Papers for

seismic monitoring teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Seismic foundation models act mainly as feature extractors not generalists

Are Seismic Foundation Models More Than Glorified Feature Extractors?

Abstract: Earthquake sequences are stochastic on two separated timescales: the seismic waves of any individual earthquake propagate over seconds to minutes, while the earthquakes themselves arrive as a sparse, self-exciting occurrence process, with inter-event intervals from seconds to months. Respecting both scales in one training objective is the open challenge. Foundation models (FMs) for seismic waveforms instead import their learning targets from audio and vision, where every target is computed from a single fixed-length window. Such a window holds one realization of the wave propagation (an earthquake trace), never the occurrence process that decides when earthquakes happen. We develop nine model designs sharing one Mamba encoder-decoder, trained on a fixed corpus of 3M windows, varying the self-supervised objective, quantization bottleneck and mixer; the two key comparisons are architecture-matched, varying the objective alone. Each checkpoint is evaluated frozen on three downstream tasks. Varying the target redistributes downstream skill rather than raising it, and no checkpoint wins everywhere. Adding masking pressure to our strongest classifier re-specializes it rather than making it a generalist: it gains 6.9 points of few-shot P-wave picking precision and loses 9.6 points of few-shot classification accuracy. By the standard imported from language and vision, these models are feature extractors rather than FMs. Controls on capacity, architecture, and domain proximity do not explain why skill moves rather than rises. Against task-specific baselines the advantage is regime-dependent: our checkpoints beat them few-shot on classification and ground-motion prediction, and trail them on full data. We argue the binding constraint is the target, and that settling the question requires a learning target defined across events, the timescale that makes seismicity stochastic in the first place.

Tue 27 OctMachine LearningArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Earthquakes happen over two very different timescales—quick seismic waves and long periods between events—and current AI models trained on short time windows can't learn both at once. The authors tested different training objectives on the same neural network architecture and found that changing these targets shifts what the models are good at rather than improving overall performance. Their models work like specialized feature extractors but don’t become general-purpose seismic understanding tools. To truly capture earthquake patterns, training methods need to consider the longer timescale of when earthquakes happen, not just their wave signals.
Open → 2610.38003v1

Rapid earthquake location using physics-informed neural networks and 3d wave models

HypoNet Nankai PS: rapid hypocenter determination for the Nankai Trough using physics-informed neural networks with three-dimensional P- and S-wave velocity models

Abstract: Rapid and accurate hypocenter determination based on three-dimensional (3D) seismic velocity models is essential for seismic monitoring in subduction zones, yet it remains computationally demanding. HypoNet Nankai, a hypocenter determination package that uses physics-informed neural network (PINN) travel-time inference for a realistic 3D P-wave velocity model of the Nankai Trough subduction zone, was designed to address this problem, but supported only P-wave arrival times. Here, we present HypoNet Nankai PS, which extends the framework to both P- and S-wave travel times. We first constructed an S-wave velocity model from the existing P-wave model using empirical conversion relations for marine sediments and the crust. Because the resulting S-wave velocity structure has lower velocities and therefore considerably steeper travel-time gradients, the original PINN training procedure designed for the P-wave velocity structure was insufficient. We therefore revised the training procedure by reconsidering the distribution of collocation points, the NN architecture, and the optimizer. Benchmark comparisons with the fast marching method showed that the revised approach substantially reduced the root-mean-square deviations for both P- and S-waves compared with the original algorithm. Recovery tests using synthetic earthquakes were also performed. When applied to 223 earthquakes recorded by DONET stations off the Kii Peninsula, the system yielded hypocenters generally consistent with the JMA catalog beneath the network, suggesting that the 3D velocity model captures travel-time variations accommodated by JMA's 1D model and station corrections. Farther seaward, the estimated hypocenters were substantially shallower than those in the JMA catalog and were located in the oceanic crust and uppermost mantle, consistent with previous relocations that used DONET data and 3D velocity models.

Tue 20 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Finding where an earthquake starts quickly and accurately is hard because of complex underground structures. The authors improved a computer method called HypoNet Nankai by adding both P-wave and S-wave data, which travel differently underground. They made new adjustments to the learning process to handle these waves better, resulting in more precise earthquake locations near the Nankai Trough. When tested on real data, their system found earthquake sources close to existing catalogs but sometimes gave shallower depths, matching other detailed studies.
Open → 2610.27561v1

TREMOR speeds up finding earthquake patterns in huge seismic data

TREMOR: Template Matching for Large Seismic Data Collections

Abstract: Seismic station networks continuously record the ground velocity at several locations on earth in the form of waveform data series, which seismologists analyze to detect various kinds of geophysical events, including earthquakes. Some of these events are of particular interest: they are called templates and are used to search the seismic data collections for matching, similar events. This is known as template matching, and is a fundamental task in seismology, serving as the backbone for various seismic analyses. However, template matching requires extensive processing times, especially for seismic collections that exceed the memory capacity of a single machine. This poses a significant challenge to seismologists and is becoming worse as the seismological datasets continue to grow in size. In this paper, we introduce TREMOR, a distributed data series processing framework for template matching, designed to efficiently handle large waveform collections. We apply TREMOR to two representative real-world seismic use cases for template matching and, through an extensive experimental evaluation, we demonstrate its efficiency, with TREMOR being up to 12x faster than the best competing method, while returning the same, exact results.

Thu 1 OctDatabases
The gist
Seismologists collect huge amounts of data to detect earthquakes and other ground movements. To find repeating events quickly, they look for examples called templates in this data. The authors created TREMOR, a system that splits the work across many computers so this search happens much faster. Their tests on real earthquake data show TREMOR can be up to 12 times quicker than other methods while giving the same exact matches.
Open → 2610.02534v1