Researcher profile

Ben Fulcher

Ben Fulcher contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
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

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Winning with Simple Learning Models: Detecting Earthquakes in Groningen, the Netherlands

Deep learning is fast emerging as a potential disruptive tool to tackle longstanding research problems across the sciences. Notwithstanding its success across disciplines, the recent trend of the overuse of deep learning is concerning to many machine learning practitioners. Recently, seismologists have also demonstrated the efficacy of deep learning algorithms in detecting low magnitude earthquakes. Here, we revisit the problem of seismic event detection but using a logistic regression model with feature extraction. We select well-discriminating features from a huge database of time-series operations collected from interdisciplinary time-series analysis methods. Using a simple learning model with only five trainable parameters, we detect several low-magnitude induced earthquakes from the Groningen gas field that are not present in the catalog. We note that the added advantage of simpler models is that the selected features add to our understanding of the noise and event classes present in the dataset. Since simpler models are easy to maintain, debug, understand, and train, through this study we underscore that it might be a dangerous pursuit to use deep learning without carefully weighing simpler alternatives.

preprint2018arXiv

Consistency and differences between centrality measures across distinct classes of networks

The roles of different nodes within a network are often understood through centrality analysis, which aims to quantify the capacity of a node to influence, or be influenced by, other nodes via its connection topology. Many different centrality measures have been proposed, but the degree to which they offer unique information, and such whether it is advantageous to use multiple centrality measures to define node roles, is unclear. Here we calculate correlations between 17 different centrality measures across 212 diverse real-world networks, examine how these correlations relate to variations in network density and global topology, and investigate whether nodes can be clustered into distinct classes according to their centrality profiles. We find that centrality measures are generally positively correlated to each other, the strength of these correlations varies across networks, and network modularity plays a key role in driving these cross-network variations. Data-driven clustering of nodes based on centrality profiles can distinguish different roles, including topological cores of highly central nodes and peripheries of less central nodes. Our findings illustrate how network topology shapes the pattern of correlations between centrality measures and demonstrate how a comparative approach to network centrality can inform the interpretation of nodal roles in complex networks.