Seismic tomography of the southern California crust based on spectral-element and adjoint methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We iteratively improve a 3-D tomographic model of the southern California crust using numerical simulations of seismic wave propagation based on a spectral-element method (SEM) in combination with an adjoint method. The initial 3-D model is provided by the Southern California Earthquake Center. The data set comprises three-component seismic waveforms (i.e. both body and surface waves), filtered over the period range 2–30 s, from 143 local earthquakes recorded by a network of 203 stations. Time windows for measurements are automatically selected by the FLEXWIN algorithm. The misfit function in the tomographic inversion is based on frequency-dependent multitaper traveltime differences. The gradient of the misfit function and related finite-frequency sensitivity kernels for each earthquake are computed using an adjoint technique. The kernels are combined using a source subspace projection method to compute a model update at each iteration of a gradient-based minimization algorithm. The inversion involved 16 iterations, which required 6800 wavefield simulations. The new crustal model, m16, is described in terms of independent shear (VS) and bulk-sound (VB) wave speed variations. It exhibits strong heterogeneity, including local changes of ±30 per cent with respect to the initial 3-D model. The model reveals several features that relate to geological observations, such as sedimentary basins, exhumed batholiths, and contrasting lithologies across faults. The quality of the new model is validated by quantifying waveform misfits of full-length seismograms from 91 earthquakes that were not used in the tomographic inversion. The new model provides more accurate synthetic seismograms that will benefit seismic hazard assessment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".