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

Ian W. McBrearty

Ian W. McBrearty contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.geo-phMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
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

Earthquake Location and Magnitude Estimation with Graph Neural Networks

We solve the traditional problems of earthquake location and magnitude estimation through a supervised learning approach, where we train a Graph Neural Network to predict estimates directly from input pick data, and each input allows a distinct seismic network with variable number of stations and positions. We train the model using synthetic simulations from assumed travel-time and amplitude-distance attenuation models. The architecture uses one graph to represent the station set, and another to represent the model space. The input includes theoretical predictions of data, given model parameters, and the adjacency matrices of the graphs defined link spatially local elements. As we show, graph convolutions on this combined representation are highly effective at inference, data fusion, and outlier suppression. We compare our results with traditional methods and observe favorable performance.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Earthquake Phase Association with Graph Neural Networks

Seismic phase association connects earthquake arrival time measurements to their causative sources. Effective association must determine the number of discrete events, their location and origin times, and it must differentiate real arrivals from measurement artifacts. The advent of deep learning pickers, which provide high rates of picks from closely overlapping small magnitude earthquakes, motivates revisiting the phase association problem and approaching it using the methods of deep learning. We have developed a Graph Neural Network associator that simultaneously predicts both source space-time localization, and discrete source-arrival association likelihoods. The method is applicable to arbitrary geometry, time-varying seismic networks of hundreds of stations, and is robust to high rates of sources and input picks with variable noise and quality. Our Graph Earthquake Neural Interpretation Engine (GENIE) uses one graph to represent the station set and another to represent the spatial source region. GENIE learns relationships from data in this combined representation that enable it to determine robust source and source-arrival associations. We train on synthetic data, and test our method on real data from the Northern California (NC) seismic network using input generated by the PhaseNet deep learning phase picker. We successfully re-detect ~96% of all events M>1 reported by the USGS during 500 random days between 2000$\unicode{x2013}$2022. Over a 100-day continuous interval of processing in 2017$\unicode{x2013}$2018, we detect ~4.2x the number of events reported by the USGS. Our new events have small magnitude estimates below the magnitude of completeness of the USGS catalog, and are located close to the active faults and quarries in the region. Our results demonstrate that GENIE can effectively solve the association problem under complex seismic monitoring conditions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Earthquake Phase Association using a Bayesian Gaussian Mixture Model

Earthquake phase association algorithms aggregate picked seismic phases from a network of seismometers into individual earthquakes and play an important role in earthquake monitoring. Dense seismic networks and improved phase picking methods produce massive earthquake phase data sets, particularly for earthquake swarms and aftershocks occurring closely in time and space, making phase association a challenging problem. We present a new association method, the Gaussian Mixture Model Association (GaMMA), that combines the Gaussian mixture model for phase measurements (both time and amplitude), with earthquake location, origin time, and magnitude estimation. We treat earthquake phase association as an unsupervised clustering problem in a probabilistic framework, where each earthquake corresponds to a cluster of P and S phases with hyperbolic moveout of arrival times and a decay of amplitude with distance. We use a multivariate Gaussian distribution to model the collection of phase picks for an event, the mean of which is given by the predicted arrival time and amplitude from the causative event. We carry out the pick assignment for each earthquake and determine earthquake parameters (i.e., earthquake location, origin time, and magnitude) under the maximum likelihood criterion using the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm. The GaMMA method does not require the typical association steps of other algorithms, such as grid-search or supervised training. The results on both synthetic test and the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence show that GaMMA effectively associates phases from a temporally and spatially dense earthquake sequence while producing useful estimates of earthquake location and magnitude.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Earthquake Arrival Association with Backprojection and Graph Theory

The association of seismic wave arrivals with causative earthquakes becomes progressively more challenging as arrival detection methods become more sensitive, and particularly when earthquake rates are high. For instance, seismic waves arriving across a monitoring network from several sources may overlap in time, false arrivals may be detected, and some arrivals may be of unknown phase (e.g., P- or S-waves). We propose an automated method to associate arrivals with earthquake sources and obtain source locations applicable to such situations. To do so we use a pattern detection metric based on the principle of backprojection to reveal candidate sources, followed by graph-theory-based clustering and an integer linear optimization routine to associate arrivals with the minimum number of sources necessary to explain the data. This method solves for all sources and phase assignments simultaneously, rather than in a sequential greedy procedure as is common in other association routines. We demonstrate our method on both synthetic and real data from the Integrated Plate Boundary Observatory Chile (IPOC) seismic network of northern Chile. For the synthetic tests we report results for cases with varying complexity, including rates of 500 earthquakes/day and 500 false arrivals/station/day, for which we measure true positive detection accuracy of > 95%. For the real data we develop a new catalog between January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2017 containing 817,548 earthquakes, with detection rates on average 279 earthquakes/day, and a magnitude-of-completion of ~M1.8. A subset of detections are identified as sources related to quarry and industrial site activity, and we also detect thousands of foreshocks and aftershocks of the April 1, 2014 Mw 8.2 Iquique earthquake. During the highest rates of aftershock activity, > 600 earthquakes/day are detected in the vicinity of the Iquique earthquake rupture zone.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access