Geology ReportsSearch

EXPLORE THE ARCHIVE

Gregory C. Beroza

Publications and source records attributed to Gregory C. Beroza.

2 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

Overview of The SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence

We present initial findings from the ongoing Community Stress Drop Validation Study to compare spectral stress‐drop estimates for earthquakes in the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, sequence. This study uses a unified dataset to independently estimate earthquake source parameters through various methods. Stress drop, which denotes the change in average shear stress along a fault during earthquake rupture, is a critical parameter in earthquake science, impacting ground motion, rupture simulation, and source physics. Spectral stress drop is commonly derived by fitting the amplitude‐spectrum shape, but estimates can vary substantially across studies for individual earthquakes. Sponsored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Statewide (previously, Southern) California Earthquake Center our community study aims to elucidate sources of variability and uncertainty in earthquake spectral stress‐drop estimates through quantitative comparison of submitted results from independent analyses. The dataset includes nearly 13,000 earthquakes ranging from M 1 to 7 during a two‐week period of the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence, recorded within a 1° radius. In this article, we report on 56 unique submissions received from 20 different groups, detailing spectral corner frequencies (or source durations), moment magnitudes, and estimated spectral stress drops. Methods employed encompass spectral ratio analysis, spectral decomposition and inversion, finite‐fault modeling, ground‐motion‐based approaches, and combined methods. Initial analysis reveals significant scatter across submitted spectral stress drops spanning over six orders of magnitude. However, we can identify between‐method trends and offsets within the data to mitigate this variability. Averaging submissions for a prioritized subset of 56 events shows reduced variability of spectral stress drop, indicating overall consistency in recovered spectral stress‐drop values.

California