Relative earthquake location procedure for clustered seismicity with a single station
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Earthquake location is one of the oldest problems in seismology, yet remains an active research topic. With dense seismic monitoring networks, it is possible to obtain reliable locations for microearthquakes; however, in many cases dense networks are lacking, limiting the location accuracy, or preventing location when there are too few observations. For small events in all settings, recording may be sparse and location may be difficult due to low signal-to-noise ratio. In this work, we introduce a new, distance-geometry-based method to locate seismicity clusters using only one or two seismic stations. A distance geometry problem consists in determining the location of sets of points based only on the distances between member pairs. Applied to seismology, our approach allows earthquake location using the interevent distance between earthquake pairs, which can be estimated using only one or two seismic stations. We first validate the method with synthetic data that resemble common cluster shapes, and then test the method with two seismic sequences in California: the August 2014 Mw 6.0 Napa earthquake and the July 2019 Mw 6.4 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. We demonstrate that our approach provides robust and reliable results even for a single station. When using two seismic stations, the results capture the same structures recovered with high-resolution double-difference locations based on multiple stations. The proposed method is particularly useful for poorly monitored areas, where only a limited number of stations are available.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".