A Comparison of Machine Learning Methods of Association Tested on Dense Nodal Arrays

Abstract The association of phase picks to form events is one of the fundamental components of seismology. Large and dense sensor networks, such as >1000 geophone arrays (and distributed acoustic sensing), offer unique challenges in association due to the vast numbers of observations and high likelihood of errant picks. In addition, the large number of stations can greatly increase the time it takes to perform the association. For this reason, machine learning (ML) methods might provide a more optimal method of association for such networks. In this work, we examine how well ML methods (e.g., Gaussian mixture model association, PhaseLink, and Graph Earthquake Neural Interpretation Engine) can incorporate dense seismic arrays into regional networks and how well they handle the increasing numbers of stations. We test their capabilities on two dense seismic deployments, one within Rock Valley Nevada (52 nodes and a 9-station sparse local network), and the LArge-n Seismic Survey in Oklahoma dense nodal array (>1800 vertical-component geophones). Processing data from these two different styles of dense seismic deployments allows testing of how the ML algorithms can merge array data with a broader regional network, how they deal with poorly picked phases, and how they handle anthropogenic noise. We compare the ML-associated bulletins to those obtained using the Rapid Earthquake Association and Location algorithm, a more traditional method of association. We find that there are very small differences in results between the methods for small networks (<100 stations) with low pick rates. For large networks (>1000), there are enough errant picks that some of the ML methods start to create false events out of noise. We also find that the ML methods vary in computation time significantly but are all faster than the traditional method tested here.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Seismological Research Letters
Published
2025-02-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1785/0220240290
Primary Topic
Seismology and Earthquake Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Comparison of Machine Learning Methods of Association Tested on Dense Nodal Arrays

W. R. Walter, Colin Pennington, Qingkai Kong, Ian W. McBrearty
Seismological Research Letters
Seismology and Earthquake Studies
article

A Comparison of Machine Learning Methods of Association Tested on Dense Nodal Arrays

W. R. Walter, Colin Pennington, Qingkai Kong, Ian W. McBrearty
article en

Abstract

Abstract The association of phase picks to form events is one of the fundamental components of seismology. Large and dense sensor networks, such as >1000 geophone arrays (and distributed acoustic sensing), offer unique challenges in association due to the vast numbers of observations and high likelihood of errant picks. In addition, the large number of stations can greatly increase the time it takes to perform the association. For this reason, machine learning (ML) methods might provide a more optimal method of association for such networks. In this work, we examine how well ML methods (e.g., Gaussian mixture model association, PhaseLink, and Graph Earthquake Neural Interpretation Engine) can incorporate dense seismic arrays into regional networks and how well they handle the increasing numbers of stations. We test their capabilities on two dense seismic deployments, one within Rock Valley Nevada (52 nodes and a 9-station sparse local network), and the LArge-n Seismic Survey in Oklahoma dense nodal array (>1800 vertical-component geophones). Processing data from these two different styles of dense seismic deployments allows testing of how the ML algorithms can merge array data with a broader regional network, how they deal with poorly picked phases, and how they handle anthropogenic noise. We compare the ML-associated bulletins to those obtained using the Rapid Earthquake Association and Location algorithm, a more traditional method of association. We find that there are very small differences in results between the methods for small networks (<100 stations) with low pick rates. For large networks (>1000), there are enough errant picks that some of the ML methods start to create false events out of noise. We also find that the ML methods vary in computation time significantly but are all faster than the traditional method tested here.

Seismological Research LettersVol. 96(4)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (US), Stanford University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 99%
Seismology and Earthquake Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.