2020
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17591-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Earthquake transformer—an attentive deep-learning model for simultaneous earthquake detection and phase picking

Abstract: Earthquake signal detection and seismic phase picking are challenging tasks in the processing of noisy data and the monitoring of microearthquakes. Here we present a global deep-learning model for simultaneous earthquake detection and phase picking. Performing these two related tasks in tandem improves model performance in each individual task by combining information in phases and in the full waveform of earthquake signals by using a hierarchical attention mechanism. We show that our model outperforms previou… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

6
437
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 617 publications
(444 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
6
437
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The major difference between the proposed algorithm and the relatively shallow deep learning architectures, for example, transformer‐deep learning network (Mousavi et al., 2020) is that the proposed algorithm is a different implementation of deep learning for a similar end goal. A drawback coming along with our proposed strategy is the increased training and model convergence times caused by the high complexity of the deep architecture (24 million parameters).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The major difference between the proposed algorithm and the relatively shallow deep learning architectures, for example, transformer‐deep learning network (Mousavi et al., 2020) is that the proposed algorithm is a different implementation of deep learning for a similar end goal. A drawback coming along with our proposed strategy is the increased training and model convergence times caused by the high complexity of the deep architecture (24 million parameters).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the recent years, detectors based on machine learning / deep learning (ML/DL) have been proposed [ 24 , 25 ]. The method of [ 24 ] delivers probabilities associated with the existence of an earthquake event and two different seismic phases for each time point by using encoders that intrinsically capture the temporal dependencies in seismic data. The decoders consist of carefully designed set of deep learning network models comprising tens of layers and about 372000 tunable parameters for detecting and picking the seismic phase arrivals.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, despite their high levels of complexity, the construct of these models may result in an unacceptable level of false alarm rates. A remedy suggested by [ 24 ] is to explicitly incorporate the spectral features of seismic signals.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, deep learning approaches have been also utilized for detection purposes in passive seismic recordings. However, they are restricted only to the extraction of surface waves from DAS data [23][24][25] or earthquake-induced seismicity [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. The other demonstrated solutions for data selection are mostly semi-automatic and/or performed on preprocessed and cross-correlated data, which in turn requires extra operator workload and computational cost.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%