An efficient repeating signal detector to investigate earthquake swarms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Repetitive earthquake swarms have been recognized as key signatures in fluid injection induced seismicity, precursors to volcanic eruptions, and slow slip events preceding megathrust earthquakes. We investigate earthquake swarms by developing a Repeating Signal Detector (RSD), a computationally efficient algorithm utilizing agglomerative clustering to identify similar waveforms buried in years of seismic recordings using a single seismometer. Instead of relying on existing earthquake catalogs of larger earthquakes, RSD identifies characteristic repetitive waveforms by rapidly identifying signals of interest above a low signal‐to‐noise ratio and then grouping based on spectral and time domain characteristics, resulting in dramatically shorter processing time than more exhaustive autocorrelation approaches. We investigate seismicity in four regions using RSD: (1) volcanic seismicity at Mammoth Mountain, California, (2) subduction‐related seismicity in Oaxaca, Mexico, (3) induced seismicity in Central Alberta, Canada, and (4) induced seismicity in Harrison County, Ohio. In each case, RSD detects a similar or larger number of earthquakes than existing catalogs created using more time intensive methods. In Harrison County, RSD identifies 18 seismic sequences that correlate temporally and spatially to separate hydraulic fracturing operations, 15 of which were previously unreported. RSD utilizes a single seismometer for earthquake detection which enables seismicity to be quickly identified in poorly instrumented regions at the expense of relying on another method to locate the new detections. Due to the smaller computation overhead and success at distances up to ~50 km, RSD is well suited for real‐time detection of low‐magnitude earthquake swarms with permanent regional networks.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".