSE026250109
Cite this article
2
Download
22
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

A Plume Resolution Enhancement Network-based method for enhancing the resolution of cold seep plume seismic data

Guang Hu1 ,  Liang Zhang2* ,  Yang Li2 ,  Yutian Deng1 ,  Shengxiong Yang1
Show Less
1 Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, Guangdong , China
2 Guangzhou Geological Survey Institute, Guangzhou Marine Development Promotion Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong , China
Received: 16 June 2026 | Revised: 21 August 2026 | Accepted: 9 September 2026 | Published online: 27 October 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Cold seep bubble plumes serve as critical indicators of submarine gas hydrate deposits, yet their seismic imaging resolution is often limited by the dominant frequency of marine seismic sources and signal attenuation, making clear identification challenging. This paper proposes a high-resolution processing method based on a lightweight deep learning model, Plume Resolution Enhancement Network (PRENet), to achieve end-to-end intelligent enhancement of cold seep plume seismic data from low to high resolution. For data construction, the migration patterns and morphological characteristics of plumes were analyzed, and a fixed wavelet frequency difference strategy with a controllable signal-to-noise ratio was employed. Using forward convolutional modeling, a large-scale training dataset of paired low- and high-resolution samples was generated, providing a reliable foundation for model training. For the model, a multi-scale atrous spatial pyramid pooling module, a channel attention mechanism, and a global residual connection were introduced into an encoder–decoder architecture. With an extremely low parameter count, the model effectively extracts multi-scale plume features. A combined loss function dominated by the structural similarity index measure was designed to balance structural fidelity and high-frequency detail recovery. Test results demonstrate that PRENet substantially outperformed the comparison model with an equivalent parameter count across all quantitative metrics on an independent test set. Spectral analysis confirms that the signal frequency band is effectively broadened and a substantial portion of high-frequency components is recovered. Noise robustness, missing data, and frequency difference generalization experiments further validate the model’s favorable robustness and generalization capability. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the feasibility of enhancing the resolution of cold seep plume seismic data using a lightweight deep learning approach, offering a promising direction for future fine-scale delineation of cold seep plumes in submarine gas hydrate exploration, subject to validation using field data.

Keywords
Cold seep plume
High resolution
Deep learning
Attention mechanism
Plume Resolution Enhancement Network
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. U2244224 and 42327901).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Garcia-Gil S, Vilas F, Garcia-Garcia A. Shallow gas features in incised-valley fills (Ría de Vigo, NW Spain): a case study. Cont Shelf Res. 2002;22(16):2303-2315. doi: 10.1016/S0278-4343(02)00057-2
  2. Chen DF, Chen XP, Chen GQ. Geology and geochemistry of cold seepage and venting-related carbonates. Acta Sedimentol Sin. 2002;20(1):34-40. [In Chinese]. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0550.2002.01.007
  3. Fan SS, Guan JA, Liang DD, et al. A dynamic theory on natural gas hydrate reservoir formation. Nat Gas Geosci. 2007;18(6):819-826. [In Chinese]. doi: 10.11764/j.issn.1672-1926.2007.06.819
  4. Sauter EJ, Muyakshin SI, Charlou JL, et al. Methane discharge from a deep-sea submarine mud volcano into the upper water column by gas hydrate-coated methane bubbles. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 2006;243(3-4):354-365. doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.01.041
  5. Mei S, Yang HL, Sun ZL, et al. Acoustic detecting technology based on multibeam water column imaging and its application to cold seep plume. Mar Geol Quat Geol. 2021;41(4):222-231. [In Chinese]. doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2020082401
  6. Neurauter TW, Bryant WR. Seismic expression of sedimentary volcanism on the continental slope, northern Gulf of Mexico. Geo-Mar Lett. 1990;10(4):225-231. doi: 10.1007/BF02431069
  7. Chen JX, Song HB, Guan YX, Yang SX, Bai Y, Geng MH. A preliminary study of submarine cold seeps applying seismic oceanography techniques. Chin J Geophys. 2017;60(1):604-616. [In Chinese]. doi: 10.1002/cjg2.30032
  8. Han TG, Tong SY, Chen JX, et al. Analysis of detection methods for submarine plume. Prog Geophys. 2018;33(5):2113-2125. [In Chinese]. doi: 10.6038/pg2018CC0154
  9. Kruglyakova R, Gubanov Y, Kruglyakov V, Prokoptsev G. Assessment of technogenic and natural hydrocarbon supply into the Black Sea and seabed sediments. Cont Shelf Res. 2002;22(16):2395-2407. doi: 10.1016/S0278-4343(02)00064-X
  10. You JC, Li CP, Cheng LF, Liu X, Ehsan MI. Numerical simulation of methane plumes based on effective medium theory. Arab J Geosci. 2015;8(11):9089-9100. doi: 10.1007/s12517-015-1916-2
  11. Li CP, You JC, Tan YC, et al. Forward modeling and inversion of the relation model between the gas content of plume and its seismic attribute. Acta Oceanol Sin. 2021;40(5):120-128. doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1737-y
  12. Duan PR, Luan XW, Yu Y, et al. Numerical simulation of seismic waves of bubble plumes in submarine cold seepages. Chin J Geophys. 2020;63(2):753-765. [In Chinese]. doi: 10.6038/cjg2020M0533
  13. Robinson EA. Predictive decomposition of time series with application to seismic exploration. Geophysics. 1967;32(3):418-484. doi: 10.1190/1.1439873
  14. Wiggins RA. Minimum entropy deconvolution. Geoexploration. 1978;16(1-2):21-35. doi: 10.1016/0016-7142(78)90005-4
  15. Ulrych TJ. Application of homomorphic deconvolution to seismology. Geophysics. 1971;36(4):650-660. doi: 10.1190/1.1440202
  16. Guo JY, Yang HZ. A new method for improving signal/noise ratio and resolution by dual direction prediction in frequency-space domain. Oil Geophys Prospect. 1997;32(4):472-477. [In Chinese]. Accessed October 26, 2026. http://www.ogp-cn.com.cn/CN/Y1997/V32/I4/472
  17. Hargreaves ND. Inverse Q filtering by Fourier transform. Geophysics. 1991;56(4):519-527. doi: 10.1190/1.1443067
  18. Wang YH. Inverse Q-filter for seismic resolution enhancement. Geophysics. 2006;71(3):V51-V60. doi: 10.1190/1.2192912
  19. Gao JH, Wang LL, Zhao W. Enhancing resolution of seismic traces based on the changing wavelet model of the seismogram. Chin J Geophys. 2009;52(5):1289-1300. [In Chinese]. doi: 10.1002/cjg2.1384
  20. Zhou HL, Wang J, Wang MC, Shen MC, Zhang XK, Liang P. Amplitude spectrum compensation and phase spectrum correction of seismic data based on the generalized S transform. Appl Geophys. 2014;11(4):468-478. doi: 10.1007/s11770-014-0456-y
  21. Hu G, Li Y, Yang SX, et al. Intelligent suppression of marine seismic multiples using deep learning methods. J Ocean Univ China. 2025;24(4):967-978. doi: 10.1007/s11802-025-6016-7
  22. Cui YH, Chen YH, Xu C, et al. Identification and characterization of fractured cavities in carbonate reservoirs using Swin-UNet transformer and seismic attribute compression fusion. J Seism Explor. 2026;35(1):119-138. doi: 10.36922/JSE025420090
  23. Tian S, Tang Y, Deng F, Luo W, Wang B, Yang S. An interactive segmentation-based method for seismic facies annotation and segmentation. Sci Rep. 2026;16(1):2353. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-32016-8
  24. Qi H, Wang Z, Li W, et al. Multi-constraint two-step intelligent prestack seismic inversion and its application: a case study in the Junggar Basin, Northwest China. J Seism Explor. 2026;35(3):026040013. doi: 10.36922/jse026040013
  25. Hu G, Hu ZW, Liu J, Cheng F, Peng D. Seismic fault interpretation using deep learning-based semantic segmentation method. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett. 2022;19:1-5. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2020.3041301
  26. Deng B, Zou G, Peng S, Han C, Xue J. Computational efficiency of deep learning-based seismic fault interpretation considering context window and input resolution. J Seism Explor. 2026;35(2):026030008. doi: 10.36922/jse026030008
  27. Li ZY, Wang GQ, Zhu CH, Chen SQ. Enhancing seismic resolution based on U-Net deep learning network. J Seism Explor. 2023;32(4):315-336.
  28. Lin L, Li C, Kuang Y, Xin X, Zhong Z. Applications of deep learning-based resolution-enhanced seismic data in fault identification. Geophys Prospect. 2025;73(2):523-542. doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.13664
  29. Sun YZ, Huang J, Yu WZ, Hu W. End-to-end high-resolution seismic processing method based on U-Net network. Prog Geophys. 2021;36(3):1297-1305. [In Chinese]. doi: 10.6038/pg2021EE0349
  30. Sun Q, Feng Y, Du Q, Gong F. Removing random noise and improving the resolution of seismic data using deep-learning transformers. Geophys Prospect. 2025;73(2):611-627. doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.13617
  31. Wu ML, Wu J, Bai M, Li H, Gui Z, Huang G. U-STDRNet: a unified model integrating Swin Transformer and residual dense network for seismic image super-resolution and denoising. J Seism Explor. 2026;35(1):14-32. doi: 10.36922/JSE025400081
  32. Wu X, Liang L, Shi Y, Fomel S. FaultSeg3D: using synthetic datasets to train an end-to-end convolutional neural network for 3D seismic fault segmentation. Geophysics. 2019;84(3):IM35-IM45. doi: 10.1190/geo2018-0646.1
  33. Heeschen KU, Tréhu AM, Collier RW, Suess E, Rehder G. Distribution and height of methane bubble plumes on the Cascadia Margin characterized by acoustic imaging. Geophys Res Lett. 2003;30(12):1643. doi: 10.1029/2003GL016974
  34. Freire AFM, Matsumoto R, Santos LA. Structural-stratigraphic control on the Umitaka Spur gas hydrates of Joetsu Basin in the eastern margin of Japan Sea. Mar Pet Geol. 2011;28(10):1967-1978. doi: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2010.10.004
  35. Greinert J, Artemov Y, Egorov V, Debatist M, McGinnis D. 1300-m-high rising bubbles from mud volcanoes at 2080 m in the Black Sea—hydroacoustic characteristics and temporal variability. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 2006;244(1-2):1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.02.011
  36. Sassen R, Losh SL, Cathles L III, et al. Massive vein-filling gas hydrate: relation to ongoing gas migration from the deep subsurface in the Gulf of Mexico. Mar Pet Geol. 2001;18(5):551-560. doi: 10.1016/S0264-8172(01)00014-9
  37. Luan XW, Liu H, Yue BJ, Obzhivor A. Characteristics of cold seepage on side scan sonar sonogram. Geoscience. 2010;24(3):474-480. [In Chinese]. Accessed October 26, 2026. https://manu54.magtech.com.cn/xddz/EN/abstract/abstract12722.shtml
  38. Wan Z, Chen C, Liang J, Zhang W, Huang W, Su P. Hydrochemical characteristics and evolution mode of cold seeps in the Qiongdongnan Basin, South China Sea. Geofluids. 2020;2020(6):1-16. doi: 10.1155/2020/4578967
  39. Li CP, Gou LM, You JC, Liu XW, Ou CL. Further studies on the numerical simulation of bubble plumes in the cold seepage active region. Acta Oceanol Sin. 2016;35(1):118-124. doi: 10.1007/s13131-016-0803-3
  40. Han T, Chen J, Azevedo L, He B, Xu H, Yang R. Quantitative estimation of bubble volume fraction of submarine seep plumes by modeling seismic oceanography data. J Oceanol Limnol. 2023;41(2):673-686. doi: 10.1007/s00343-022-1413-x
  41. Paszke A, Chaurasia A, Kim S, Culurciello E. ENet: a deep neural network architecture for real-time semantic segmentation. arXiv. Preprint posted online 2016. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1606.02147
  42. Anari S, Ranjbarzadeh R, Bendechache M. GAN-boosted U-Net for enhanced breast tumor segmentation: a hybrid approach for improved performance and interpretability. In: 2025 International Conference on Smart Multimedia (ICSM). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2025:1-6. doi: 10.1109/icsm64417.2025.11541566
  43. Ranjbarzadeh R, Keles A, Anari S, Cunneen M, Bendechache M. A global-local 3D brain tumor segmentation model using vision transformers and axial statespace modeling. In: 2026 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Computer, Data Sciences and Applications (ACDSA). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2026:1-9. doi: 10.1109/acdsa67686.2026.11468214
  44. Safarpour H, Sadeghi S, Zarbakhsh P, Kamsari M, Kia M, Ranjbarzadeh R. Explainable deep learning framework for brain tumor segmentation using vision transformer and conditional random fields. Multimed Syst. 2026;32(1):19. doi: 10.1007/s00530-025-02075-y
  45. Chen LC, Papandreou G, Kokkinos I, Murphy K, Yuille AL. DeepLab: semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected CRFs. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2018;40(4):834-848. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2017.2699184
Share
Back to top
Journal of Seismic Exploration, Print ISSN: 0963-0651, Published by AccScience Publishing