## 4 Inversion on a 3D Field Dataset
As can be seen from the comparison of the black ellipse region in the InLine 101 profiles, the inversion AI of the pseudo-depth-domain constant wavelet is not as continuous as the other one in the structural changes, and the formation resolution is lower. The comparison of the black ellipse region in the CDP 131 profiles also verifies this viewpoint. Figure 19 presents the comparison between the inverted and well-log AI at wells D, H, and N, where Figure 19b,d,f are the enlarged views of the cyan box area in Figure 19a,c,e, respectively. The black curve represents well-log AI, while the blue and red curves are the inverted AIs of the pseudo-depth-domain constant wavelet and the depth-domain generalized seismic wavelets. It can be seen that the main variation trend of inversion results of the two wavelets is consistent with well-log AI. However, the deviation between the inversion results of the pseudo-depth-domain constant wavelet and the well-log AI is significant. Conversely, the inversion results of the depth-domain generalized seismic wavelets are more consistent with the well-log AI regarding variation trends and structural details, as marked by the red arrow in Figure 19. Figure 20a,b present the MREs and PCCs between the inverted and measured AI for all wells, where the abscissa also demonstrates the name of the well, and the blue square and red plus symbol also denote the pseudo-depth-domain SPE method and the depth-domain generalized seismic wavelet extraction  
Figure 16: Well-to-seismic tie between well-log and depth-domain seismic data of well N, including (**a**) well-log velocity, (**b**) well-log density, (**c**) reflectivity series computed by (**a,b**), (**d**) depth-domain generalized seismic wavelets obtained by the proposed method, (**e**) synthetic seismogram of depth-domain generalized seismic wavelets, and (**f**) synthetic seismogram given by the pseudo-depth-domain SPE method, where the waveforms indicated by the green arrows show more dislocation than those of (**e**). These data align with the well-log depth only. \[\text{MRE}=\frac{100\%}{MN}\sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\left|\frac{\hat{I}_{ i,j}-I_{i,j}}{I_{i,j}}\right|, \tag{29}\]0 PCCs between depth-domain synthetic seismograms and seismic data at well locations, where the letters are the name of the well. method, respectively. It can be seen from Figure 20a that the MREs of inversion results through the proposed method are lower than those of the pseudo-depth-domain SPE method. The MREs of inversion results through the proposed method for all wells are less than 2%, and most are even less than 1%, especially the MRE at well D, which is only about 0.4%. In comparison, the MREs of inversion results by the pseudo-depth-domain SPE method are above 2% on the whole. From Figure 20b, the large PCCs of inversion results using our method indicate that the variation trend of inverted AI is close to the well-log AI. However, the PCC of inverted AI through the pseudo-depth-domain SPE method at well P is even lower than 70%. It demonstrates that there is a large deviation between the inversion results and well-log AI in detail. Therefore, the depth-domain 3D field dataset test demonstrates that the method proposed in this paper can be effectively applied to the depth-domain direct AI inversion. \[\text{MRE}=\frac{100\%}{MN}\sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\left|\frac{\hat{I}_{ i,j}-I_{i,j}}{I_{i,j}}\right|, \tag{29}\]1 The inverted AI of (**a**) depth-domain generalized seismic wavelets and (**b**) the pseudo-depth-domain constant wavelet. (**c,e**) The profile InLine101/CDP131 of (**a**). (**d,f**) The profile InLine101/CDP131 of (**b**). The red triangle marks in (**a,b**) indicate the locations of these profiles. The results of depth-domain generalized seismic wavelets indicated by the black circles show higher resolution than those of the pseudo-depth-domain constant wavelet.