## 3 Results
Although some signal restoration occurs at the reservoir location, the resolution is insufficient to clearly distinguish the seismic reflection axes of the coal seam and the reservoir. In Figure 12c, we present the high-resolution seismic data obtainedafter applying the geologically guided sparsity criteria inversion method. Below the coal seam, continuous stratigraphic information is much clearer, demonstrating a significant improvement in resolution compared to the sparse inversion result (as shown by the green arrows). At the reservoir location, the sparse inversion method failed to effectively restore the signal, whereas our method successfully recovered the signals below the strong amplitude axis of the coal seam, clearly distinguishing the reservoir from the coal seam. This results in a well-defined lateral distribution of the restored geological body (as indicated by the black arrows in Figure 12c). Figure 11: Comparison of inversion results from field data. (**a**) Observed seismic data profile; (**b**) high-resolution profile from sparse inversion; and (**c**) high-resolution profile from geologically guided sparse  
criteria inversion. The figure compares field seismic data, conventional sparse inversion, and geologically guided inversion to validate the method's effectiveness in restoring shielded reservoir (green dashed box) reflections and enhancing stratigraphic resolution under coal-seam interference (indicated by arrows). Figure 12: Zoomed-in comparison of inversion results. (**a**) Observed seismic data profile; (**b**) high-resolution profile from sparse inversion; and (**c**) high-resolution profile from geologically guided sparse inversion. criteria inversion. The figure shows the seismic data, with the black line indicating the well position and the blue curve representing the gamma curve of the blind well. The yellow band marks the coal seam, while the red dashed box highlights the reservoir. The figure validates the effectiveness of the proposed method in restoring masked reservoir reflections beneath coal-seam interference (red dashed box) and enhancing stratigraphic resolution (indicated by arrows) through localized magnification of comparative profile sections. For field data, the fidelity of the inversion is crucial for accurate geological interpretation. To validate the geologically guided sparsity criteria reflectivity inversion method, we conducted quality control using the blind well located at inline 7710 and crossline 77140, as shown in Figure 13. The left side of the profile represents the depth coordinate, while the right side shows the two-way travel time coordinate. The first column on the left displays the lithology, which includes five different lithologies; the black curve represents the well's gamma curve, the blue curve corresponds to the RHOB (density) curve, and the red curve illustrates the reflectivity derived from the well data, filtered to match the seismic data bandwidth. The colored dashed lines represent the geological horizons T1 to T5, as interpreted from the well logs. A thick coal seam is located above T1, and the interval between T2 and T3 corresponds to a thick fractured-vuggy limestone reservoir, which is a key target for hydrocarbon exploration. The profile on the left shows the observed seismic data, while the profile on the right displays the inversion results. Comparative analysis reveals that the observed seismic data  
Figure 13: Validation of inversion results using a blind well in the study area. The figure validates the reliability of the geologically guided sparse criteria inversion method through blind well quality control. It demonstrates restored reservoir reflections beneath coal seams with strong consistency between inversion results, well logs (lithology, gamma, and reflectivity), and interpreted horizons. exhibit a relatively low resolution due to the strong reflection interference from the coal seam. The amplitude masking effect leads to almost no distinct reflective signals in the reservoir interval (T2-T3).