BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Andreas Rietbrock

Andreas Rietbrock contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.geo-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Bayesian regional moment tensor from ocean bottom seismograms recorded in the Lesser Antilles: Implications for regional stress field

In this paper, we perform full-waveform regional moment tensor (RMT) inversions, to gain insight into the stress distribution along the Lesser Antilles arc. We developed a novel inversion approach, AmPhiB - Amphibious Bayesian, taking into account uncertainties associated with OBS deployments like the orientation of horizontal components and the high noise level. The inversion is conducted using a direct, uniform importance sampling of the fault parameters within a tree structure. We show that the alignment of the horizontal OBS components influences the obtained source mechanism when using standard least-squares (L2) RMT inversion schemes, resulting in systematic errors in the recovered focal mechanisms including high artificial CLVD contributions. AmPhiB reduces these CLVD components by nearly 60% and the aberration of the focal geometry as measured by the Kagan angle by around 40% relative to a standard L2 inversion. Subsequently, we obtain 45 (Mw > 3.8) regional MT solutions. Combining our new results with existing solutions, we subsequently analyze a total of 151 solutions in a FMC diagram and map them to the regional tectonic setting. We perform stress tensor inversions along the arc. On the plate interface, we observe a compressional stress regime and find evidence for upper-plate strike slip and normal fault behaviour in the north and a near arc-perpendicular extensional stress regime towards the south. A dominant slab perpendicular extensional stress regime is found in the slab at 100-200 km at the arcs center. We interpret this stress condition to be a result of slab pull varying along the arc due to partial slab detachment along previously hypothesized lateral slab tear near Grenada, at the southern end of the LA arc, leading to reactivation of preexisting structures around the subducted Proto-Caribbean ridge.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Machine learning event detection workflows in practice: A case study from the 2019 Durrës aftershock sequence

Machine Learning (ML) methods have demonstrated exceptional performance in recent years when applied to the task of seismic event detection. With numerous ML techniques now available for detecting seismicity, applying these methods in practice can help further highlight their advantages over more traditional approaches. Constructing such workflows also enables benchmarking comparisons of the latest algorithms on practical data. We combine the latest methods in seismic event detection to analyse an 18-day period of aftershock seismicity for the $M_{w}$ 6.4 2019 Durrës earthquake in Albania. We test two phase association-based event detection methods, the EarthQuake Transformer (EQT; Mousavi et al., 2020) end-to-end seismic detection workflow, and the PhaseNet (Zhu & Beroza, 2019) picker with the Hyperbolic Event eXtractor (Woollam et al., 2020) associator. Both ML approaches are benchmarked against a data set compiled by two independently operating seismic experts who processed a subset of events of this 18-day period. In total, PhaseNet & HEX identifies 3,551 events, and EQT detects 1,110 events with the larger catalog (PhaseNet & HEX) achieving a magnitude of completeness of ~1. By relocating the derived catalogs with the same minimum 1D velocity model, we calculate statistics on the resulting hypocentral locations and phase picks. We find that the ML-methods yield results consistent with manual pickers, with bias that is no larger than that between different pickers. The achieved fit after relocation is comparable to that of the manual picks but the increased number of picks per event for the ML pickers, especially PhaseNet, yields smaller hypocentral errors. The number of associated events per hour increases for seismically quiet times of the day, and the smallest magnitude events are detected throughout these periods, which we interpret to be indicative of true event associations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Which picker fits my data? A quantitative evaluation of deep learning based seismic pickers

Seismic event detection and phase picking are the base of many seismological workflows. In recent years, several publications demonstrated that deep learning approaches significantly outperform classical approaches and even achieve human-like performance under certain circumstances. However, as most studies differ in the datasets and exact evaluation tasks studied, it is yet unclear how the different approaches compare to each other. Furthermore, there are no systematic studies how the models perform in a cross-domain scenario, i.e., when applied to data with different characteristics. Here, we address these questions by conducting a large-scale benchmark study. We compare six previously published deep learning models on eight datasets covering local to teleseismic distances and on three tasks: event detection, phase identification and onset time picking. Furthermore, we compare the results to a classical Baer-Kradolfer picker. Overall, we observe the best performance for EQTransformer, GPD and PhaseNet, with EQTransformer having a small advantage for teleseismic data. Furthermore, we conduct a cross-domain study, in which we analyze model performance on datasets they were not trained on. We show that trained models can be transferred between regions with only mild performance degradation, but not from regional to teleseismic data or vice versa. As deep learning for detection and picking is a rapidly evolving field, we ensured extensibility of our benchmark by building our code on standardized frameworks and making it openly accessible. This allows model developers to easily compare new models or evaluate performance on new datasets, beyond those presented here. Furthermore, we make all trained models available through the SeisBench framework, giving end-users an easy way to apply these models in seismological analysis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access