Hybrid Validation of a Quality-Controlled, Waveform-Centered AI Framework with Optional Multi-Sensor Support for Seismic Monitoring

Sensors, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/s26103269
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Rapid and reliable seismic monitoring requires accurate waveform inference, together with robustness to noise, incomplete sensing, and unstable predictions. This study investigates a quality-controlled, waveform-centered, AI-assisted framework for seismic event detection, P- and S-phase picking, graph-aware inter-station refinement, and rapid hazard-related characterization. The framework includes optional DAS, MEMS, and high-rate GNSS branches; however, the primary empirical validation is based on real waveform-centered IRIS records from the Almaty seismic region, not on a fully synchronized multimodal field deployment. The dataset includes seven seismic stations, HHZ waveforms sampled at 100 Hz, 219 seismic events, 1260 event traces, and 240 s P-centered windows from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2024. Optional auxiliary branches are evaluated through controlled branch-availability, reduced-input, fallback, and stress-test scenarios. Under the standard-condition benchmark, the proposed framework achieved a precision of 0.941, recall of 0.932, F1 score of 0.936, false-alarm rate of 0.051, detection latency of 173 ms, and P- and S-pick mean absolute errors of 31 ms and 54 ms. Under controlled low-SNR testing, it retained an F1 score of 0.846. The findings support waveform-centered, quality-controlled monitoring, while broader cross-domain and fully synchronized multimodal validation remain necessary.