Pervasive Label Errors in Seismological Machine Learning Datasets
Albert Leonardo Aguilar Suarez, Gregory Beroza

TL;DR
This paper identifies and analyzes pervasive label errors in seismological machine learning datasets, demonstrating how these inaccuracies can hinder model performance and proposing methods to improve data quality.
Contribution
It systematically evaluates common label errors in large seismological datasets using deep learning models, highlighting their impact and suggesting ways to enhance data reliability for better model training.
Findings
Average error rate of 3.9% across datasets
Four main types of label errors identified
Faulty data likely degrade model performance
Abstract
The recent boom in artificial intelligence and machine learning has been powered by large datasets with accurate labels, combined with algorithmic advances and efficient computing. The quality of data can be a major factor in determining model performance. Here, we detail observations of commonly occurring errors in popular seismological machine learning datasets. We used an ensemble of available deep learning models PhaseNet and EQTransformer to evaluate the dataset labels and found four types of errors ranked from most prevalent to least prevalent: (1) unlabeled earthquakes; (2) noise samples that contain earthquakes; (3) inaccurately labeled arrival times, and (4) absent earthquake signals. We checked a total of 8.6 million examples from the following datasets: Iquique, ETHZ, PNW, TXED, STEAD, INSTANCE, AQ2009, and CEED. The average error rate across all datasets is 3.9 %, ranging…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsSeismology and Earthquake Studies · Earthquake Detection and Analysis · earthquake and tectonic studies
