## 3 Experimental Process and Results
### Experimental Results Based on Office Seismic Profile Signals  
Based on the official seismic exploration dataset, reconstruction experiments were first conducted under a decimation ratio of 0.1. To fully validate the model's applicability to real-world data, a three-dimensional presentation framework of \"reconstruction results-error analysis-frequency-domain characteristics\" is adopted: the reconstructed profiles visually reflect the recovery quality of stratigraphic structures, residual signal maps quantify the prediction deviations of measured data, and F-K spectra reveal the degree of frequency-domain preservation of real signals. Comparisons among different networks are shown in Figure 19, Reconstruction results, residual signals, and corresponding F-K spectra under a decimation ratio of 0.1. Model abbreviation conventions remain consistent with those in the synthetic experiments to facilitate cross-comparison between the two datasets. To enhance the authority and empirical validity of the experimental conclusions, PSNR, SNR, RMSE, and SSIM were employed as core metrics to quantify the similarity between reconstructed official seismic data and original profiles. For the field measurement scenario with a decimation ratio of 0.1, the measured values of the four evaluation metrics are tabulated in Table 5, Evaluation indicators of each model when the decimation ratio is 0.1. As previously described, over 200 epochs of iterative training were conducted using real exploration data. To visually characterize the performance dynamics of different networks in practical scenarios, performance evolution curves were constructed by recording training data at  
Figure 19: Reconstruction results, residual signals, and corresponding F-K spectra under a decimation ratio of 0.1. Figure 18: Changes in evaluation indicators for each model when the decimation ratio is 0.5.  
each epoch. A 40-point window smoothing was applied via Origin software to preserve trend characteristics while optimizing visual clarity, with results presented in Figure 20, Changes in evaluation indicators for each model when the decimation ratio is 0. Based on the official seismic exploration dataset, reconstruction experiments with a decimation ratio of 0.3 were conducted, employing a three-dimensional framework of \"reconstruction results-error analysis-frequency-domain characteristics\" to validate model applicability. The reconstructed profiles visually demonstrate the recovery quality of stratigraphic structures, residual signal maps quantify the deviations between measured and predicted data, and F-K spectra reveal the preservation degree of frequency-domain features. Comparative results of different networks are shown in Figure 21, Reconstruction results, residual signals, and corresponding F-K spectra under a decimation ratio of 0.3. To strengthen empirical support, reconstruction experiments with a decimation ratio of 0.3 were conducted using official seismic data. Four core metrics--PSNR, SNR, RMSE, and SSIM--quantified reconstruction similarity, with measured data in Table 6, Evaluation indicators of each model when the decimation ratio is 0.3. Figure 21: Reconstruction results, residual signals, and corresponding F-K spectra under a decimation ratio of 0.3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Network** & **PSNR** & **SNR** & **RMSE** & **SSIM** \\ \hline WT & 23.772 & 12.357 & 3.514 & 0.883 \\ Unet & 25.911 & 14.352 & 1.954 & 0.913 \\ UNet++ & 26.413 & 14.933 & 1.795 & 0.907 \\ TUnet & 27.625 & 15.137 & 1.218 & 0.915 \\ SUnet & 28.184 & 15.435 & 0.815 & 0.924 \\
**SRUnet** & **29.237**\(\pm\) 0.119 & **16.031**\(\pm\) 0.136 & **0.548**\(\pm\) 0.015 & **0.946**\(\pm\) 0.002 \\
[29.118, 29.356] & [15.895, 16.167] & [0.533, 0.563] & [0.944, 0.948] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Evaluation indicators of each model when the decimation ratio is 0.1. Figure 20: Changes in evaluation indicators for each model when the decimation ratio is 0.1.