The InSAR lookbook: an illustrated guide to earthquake interferograms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) is the prevalent method for mapping earthquake deformation and is seeing ever-increasing popularity through a new generation of satellite missions. Nowadays, following any large onshore earthquake, InSAR images (interferograms) are quickly disseminated across the community and media, but outside of InSAR specialists there remains a lack of general understanding of how to interpret them. We begin our study by describing how InSAR fringe patterns are determined by the combination of horizontal and vertical ground motions and ascending or descending satellite viewing geometries. In our "lookbook", we synthesize interferograms for a comprehensive suite of faulting styles, including strike-slip, reverse, normal, low-angle thrust, low-angle normal, and oblique-slip faults. This highlights the most common InSAR fringe patterns and demonstrates how strike-slip, dip-slip, and oblique-slip earthquakes produce distinct fringe patterns controlled primarily by their strike angles. We offer guidelines for utilizing the lookbook to assess earthquake mechanisms visually and to pick the causative fault plane from two nodal planes. Lastly, by comparing modelled interferograms and real-world earthquakes, we showcase the broad applicability of the lookbook, even for complex multiple segment ruptures.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it