Source author record

Jack Woollam

Jack Woollam appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

physics.geo-ph

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works

1topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

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.

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.