GreenPhase: A Green Learning Approach for Earthquake Phase Picking
Authors: Yixing Wu, Shiou-Ya Wang, Dingyi Nie, Sanket Kumbhar, Yun-Tung Hsieh, Yun-Cheng Wang, Po-Chyi Su, C. -C. Jay Kuo
Organizations: Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Southern California · Center for Earth and Environmental Studies, National Central University · Department of Computer Science & Information Engineering, National Central University
Earthquake detection and seismic phase picking are fundamental yet challenging tasks in seismology due to low signal-to-noise ratios, waveform variability, and overlapping events. Recent deep-learning models achieve strong results but rely on large datasets and heavy backpropagation training, raising concerns over efficiency, interpretability, and sustainability. We propose GreenPhase, a multi-resolution, feed-forward, and mathematically interpretable model based on the Green Learning framework. GreenPhase comprises three resolution levels, each integrating unsupervised representation learning, supervised feature learning, and decision learning. Its feed-forward design eliminates backpropagation, enabling independent module optimization with stable training and clear interpretability. Predictions are refined from coarse to fine resolutions while computation is restricted to candidate regions. On the Stanford Earthquake Dataset (STEAD), GreenPhase achieves excellent performance with F1 scores of 1.0 for detection, 0.98 for P-wave picking, and 0.96 for S-wave picking. This is accomplished while reducing the computational cost (FLOPs) for inference by approximately 83% compared to state-of-the-art models. These results demonstrate that the proposed model provides an efficient, interpretable, and sustainable alternative for large-scale seismic monitoring.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Data preprocessing workflow prior to GreenPhase training.
Figure 2: Comparison of a seismic waveform before and after the preprocessing pipeline.
Figure 3: The architecture of P/S-wave picking
Figure 4: An example of the pseudo-label generation for a Level 1 waveform (1500-sample resolution). The top panel shows the transformed waveform with the P-arrival marked. The bottom panel displays the corresponding continuous pseudo-label for each time location.
Figure 5: The distribution of pseudo-label values for the Level 1 training set after stratified sampling. The histogram confirms that the three categories (noise, intermediate, and high-confidence) are equally represented, resulting in a balanced dataset for model training.
Model
Pr
Re
F1
Training size
Ref.
GreenPhase (Ours)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2M
This study
EQTransformer
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2M
Mousavi et al. (2020)
CRED
1.0
0.96
0.98
1.2M
Mousavi et al. (2019b)
DetNet
1.0
0.89
0.94
30K
Zhou et al. (2019)
Yews
0.84
0.85
0.85
1.4M
Zhu et al. (2019)
STA/LTA
0.91
1.0
0.95
—
Allen (1978)
Table 1: Detection performance.
Model
Pr
Re
F1
Training size
Ref.
GreenPhase (Ours)
0.96
0.99
0.98
1.2M
This study
GreenPhase (Ours)
0.96
0.99
0.98
240K
This study
GreenPhase (Ours)
0.95
0.99
0.97
60K
This study
EQTransformer
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.2M
Mousavi et al. (2020)
PhaseNet
0.96
0.96
0.96
780K
Zhu and Beroza (2019)
GPD
0.81
0.80
0.81
4.5M
Ross et al. (2018)
Table 2: P-phase picking performance.
Model
Pr
Re
F1
Training size
Ref.
GreenPhase (Ours)
0.93
0.99
0.96
1.2M
This study
GreenPhase (Ours)
0.93
0.99
0.96
240K
This study
GreenPhase (Ours)
0.92
0.99
0.95
60K
This study
EQTransformer
0.99
0.96
0.98
1.2M
Mousavi et al. (2020)
PhaseNet
0.96
0.93
0.94
780K
Zhu and Beroza (2019)
GPD
0.81
0.83
0.82
4.5M
Ross et al. (2018)
Table 3: S-phase picking performance.
Model
Training Size
Model Size
FLOPs
GreenPhase (Ours)
60K
93K ( × 1.0)
4M ( × 1.0)
GreenPhase (Ours)
240K
234K (2.5 × )
12M (3.0 × )
GreenPhase (Ours)
1.2M
381K (4.1 × )
22M (5.5 × )
EQTransformer
1.2M
377K (4.1 × )
129M (32.3 × )
Table 4: Comparison of model size and testing FLOPs.
Model
Training Size
CO 2 e (g)
Energy (Wh)
GreenPhase (Ours)
60K
10.30 (1.0 × )
24.28 (1.0 × )
GreenPhase (Ours)
240K
11.44 ( ∼ 1.1 × )
26.98 ( ∼ 1.1 × )
GreenPhase (Ours)
1.2M
20.59 ( ∼ 2.0 × )
48.57 ( ∼ 2.0 × )
EQTransformer
1.2M
31.11 ( ∼ 3.0 × )
61.13 ( ∼ 2.5 × )
Table 5: Comparison of carbon footprint and energy consumption during inference on over 120,000 test waveforms.
Model
Training Size
CO 2 e (kg)
Energy (kWh)
GreenPhase (Ours)
60K
0.189 (1.0 × )
0.445 (1.0 × )
GreenPhase (Ours)
240K
0.747 (4.0 × )
1.76 (4.0 × )
GreenPhase (Ours)
1.2M
1.80 (9.5 × )
4.25 (9.6 × )
EQTransformer
1.2M
72.04 (381 × )
169.92 (382 × )
Table 6: Comparison of carbon footprint and energy consumption in model training.
Figure 6: Analysis of the RFT and SFG feature engineering steps for the Level 3 P-wave model. (a, b) The sorted RFT loss on the training and validation sets, respectively, shows that only a small fraction of features before the ”elbow” are highly discriminative. (c) The high correlation of feature ranks between the training and validation sets confirms the stability of the RFT selection process. (d) The RFT loss of the new SFG-generated features is substantially lower than that of the original RFT-selected features, demonstrating the effectiveness of SFG.
Figure 7: Prediction results at the coarsest resolution (Level 3, 375 samples).
Figure 8: Refined prediction results at the intermediate resolution (Level 2, 750 samples).
Figure 9: Final prediction results at the finest resolution (Level 1, 1500 samples).
Numerous studies have shown that the machine-learning picker PhaseNet produces accurate P and S picks on local earthquake signals, but its performance can degrade sharply on teleseismic signals. To address this limitation, we present a reproducible MsPASS workflow that (i) enables scalable data preparation and management for large seismic archives and (ii) supports standardized PhaseNet training and inference. We assembled a control dataset of 1.6 million waveforms linked to teleseismic P-wave picks made by analysts at the USArray Array Network Facility (ANF). The control dataset confirms that the PhaseNet model trained on regional signals performs poorly on these data. We then trained PhaseNet from scratch on the training split of the ANF control dataset and evaluated it on a non-overlapping held-out test split, increasing P-pick recall by 741.5% and yielding 683.9% more picks within a 0.1s residual window. We also evaluated PhaseNet across different model sizes on both CPUs and GPUs. Increasing the model size by about 120 times improved precision and recall by 15.6% and 23.2%, respectively. However, the scaled model reduced inference throughput by 87.2% on an NVIDIA A100 GPU and by 97.3% on a 128-core high-performance CPU node. These results indicate that scaling PhaseNet is more practical on GPUs than on CPUs, and that simply enlarging the model is not an efficient way to achieve large accuracy gains.
Jinxin Ma, Yinzhi Wang, Gary L. Pavlis +1
Texas Advanced Computing Center, The University of Texas at Austin · Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
Rapid earthquake magnitude estimation is crucial for effective early warning systems that can save lives and reduce economic damage. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study of magnitude classification using only the vertical component of the initial 7-second P-wave window from a single station. We compare six machine learning approaches that range from traditional models to state-of-the-art deep learning architectures. We also curated a novel dataset of 7,318 earthquake events in South Asia. The dataset was categorized into five Richter-scale classes: slight (3.0-3.9), light (4.0-4.9), moderate (5.0-5.9), strong (6.0-6.9) and severe (>= 7.0). Our experiments show that deep learning models substantially outperform traditional approaches. Our Transformer based architecture achieved 76.23% standard accuracy and 81.56% adaptive accuracy with 4.8 ms inference latency. The adaptive-accuracy metric is introduced for the inherent uncertainty in magnitude estimation of near class boundaries. These results indicate that the attention mechanisms in Transformers combined with adaptive classification effectively capture the temporal dynamics of seismic signals. The architectural advantage facilitates promising generalization to rare high-magnitude events, despite the inherent data scarcity characteristic of seismic catalogs. The adaptive accuracy provides a more realistic assessment of model performance, and the result suggests viability for real-time deployment.
Inaccurately labeled training data, or "label noise", poses a significant threat to the integrity of supervised machine learning models. This corruption directly degrades performance by teaching the model erroneous mappings between features and labels, which leads to poor generalization and reduced accuracy on properly labeled validation and test data. Current seismological applications mainly rely on large-scale training sets or data augmentation to reduce the label-noise impact, which can be labor-intensive and costly. Here, we introduce a Label Noise-Contrastive Robust Learning (LaNCoR) approach that can effectively handle noisy labels in seismic signal processing tasks, without requiring large-scale training datasets. In this approach, the input waveform feature and label representation distributions are aligned in the feature space to correct mislabeling and reduce its impact on the training process. We present LaNCoR's performance on the task of P-phase arrival-time picking of real microseismic data using two baseline models and training approaches. Our results indicate that LaNCoR can improve performance by up to 28.8% across performance metrics. This approach holds great promise for model training in seismology and geosciences.
Sen Li, Xu Yang, S. Mostafa Mousavi +5
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. · School of Computer Science and Technology, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China · School of Mines, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China +1