Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Yongsoo Park

Publications and source records attributed to Yongsoo Park.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Divide and conquer: Separating the two probabilities in seismic phase picking

There are two fundamental probabilities in the seismic phase picking process – the probability of the existence of a seismic phase (detection probability) and the probability of correctly identifying the phase arrival time (timing probability). The nearly ubiquitous approach in developing deep learning phase picking models is to use a kernel, such as a truncated Gaussian, to mask the labeled phase arrival time, and train a segmentation model. Once a model is trained, the times of the peaks in the output are taken as phase arrival times (picks) and the height of the peaks are taken as “probability” of the picks. Here, we show that this “probability” represents neither the detection nor the timing probabilty because this approach forces the output to follow the shape of the kernel. We introduce an approach using two models to estimate these two distinct probabilities. We use a binary classifier with a calibrated confidence to address the detection probability and a multi-class classifier to obtain a probability mass function to address the timing probability. This new approach makes the deep learning-based phase picking process more interpretable and gives us options to logically control seismic monitoring workflows.

Geophysical Journal International↗

The value of hyperparameter optimization in phase-picking neural networks

The effectiveness of using neural networks for picking seismic phase arrival times has been demonstrated through several case studies, and seismic monitoring programs are starting to adopt the technology into their workflows. However, published models were designed and trained using rather arbitrary choices of hyperparameters, limiting their performance. In this study, we use phase picks from both routine and template-matching analyses from multiple regions (Ridgecrest, California; Kilauea, Hawaii; Yellowstone, Wyoming-Montana-Idaho) to test a hyperparameter optimization scheme for phase-picking neural networks and to evaluate their performance. We show that a published model, namely PhaseNet (Zhu and Beroza, 2019), can be simplified and improved with reasonable effort and there are preferred choices of hyperparameters that increase the performance. We also show that models optimized based on the arrival times reported in routine event catalogs consistently perform well when picking arrival times of smaller events, which is crucial for certain tasks from microseismicity to explosion monitoring.

California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

Making phase-picking neural networks more consistent and interpretable

Improving the interpretability of phase‐picking neural networks remains an important task to facilitate their deployment to routine, real‐time seismic monitoring. The popular phase‐picking neural networks published in the literature lack interpretability because their output prediction scores do not necessarily correspond with the reliability of phase picks and can even be highly inconsistent depending on how we window the waveform data. Here, we show that systematically shifting the waveforms during training and using an antialiasing filter within the neural network architecture can substantially improve the consistency of the output prediction scores and can even make them scale with the signal‐to‐noise ratios of the waveforms. We demonstrate the improvements by applying these approaches to a commonly used phase‐picking neural network architecture and using waveform data from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence.

The Seismic Record↗