
Abstract Supervised deep learning models have become a popular choice for seismic phase arrival detection. However, they do not always perform well on out‐of‐distribution data and require large training sets to aid generalization and prevent overfitting. This can present issues when using these models in new monitoring settings. In this work, we develop a deep learning model for automating phase arrival detection at Nabro volcano using a limited amount of training data (2,498 event waveforms recorded over 35 days) through a process known as transfer learning. We use the feature extraction layers of an existing, extensively trained seismic phase picking model to form the base of a new all‐convolutional model, which we call U‐GPD. We demonstrate that transfer learning reduces overfitting and model error relative to training the same model from scratch, particularly for small training sets (e.g., 500 waveforms). The new U‐GPD model achieves greater classification accuracy and smaller arrival time residuals than off‐the‐shelf applications of two existing, extensively‐trained baseline models for a test set of 800 event and noise waveforms from Nabro volcano. When applied to 14 months of continuous Nabro data, the new U‐GPD model detects 31,387 events with at least four P‐wave arrivals and one S‐wave arrival, which is more than the original base model (26,808 events) and our existing manual catalog (2,926 events), with smaller location errors. The new model is also more efficient when applied as a sliding window, processing 14 months of data from seven stations in less than 4 h on a single graphics processing unit.
machine learning, es, 550, volcano monitoring, volcano seismology, earthquake detection, cps, transfer learning, phase arrival detection, 004
machine learning, es, 550, volcano monitoring, volcano seismology, earthquake detection, cps, transfer learning, phase arrival detection, 004
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 37 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
