HackerPapers

arXiv:1904.01983physics.geo-ph

One neuron is more informative than a deep neural network for aftershock pattern forecasting

Arnaud Mignan, Marco Broccardo

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

29 August 2018: "Artificial intelligence nails predictions of earthquake aftershocks". This Nature News headline is based on the results of DeVries et al. (2018) who forecasted the spatial distribution of aftershocks using Deep Learning (DL) and static stress feature engineering. Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) metric, the authors found that a deep neural network (DNN) yields AUC = 0.85 compared to AUC = 0.58 for classical Coulomb stress. They further showed that this result was physically interpretable, with various stress metrics (e.g. sum of absolute stress components, maximum shear stress, von Mises yield criterion) explaining most of the DNN result. We here clarify that AUC c. 0.85 had already been obtained using ROC curves for the same scalar metrics and by the same authors in 2017. This suggests that DL - in fact - does not improve prediction compared to simpler baseline models. We reformulate the 2017 results in probabilistic terms using logistic regression (i.e., one neural network node) and obtain AUC = 0.85 using 2 free parameters versus the 13,451 parameters used by DeVries et al. (2018). We further show that measured distance and mainshock average slip can be used instead of stress, yielding an improved AUC = 0.86, again with a simple logistic regression. This demonstrates that the proposed DNN so far does not provide any new insight (predictive or inferential) in this domain.

arXiv comments
4 pages, 2 figures
Journal reference
Nature, 574, 2019
DOI
doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1582-8
Subjects
physics.geo-phGeophysics

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Feb 2021 to Feb 2021. Found in 1 HN submission from Jun 2019 to Jun 2019. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • Nature has published some very questionable papers in AI/ML that are filled with malpractices. Another bogus paper that comes to mind was predicting earthquakes with a deep(read huge) neural network that appears to have information leakage and was fuelled with the hype of DL…

      PartiallyTypedView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.