Deutsch
 
Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

 
 
DownloadE-Mail
  Which picker fits my data? A quantitative evaluation of deep learning based seismic pickers

Münchmeyer, J., Woollam, J., Rietbrock, A., Tilmann, F., Lange, D., Bornstein, T., Diehl, T., Giunchi, C., Haslinger, F., Jozinović, D., Michelini, A., Saul, J., Soto, H. (2022 online): Which picker fits my data? A quantitative evaluation of deep learning based seismic pickers. - Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, e2021JB023499.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JB023499

Item is

Externe Referenzen

einblenden:

Urheber

einblenden:
ausblenden:
 Urheber:
Münchmeyer, J.1, Autor              
Woollam, Jack2, Autor
Rietbrock, Andreas2, Autor
Tilmann, Frederik1, Autor              
Lange, Dietrich2, Autor
Bornstein, Thomas2, Autor
Diehl, Tobias2, Autor
Giunchi, Carlo2, Autor
Haslinger, Florian2, Autor
Jozinović, Dario2, Autor
Michelini, Alberto2, Autor
Saul, Joachim1, Autor              
Soto, Hugo3, Autor              
Affiliations:
12.4 Seismology, 2.0 Geophysics, Departments, GFZ Publication Database, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum, ou_30023              
2External Organizations, ou_persistent22              
34.1 Lithosphere Dynamics, 4.0 Geosystems, Departments, GFZ Publication Database, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum, ou_146034              

Inhalt

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Schlagwörter: Deal Wiley
 Zusammenfassung: 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, achieving human-like performance under certain circumstances. However, as studies differ in the datasets and evaluation tasks, it is unclear how the different approaches compare to each other. Furthermore, there are no systematic studies about model performance in cross-domain scenarios, i.e., when applied to data with different characteristics. Here, we address these questions by conducting a large-scale benchmark. 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 a small advantage for EQTransformer on teleseismic data. Furthermore, we conduct a cross-domain study, analyzing 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 models trained on regional data do not transfer well to teleseismic data. 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 evaluate new models or performance on new datasets. Furthermore, we make all trained models available through the SeisBench framework, giving end-users an easy way to apply these models.

Details

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Sprache(n):
 Datum: 2022-01-06
 Publikationsstatus: Online veröffentlicht
 Seiten: -
 Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
 Inhaltsverzeichnis: -
 Art der Begutachtung: -
 Identifikatoren: DOI: 10.1029/2021JB023499
GFZPOF: p4 T3 Restless Earth
OATYPE: Hybrid - DEAL Wiley
 Art des Abschluß: -

Veranstaltung

einblenden:

Entscheidung

einblenden:

Projektinformation

einblenden:

Quelle 1

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Titel: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
Genre der Quelle: Zeitschrift, SCI, Scopus
 Urheber:
Affiliations:
Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
Seiten: - Band / Heft: - Artikelnummer: e2021JB023499 Start- / Endseite: - Identifikator: ISSN: 2169-9313
ISSN: 2169-9356
CoNE: https://gfzpublic.gfz-potsdam.de/cone/journals/resource/jgr_solid_earth
Publisher: American Geophysical Union (AGU)