Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 65 references

Enhanced receiver function imaging of crustal structures using symmetric autoencoders

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A symmetric variational autoencoder that separates shared crustal effects from earthquake-specific nuisance in receiver-function gathers can generate virtual receiver functions that outperform linear and phase-weighted averaging.

desk verdict A genuine and potentially useful application of the authors' own SymVAE to receiver-function denoising, but the central claim of preserving deep crustal effects is undercut by their own supplementary results, and the real-data metric is self-referential. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14182 v2 pith:2RXZMQRJ submitted 2024-11-21 physics.geo-ph

T. Rengneichuong Koireng , Pawan Bharadwaj This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.geo-ph
keywords ReceiverfunctionsSymmetricvariationalautoencoderCoherentcrustaleffectsNuisancereductionDeconvolutionstructureSubductionzoneBackazimuthcoverage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Receiver functions — seismic traces built by deconvolving the radial or transverse component with the vertical component to isolate waves converted at crustal interfaces — are contaminated by earthquake-specific nuisance effects that survive bandpass filtering and are not Gaussian. This paper claims that a symmetric variational autoencoder can learn to disentangle these nuisance effects from the coherent crustal response in a bin of similar earthquakes, and that decoding the accumulated crustal code with an optimized nuisance code produces a 'virtual' receiver function with minimal nuisance but preserved crustal signal. On synthetic data with real source signatures and ambient noise, and on dense networks at the Cascadia subduction zone and in southern California, the virtual receiver functions show clearer converted phases and higher correlation with ground truth or reference stacks than linear or phase-weighted averaging. The practical payoff claimed is that all earthquakes — including low signal-to-noise events that are normally discarded — can be used, improving coverage of earthquake arrival directions and distances for sparse or temporary stations.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the symmetric variational autoencoder with a partitioned latent space. A symmetric encoder $h_q$ maps each receiver function in a bin to a Gaussian posterior over crustal effects; these posteriors are combined by the conjunction rule $Q(q\mid r_j) \propto \prod_i Q(q\mid r^i_j)$ (Eq. 7), so the shared crustal code becomes sharper as more earthquakes are included. A separate nuisance encoder $h_p$ maps each RF to an earthquake-specific posterior, and a decoder $f$ reconstructs RFs from sampled pairs $(\hat{q}_j, \hat{p}^i_j)$. To form a virtual RF, the authors decode $\bar{q}_j$ together with a nuisance code $\hat{m}$ that minimizes the KL divergence between the bin's accumulated crustal posterior and the crustal information in the candidate RF — a direct measure of how much crustal information would be lost by replacing the bin with that candidate. This structure is what lets nuisance be reduced without assuming Gaussian statistics.

What would settle it

Generate synthetic receiver functions from a model with a dipping Moho whose dip angle is varied, and compare each bin's virtual receiver function with the true synthetic receiver function. If the normalized correlation coefficient of the virtual receiver function falls below that of phase-weighted averaging in the bins where converted-phase arrival times vary most within the bin, the coherency assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that receiver functions can be generated, not just averaged, once a symmetric variational autoencoder (SymVAE) has partitioned its latent space into a crustal component and a nuisance component. For each bin of earthquakes with similar arrival direction and distance, the symmetric encoder accumulates per-earthquake crustal posteriors into a single crustal code $\bar{q}_j$; after training, a nuisance code $\hat{m}$ is chosen by minimizing $D_{\mathrm{KL}}(Q(q\mid r_j)\,\|\,Q(q\mid y^{\hat m}_j))$, and the virtual RF is $y^{\mathrm{virt}}_j = f(\bar{q}_j, \hat{m}^{\mathrm{virt}})$ (Eq. 10). The authors claim these virtual RFs contain less nuisance while retaining crustal effects, and that they outperform linear averaging and phase-weighted averaging on both synthetic and real data. They also claim that because the network learns the nuisance distribution instead of assuming it is Gaussian, every available earthquake can be used regardless of signal quality, yielding denser coverage of arrival directions and epicentral distances.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that earthquakes arriving from similar directions and distances produce receiver functions whose crustal signals are essentially the same, so a single accumulated code can represent all of them; the paper validates this coherency only on simple synthetic models, and its own supplementary results show the virtual receiver functions degrade for deeper interfaces where converted-wave arrival times vary more within a bin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All teleseismic earthquakes, regardless of signal quality, can be included in receiver-function analysis, improving coverage of arrival directions and epicentral distances for temporary and sparse stations.
  • Virtual transverse receiver functions display polarity reversals more clearly than averaged transverse receiver functions, making anisotropy and dipping-interface analysis feasible in data that would normally be too noisy.
  • The method, trained jointly across stations with no labels, carries over to a new geological region without retuning, as shown by running the same hyperparameters on Cascadia and southern California.
  • Virtual receiver functions from Cascadia resolve the slab's top negative contrast and the two deeper positive contrasts consistently across stations, while virtual receiver functions from southern California show sharp converted-phase delay changes across the San Andreas and Jacinto fault zones.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to feed the virtual receiver functions into standard $H$–$\kappa$ stacking or common-conversion-point migration; cleaner waveforms should sharpen Moho depth and $V_p/V_s$ estimates wherever bins are sparse.
  • The paper reuses a single optimal nuisance code for all bins at a station; a station-by-station cross-validation on synthetic models with strong anisotropy would reveal how much structure this transferability assumption could distort.
  • The same disentanglement recipe could be applied to S, SKS, or PKP receiver functions, where per-event nuisance is even more severe because the source signature is less well constrained, a direction the paper notes but does not test.
  • A direct test of the coherency assumption would be to halve the backazimuth bin size at one station and recompute virtual receiver functions; if converted-phase arrival times shift by more than the pulse width, the original bins were smearing distinct crustal signals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a symmetric variational autoencoder (SymVAE) approach to denoise teleseismic receiver functions (RFs). Receiver functions are grouped into backazimuth–epicentral-distance bins per station, and the network is trained to disentangle a coherent crustal code shared within each bin from earthquake-specific nuisance codes. After training, a virtual RF is generated per bin by decoding the accumulated crustal code with an optimally chosen nuisance code, selected by minimizing the KL divergence between the accumulated crustal posterior and the posterior of the candidate virtual RF. The method is tested on synthetic RFs with realistic source signatures and ambient noise, where virtual RFs achieve higher normalized correlation with true RFs than linear or phase-weighted averaging. It is then applied to real data in Cascadia and southern California, with qualitative comparisons to previous studies and a quantitative mean normalized correlation coefficient (MNCC) relative to the raw RFs in each bin. The authors claim that virtual RFs contain minimal nuisance effects while preserving crustal effects, and that the method can use all available earthquakes regardless of signal quality.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the method would be a useful unsupervised tool for RF imaging, particularly for temporary stations and uneven earthquake distributions, and it would improve backazimuth–slowness coverage without discarding low-SNR data. The paper has clear strengths: the synthetic benchmark is externally grounded against true RFs; the comparison includes linear and phase-weighted averaging; the two real-data applications cover geologically distinct settings; and the authors state that code and data are open-access. The main limitations are that the real-data evaluation metric is self-referential (it measures agreement with the same raw RFs used for training and generation), and the supplementary material reports a loss of deep converted phases for thicker crust, which directly undercuts the claim that crustal effects are preserved. The significance is therefore conditional: the method may be useful, but the current evidence does not yet establish that virtual RFs preserve deep crustal signals better than averaging in real data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Section 1] The paper's own synthetic results show that virtual RFs fail to recover surface multiples beyond about 10 s at Stations 4–6 because greater crustal depth increases the variability of converted phases within a bin, causing a loss of coherency. This directly contradicts the core assumption in Section 2.2 that crustal effects are coherent within fixed backazimuth–epicentral-distance bins, and it also conflicts with the central claim in Sections 3.2 and 7 that virtual RFs preserve crustal effects. Since deeper crust and mantle structures are precisely where moveout variation across a fixed bin is largest, the claim must be scoped, or the binning and accumulation scheme must be adapted (for example, by slowness-dependent moveout correction or narrower bins for later arrivals).
  2. [Appendix D.2, Eq. (D.2)] The real-data quality metric MNCC is computed between each virtual RF and the raw RFs in the same datapoint that was used to train the network and to accumulate the crustal posterior. This metric therefore measures self-consistency with the training distribution rather than fidelity to true crustal structure; a smooth virtual RF close to the average of noisy inputs can score highly without preserving genuine converted phases. The consistently higher MNCC of virtual RFs relative to linearly averaged RFs is thus not, on its own, evidence of enhanced crustal information in real data. An independent evaluation is needed, such as comparison with known interface depths, holdout stations or events, synthetic ground truth corrupted with real noise, or consistency checks against independent geophysical constraints.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (9)–(11)] The optimization that selects the optimal nuisance code uses the same encoder that defines Q(q|rj), so minimizing the KL divergence in Eq. (9) ensures that the virtual RF's crustal posterior matches the accumulated posterior, but it does not by itself guarantee that nuisance effects are minimized in any absolute sense. In addition, Eq. (11) reuses one optimal nuisance code for all datapoints of a station, which assumes that nuisance effects are transferable across backazimuth and epicentral distance; this assumption is not justified or tested. I suggest diagnostics such as repeating the virtual-RF generation with different nuisance-code initializations and reporting the spread of the resulting RFs, and comparing station-level results when the nuisance code is taken from a bin other than the highest-count bin.
  4. [Section 4] The synthetic setup states that the epicentral distance spans from 50° to 60° with 10°-interval bins, which yields one epicentral-distance bin, yet the text reports '36 × 6 × 6 synthetic datapoints'. The count should be 36 × 6 × 1, or else the number of epicentral-distance bins must be stated explicitly. This inconsistency affects the reproducibility of the training dataset description.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (7)] The notation Q(q | rj, μq) appears after Eq. (7) and is inconsistent with the earlier notation Q(q | rj); the extra parameter μq is not defined and should be removed or clarified.
  2. [Figure 2] The caption text appears to mislabel the subplots: it says '(b) shows a reconstructed radial RF ... related to a station with a 27 km thick crust' while the figure panel labels and the surrounding text refer to different panel letters; the correspondence between panels (a)–(d) and the described crustal thicknesses should be corrected.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (12)] The union expression contains a corrupted symbol ('station »') instead of the station index κ; this should be fixed.
  4. [Appendix D.2] The metric in Eq. (D.2) is written for yopt_j while the virtual RF in the main text is denoted yvirt_j in Eq. (10); the notation should be unified.
  5. [Appendix E.1] The statement that training was stopped at 190 epochs 'where the reconstruction loss of both the training and testing dataset converged' is vague; providing learning curves or a convergence criterion would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Section 4 / Figure 4] The phase-weighted averaging results are reported only for power ν = 0.8; a brief sensitivity statement for ν would clarify how the comparison depends on this choice.
  7. [Section 5.1] There are minor typographical spacing issues, such as 'V ancouver Island' and 'normalised' in Figure 13; these should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Real-data MNCC partly measures self-consistency with the datapoint RFs used to construct the virtual RF; the synthetic benchmark and geological comparisons provide independent, non-circular support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2 (Eqs. 7 and 10) vs. Appendix D.2 (Eq. D.2)]
    "In real data applications, since there is no true RF, we calculate the mean normalized correlation coefficient (MNCC) of nuisance-minimized RF with the raw RFs in a datapoint. For instance, the MNCC of the optimized virtual RF yopt_j, related to the datapoint rj, is given by µm(yopt_j, rj) = 1/nj Σ_i µ(yopt_j, r_i_j)."

    By Eq. 7, the accumulated crustal posterior Q(q|rj) is the product of per-RF posteriors Q(q|r_i_j), and qbar_j is its mean; by Eq. 10, yvirt_j = f(qbar_j, m_hat_virt). Thus the virtual RF is a deterministic function of every raw RF r_i_j in the datapoint. Eq. D.2 then averages the correlation of this same yvirt_j with those same r_i_j, so the reported MNCC is in part a self-consistency score with the datapoint RFs used to compute qbar_j, not an independent measure of crustal fidelity. The paper explicitly avoids this self-correlation for the linear-stack baseline in Eq. D.3 by excluding the compared RF from the average, making the real-data comparison statistically asymmetric and partly forced by construction.

full rationale

The core derivation of virtual RFs is not circular: the latent code qbar_j is an unsupervised summary of the datapoint, the decoder is trained with a standard ELBO, and the synthetic experiment scores virtual RFs against true noise-free RFs that were not used to build qbar_j. The Supplementary admission that deep converted phases are lost for thicker crust (Stations 4-6) is an honest correctness limitation, not circularity. The self-citations to Bharadwaj (2024) are not scored as load-bearing because the architecture and KL criterion are reimplemented in Appendix E and tested independently. However, the real-data MNCC evaluation is partially circular: Eq. D.2 correlates the virtual RF with the same datapoint RFs from which the accumulated code and the virtual RF were generated, while the linear-averaging baseline is evaluated leave-one-out (Eq. D.3). This asymmetry inflates the claimed real-data advantage, so the paper deserves a moderate circularity score despite its independent synthetic grounding.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the coherency and disentanglement assumptions built into the SymVAE architecture, plus hand-chosen hyperparameters (latent code lengths, bin widths). The model introduces no new physical entities. The reuse of a single nuisance code per station is an ad hoc assumption that could limit validity. No code or data artifacts are shipped.

free parameters (3)
  • Latent code lengths (q, p) = q=50 (synthetic), 100 (real); p=20
    Chosen by monitoring reconstruction loss curves for training and testing sets (Appendix E.1); they control the capacity of the disentangled representation and affect the quality of virtual RFs.
  • Backazimuth bin width = 10 deg (synthetic), 8 deg (real)
    Chosen by hand to balance the number of RFs per bin against the coherency assumption; the validity of the coherency assumption depends on this width.
  • Epicentral-distance bin width = 10 deg (synthetic), 5 deg (real)
    Chosen by hand; same rationale as backazimuth bin width.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Crustal effects are coherent across RFs within a backazimuth-slowness bin
    Central to the symmetric encoder's conjunction of posteriors (Eq. 7). Validated numerically in Appendix B for synthetic models, but assumed for real data without direct verification.
  • domain assumption Nuisance effects are RF-specific and can be represented by a low-dimensional latent code independent of the coherent code
    Required for the disentanglement in latent space. Justified heuristically by the distinct source signatures and noise of each earthquake.
  • domain assumption RFs within a bin are independent observations
    The conjunction Q(q|r_j) = product_i Q(q|r_i) (Eq. 7) assumes independence; correlated nuisance across RFs would bias the accumulated posterior.
  • ad hoc to paper A single optimal nuisance code can represent nuisance effects for all datapoints of a station
    Used to generate virtual RFs for all bins via Eq. 11 without re-optimizing per bin; not independently justified in the paper.
  • standard math Standard normal prior on latent variables
    Assumed in the VAE formulation (Appendix C).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced receiver function imaging of crustal structures using symmetric autoencoders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2RXZMQRJ

@misc{pith2026241114182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced receiver function imaging of crustal structures using symmetric autoencoders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2RXZMQRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14182}
}
read the original abstract

The receiver-function (RF) technique aims to recover receiver-side crustal and mantle structures by deconvolving either the radial or transverse component with the vertical component seismogram. Analysis of the variations of RFs along the backazimuth and slowness is the key in determining the geometry and anisotropic properties of the crustal structures. However, the deconvolution introduces pseudorandom nuisance effects, due to unknown earthquake source signatures and seismic noise, which obstruct the precise extraction of backazimuth and slowness dependent crustal effects. Our goal is to obtain RFs with minimal nuisance effects, while preserving the crustal effects. In this study, we introduced a new method for reducing nuisance effects in RFs. This method generates virtual RFs through a deep generative model, namely symmetric variational autoencoders (SymVAE). Our autoencoder efficiently learns to disentangle coherent crustal effects and nuisance effects within its latent space, given a set of RFs derived from a cluster of nearby earthquakes. This disentanglement enables generation of virtual RFs which exhibits minimal nuisance effects while preserving the coherent crustal effects. We tested SymVAE using synthetic RFs with ambient seismic noise. We also tested using dense seismic networks in two distinct geological settings: the Cascadia subduction zone and southern California. We compared our method with linear and phase-weighted averaging. In both synthetic and real RFs, the generated virtual RFs demonstrate enhanced information related to crustal structures. We have also quantitatively assessed the performance. One major advantage of our method over traditional methods is its ability to utilize all available earthquake data, regardless of signal quality, resulting in improved backazimuth and slowness coverage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14182 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of symmetric variational autoencoders (SymVAE). The input to the network takes is a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the figure, we considered two datapoints, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This figure illustrates the generation of new synthetic radial RFs using hybrid latent code. The coherent code [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radial and transverse receiver functions from the synthetic experiment, derived using (a) SymVAE (b) linear 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The quality of the (a) radial and (b) transverse RFs, plotted in Fig. 3, is assessed using the normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Map illustrating the tectonic setting and positions of the stations (represented by black and white triangles) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Virtual and (b) linearly averaged radial RFs at seismic stations (Fig. 5) tranversing the Cascadia subduction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to Fig. 6, but pertaining to transverse RFs. It is important to observe that the virtual RFs exhibit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Virtual RFs from SymVAE and (b) RFs after linear averaging for RF bins from seismic station SNB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: For each station involved in the Cascadia case study, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The map displays the locations of Southern California stations, denoted by black triangles [SCSN, 1926], [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Virtual and (b) linearly averaged radial RFs for a station profile transecting the San Andreas Fault (SAF), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as in Fig. 11, but pertaining to tranverse RFs. Note that the high amplitude artifacts at time window 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Single station (DSC in Fig. 10) analysis for Southern California case study. (a) virtual and (b) linearly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as Fig. 9, but for Southern California stations. The enhancement in RF quality for both Cascadia and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Synthetic radial receiver functions demonstrating the smooth variation with (a) backazimuth and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Virtual RFs for all stations (synthetic crustal model). All RFs are from same epicentral bin ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Bin-wise linear averaging of RFs for all stations (synthetic crustal model). All RFs are from same epicentral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Bin-wise phase-weighted-averaged RFs for all stations (synthetic crustal model). Here, the power of phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: True RFs for all stations (synthetic crustal model). All RFs are from same epicentral bin ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized correlation coefficient (NCC) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial and transverse RFs at station SNB from our method and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Seismic anisotropy indicators in western tibet: Shear wave splitting and receiver function analysis

    Vadim Levin, Steven Roecker, Peter Graham, and Ali Hosseini. Seismic anisotropy indicators in western tibet: Shear wave splitting and receiver function analysis. Tectonophysics, 462 0 (1): 0 99--108, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.03.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.03.019 2008

  2. [2]

    Augmented fidelities for single qubit gates

    Martha K. Savage, J. Park, and H. Todd. Velocity and anisotropy structure at the hikurangi subduction margin, new zealand from receiver functions. Geophysical Journal International, 168 0 (3): 0 1034--1050, March 2007. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03086.x

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  3. [3]

    Zhen Liu, Jeffrey Park, and Danny M Rye. Crustal anisotropy in northeastern tibetan plateau inferred from receiver functions: Rock textures caused by metamorphic fluids and lower crust flow? Tectonophysics, 661: 0 66--80, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2015.08.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2015.08.006 2015

  4. [4]

    D. E. McNamara and T. J. Owens. Azimuthal shear‐wave velocity anisotropy in the basin and range province using moho ps converted phases. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98 0 (B7): 0 12003--12017, 1993. doi:10.1029/93JB00711

    work page doi:10.1029/93jb00711 1993

  5. [5]

    Bianchi, J

    I. Bianchi, J. Park, N. Piana Agostinetti, and V. Levin. Mapping seismic anisotropy using harmonic decomposition of receiver functions: An application to northern apennines, italy. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115: 0 B12317, 2010. doi:10.1029/2009JB007061

    work page doi:10.1029/2009jb007061 2010

  6. [6]

    Zheng, Z

    T. Zheng, Z. Ding, J. Ning, L. Chang, X. Wang, and F. et al. Kong. Crustal azimuthal anisotropy beneath the southeastern tibetan plateau and its geodynamic implications. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 123: 0 9733--9749, 2018. doi:10.1029/2018JB015995

    doi:10.1029/2018jb015995 2018

  7. [7]

    Structural features of the subducting slab beneath the kii peninsula, central japan: Seismic evidence of slab segmentation, dehydration, and anisotropy

    Katsuhiko Shiomi and Jeffrey Park. Structural features of the subducting slab beneath the kii peninsula, central japan: Seismic evidence of slab segmentation, dehydration, and anisotropy. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 113 0 (B10), 2008. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005535. URL https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/20...

    work page doi:10.1029/2007jb005535 2008

  8. [8]

    Moho depth variation in southern california from teleseismic receiver functions

    Lupei Zhu and Hiroo Kanamori. Moho depth variation in southern california from teleseismic receiver functions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 105 0 (B2): 0 2969--2980, 2000

    work page 2000

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Kolb and V

    J. Kolb and V. Lekić. Receiver function deconvolution using transdimensional hierarchical bayesian inference. Geophysical Journal International, 197 0 (3): 0 1719--1735, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Inversion of receiver functions without deconvolution—application to the indian craton

    Thomas Bodin, Huaiyu Yuan, and Barbara Romanowicz. Inversion of receiver functions without deconvolution—application to the indian craton. Geophysical Journal International, 196 0 (2): 0 1025–1033, February 2014. doi:10.1093/gji/ggt431

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Variance estimate in frequency-domain deconvolution for teleseismic receiver function computation

    Massimo Bona. Variance estimate in frequency-domain deconvolution for teleseismic receiver function computation. Geophysical Journal International, 134 0 (2): 0 634--646, 1998. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1998.tb07128.x

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    Akuhara, M

    T. Akuhara, M. G. Bostock, A. P. Plourde, and M. Shinohara. Beyond receiver functions: Green's function estimation by transdimensional inversion and its application to obs data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 124 0 (2): 0 1944--1961, 2019. doi:10.1029/2018JB016499

    1944 doi

  5. [13]

    Park and V

    J. Park and V. Levin. Receiver functions from multiple‐taper spectral correlation estimates. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 90 0 (6): 0 1507--1520, 2000

    2000

  6. [14]

    Zhang, Y

    Q. Zhang, Y. Chen, F. Zhang, and Y. Chen. Improving receiver function imaging with high-resolution radon transform. Geophysical Journal International, 230 0 (2): 0 1292–1304, March 2022. doi:10.1093/gji/ggac116

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Crustal imaging with noisy teleseismic receiver functions using sparse radon transforms

    Ziqi Zhang and Tolulope Olugboji. Crustal imaging with noisy teleseismic receiver functions using sparse radon transforms. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 114 0 (3): 0 1600--1612, 2024. doi:10.1785/0120230254

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    H. P. Crotwell and T. J. Owens. Automated receiver function processing. Seismological Research Letters, 76 0 (6): 0 702--709, 2005. doi:10.1785/gssrl.76.6.702

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    Pavlis, and Yibo Wang

    Xiaoning Yang, Gary L. Pavlis, and Yibo Wang. A quality control method for teleseismic p-wave receiver functions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 106 0 (5): 0 1948--1962, 2016. doi:10.1785/0120150347

    1948 doi

  10. [18]

    C. Gong, L. Chen, Z. Xiao, and X. Wang. Deep learning for quality control of receiver functions. Frontiers in Earth Science, 2022. doi:10.3389/feart.2022.921830

    2022

  11. [19]

    H. E. Krueger, I. Gama, and K. M. Fischer. Global patterns in cratonic mid-lithospheric discontinuities from sp receiver functions. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 22 0 (6), 2021. doi:10.1029/2021GC009819

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Sabermahani and A

    S. Sabermahani and A. Frederiksen. Deeprfqc: automating quality control for p-wave receiver function analysis using a u-net inspired network. Seismica, 3 0 (2), 2024. doi:10.26443/seismica.v3i2.1341

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Gurrola, G

    H. Gurrola, G. E. Baker, and J. B. Minster. Simultaneous time domain deconvolution with application to the computation of receiver functions. Geophys. J. Int., 120: 0 537--543, 1995

    1995

  14. [22]

    Levin and J

    V. Levin and J. Park. Crustal anisotropy beneath the ural mtns foredeep from teleseismic receiver functions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 24: 0 1283--1286, 1997

    1997

  15. [23]

    A review on the analysis of the crustal and upper mantle structure using receiver functions

    Jiafu Hu, Haiyan Yang, Guangquan Li, and Hengchu Peng. A review on the analysis of the crustal and upper mantle structure using receiver functions. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 111: 0 589--603, 2015. ISSN 1367-9120. doi:10.1016/j.jseaes.2015.06.007

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Bloch, M

    W. Bloch, M. G. Bostock, and P. Audet. A cascadia slab model from receiver functions. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 24 0 (10): 0 e2023GC011088, 2023. doi:10.1029/2023GC011088

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Schimmel and H

    M. Schimmel and H. Paulssen. Noise reduction and detection of weak, coherent signals through phase-weighted stacks. Geophysical Journal International, 130: 0 497--505, 1997

    1997

  18. [26]

    Ozakin and Y

    Y. Ozakin and Y. Ben-Zion. Systematic receiver function analysis of the moho geometry in the southern california plate-boundary region. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 172: 0 1167--1184, 2015. doi:10.1007/s00024-014-0924-6

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    Olugboji, Z

    T. Olugboji, Z. Zhang, S. Carr, C. Ekmekci, and M. Cetin. On the detection of upper mantle discontinuities with radon-transformed ps receiver functions (crisp-rf), June 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Denoising the receiver function through curvelet transforming and migration imaging

    Yan Chen, Jian Chen, Bengang Guo, Shuyun Qi, and Ping Zhao. Denoising the receiver function through curvelet transforming and migration imaging. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 62 0 (6): 0 2027--2037, 2019

    2027

  21. [29]

    R. M. H. Dokht, Y. J. Gu, and M. D. Sacchi. Singular spectrum analysis and its applications in mapping mantle seismic structure. Geophysical Journal International, 208 0 (3): 0 1430--1442, December 2016. doi:10.1093/gji/ggw473

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    F. Wang, X. Song, and J. Li. Deep learning-based h- method (hknet) for estimating crustal thickness and vp/vs ratio from receiver functions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127 0 (6), June 2022. doi:10.1029/2022jb023944

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    L. Zhu. Crustal structure across the san andreas fault, southern california from teleseismic converted waves. Earth planet. Sci. Lett., 179: 0 183--190, 2000

    2000

  24. [32]

    Seismic imaging of crustal reworking and lithospheric modification in eastern china

    Tian-Yu Zheng, Liang Zhao, Yu-Mei He, and Ri-Xiang Zhu. Seismic imaging of crustal reworking and lithospheric modification in eastern china. Geophysical Journal International, 196 0 (2): 0 656--670, February 2014. doi:10.1093/gji/ggt420

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Kingma and Max Welling

    Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. In ICLR, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11239

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Prince, and Marcus A

    Ivan Kobyzev, Simon J.D. Prince, and Marcus A. Brubaker. Normalizing flows: An introduction and review of current methods. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 43 0 (11): 0 3964–3979, November 2021. ISSN 1939-3539. doi:10.1109/tpami.2020.2992934. URL...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Christopher M. Bishop. Deep Learning. Springer, New York, NY, 2023. ISBN 978-3-030-12345-6

    2023

  29. [37]

    Valentine and Jeannot Trampert

    Andrew P. Valentine and Jeannot Trampert. Data space reduction, quality assessment and searching of seismograms: autoencoder networks for waveform data. Geophysical Journal International, 189 0 (2): 0 1183--1202, May 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05429.x

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ning and Y

    C. Ning and Y. Xie. Convolutional variational autoencoder for ground motion classification and generation toward efficient seismic fragility assessment. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 39: 0 165--185, 2024. doi:10.1111/mice.13061

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Fayaz and C

    J. Fayaz and C. Galasso. A deep neural network framework for real-time on site estimation of acceleration response spectra of seismic ground motions. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 38: 0 87--103, 2023. doi:10.1111/mice.12830

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Disentangling factors of variation in deep representation using adversarial training

    Michael F Mathieu, Junbo Jake Zhao, Junbo Zhao, Aditya Ramesh, Pablo Sprechmann, and Yann LeCun. Disentangling factors of variation in deep representation using adversarial training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29, 2016. URL https://proceedings.neurips.c...

    2016

  33. [41]

    Burgess, Irina Higgins, Arka Pal, Loic Matthey, Nick Watters, Guillaume Desjardins, and Alexander Lerchner

    Christopher P. Burgess, Irina Higgins, Arka Pal, Loic Matthey, Nick Watters, Guillaume Desjardins, and Alexander Lerchner. Understanding disentangling in -vae, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03599

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    On extracting coherent seismic wavefield using variational symmetric autoencoders, 2024

    Pawan Bharadwaj. On extracting coherent seismic wavefield using variational symmetric autoencoders, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15613

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Receiver functions from seismic interferometry: a practical guide

    Benoit Tauzin, Thanh-Son Pham, and Hrvoje Tkalčić. Receiver functions from seismic interferometry: a practical guide. Geophysical Journal International, 217 0 (1): 0 1--24, April 2019. doi:10.1093/gji/ggz002

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    Simon J. D. Prince. Understanding Deep Learning. The MIT Press, 2023. ISBN 9780262048644

    2023

  37. [45]

    Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation

    Albert Tarantola. Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. SIAM, 2005

    2005

  38. [46]

    Pyraysum: Software for modeling ray-theoretical plane body-wave propagation in dipping anisotropic media

    Wasja Bloch and Pascal Audet. Pyraysum: Software for modeling ray-theoretical plane body-wave propagation in dipping anisotropic media. Seismica, 2 0 (1), Feb. 2023. doi:10.26443/seismica.v2i1.220. URL https://seismica.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/220

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Portable observatories for lithospheric analysis and research investigating seismicity, 2000

    Geological Survey of Canada . Portable observatories for lithospheric analysis and research investigating seismicity, 2000. URL https://www.fdsn.org/networks/detail/PO/

    2000

  40. [48]

    Canadian seismic research network, 2002

    Geological Survey of Canada . Canadian seismic research network, 2002. URL https://www.fdsn.org/networks/detail/C8/

    2002

  41. [49]

    Canadian national seismograph network, 1975

    Natural Resources Canada . Canadian national seismograph network, 1975. URL https://www.fdsn.org/networks/detail/CN/

    1975

  42. [50]

    Pacific northwest seismic network - university of washington, 1963

    University of Washington . Pacific northwest seismic network - university of washington, 1963. URL https://www.fdsn.org/networks/detail/UW/

    1963

  43. [51]

    California institute of technology, caltech, 1926

    SCSN. California institute of technology, caltech, 1926. Other/Seismic Network

    1926

  44. [52]

    J.F. Cassidy. A comparison of the receiver structure beneath stations of the canadian national seismograph network. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 32: 0 938--951, 1995

    1995

  45. [53]

    C. A. Langston. Structure under mount rainier, washington, inferred from teleseismic body waves. J. Geophys. Res., 84: 0 4749--4762, 1979

    1979

  46. [54]

    Nicholson, M

    T. Nicholson, M. Bostock, and J. F. Cassidy. New constraints on subduction zone structure in northern cascadia. Geophysical Journal International, 161 0 (3): 0 849--859, June 2005. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02605.x

    2005 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Bostock, Norman I

    Pascal Audet, Michael G. Bostock, Norman I. Christensen, and Sheila M. Peacock. Seismic evidence for overpressured subducted oceanic crust and megathrust fault sealing. Nature, 457 0 (7225): 0 76–78, 2009. doi:10.1038/nature07650

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    DeMets, R

    C. DeMets, R. G. Gordon, D. F. Argus, and S. Stein. Effect of recent revisions to the geomagnetic reversal time scale on estimates of current plate motions. Geophysical Research Letters, 21 0 (20): 0 2191--2194, 1994. doi:10.1029/94gl02118

    1994 doi

  49. [57]

    Crustal geophysics and seismicity in southern california

    Egill Hauksson. Crustal geophysics and seismicity in southern california. Geophysical Journal International, 186 0 (1): 0 82--98, July 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05042.x

    2011 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Shaw, Andreas Plesch, Carl Tape, M

    John H. Shaw, Andreas Plesch, Carl Tape, M. Peter Suess, Thomas H. Jordan, Geoffrey Ely, Egill Hauksson, Jeroen Tromp, Toshiro Tanimoto, Robert Graves, Kim Olsen, Craig Nicholson, Philip J. Maechling, Carlos Rivero, Peter Lovely, Charles M. Brankman, and Jason Munster. Unified...

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    Refined crustal and uppermost mantle structure of southern california by ambient noise adjoint tomography

    Kai Wang, Yingjie Yang, Piero Basini, Ping Tong, Carl Tape, and Qinya Liu. Refined crustal and uppermost mantle structure of southern california by ambient noise adjoint tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 215 0 (2): 0 844--863, November 2018. doi:10.1093/gji/ggy312

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    Arda Ozacar and George Zandt

    A. Arda Ozacar and George Zandt. Crustal structure and seismic anisotropy near the san andreas fault at parkfield, california. Geophysical Journal International, 178 0 (2): 0 1098--1104, August 2009. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04198.x

    2009 arXiv

  53. [61]

    P. Wang, Z. Huang, and X. Wang. A method for estimating the crustal azimuthal anisotropy and moho orientation simultaneously using receiver functions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 125: 0 e2019JB018405, 2020. doi:10.1029/2019JB018405

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    Fashionable modelling with flux

    Michael Innes, Elliot Saba, Keno Fischer, Dhairya Gandhi, Marco Concetto Rudilosso, Neethu Mariya Joy, Tejan Karmali, Avik Pal, and Viral Shah. Fashionable modelling with flux. CoRR, abs/1811.01457, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.01457

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Hosseini and K

    K. Hosseini and K. Sigloch. Obspydmt: a python toolbox for retrieving and processing large seismological data sets. Solid Earth, 8: 0 1047--1070, 2017. doi:10.5194/se-8-1047-2017

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    Source shape estimation and deconvolution of teleseismic body waves

    Robert W Clayton and Robert A Wiggins. Source shape estimation and deconvolution of teleseismic body waves. J. R. Astr. Soc., 47: 0 151--177, 1976

    1976

  57. [65]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25. Curran Associates, Inc., 2012

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.