High-Pass Corner Frequency Selection for Implementation in the USGS Automated Ground Motion Processing Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthquake ground motion processing for next-generation attenuation (NGA) projects required human inspection to select high-pass corner frequencies (fcHP), which is time-intensive and subjective. With growth in the number of recordings per event and interest in enhancing repeatability, we sought to develop automated procedures for fcHP selection. These procedures consider signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and non-physical features in the displacement time series that indicate high- and/or low-frequency noise effects. The procedures are implemented in a US Geological Survey software package (gmprocess). We extend previous procedures for SNR-based corner frequency selection to also check for low-frequency artifacts in the displacement record using a polynomial fit to improve fcHP selection. We evaluate the performance of the SNR and polynomial fit criteria using recordings from the 2020 M5.1 North Carolina and the 2013 M4.7 Southern Ontario earthquakes. Data processed with the SNR-only criteria can have low fcHP and displacement drift; the displacement check increases fcHP and reduces displacement drift.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".