Comparison of deep learning techniques for the investigation of a seismic sequence: an application to the 2019, Mw 4.5 Mugello (Italy) earthquake
Comparison of deep learning techniques for the investigation of a seismic sequence: an application to the 2019, Mw 4.5 Mugello (Italy) earthquake
The increase of available seismic data prompts the need for automatic processing procedures to fully exploit them. A good example is aftershock sequences recorded by temporary seismic networks, whose thorough analysis is challenging because of the high seismicity rate and station density. Here, we test the performance of two recent Deep Learning algorithms, the Generalized Phase Detection and Earthquake Transformer, for automatic seismic phases identification. We use data from the December 2019 Mugello basin (Northern Apennines, Italy) swarm, recorded on 13 permanent and nine temporary stations, applying these automatic procedures under different network configurations. As a benchmark, we use a catalog of 279 manually repicked earthquakes reported by the Italian National Seismic Network. Due to the ability of deep learning techniques to identify earthquakes under poor signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) conditions, we obtain: (a) a factor 3 increase in the number of locations with respect to INGV bulletin and (b) a factor 4 increase when stations from the temporary network are added. Comparison between deep learning and manually picked arrival times shows a mean difference of 0.02–0.04 s and a variance in the range 0.02–0.07 s. The improvement in magnitude completeness is ∼0.5 units. The deep learning algorithms were originally trained using data sets from different regions of the world: our results indicate that these can be successfully applied in our case, without any significant modification. Deep learning algorithms are efficient and accurate tools for data reprocessing in order to better understand the space-time evolution of earthquake sequences.
deep learning based seismic events detection, earthquake sequence, seismic activity in the Northern Apennines (Italy), seismic data analysis automation
Cianetti, Spina
c900f530-3492-4130-b263-69c11679dc3a
Bruni, Rebecca
9880ee0f-0e35-4048-9e8d-77cb68addcd4
Gaviano, Sonja
700fd42f-ac2c-4afa-99de-21c822c2ad60
Keir, Derek
5616f81f-bf1b-4678-a167-3160b5647c65
Piccinini, Davide
9adfe4e3-b126-4166-a512-339289124a5e
Saccorotti, Gilberto
06403465-2c9b-4a4a-944d-ab5aca273e0c
Giunchi, Carlo
65898718-1fca-4145-8521-d7024d69f173
Cianetti, Spina
c900f530-3492-4130-b263-69c11679dc3a
Bruni, Rebecca
9880ee0f-0e35-4048-9e8d-77cb68addcd4
Gaviano, Sonja
700fd42f-ac2c-4afa-99de-21c822c2ad60
Keir, Derek
5616f81f-bf1b-4678-a167-3160b5647c65
Piccinini, Davide
9adfe4e3-b126-4166-a512-339289124a5e
Saccorotti, Gilberto
06403465-2c9b-4a4a-944d-ab5aca273e0c
Giunchi, Carlo
65898718-1fca-4145-8521-d7024d69f173
Cianetti, Spina, Bruni, Rebecca, Gaviano, Sonja, Keir, Derek, Piccinini, Davide, Saccorotti, Gilberto and Giunchi, Carlo
(2021)
Comparison of deep learning techniques for the investigation of a seismic sequence: an application to the 2019, Mw 4.5 Mugello (Italy) earthquake.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126 (12), [e2021JB023405].
(doi:10.1029/2021JB023405).
Abstract
The increase of available seismic data prompts the need for automatic processing procedures to fully exploit them. A good example is aftershock sequences recorded by temporary seismic networks, whose thorough analysis is challenging because of the high seismicity rate and station density. Here, we test the performance of two recent Deep Learning algorithms, the Generalized Phase Detection and Earthquake Transformer, for automatic seismic phases identification. We use data from the December 2019 Mugello basin (Northern Apennines, Italy) swarm, recorded on 13 permanent and nine temporary stations, applying these automatic procedures under different network configurations. As a benchmark, we use a catalog of 279 manually repicked earthquakes reported by the Italian National Seismic Network. Due to the ability of deep learning techniques to identify earthquakes under poor signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) conditions, we obtain: (a) a factor 3 increase in the number of locations with respect to INGV bulletin and (b) a factor 4 increase when stations from the temporary network are added. Comparison between deep learning and manually picked arrival times shows a mean difference of 0.02–0.04 s and a variance in the range 0.02–0.07 s. The improvement in magnitude completeness is ∼0.5 units. The deep learning algorithms were originally trained using data sets from different regions of the world: our results indicate that these can be successfully applied in our case, without any significant modification. Deep learning algorithms are efficient and accurate tools for data reprocessing in order to better understand the space-time evolution of earthquake sequences.
Text
JGR Solid Earth - 2021 - Cianetti - Comparison of Deep Learning Techniques for the Investigation of a Seismic Sequence An
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 13 December 2021
e-pub ahead of print date: 15 December 2021
Keywords:
deep learning based seismic events detection, earthquake sequence, seismic activity in the Northern Apennines (Italy), seismic data analysis automation
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 452864
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/452864
ISSN: 2169-9356
PURE UUID: 91ade895-cce1-4aa2-97e7-0f00589bb3fc
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 06 Jan 2022 17:31
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 03:24
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Spina Cianetti
Author:
Rebecca Bruni
Author:
Sonja Gaviano
Author:
Davide Piccinini
Author:
Gilberto Saccorotti
Author:
Carlo Giunchi
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics