Rapid association of seismic phases and event location are crucial for real‐time seismic monitoring. We propose a new method, named rapid earthquake association and location (REAL), for associating seismic phases and locating seismic events rapidly, simultaneously, and automatically. REAL combines the advantages of both pick‐based and waveform‐based detection and location methods. It associates arrivals of different seismic phases and locates seismic events primarily through counting the number of P and S picks and secondarily from travel‐time residuals. A group of picks are associated with a particular earthquake if there are enough picks within the theoretical travel‐time windows. The location is determined to be at the grid point with the most picks, and if multiple locations have the same maximum number of picks, the grid point among them with smallest travel‐time residuals. We refine seismic locations using a least‐squares location method (VELEST) and a high‐precision relative location method (hypoDD). REAL can be used for rapid seismic characterization due to its computational efficiency. As an example application, we apply REAL to earthquakes in the 2016 central Apennines, Italy, earthquake sequence occurring during a five‐day period in October 2016, midway in time between the two largest earthquakes. We associate and locate more than three times as many events (3341) as are in Italy's National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology routine catalog (862). The spatial distribution of these relocated earthquakes shows a similar but more concentrated pattern relative to the cataloged events. Our study demonstrates that it is possible to characterize seismicity automatically and quickly using REAL and seismic picks.

The 2016–2017 central Italy seismic sequence occurred on an 80 km long normal-fault system. The sequence initiated with the Mw 6.0 Amatrice event on 24 August 2016, followed by the Mw 5.9 Visso event on 26 October and the Mw 6.5 Norcia event on 30 October. We analyze continuous data from a dense network of 139 seismic stations to build a high-precision catalog of ∼900,000 earthquakes spanning a 1 yr period, based on arrival times derived using a deep-neural-network-based picker. Our catalog contains an order of magnitude more events than the catalog routinely produced by the local earthquake monitoring agency. Aftershock activity reveals the geometry of complex fault structures activated during the earthquake sequence and provides additional insights into the potential factors controlling the development of the largest events. Activated fault structures in the northern and southern regions appear complementary to faults activated during the 1997 Colfiorito and 2009 L’Aquila sequences, suggesting that earthquake triggering primarily occurs on critically stressed faults. Delineated major fault zones are relatively thick compared to estimated earthquake location uncertainties, and a large number of kilometer-long faults and diffuse seismicity were activated during the sequence. These properties might be related to fault age, roughness, and the complexity of inherited structures. The rich details resolvable in this catalog will facilitate continued investigation of this energetic and well-recorded earthquake sequence.

The two principle earthquakes of the July 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence, MW 6.4 and 7.1, and their immediate foreshocks and thousands of aftershocks present a challenging environment for rapid analysis and characterization of this sequence as it unfolded. In this study, we analyze the first 6 days of the sequence using continuous data from available seismic networks to detect and locate earthquakes associated with the earthquake sequence. We build a high‐precision earthquake catalog using a deep‐neural‐network‐based picker—PhaseNet and a sequential earthquake association and location workflow. Without prior information, we automatically detect and locate more than twice as many earthquakes as the routine catalog. Our high‐precision earthquake catalog reveals detailed spatiotemporal evolution of the earthquake sequence and clearly defines multiple faults activated during the sequence. Our study demonstrates that it is possible to characterize earthquake sequences from raw seismic data using a well‐trained machine‐learning picker and our workflow.

No abstract