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

Frederik Tilmann

Frederik Tilmann contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.geo-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
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

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A probabilistic view on rupture predictability: all earthquakes evolve similarly

Ruptures of the largest earthquakes can last between a few seconds and several minutes. An early assessment of the final earthquake size is essential for early warning systems. However, it is still unclear when in the rupture history this final size can be predicted. Here we introduce a probabilistic view of rupture evolution - how likely is the event to become large - allowing for a clear and well-founded answer with implications for earthquake physics and early warning. We apply our approach to real time magnitude estimation based on either moment rate functions or broadband teleseismic P arrivals. In both cases, we find strong and principled evidence against early rupture predictability because differentiation between differently sized ruptures only occurs once half of the rupture has been observed. Even then, it is impossible to foresee future asperities. Our results hint towards a universal initiation behavior for small and large ruptures.

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

The transformer earthquake alerting model: A new versatile approach to earthquake early warning

Earthquakes are major hazards to humans, buildings and infrastructure. Early warning methods aim to provide advance notice of incoming strong shaking to enable preventive action and mitigate seismic risk. Their usefulness depends on accuracy, the relation between true, missed and false alerts, and timeliness, the time between a warning and the arrival of strong shaking. Current approaches suffer from apparent aleatoric uncertainties due to simplified modelling or short warning times. Here we propose a novel early warning method, the deep-learning based transformer earthquake alerting model (TEAM), to mitigate these limitations. TEAM analyzes raw, strong motion waveforms of an arbitrary number of stations at arbitrary locations in real-time, making it easily adaptable to changing seismic networks and warning targets. We evaluate TEAM on two regions with high seismic hazard, Japan and Italy, that are complementary in their seismicity. On both datasets TEAM outperforms existing early warning methods considerably, offering accurate and timely warnings. Using domain adaptation, TEAM even provides reliable alerts for events larger than any in the training data, a property of highest importance as records from very large events are rare in many regions.

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