Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 31 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 50 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 11 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 9 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 77 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 198 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 463 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Text Classification of the Precursory Accelerating Seismicity Corpus: Inference on some Theoretical Trends in Earthquake Predictability Research from 1988 to 2018 (1810.03480v1)

Published 5 Oct 2018 in cs.CL, physics.geo-ph, and stat.ML

Abstract: Text analytics based on supervised machine learning classifiers has shown great promise in a multitude of domains, but has yet to be applied to Seismology. We test various standard models (Naive Bayes, k-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machines, and Random Forests) on a seismological corpus of 100 articles related to the topic of precursory accelerating seismicity, spanning from 1988 to 2010. This corpus was labelled in Mignan (2011) with the precursor whether explained by critical processes (i.e., cascade triggering) or by other processes (such as signature of main fault loading). We investigate rather the classification process can be automatized to help analyze larger corpora in order to better understand trends in earthquake predictability research. We find that the Naive Bayes model performs best, in agreement with the machine learning literature for the case of small datasets, with cross-validation accuracies of 86% for binary classification. For a refined multiclass classification ('non-critical process' < 'agnostic' < 'critical process assumed' < 'critical process demonstrated'), we obtain up to 78% accuracy. Prediction on a dozen of articles published since 2011 shows however a weak generalization with a F1-score of 60%, only slightly better than a random classifier, which can be explained by a change of authorship and use of different terminologies. Yet, the model shows F1-scores greater than 80% for the two multiclass extremes ('non-critical process' versus 'critical process demonstrated') while it falls to random classifier results (around 25%) for papers labelled 'agnostic' or 'critical process assumed'. Those results are encouraging in view of the small size of the corpus and of the high degree of abstraction of the labelling. Domain knowledge engineering remains essential but can be made transparent by an investigation of Naive Bayes keyword posterior probabilities.

Citations (9)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (1)

Don't miss out on important new AI/ML research

See which papers are being discussed right now on X, Reddit, and more:

“Emergent Mind helps me see which AI papers have caught fire online.”

Philip

Philip

Creator, AI Explained on YouTube