Large‐Scale Test of Dynamic Correlation Processors: Implications for Correlation‐Based Seismic Pipelines

Correlation detectors are of considerable interest to seismic monitoring communities because they offer reduced detection thresholds and combine detection, location, and identification functions into a single operation. They appear to be ideal for applications requiring screening of frequent repeating events. But questions remain about how broadly empirical correlation methods are applicable. We describe the effectiveness of banks of correlation detectors in a system that combines traditional power detectors with correlation detectors in terms of efficiency, which we define to be the fraction of events detected by the correlators. This article elaborates and extends the concept of a dynamic correlation detection framework—a system that autonomously creates correlation detectors from event waveforms detected by power detectors and reports observed performance on a network of arrays in terms of efficiency. We performed a large‐scale test of dynamic correlation processors on an 11 TB global dataset using 25 arrays in the 1–3 Hz frequency band. The system found over 3.2 million unique signals and produced 459,747 screened detections. A very satisfying result is that, on average, efficiency grows with time and, after nearly 16 years of operation, exceeds 47% for events observed over all distance ranges and approaches 70% for near‐regional and 90% for local events. This suggests that future pipeline architectures should make extensive use of correlation detectors, principally for decluttering observations of local and near‐regional events. Our results also suggest that future operations based on correlation detection will require commodity large‐scale computing infrastructure, because the numbers of correlators in an autonomous system can grow into the hundreds of thousands.

[1]  F. Ringdal,et al.  The detection of low magnitude seismic events using array-based waveform correlation , 2006 .

[2]  P. Shearer Application to the Whittier Narrows California aftershock sequence , 1997 .

[3]  Avery Wang,et al.  An Industrial Strength Audio Search Algorithm , 2003, ISMIR.

[4]  F. Waldhauser,et al.  A Double-Difference Earthquake Location Algorithm: Method and Application to the Northern Hayward Fault, California , 2000 .

[5]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  The WEKA data mining software: an update , 2009, SKDD.

[6]  William L. Ellsworth,et al.  Monitoring velocity variations in the crust using earthquake doublets: An application to the Calaveras Fault, California , 1984 .

[7]  N. Anstey Correlation techniques – a review , 1964 .

[8]  David B. Harris,et al.  An Autonomous System for Grouping Events in a Developing Aftershock Sequence , 2011 .

[9]  David W. Simpson,et al.  A survey of blasting activity in the United States , 1992, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[10]  Paul G. Richards,et al.  On finding and using repeating seismic events in and near China , 2011 .

[11]  D. Joanes,et al.  Comparing measures of sample skewness and kurtosis , 1998 .

[12]  The use of time-of-day seismicity maps for earthquake/explosion discrimination by local networks, with an application to the Seismicity of San Diego County , 1990, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[13]  H. V. Trees Detection, Estimation, And Modulation Theory , 2001 .

[14]  Christopher John Young,et al.  Multistation Validation of Waveform Correlation Techniques as Applied to Broad Regional Monitoring , 2014 .

[15]  Douglas A. Dodge,et al.  Inferring Aftershock Sequence Properties and Tectonic Structure Using Empirical Signal Detectors , 2015, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[16]  R. Geller,et al.  Four similar earthquakes in central California , 1980 .

[17]  Stephen D. Malone,et al.  High precision relative locations of earthquakes at Mount St. Helens, Washington , 1987 .

[18]  P. Shearer,et al.  Southern California Hypocenter Relocation with Waveform Cross-Correlation, Part 1: Results Using the Double-Difference Method , 2005 .

[19]  Felix Waldhauser,et al.  Waveform Cross-Correlation-Based Differential Travel-Time Measurements at the Northern California Seismic Network , 2005 .

[20]  David P. Schaff,et al.  Broad‐scale applicability of correlation detectors to China seismicity , 2009 .

[21]  P. Richards,et al.  Repeating Seismic Events in China , 2004, Science.

[22]  Stephen C. Myers,et al.  Seismic discrimination between earthquakes and explosions in the Middle East and North Africa , 1997 .

[23]  William R. Walter,et al.  Initial Global Seismic Cross-Correlation Results: Implications for Empirical Signal Detectors , 2014 .

[24]  F. Waldhauser,et al.  Large-scale relocation of two decades of Northern California seismicity using cross-correlation and double-difference methods , 2008 .

[25]  William R. Walter,et al.  International monitoring system correlation detection at the North Korean nuclear test site at Punggye-ri with insights from the source physics experiment , 2015 .

[26]  David B. Harris,et al.  A waveform correlation method for identifying quarry explosions , 1991, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[27]  Shumeet Baluja,et al.  Waveprint: Efficient wavelet-based audio fingerprinting , 2008, Pattern Recognit..

[28]  B. Hjorth EEG analysis based on time domain properties. , 1970, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.