loading page

Transfer Learning for Seismic Phase Picking on Different Geographic Regions
  • +4
  • Chenyu Li,
  • Lijun Zhu,
  • Dongdong Yao,
  • Xiaofeng Meng,
  • Zhigang Peng,
  • James McClellan,
  • Jake Walter
Chenyu Li
Georgia Institute of Technology

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Lijun Zhu
Georgia Institute of Technology
Author Profile
Dongdong Yao
University of Michigan
Author Profile
Xiaofeng Meng
Southern California Earthquake Center
Author Profile
Zhigang Peng
Georgia Institute of Technology
Author Profile
James McClellan
Georgia Institute of Technology
Author Profile
Jake Walter
Oklahoma Geological Surver
Author Profile

Abstract

Machine learning algorithms have become a powerful tool in different areas of seismology, such as phase picking/earthquake detection, earthquake early warning and focal mechanism determination. Previously convolutional neural networks (CNN) have been applied to continuous seismic waveform recordings to perform efficient phase picking and event detection with good accuracy [Zhu et al., 2018]. However, the off-line training of current CNN requires at least a few thousands of accurately picked seismic phases, which makes it difficult to be applied to regions without sufficient picked phases. In this work, we will validate the transfer learning among different geographic regions. Our tests show that the phase picker trained on manually-labeled data acquired from Sichuan, China following the 2008 M7.9 Wenchuan earthquake [Zhu et al., 2018] works equally well on the continuous waveform acquired from Oklahoma, US [Zhu et al., 2018]. Specifically, using the CNN trained on the Wenchuan dataset, together with 895 local/regional catalog events recorded in central Oklahoma, we refine part of the networks to pick the arrival times of the local seismicity in Oklahoma. The refined CNN results are compatible with the matched filter results using the same catalog events as templates. Our next step is to extend our test to waveforms from different tectonic regions to demonstrate the generality of CNN-based phase picker. We plan to further use a New Zealand seismic dataset that includes more than 20 GeoNet stations in the North Island, where the matched-filter detected results are available to be compared with (Yao et al., 2018). Alternatively dataset include a subset of events in the waveform relocated catalog in Southern California. Updated results will be presented at the meeting.