DeepRFQC: automating quality control for P-wave receiver function analysis using a U-net inspired network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces DeepRFQC, an automated method for quality control in P-wave receiver function analysis. Leveraging a U-Net inspired deep learning model, which has previously shown promise in denoising and phase detection, DeepRFQC efficiently distinguishes usable from noisy receiver functions. We examine a Proterozoic Trans-Hudson Orogen dataset from northern Canada, including seismic events from 1990 to 2023, which is expanded for training purposes by data augmentation techniques. With 1,508,449 trainable parameters, the DeepRFQC model attains a commendable 96.6% validation accuracy, on a test dataset from the X5 seismic network; tests on stations from different tectonic environments indicate that the model is effective even in environments very different from the training set. Validation through the H-κ stacking method shows consistent and plausible results. As manual quality control is a major bottleneck in receiver-function processing, automated methods such as this one will allow for efficient examination of large data sets.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".