The past few years have seen an increase in the application of machine learning methods for seismic data analysis. This is due to the increased adoption and visibility of freely available and easy-to-use machine learning toolkits, faster computation, reduced cost of data storage, and the very large sets of continuous geophysical and laboratory experimental data. The combination of these factors means that now is the time to consider machine learning as one of the key strategies modeling tools in both improving routine data processing and for better understanding the underlying geophysical processes.

Already, significant progress has been made in seismic waveform detection and classification of seismic waves for automatic onset picking. Such advances are allowing us to vastly speed up and improve the accuracy of previously laborious processing flows. In other notable recent applications, waveforms and ground motions, from both laboratory and natural datasets, are being used to understand the precursory physics of sudden- and slow-slip and to predict aftershock locations within supervised learning frameworks.

In this session, we will see machine learning focussed presentations covering topics such as seismic waveform processing, earthquake cataloging, earthquake classification, and earthquake cycle behavior from numerical and laboratory experiments.

In particular we would like to highlight invited talks from
Beroza et al.: Earthquake Monitoring with Deep Learning
Hulbert et al.: Probing Fault Physics Applying Machine Learning
De Hoop et al.: Unsupervised learning for identification of seismic signals
Kriegerowski et al.: Deep learning for localizing and detecting earthquake swarm activity based on full waveforms: Chances, challenges and questions

Convener: Leonard Seydoux | Co-conveners: Jonathan Bedford, Fabio Corbi, Jens Dittrich, Piero Poli
| Mon, 08 Apr, 14:00–15:45
Room -2.91
| Attendance Mon, 08 Apr, 10:45–12:30
Hall X2

Attendance time: Monday, 8 April 2019, 10:45–12:30 | Hall X2

X2.361 |
Flavio Cannavo', Salvatore Moschella, Andrea Cannata, Stefano Gresta, and Laura Spina
Hall X2
X2.362 |
Payman Janbakhsh, Russell Pysklywec, and Hosein Shahnas
Hall X2
X2.363 |
Chun-Ming Huang, Hao Kuo‐Chen, Pei-Yu Jhong, and Zhuo-Kang Guan
Hall X2
X2.364 |
Yousef Rajaeitabrizi, Robabeh Salehiozoumchelouei, Luca D'Auria, and José Luis Sánchez de la Rosa
Hall X2
X2.365 |
Luis Fernandez-Prieto and Antonio Villaseñor
Hall X2
X2.366 |
Jean Soubestre, Léonard Seydoux, Luca D'Auria, José Barrancos, German D. Padilla, Nikolai M. Shapiro, and Nemesio M. Perez
Hall X2
X2.367 |
Fabio Corbi, Laura Sandri, Jonathan Bedford, Francesca Funiciello, Silvia Brizzi, Matthias Rosenau, and Serge Lallenand
Hall X2
X2.368 |
Do seismic waveforms exhibit features of earthquake imminence? Machine Learning investigation of the Northern Chile broadband seismic data
Joris Nix, Jens Dittrich, and Jonathan Bedford
Hall X2
X2.369 |
Sensibility analysis of of the InSight seismic data to the Martian structure: Application to the MSS blind test data
Salma Barkaoui, Philippe Lognonné, Mélanie Drilleau, Taichi Kawamura, Maria Saadé, Balthazar Kenda, Naomi Murdoch, and Martin van Driel
Hall X2
X2.370 |
Cheng Nan Liu, Ting Chung Huang, and Yih Min Wu
Hall X2
X2.371 |
Carlo Giunchi and Rasoul Sadeghian
Hall X2
X2.372 |
Data augmentation for improved classification of geophysical signals with deep learning
Glenn Cougoulat, Piero Poli, Leonard Seydoux, and Michel Campillo
Hall X2
X2.373 |
Deniz Ertuncay, Andrea De Lorenzo, Giovanni Costa, and Eric Medvet
Hall X2