The optimal correlation detector?
- 23 August 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Geophysical Journal International
- Vol. 228 (1), 355-365
- https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggab344
Abstract
Correlation detectors are now used routinely in seismology to detect occurrences of signals bearing close resemblance to a reference waveform. They facilitate the detection of low-amplitude signals in significant background noise that may elude detection using energy detectors, and they associate a detected signal with a source location. Many seismologists use the fully normalized correlation coefficient C between the template and incoming data to determine a detection. This is in contrast to other fields with a longer tradition for matched filter detection where the theoretically optimal statistic C2 is typical. We perform a systematic comparison between the detection statistics C and C|C|, the latter having the same dynamic range as C2 but differentiating between correlation and anti-correlation. Using a database of short waveform segments, each containing the signal on a 3-component seismometer from one of 51 closely spaced explosions, we attempt to detect P- and S- phase arrivals for all events using short waveform templates from each explosion as reference signals. We present empirical statistics of both C and C|C| traces and demonstrate that C|C| detects confidently a higher proportion of the signals than C without evidently increasing the likelihood of triggering erroneously. We recall from elementary statistics that C2, also called the coefficient of determination, represents the fraction of the variance of one variable which can be explained by another variable. This means that the fraction of a segment of our incoming data that could be explained by our signal template decreases almost linearly with C|C| but diminishes more rapidly as C decreases. In most situations, replacing C with C|C| in operational correlation detectors may improve the detection sensitivity without hurting the performance-gain obtained through network stacking. It may also allow a better comparison between single-template correlation detectors and higher order multiple-template subspace detectors which, by definition, already apply an optimal detection statistic.This publication has 53 references indexed in Scilit:
- An Autonomous System for Grouping Events in a Developing Aftershock SequenceBulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2011
- ObsPy: A Python Toolbox for SeismologySeismological Research Letters, 2010
- Application of matched filtering to identify behavioral modulation of brain oscillationsJournal of Computational Neuroscience, 2009
- An autocorrelation method to detect low frequency earthquakes within tremorGeophysical Research Letters, 2008
- Semiempirical Statistics of Correlation-Detector PerformanceBulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2008
- Non-volcanic tremor and low-frequency earthquake swarmsNature, 2007
- Improving local earthquake locations using the L1 norm and waveform cross correlation: Application to the Whittier Narrows, California, aftershock sequenceJournal of Geophysical Research, 1997
- Matched-signal (‘‘MESS’’) processing by the oceanThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1995
- Four similar earthquakes in central CaliforniaGeophysical Research Letters, 1980
- An introduction to matched filtersIEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 1960