Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “seismic phase picking”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Divide and conquer: separating the two probabilities in seismic phase picking

There are two fundamental probabilities in the seismic phase picking process—the probability of the existence of a seismic phase (detection probability) and the probability associated with the phase arrival time estimation (timing probability). The nearly ubiquitous approach in developing deep learning phase picking models is to use a kernel, such as a truncated Gaussian, to mask the labelled phase arrival time and train a segmentation model. Once a model is trained, the times of the peaks in the output are taken as phase arrival times (picks), and the height of the peaks are taken as ‘probability’ of the picks. Here, we show that this ‘probability’ represents neither the detection nor the timing probability because this approach forces the output to follow the shape of the kernel. We introduce an approach using two models to estimate these two distinct probabilities. We use a binary classifier with a calibrated confidence to address the detection probability and a multiclass classifier to obtain a probability mass function to address the timing probability. This new approach can make the deep learning-based phase picking process more interpretable and provide options to logically control seismic monitoring workflows.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Automatic Seismic Phase Picking Using Deep Learning for the EGS Collab project

Microseismic monitoring plays an important role in many energy-related and environmental industries.The microseismic event catalog and seismic structure of the subsurface are two of the primary outputsof the microseismic monitoring system. Though rough locations of microseismic events can be estimated automatically, obtaining high-resolution microseismic event locations requires a significant amount of human laborespecially on seismic phase picking. Unlike traditional automatic pickers that are usually less precise than human analysts, a fewrecently proposed algorithms based on deepneural networks(DNN)were able to match or surpass human performance for earthquake signals. Due to differences in the spatial scale of the study area, sensor sampling rate, and geometry of the monitoring system, it is not clear whether these deepneural networkmodels can be used to speed up microseismic data processing. In this paper, we adapted the DNN based technique for automatic phase picking of microseismic signals. We usedmicroseismic data recorded at the experiment 1 site of the enhancedgeothermal system (EGS) Collab project anddesigneda workflowthat we call transfer-learning aided double-difference tomography (TADT),thatcombines transfer learning and seismic tomography. We re-train an existing DNN with our data to obtain a newmodel using around 3500 seismogramsand associated manual phase picks. Thistransfer learnedmodel is able to reach human performance but muchfaster than human analysts. The transfer-learning-derived phase pickswereused to improve microseismic event locations and imagethesubsurface. The results are similar to or slightly better than those obtained with manual phase picks.

Chai, Chengping↗
DOE OSTI2022

Earthquake Phase Association Using a Bayesian Gaussian Mixture Model

Earthquake phase association algorithms aggregate picked seismic phases from a network of seismometers into individual seismic events and play an important role in earthquake monitoring and research. Dense seismic networks and improved phase picking methods produce massive seismic phase datasets, particularly for earthquake swarms and aftershocks occurring closely in time and space, making phase association a challenging problem. Here, we present a new association method, the Gaussian Mixture Model Association (GaMMA), that combines the Gaussian mixture model 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 a hyperbolic moveout of arrival times and a decay of amplitude with distance. We use the multivariate Gaussian distribution to model the collection of phase picks of an event; and the mean of the multivariate Gaussian distribution is given by the predicted arrival time and amplitude from the causative event. We carry out the pick assignment to each earthquake and determine earthquake source parameters (i.e., earthquake location, origin time, and magnitude) under the maximum likelihood criterion using the Expectation-Maximization algorithm. The GaMMA method does not require typical association steps of other algorithms, such as grid-search or supervised training. The results for both synthetic tests and for 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.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Phase Picking Beyond Local Distances: Where Waveform Filtering Still Matters for Deep Learning Models

Waveform filtering is a standard step in traditional seismic phase picking but often receives little attention in deep learning workflows, where models are typically trained on raw or minimally processed waveforms. Although this strategy performs well for local events, we show that performance can degrade substantially at regional distances. To address this limitation, we introduce two ways to incorporate multiband-filtered waveforms into deep learning phase pickers. The stacking approach concatenates filtered inputs along the channel dimension, while the branching approach processes each frequency band through a dedicated network branch before feature fusion. Both approaches can substantially improve performance across epicentral distances of 0° to 20°, but their effectiveness depends strongly on the selected frequency bands. Tests with multiple filter banks show that filter-bank design should be treated as part of model optimization rather than as a fixed preprocessing choice. Grad-CAM analysis of the branching model indicates that band importance varies among waveform samples and across training realizations, with only a weak overall preference for the 0.25 to 0.5 Hz band. These results show that no single filter band is consistently optimal and demonstrate that explicit feature engineering remains valuable for robust deep learning-based seismic phase picking.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Reducing the Parameter Dependency of Phase-Picking Neural Networks with Dice Loss

Training a neural network for picking seismic phase arrivals has been commonly posed as a segmentation problem. It is a highly imbalanced segmentation problem in the sense that the background vastly dominates the foreground because we are trying to pick the optimal single sample point that represents the arrival of a seismic phase in a many seconds long time window. Here, we test the Dice loss, which is a preferred loss function for highly imbalanced image segmentation problems. We show that phase-picking neural networks trained on the Dice loss behave in a binary fashion for which the prediction output is almost always either nearly 1 or nearly 0. This feature removes the strong dependence of data processing workflows on the prediction score threshold, which is an otherwise critical parameter to determine when using neural networks trained on the cross-entropy loss. When strategically used, models trained on the Dice loss can reduce the parameter dependency of machine learning-based seismic monitoring.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Value of Hyperparameter Optimization in Phase-Picking Neural Networks

The effectiveness of neural networks for picking seismic phase arrival times has been demonstrated through several case studies, and seismic monitoring programs are starting to adopt the technology into their workflows. However, published models were designed and trained using rather arbitrary choices of hyperparameters, limiting their performance. In this study, we use phase picks from both routine and template-matching analyses from multiple regions (Ridgecrest, California; Kilauea, Hawaii; Yellowstone, Wyoming–Montana–Idaho) to test a hyperparameter optimization scheme for phase-picking neural networks and to evaluate their performance. We show that a published model, namely PhaseNet (Zhu and Beroza, 2019), can be simplified and improved with reasonable effort and there are preferred choices of hyperparameters that increase the performance. We also show that models optimized based on the arrival times reported in routine event catalogs consistently perform well when picking arrival times of smaller events, which is crucial for many tasks from microseismicity to explosion monitoring.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Mitigation Strategy for the Prediction Inconsistency of Neural Phase Pickers

Neural phase pickers—neural networks designed and trained to pick seismic phase arrivals—have proven to be a powerful tool for developing earthquake catalogs. However, these pickers suffer from prediction inconsistency in which the results they produce change, sometimes substantially, even under a small perturbation to the input waveform. This problem has not been addressed by the developers and users of these pickers. In this study, we show how prediction inconsistency can negatively affect the completeness of earthquake catalogs developed using neural phase pickers. Further, we show that simply using a small step size for the sliding window when processing continuous waveform data and aggregating the results significantly mitigates this problem. We also highlight the importance of training datasets for increasing the consistency and other performance metrics.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

EGS Collab Experiment 1: 3D Seismic Velocity Model and Updated Microseismic Catalog Using Transfer-Learning Aided Double-Difference Tomography

This package contains a 3D Seismic velocity model and an updated microseismic catalog associated with a proceedings paper (Chai et al., 2020) published in the 45th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. The 3D_seismic_velocity_model text file contains x (m), y(m), z(m), P-wave velocity (km/s), P-wave velocity quality indicator (1 for well-constrained; 0 for poorly constrained), S-wave velocity (km/s), and S-wave velocity quality indicator (1 for well-constrained; 0 for poorly constrained). The Updated_MEQ_catalog text file contains event origin time, x(m), y(m), z(m), error in x (m), error in y (m), error in z (m), and RMS misfit (millisecond). The 3D_seismic_P-wave_velocity_model animation file shows slices of the 3D P-wave velocity model. The 3D_seismic_S-wave_velocity_model animation file shows slices of the 3D S-wave velocity model. The Interactive_MEQ_locations API file is an interactive visualization of the updated microseismic event locations. The visualization allows users to view the event locations by dragging, rotating, and zooming in. References: Chai, C., Maceira, M., Santos-Villalobos, H. J., Venkatakrishnan, S. V., Schoenball, M., and EGS Collab Team, 2020, Automatic Seismic Phase Picking Using Deep Learning for the EGS Collab Project, in PROCEEDINGS, 45th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, edited, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 45, 1266-1276.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Spatiotemporal Graph Convolutional Networks for Earthquake Source Characterization

Abstract Accurate earthquake location and magnitude estimation play critical roles in seismology. Recent deep learning frameworks have produced encouraging results on various seismological tasks (e.g., earthquake detection, phase picking, seismic classification, and earthquake early warning). Many existing machine learning earthquake location methods utilize waveform information from a single station. However, multiple stations contain more complete information for earthquake source characterization. Inspired by recent successes in applying graph neural networks (GNNs) in graph‐structured data, we develop a Spatiotemporal Graph Neural Network (STGNN) for estimating earthquake locations and magnitudes. Our graph neural network leverages geographical and waveform information from multiple stations to construct graphs automatically and dynamically by adaptive message passing based on graphs' edges. Using a recent graph neural network and a fully convolutional neural network as baselines, we apply STGNN to earthquakes recorded by the Southern California Seismic Network from 2000 to 2019 and earthquakes collected in Oklahoma from 2014 to 2015. STGNN yields more accurate earthquake locations than those obtained by the baseline models and performs comparably in terms of depth and magnitude prediction, though the ability to predict depth and magnitude remains weak for all tested models. Our work demonstrates the potential of using GNNs and multiple stations for better automatic estimation of earthquake epicenters.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Evaluation of Seismic Artificial Intelligence with Uncertainty

Artificial intelligence has transformed the seismic community with deep learning models (DLMs) that are trained to complete specific tasks within workflows. However, there is still a lack of robust evaluation frameworks for evaluating and comparing DLMs. Here, we address this gap by designing an evaluation framework that jointly incorporates two crucial aspects: performance uncertainty and learning efficiency. To target these aspects, we meticulously construct the training, validation, and test splits using a clustering method tailored to seismic data and enact an expansive training design to segregate performance uncertainty arising from stochastic training processes and random data sampling. The framework’s ability to guard against misleading declarations of model superiority is demonstrated through the evaluation of PhaseNet (Zhu and Beroza, 2018), a popular seismic phase picking DLM, under three training approaches. Our framework helps practitioners choose the best model for their problem and set performance expectations by explicitly analyzing model performance with uncertainty at varying budgets of training data.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Evaluating multistation phase picking algorithm phase neural operator (PhaseNO) on local seismic networks

Reliable automatic phase picking is important for many seismic applications. With the development of machine learning approaches, many algorithms are proposed, evaluated and applied to different areas. Many of these algorithms are single station based, while recent proposed methods start to combine surrounding stations into consideration in the problem of phase picking. Among these algorithms, the phase neural operator (PhaseNO) shows promising results on regional data sets comparing to existing algorithms. But there are many use cases for the local seismic networks in our community, therefore in this paper we evaluate the performance of PhaseNO on four different local data sets and compare the results to PhaseNet and EQTransformer. We used both individual phase picking metrics as well as association metrics to illustrate the performance of PhaseNO. By manually reviewing the newly detected events, we find that the PhaseNO model outperforms the single station-based approaches in the local-scale use cases due to its consideration of coherent signals from multiple stations. We also explored PhaseNO’s behaviours when only using one station, as well as gradually increasing the number of stations in the seismic network to better understand its behaviour. Overall, using the off-the-shelf machine learning based phase pickers, PhaseNO demonstrated its good performance on local-scale seismic networks.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

High-Quality Revision of the Israeli Seismic Bulletin

Seismic bulletins, with trustworthy phase picks, origin times, and source locations are key for regional seismic studies, such as travel-time (TT) tomography, attenuation tomography, and anisotropy studies. To lay the groundwork for such studies in Israel, we revised the seismic bulletin of Israel and the surrounding area and obtained a trustworthy TT data set. From the earthquake and explosion bulletins of the Geophysical Institute of Israel, we compiled a starting data set of about 123,000 earthquakes and explosions that occurred during the past 40 yr. After screening out the poorly recorded events, we were left with a data set of ~38,000 well-recorded events. We then revised the remaining data set in two consecutive steps. In the first, we reviewed and updated station metadata, including changes in station metadata parameters over time. In the second step, we jointly relocated a list of selected seismic events, using the Bayesian hierarchical location software package (BayesLoc) of Myers et al. (2007) that performs joint relocation of multiple events. We observed striking dissimilarities between the spatial distributions of the newly relocated catalog and the initial locations. Although the depth distribution of the starting catalog is trimodal with peaks at 0, 5, and 10 km, the distribution in this study is unimodal, with a broad peak between 7.5 and 12.5 km. By differencing the observed arrival times and the origin times obtained through relocation with BayesLoc, we obtained a revised TT database that consists of 261,336 Pg, 132,876 Pn, 114,816 Sg, and 60,394 Sn arrivals, from a set of 30,458 jointly relocated seismic sources. In this work, we compared prerevision and postrevision TTs as a function of epicentral distance and concluded that the revised data set contains far fewer outliers and inconsistencies than the original data set. The revised TT data set may be used for seismic studies, such as TT tomography, attenuation tomography, and anisotropy studies.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

An End-To-End Earthquake Detection Method for Joint Phase Picking and Association Using Deep Learning

Earthquake monitoring by seismic networks typically involves a workflow consisting of phase detection/picking, association, and location tasks. In recent years, the accuracy of these individual stages has been improved through the use of machine learning techniques. Here, in this study, we introduce a new end-to-end approach that improves overall earthquake detection accuracy by jointly optimizing each stage of the detection pipeline. We propose a neural network architecture for the task of multi-station processing of seismic waveforms recorded over a seismic network. This end-to-end architecture consists of three sub-networks: a backbone network that extracts features from raw waveforms, a phase picking sub-network that picks P- and S-wave arrivals based on these features, and an event detection sub-network that aggregates the features from multiple stations to associate and detect earthquakes across a seismic network. We use these sub-networks together with a shift-and-stack module based on back-projection that introduces kinematic constraints on arrival times, allowing the neural network model to generalize to different velocity models and to variable station geometry in seismic networks. We evaluate our proposed method on the STanford EArthquake Dataset (STEAD) and on the 2019 Ridgecrest, CA earthquake sequence. The results demonstrate that our end-to-end approach can effectively pick P- and S-wave arrivals and achieve earthquake detection accuracy rivaling that of other state-of-the-art approaches. Because our approach preserves information across tasks in the detection pipeline, it has the potential to outperform approaches that do not.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Making Phase-Picking Neural Networks More Consistent and Interpretable

Improving the interpretability of phase-picking neural networks remains an important task to facilitate their deployment to routine, real-time seismic monitoring. The popular phase-picking neural networks published in the literature lack interpretability because their output prediction scores do not necessarily correspond with the reliability of phase picks and can even be highly inconsistent depending on how we window the waveform data. Here, we show that systematically shifting the waveforms during training and using an antialiasing filter within the neural network architecture can substantially improve the consistency of the output prediction scores and can even make them scale with the signal-to-noise ratios of the waveforms. We demonstrate the improvements by applying these approaches to a commonly used phase-picking neural network architecture and using waveform data from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Rock Valley Accelerated Weight Drop Seismic Data Processing and Picking of P-wave and S-wave Arrival Times

Rock Valley, in the southern end of the Nevada National Security Site, hosts a fault system that was responsible for a shallow (< 3 km below surface ) magnitude 3.7 earthquake in May 1993. In order to better understand this system, seismic properties of the shallow subsurface need to be better constrained. In April and May of 2021, accelerated weight drop (AWD) active-source seismic data were recorded in order to measure P- and S-wave travel-times for the area. This report describes the processing and phase picking of the recorded seismic waveforms. In total, we picked 7,982 P-wave arrivals at offsets up to ~2500 m, and 4,369 S-wave arrivals at offsets up to ~2200 m. These travel-time picks can be inverted for shallow P-wave and S-wave velocity structure in future studies.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Variability in Performance of a Machine Learning Seismicity Catalog: Central Italy, 2016–2017

Machine learning (ML) catalogs contain many more earthquakes than routine catalogs, but their performance in phase picking and earthquake detection has not been fully evaluated. We develop station‐level detection probabilities using logistic regression and combine them across a seismic network to compute spatial magnitude‐of‐completeness fields. We apply this approach to two catalogs from the 2016–2017 Central Italy sequence that were constructed from the same seismic network, one routine and one ML‐based. At the station level, the ML picker increases detection sensitivity by identifying smaller magnitude events and detecting earthquakes at greater distances. Spatially, the magnitude of completeness decreases substantially, with median values shifting from 1.6 to 0.5 for P waves and from 1.7 to 0.5 for S waves. However, the ML catalog also shows greater variability in station‐level performance than the routine catalog. These results demonstrate that ML‐based improvements in detectability are widespread but spatially nonuniform, highlighting their benefits, their limitations, and the potential for further improvements.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗