Optimization of the Match‐Filtering Method for Robust Repeating Earthquake Detection: The Multisegment Cross‐Correlation Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Waveform match‐filtering (MF), based on cross‐correlation between an earthquake pair, is a powerful and widely used tool in seismology. However, its performance can be severely affected by several factors, including the length of the cross‐correlation window, the frequency band of the applied digital filter, and the presence of a large‐amplitude phase(s). To optimize the performance of MF, we first systematically examine the effects of different operational parameters and determine the generic rules for selecting the window length and the optimal frequency passband. To minimize the influence of a large‐amplitude phase(s), we then propose a new approach, namely, MF with multisegment cross‐correlation (MFMC). By equally incorporating the contributions from various segments of the waveforms, this new approach is much more sensitive to small separation between two sources compared to the conventional MF method using the entire waveform template. To compare the reliability and effectiveness of both methods in capturing interevent source separation and identifying repeating earthquakes, we systematically conduct experiments with both synthetic data and real observations. The results demonstrate that the conventional MF method can detect the existence of an event but sometimes lacks the resolution to tell whether the template and detected events are co‐located or not, whereas MFMC works in all cases. The far‐reaching implication from this study is that inferring source separation between an earthquake pair based on the conventional MF method, particularly with data from a single channel/station, may not be reliable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".