MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091203820 · doi:10.1190/segam2020-3420645.1

Event detection using a fast matched filter algorithm – An efficient way to deal with big microseismic data sets

2020· article· en· W3091203820 on OpenAlexaff
Hanh Bui, Mirko van der Baan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismComputer scienceBig dataFilter (signal processing)Event (particle physics)AlgorithmData miningGeologySeismologyComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Event detection is one of the time-consuming parts in microseismic processing. Different automated event detection algorithms have been proposed, such as the short-time average over the long-time average (STA/LTA), power spectral density (PSD), and subspace detection (SD). However, these approaches are not convenient for big data sets. In this study, we introduce a fast matched filter (MF) algorithm, which can solve the efficiency challenge for these detectors. The proposed fast MF is built based on a fast normalized cross-correlation (NCC) technique. This method detects events in the data based on their similarity with template events by comparing the NCC coefficients between the template events and the data with a specific user-defined threshold. The detection workflow consists of six steps, namely data preconditioning, selecting template waveforms, multiplexing, fast NCC computation, extracting potential events, and quality control of the detection results. We have implemented the MF algorithm on a microseismic data set with over 19,000 events detected on two monitoring wells. The MF detection results are compared with the results from STA/LTA. The MF algorithm is more efficient in event detection with fewer false alarms, higher detection probability, and shorter processing time than STA/LTA, especially when dealing with big, noisy data sets. Presentation Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 Session Start Time: 1:50 PM Presentation Time: 4:20 PM Location: 360A Presentation Type: Oral

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207