Rock-physics relationships between inverted elastic reflectivities
Michelle Thomas 1 , Vaughn Ball 1 , J. P. Blangy 1 , and Luis Tenorio 2
Abstract
Quantitative relationships between true elastic properties are not
always applicable to inverted elastic properties. We use the important
example of two-term AVO reflectivity inversion to demonstrate this.
AVO literature includes many examples of two-term AVO equations,
and we provide a general relationship to convert between inverted
reflectivities obtained when using these various equations. Conversion
between inverted reflectivities should be based on this equation,
rather than standard elastic-property relationships. This is of im-
mediate importance when applying the method of chi-angle projec-
tions to estimate elastic reflectivities.
Introduction
Wiggins et al. (1983) established the now well-known relation-
ship 2R S = A − B, where R S is shear impedance reflectivity, and A
and B are AVO intercept and gradient (assuming that VP /VS = 2).
To introduce our topic, we pose this question: assume we don’t
know the true A, B, and R S , but do know Â, B̂, and R̂S , which
are estimates of the true reflectivities obtained by two-term (2T)
inversion of seismic data based on the AVO equations of Shuey
(1985) and Fatti et al. (1994). Is it still true that 2 R̂S = Â
B̂? Stated
more broadly: do we expect relationships for inverted elastic proper-
ties to be the same as relationships for true elastic properties?
The surprising answer is no. The correct general relationship
between inverted estimates is R̂S
aÂ
bB̂ where an exact relation-
ship no longer exists, even when VP /VS = 2. Furthermore, whereas
a = .5 and b = .5 for true elastic reflectivities, these coefficients no
longer apply when relating inverted estimates. The values of a and
b vary from case to case depending on the angle ranges of the
angle gather used to estimate A, B, and R S . Later in this article,
we will demonstrate how to compute the correct values for a and
b for arbitrary elastic reflectivities and arbitrary angle ranges.
A common error in quantitative seismic analysis is thinking
about AVO inversion and its products as if the forward models
(both the elastic and the AVO) still apply exactly. A single general
equation is needed to provide a means to convert between the
inverted reflectivities obtained by most of the various 2T AVO
equations provided in the literature. Ursenbach and Stewart (2008)
have addressed the topic of relating 2T AVO equations previously,
but our contribution is different in that it establishes relationships
between 2T inverted elastic reflectivities. In the final section, we
consider the important method of using “chi-angle” weightings
of intercept and gradient as a way to produce estimates of other
elastic reflectivities, as developed in Whitcombe et al. (2002) for
the case of extended elastic impedance.
Two-term elastic reflectivities based
on forward modeling
AVO literature includes several examples of the types of
difficulties that can arise when forward elastic reflectivity relation-
ships are applied to reflectivity estimates obtained by 2T
1
Hess Corporation.
2
Colorado School of Mines.
438 THE LEADING EDGE May 2016
least-squares reflectivity inversion. Table 1 summarizes 11 AVO
equations taken from the literature, most of which are three-term
(3T) equations. The associated 2T equation is obtained by simply
dropping the last term. We have kept the same notations as the
authors, but do not explain their notations here.
Our first example is equation 8 in Table 1, given in Goodway
(2001). This equation is parameterized in terms of VP , mu, and
density. Note that the density term in this equation does not vary
with angle. So, from forward modeling alone, it might be concluded
that the first two terms are sufficient to model the offset behavior,
leaving only a constant shift for the density term. This is the point
made in Goodway (2001) in support of this equation. This conclu-
sion — based on forward elastic relationships — is verified in
Figure 1a, where it can be seen that the offset behavior of the VP
-mu-density model is identical to the full 3T model. It would be
easy to incorrectly conclude that this equation might provide
improved precision in 2T AVO inversion across all offsets when
density contrasts are small.
Our second example is based on equation 10 in Table 1, given
in Ursenbach and Stewart (2008) (U-S). The layer properties used
in this example are the same as those in the figure in U-S. In
offering this equation, Ursenbach and Stewart argue that it models
the three-term (3T) offset response better than other 2T equations.
In particular, they compare their 2T model to Smith and Gidlow
(1987) (S-G), given as equation 11 in Table 1. Figure 1b supports
their argument, based on forward elastic relationships, that this
equation will perform better over a large offset range when density
contrasts are large.
Our third example compares the 2T versions of equations 4
and 2 in Table 1 — the Fatti and Shuey equations. This comparison
is particularly important since intercept:gradient is one of the most
common inversions undertaken. It is a standard processing deliver-
able and forms the basis of the chi-angle analysis technique to be
discussed in greater detail in a later section. Note that beyond 30°
the 2T intercept:gradient equation is a poor fit. This is the source
of the common misconception that data beyond 30° should be
truncated for 2T AVO analysis.
When given elastic properties and asked which equation best
matches the 3T offset response, the above conclusions are correct
for the forward case. But this is not the real-world problem of
seismic rock physics. The real-world problem is that we are given
only the seismic data and are asked to make estimates based on a
preferred 2T AVO equation. This is an inverse problem. Table 2
compares “true” reflectivities with estimated reflectivities obtained
by least-squares inversion of the various 2T equations. Note that,
in all cases, estimated reflectivities are not the same as true reflectivi-
ties. This is an example of inversion bias. When the expected values
of inverted elastic properties are systematically shifted with respect
to the true elastic properties, the effect is called bias. Many authors
have noted that relationships between elastic reflectivities simplify
when VP /VS = 2. For example, the relationship 2R S = A − B is exact
http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/tle35040438.1.
Special Section: AVO inversion
Table 1. Summary of AVO equations from the literature. Equations with the same color are range-equivalent and will extract the same infor-
mation from the seismic when used in 2T AVO inversion. In all equations, k = (VS/VP)2. Otherwise, notation is that used by the authors.

No Reference Equation
0 Aki and Richards, 2002, p. 148 1

1




R ( p) =
2
(
1
4
2 p 2 + )

2cos 2 i


4
2 p 2

1 A&R familiar form, Mavko et al.,

1

V


1
VP 
V

 2 1
VP
2009, p. 101 R (
) =  P +
2  VP
 +


 2 VP
 2k 2 S +
 VS
sin
+

 2 VP
tan 2

sin 2
( )
2 Shuey, 1985, abstract



 2 1
VP
R (
) = R0 +  A0 R0 + 2
sin
+ (
tan 2

sin 2
)
 2 V
 ( )
1

P

3 Verm & Hilterman, 1995, Eq. 1

1

V




R (
) = NI cos 2
+ PRsin 2
; NI =  P +  , PR =
2  VP
 (
)
1

2

4 Fatti et al., 1994, Eq. 3; (correctly
1

1
I P
I

2 
attributed to Gidlow et al., 1992.) R (
) =
2 IP
( IS
)
1+ tan 2

4k S sin 2


2

tan 2

2k


sin



5 Goodway et al., 1997. This form of
(
 )
1 1  2
(μ
)  1 2 

the equation is ours. R (
) = 
k  sec
+ k  sec

2sin 2
 
tan 2

4k sin 2


  4 2  μ
 2  
 2

6 Stolt and Weglein, 1985, eq. 15, as 1



1

given by Buland and Omre, 2003 R (
) =
2
(
1+ tan 2



)
4k sin 2
+ 1
4k sin 2


2
(


)
7 Gray et al., 1999, Eq. 1

K
1 1  2
μ  1 2 


1 1 2 
R (
) = 
k  sec
+ k  sec

2sin 2
 + 
sec

K 4 3  μ 3 
2 4 

8 Goodway, 2001, Eq. (c)
VP
μ

(
R (
) = 1+ tan 2
) 2V
4k sin 2
+
2μ 2

P

9 Gray et al., 1999, Eq. 2

1 1  2
μ  1 2 


1 1 2 
R (
) = 
k  sec
+ k  sec

2sin 2
 + 
sec


4 2  μ 2 
2 4 

10 Ursenbach and Stewart, 2008, Eq. 33
4k cos 2

1 2  1 

R (
) = 1+ sin
 2  RI
8k sin 2
RJ
 5  cos


11 Smith and Gidlow, 1987, Eq. 6 
V 1
V  2

5
VP 1
VP
R (
) =  k  4 S + P
 sin
+ tan 2

8 VP  VS 2 VP  2 VP

when VP /VS = 2. Unfortunately, this simplification does not apply
to reflectivities estimated by 2T inversion. Inversion bias increases
continuously as VP /VS increases, and there is nothing special about
the case when VP /VS = 2. Bias is slightly lower at VP /VS = 1.9 and
slightly higher at VP /VS = 2.1.
If we want to infer something about elastic properties, x, based
on an intermediate elastic property estimate, ŷ, then we must
account for bias by constructing the appropriate new relationship
— or we must verify that the bias is negligible. In other words, it
is important to develop the AVO reflectivity relationships between
inverted elastic reflectivities obtained from 2T equations.
Figure 2 uses the inverted properties of Table 2 to model the
AVO response. This allows us to check how well a particular 2T
equation is able to match the input data when used in inversion.
Given the big differences in the forward models of Figure 1, it may
be surprising to find that U-S provides exactly the same response
as S-G, and Goodway’s VP -mu equation provides exactly the same
offset response as Fatti’s IP -IS equation. In some sense, it must be
concluded that the U-S properties contain the same information
as the S-G properties, and that the Goodway VP -mu properties
contain the same information as the Fatti properties. The Shuey
and Fatti equations (Figure 2c) continue to differ substantially from
each other, both in the forward and inverse cases. Note that, although
the inverted U-S response is the same as S-G in Figure 2, it is
different (and apparently better) than the inverted Fatti response.
Moreover, both U-S and Fatti appear to fit the 3T response sub-
stantially better than does Shuey. If we perform this inverse test
for all of the equations in Table 1, a pattern emerges. We have
organized the equations into three groups indicated by color. It can
be easily verified that equations within any of the colored groups

Special Section: AVO inversion May 2016 THE LEADING EDGE 439
Figure 1. Showing the modeled AVO response of a two-layer model. Figure 2. Showing the results of 2T inversion of the red “data” curve
Top layer values are VP = 3.0 km/s, VS = 1.5 km/s, and density = 2.0 g/cc. based on various 2T equations. The two-layer model is the same as in
The corresponding bottom layer values are 4.0 km/s, 2.0 km/s, and 2.2 Figure 1.
g/cc. The red curve is the same in each case and is the 3T response.

Table 2. Comparison of true reflectivities from the two-layer model compared with inverted reflectivity estimates based on least-squares
inverses of various 2T AVO models from Table 1.

Elastic True Eq. 8 Eq. 4 Eq. 10 Eq. 11 Eq. 2

property reflectivity Goodway 2 Fatti U-S S-G Shuey
VP 0.143 0.193 0.153
VS 0.143 0.160
mu 0.333 0.455
IP 0.190 0.193 0.192
IS 0.190 0.223 0.198
A 0.193 0.167
B -0.193 0.051

440 THE LEADING EDGE May 2016 Special Section: AVO inversion
will yield the same AVO response when data is modeled using
properties from 2T inversion. Next, we will explore why this is the
case and give equations to convert between the inverted reflectivities
obtained from any of these equations.
Conversion between two-term inverted reflectivities
In this section, we give equations to convert between inverted
reflectivities obtained by 2T least-squares inversion using the
various equations from Table 1. If a different approach is used for
inversion (such as damped-least squares or 2T Bayesian inversion)
these equations do not apply. However, modified versions of these
equations can be derived, depending on the specific approach
used in the inversion.
In the literature, AVO equations are usually presented in an
algebraic form as shown in Table 1. Unfortunately, the algebraic
form makes it difficult to compare the equations and expose the
mechanics of AVO inversion. This can be remedied by using a
matrix operator formulation rather than the standard algebraic
formulation. For the case of m angle stacks, a 2T AVO operator is
an m × 2 matrix where the ith row corresponds to the ith angle of
incidence. For example, in the case of Goodway’s equation 8 in
Table 1, the AVO operator is the matrix TG where the ith row
 
( )
is provided by TG (
i ) =  1+ tan 2
i ,
4k sin 2
i . The angle
 
 

response is then given by d = TG g where g =  RVp Rμ  is a
 
2 × 1 vector of VP - and mu-reflectivity. (The apostrophe symbol [’]
indicates matrix transpose.) For our purposes, we do not need to
explicitly give the other AVO operators associated with Table 1,
but almost all can be written down by inspection. For example,
suppose we want to compare two arbitrary AVO operators, TX and
TY . There is a way we can know in advance if they will result in the
same AVO response to inverted properties. Two operators will give
the same AVO response if they pass this test:
(
TX = TY TY† TX .) (1)
†
In other words, if TX survives multiplication by TY TY , both
operators will have the same AVO response to inverted properties.
(The dagger exponent refers to the “pseudo-inverse matrix.”) We
demonstrated this equivalence for the specific two-layer case of
Figures 1 and 2, but with equation 1 we can know that it will
always be true — regardless of the specific elastic properties and
of the angle ranges involved. If two operators pass this test, then
properties inverted using the operators can be converted exactly
one to the other. Therefore, we say they have the same range. (In
linear algebra, the range is the set of all vectors that can be rep-
resented as a weighted sum of the columns of a matrix.) Consider
the case where reflectivities are estimated using the least-squares
inverses. In matrix form, the least-squares estimates are x̂ = TX† d
and ŷ = TY† d. If test 1 is satisfied, we have the following rule for
converting between the inverted properties exactly.
x̂ = TX†TY ŷ . (2)
Special Section: AVO inversion
Even in the presence of noise, this conversion is exact if TX
and TY have the same range. If other inversion approaches are
used, equation 2 must be modified. But it is true for a broad class
of inversion approaches that if test 1 is satisfied, an exact conversion
between inverted properties usually can be given. It is in this sense
that the inverted properties in the same color group contain the
same information. Needless to say, U-S and S-G pass this test.
( )
That is, TS = TU TU† TS . Likewise, all equations of the same color
†
in Table 1 pass this test. For 2T inversion, TX TY is a 2 × 2 conversion
matrix, where each row provides the conversion weighting
coefficients.
This brings us to the case where test 1 fails, and the two AVO
operators do not have the same range. In this case, equation 2 is
no longer exact. However, it is still the best conversion relationship
possible without specific knowledge of the elastic properties in-
volved. In our theme example, we wished to find the coefficients
to convert inverted intercept:gradient reflectivity into inverted
shear reflectivity: R̂S
aÂ
bB̂. Equation 2 can be used to compute
a and b for the case where VP /VS = 2 and the angle range is 0 to
45° with 1° increments. The resulting conversion matrix is


TX†TY =  1.05 0  , (3)
 1.28
.5 
where TY is the Shuey intercept:gradient operator, and TX is the
2T Fatti operator. So we see that the desired relationship is
R̂S
1.28 Â
.5 B̂. Note also that the conversion to P-reflectivity
is not R P = A as would be concluded from forward elastic relation-
ships, but rather R̂P = 1.05 Â. Note in Table 2 that the direct 2T
estimate of shear reflectivity based on the Fatti equation is
R̂S = .23. Is it possible that this estimate of R̂S can be obtained
from  and B̂? Unfortunately, Fatti and Shuey are in different
color groups and have a different range. However, by using
R̂S
1.28 Â
.5 B̂ we obtain a good estimate, R̂S = .19. By contrast,
had we used the usual relationship R S = .5A − .5B, the estimate
is poor: R̂S = .06. The impact of these computations will become
clearer in the section on chi-angle projections.
Discussion
The notion of applying forward rock-physics relationships
to inverted properties is so common in the quantitative seismic
analysis literature that most readers will be surprised to find
that there can be pitfalls. However, the above results can be
readily verified with numerical tests. While this article is fo-
cused on the specific case of 2T AVO inversion, the issue can
be stated more broadly. Consider rock properties in two different
domains, x and y, where x = fr (y) is the rock-physics relationship
between them. Suppose also that the data can be modeled
using either of the domains, d = fx (x) and d = fy (y), and that
x̂ = f x# ( d ) and ŷ = f y# ( d ) are “good” estimates of x and y ac-
cording to some criteria. (# indicates an arbitrary frequentist
inverse). It follows that, in general, x̂2 = f r ( ŷ ) is not the best
estimator of x, and in some cases is a very poor estimator. In
other words, we cannot simply assume that the original rock-
physics relationship, fr, applies to inverted properties. What
are the solutions to this problem? One approach is to compute
May 2016 THE LEADING EDGE 441
x̂ directly, without using ŷ as an intermediate property. But
there are good reasons to use the intermediate property ap-
proach, including calibration and model verification. The
approach taken in this article is to show how to construct a
new rock-physics relationship such that x̂
f n ( ŷ ) is nearly the
best estimator of x. For a Bayesian inversion, the corresponding
approach is to replace the original likelihood by an appropriately
modified likelihood. These topics are beyond the scope of this
article, and our conclusions are developed around the specific
(important) case of 2T least-squares AVO reflectivity inversion.
Below is a summary of the key points surrounding the AVO
equations in Table 1 when used in 2T least-squares reflectivity
inversion. We do not defend all these points, but they are not
hard to verify based on the previous sections.
1) Equations within the same colored group of Table 1 will give
the same AVO response when modeled using 2T inverted
reflectivities. Thus, the residuals of inversion will be the same
within each group, and, in a sense, they have captured the
same information from the seismic. Within a given color
group, the inverted reflectivities from one equation can be
exactly converted to reflectivities inverted using another equa-
tion. The conversion is accomplished using equation 2.
2) If we compare the inverted properties from one color group
to those of another group, no exact conversion is possible, but
equation 2 still gives a good result in the absence of specific
elastic-property information.
3) When input angle ranges exceed 30°, bias for the group 1
equations can become significant and must be accounted for.
One ad-hoc approach to the bias problem for group 1 equations
is to throw out data beyond 30°. We strongly discourage this
practice. In our opinion, the preferred option is to use a low-
bias equation in the first place, as discussed next.
4) The group 3 equations accomplish the truncation to two terms
using prior rock-physics information based on a deterministic
relationship between P-velocity and density reflectivities.
When properly calibrated to local rock properties, this method
gives the lowest bias approach to 2T AVO reflectivity inversion.
However, note that whereas the group 2 equations offer a
significant reduction in bias over the group 1 equations, the
incremental improvement using group 3 equations is insig-
nificant. An alternative approach is to use Bayesian reflectivity
inversion. The Bayesian framework offers a more flexible
approach to including prior rock-physics information. See
Downton and Lines (2004). For a general discussion of 2T
truncation when prior rock-physics information is considered,
see Ball et al. (2014).
5) Within group 2, there are some equations where the first two
properties are of the form Xρ, where X is an arbitrary elastic
property. Equations 4 and 5 of Table 1 are examples of this.
Inversion to these properties is a good low-bias option, and
is our preferred approach to 2T inversion. The one exception
to this is that λ reflectivity often has a lower bias than λρ
reflectivity, depending on specifics of the VP /VS ratio and angle
range. (Note that VP /VS reflectivity also falls into the low-bias
Xρ family of properties.)
442 THE LEADING EDGE May 2016
6) Use of the other 2T equations in group 2 can give nonintuitive,
high-bias results and 2T inversion is not generally a suitable
approach. For example, equations 4 and 8 in Table 1 give
identical results when 2T inversion is used, to within a factor
of 2. Likewise, equations 9 and 5 give identical results. Invert-
ing for properties such as Δμ /μ is unreasonable in 2T inversion
even though it appears to be defendable based on forward
models such as equations 8 and 9; the result is the same as
inverting for μ ρ reflectivity in equations 4 and 5.
Chi-angle projections and two-term bias
The idea of using weighted sums of intercept and gradient to
estimate elastic reflectivities has been discussed in the literature
for more than two decades and is now an integral part of the
canon of seismic rock-physics methods. This is an important
example of using intermediate elastic properties (intercept and
gradient) to estimate other elastic properties. The method has
been discussed in the context of extended elastic impedance by
Whitcombe et al. (2002), but is also often applied to elastic re-
flectivities and relative elastic properties. In the context of elastic
reflectivities, the approach is to parameterize weights of A and B
in terms of a “chi” angle: R χ = Acos χ + Bsin χ.
For example, column 1 of Table 3 follows Msolo and Gidlow
(2015) and is based on forward elastic relationships under the
assumption that VP /VS = 2. But what if we want to know the
chi-angles for inverted elastic reflectivities, R̂X = Âcos
+ B̂sin
?
In this case, equation 2 can be used. In our theme example,
the forward elastic relationship for S-impedance reflectivity is
R S = .5A − .5B, which corresponds to a chi-parameter of -45°
as given in Table 3. But from the previous section we saw that,
for inverted intercept and gradient, the relationship
is R̂S
1.28 Â
.5 B̂ , which is a chi-angle of -21°. Column 2 of
Table 3 gives expected chi-angles based on inverted
intercept:gradient. Although column 2 is the “best” estimate
of chi-angles for inverted intercept:gradient, it may be a poor
estimate in the case of VP /VS reflectivity. We now verify calcu-
lated results for R̂S using the correlation method introduced
in Whitcombe et al. (2002).
In Figure 3, the blue curve represents a correlation analysis
based on forward elastic relationships where A and B are computed
directly from the well logs. As expected, maximum correlation
Table 3. Chi-angle projections based on intercept:gradient assuming
VP /VS = 2. First column is for true intercept:gradient, after Msolo and
Gidlow (2015). Second column is for inverted intercept:gradient with
angle range 0 to 45° at 1° increments.
Chi-angle for Chi-angle for
true refl inverted refl
Elastic Reflectivity (degrees) (degrees)
IP 0 0
IS -45 -21
lamda 18 31
mu -45 -21
VP/VS 45 114
Special Section: AVO inversion

Figure 3. Correlation approach to predict RS based on intercept:gradient.
The blue curve uses true values, while the red curve uses inverted
intercept:gradient. Vertical lines mark correlation maxima.
occurs at -45°. By contrast, the red curve in Figure 3 is the result
of correlating R̂X = Âcos
+ B̂sin
with R S . The correlation
maximum is indicated by the red vertical line and is nearly the
same as the value predicted above using equation 2. To compute
 and B̂ for use in Figure 3, we constructed a noise-free synthetic
angle gather and found  and B̂ by fitting a line. The results are
the same with or without a wavelet on the synthetic, assuming
that the same wavelet is used for each angle.
There can be several reasons why correlation scans sometimes
produce different angles based on intercept:gradient computed
from well logs versus those computed from seismic. Inversion bias
is certainly one of those reasons and can often be accounted for
as described here.
Conclusions
We have used the example of 2T least-squares AVO reflectivity
inversion to demonstrate an often-overlooked fact: standard elastic
relationships may be inappropriate when applied to inverted elastic
properties. We have provided a general formula for converting
between inverted elastic reflectivities obtained from the various
two-term AVO equations. This formula defines the proper relation-
ship between inverted reflectivities and may be significantly
different from the standard elastic relationships. The AVO intercept
and gradient domain is particularly vulnerable to bias when long
offsets are involved. In this case, new debiased chi-angles should
be computed based on the conversion formula provided here or
based on correlation scans of intercept:gradient inverted from a
synthetic. Alternatively, analysts may prefer to use a low-bias
domain such as the Fatti domain as the basis for two-term chi-
angle projections.
Corresponding author: mthomas@hess.com
444 THE LEADING EDGE May 2016
References
Aki, K., and R. G. Richards, 1980 and 2002, Quantitative seismol-
ogy, 2nd ed.: University Science Books.
Ball, V., L. Tenorio, J. P. Blangy, M. Thomas, and C. Schiott, 2014,
Uncertainty quantification of two term relative elastic inversion.
Second EAGE Integrated Reservoir Modeling Conference.
Buland, A. and H. Omre, 2003, Bayesian linearized AVO inversion:
Geophysics, 68, 185–198, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1543206.
Downton, J. E., and L. R. Lines, 2004, Three term AVO waveform
inversion: 74th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded
Abstracts, 215–218, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1851205.
Fatti, J. L., G. C. Smith, P. J. Vail, P. J. Strauss, and P. R. Levitt, 1994,
Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: A
3-D seismic case history using the geostack technique: Geophys-
ics, 59, no. 9, 1362–1376, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1443695.
Gidlow, P. M., G. C. Smith, and P. J. Vail, 1992, Hydrocarbon de-
tection using fluid factor traces: A case history: SEG/EAEG
Summer Research Workshop, Expanded Abstracts, 78–89.
Goodway, W., T. Chen, and J. Downton, 1997, Improved AVO fluid
detection and lithology discrimination using Lamé petrophysi-
cal parameters: “Lambda-Rho,” “Mu-Rho,” and “Lambda/Mu
fluid stack,” from P and S inversions: 1997 CSEG meeting ab-
stracts, 148–151; CSEG Recorder, 22, no. 7, 3–5.
Goodway, B., 2001, AVO and Lamé constants for rock parameter-
ization and fluid detection: CSEG Recorder, 26, 39–60.
Gray, D., B. Goodway, T. Chen, 1999, Bridging the gap: Using AVO
to detect changes in fundamental elastic constants: 69th, Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 852–855,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1821163.
Mavko, G., T. Mukerji, and J. Dvorkin, 2009, The rock physics hand-
book Second Edition: Cambridge University Press.
Msolo, A., and M. Gidlow, 2015, Relative rock physics templates in
the elastic impedance domain: 85th Annual International Meet-
ing, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 575–579, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1190/segam2015-5864583.1.
Shuey, R. T., 1985, A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations: Geo-
physics, 50, no. 4, 609–614, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441936.
Smith, G. C., and P. M. Gidlow, 1987, Weighted stacking for rock
property estimation and detection of gas: Geophysical Prospect-
ing, 35, no. 9, 993–1014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1987.
tb00856.x.
Stolt, R.H., and A. B. Weglein, 1985, Migration and inversion of
seismic data: Geophysics, 50, no. 12, 2458–2472, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1190/1.1441877.
Ursenbach, C. P., and R. R. Stewart, 2008, Two-term AVO inver-
sion: Equivalences and new methods: Geophysics, 73, no. 6, C31–
C38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2978388.
Verm, R., and F. Hilterman, 1995, Lithology color-coded seismic
sections: The calibration of AVO crossplotting to rock proper-
ties: The Leading Edge, 14, no. 8, 847–853, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1190/1.1437170.
Whitcombe, D. N., P. A. Connolly, R. L. Reagan, and T. C. Redshaw,
2002, Extend elastic impedance for fluid and lithology prediction:
Geophysics, 67, no. 1, 63–67, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1451337.
Wiggins, R., G. S. Kenny, and C. D. McClue, 1983, A method for
determining and displaying the shear-velocity reflectivities of a
geologic formation: European patent application (Mobil Oil Cor-
poration).
Special Section: AVO inversion