Comparison of the STA/LTA and power spectral density methods for microseismic event detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robust event detection and picking is a prerequisite for reliable (micro-) seismic interpretations. Detection of weak events is a common challenge among various available event detection algorithms. In this paper we compare the performance of two event detection methods, the short-term average/long-term average (STA/LTA) method, which is the most commonly used technique in industry, and a newly introduced method that is based on the power spectral density (PSD) measurements. We have applied both techniques to a 1-hr long segment of the vertical component of some raw continuous data recorded at a borehole geophone in a hydraulic fracturing experiment. The PSD technique outperforms the STA/LTA technique by detecting a higher number of weak events while keeping the number of false alarms at a reasonable level. The time-frequency representations obtained through the PSD method can also help define a more suitable bandpass filter which is usually required for the STA/LTA method. The method offers thus much promise for automated event detection in industrial, local, regional and global seismological data sets.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it