MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972898545 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.20141433

Locating Microseismicity from Surface Monitoring Arrays Using Grid Search and Hypocenter Inversion - A Case Study

2014· article· en· W1972898545 on OpenAlexaff
Jianliang Huang, J.M. Reyes-Montes, R. P. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypocenterGridSeismogramMicroseismHyperparameter optimizationWorkflowAlgorithmInversion (geology)Real-time computingNonlinear systemResidualGeologyComputer scienceGrid cellSeismologyGeodesyArtificial intelligenceInduced seismicityTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In a previous numerical study ( Huang et al., 2013 ), we developed a new grid search algorithm to automatically locate microseismic (MS) events from streaming data recorded by surface monitoring survey. The symmetric nature of the semblance with respect to the origin time was used to identify the MS location. In this paper, we form a comprehensive workflow by extending this algorithm to include arrival time refinement using cross-correlation and nonlinear optimization similar to Geiger’s method to update the location and origin time in order to minimize the residual between the observed and the theoretical arrivals. We demonstrate the efficiency of our workflow on seismograms continuously recorded by surface monitoring stations. We show that the automated grid search identified a significant amount of potential signals indicating the level of local seismic activities. The nonlinear optimization is applied to events with clear arrivals, and the vertical uncertainty due to the surface acquisition geometry and the coarse grid effect in the grid search are reduced. This algorithm can be directly applied to both natural earthquakes and reservoir stimulation monitoring.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedingsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207