A.A. Soloviev, Sh.R. Bogoutdinov, S.M. Agayan, A.D. Gvishiani (GC RAS, Russia), A. Chulliat (IPGP, France) Automated recognition of spikes on 1-minute.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Applications of one-class classification
Advertisements

Time & Frequency Products R. Peřestý, J. Kraus, SWRM 4 th Data Quality Workshop 2-5 December 2014 GFZ Potsdam Recent results on ACC Data Processing 1 SWARM.
P.F. Biagi 1, L. Castellana 1, T. Maggipinto 1, R. Piccolo 1, A. Minafra 1, A. Ermini 2, V. Capozzi 3, M. Solovieva 4, A. Rozhnoi 4, O.A. Molchanov 4,
Study of Pi2 pulsations observed from MAGDAS chain in Egypt E. Ghamry 1, 2, A. Mahrous 2, M.N. Yasin 3, A. Fathy 3 and K. Yumoto 4 1- National Research.
© NERC All rights reserved Storms rare but important Balance dataset otherwise storms look like noise Features selected like Split: training set, validation.
Cosmic Ray Using for Monitoring and Forecasting Dangerous Solar Flare Events Lev I. Dorman (1, 2) 1. Israel Cosmic Ray & Space Weather Center and Emilio.
Solar Feature Catalogues S Zharkov, V V Zharkova, S S Ipson, A.Benkhalil, N.Fuller, J. Aboudarham.
Spatial distribution of the auroral precipitation zones during storms connected with magnetic clouds O.I. Yagodkina 1, I.V. Despirak 1, V. Guineva 2 1.
R package wfIMA: Wavelet-Functional Indexes of Magnetic Activity Inga Maslova Department of Mathematics and Statistics, American University, Washington,
1 Vertically Integrated Seismic Analysis Stuart Russell Computer Science Division, UC Berkeley Nimar Arora, Erik Sudderth, Nick Hay.
Clustered alignments of gene- expression time series data Adam A. Smith, Aaron Vollrath, Cristopher A. Bradfield and Mark Craven Department of Biosatatistics.
Global Visualization of Neural Dynamics
Study of magnetic helicity in solar active regions: For a better understanding of solar flares Sung-Hong Park Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research New.
Introduction The primary geomagnetic storm indicator is the Dst index. This index has a well established ‘recipe’ by which ground-based observations are.
Statistical analysis of pore space geometry Stefano Favretto Supervisor : Prof. Martin Blunt Petroleum Engineering and Rock Mechanics Research Group Department.
ERP DATA ACQUISITION & PREPROCESSING EEG Acquisition: 256 scalp sites; vertex recording reference (Geodesic Sensor Net)..01 Hz to 100 Hz analogue filter;
A Verification of Magnetometer’s Time Accuracy by using a GPS Pulse Generator Some magnetic observatories are exchanging one-minute geomagnetic field data.
Infrasound detector for Apatity group Asming V.E., Kola Regional Seismological Center, Apatity, Russia.
Magnetospheric ULF wave activity monitoring based on the ULF-index OLGA KOZYREVA and N. Kleimenova Institute of the Earth Physics, RAS.
Paris, July 17, 2009 RECENT RESULTS OF THE IGEC2 COLLABORATION SEARCH FOR GRAVITATIONAL WAVE BURST Massimo Visco on behalf of the IGEC2 Collaboration.
Secular variation in Germany from repeat station data and a recent global field model Monika Korte and Vincent Lesur Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, German Research.
Reconstructing gene networks Analysing the properties of gene networks Gene Networks Using gene expression data to reconstruct gene networks.
Construction scheme of DMA. FTS anomaly recognition algorithms: DRAS, FLARS and FCARS DRAS (Difference Recognition Algorithm for Signals ) FLARS.
Discrete Mathematical Analysis: theory and geophysical applications.
Discrete Mathematical Analysis: theory and geophysical applications.
LECTURE 13. Course: “Design of Systems: Structural Approach” Dept. “Communication Networks &Systems”, Faculty of Radioengineering & Cybernetics Moscow.
Influence of space climate and space weather on the Earth Tamara Kuznetsova IZMIRAN Russia Heliophysical phenomena and Earth's environment, 7-13 September.
Anomalies in time series in Xevents 12 May Vien, Austria.
Analysis of nonstationarity in LIGO S5 data using the NoiseFloorMon output A proposal for a seismic Data Quality flag. R. Stone for the LSC The Center.
Nonlinear force-free coronal magnetic field extrapolation scheme for solar active regions Han He, Huaning Wang, Yihua Yan National Astronomical Observatories,
Usage of joint rating functions for seismic phase association and event location Asming V.E., Prokudina A.V., Nakhshina L.P. Kola Regional Seismological.
ILIAS WP1 – Cascina IGEC – First experience using the data of 5 bar detectors: ALLEGRO, AURIGA, EXPLORER NAUTILUS and NIOBE. – 1460.
Wong, Gardner, Krieger, Litt (2006) Zack Dvey-Aharon, March 2008.
Instrumental Surface Temperature Record Current Weather Data Sources Land vs. Ocean Patterns Instrument Siting Concerns Return Exam II For Next Class:
IAGA Symposium A12.2 Geomagnetic networks, computation and definition of products for space weather and space climate Melbourne, Australia, 2011 GLOBAL,
AUTOMATED QUALITY CONTROL OF GEOPHYSICAL TIME SERIES The algorithmic systems developed at Geophysical Center of Russian Academy of Sciences are intended.
GWDAW11 – Potsdam Results by the IGEC2 collaboration on 2005 data Gabriele Vedovato for the IGEC2 collaboration.
Developing a tropical cyclone genesis forecast tool: Preliminary results from 2014 quasi- operational testing Daniel J. Halperin 1, Robert E. Hart 1, Henry.
Seismic phases and earthquake location
1 Validation of Swarm ACC preliminary dataset Swarm 5th Data Quality Workshop, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, France, 7 – 10 September 2015 Aleš.
1 SPbIZMIRAN, Russia University “Roma Tre”, Italy Institute of Irkutsk Railroad Engineering, Russia Israel CR Center, Tel-Aviv University, Israel N.G.
SEARCH FOR INSPIRALING BINARIES S. V. Dhurandhar IUCAA Pune, India.
Forecasting with Cyber-physical Interactions in Data Centers (part 3)
How to forecast solar flares?
An advantage of magnetic index h to show high local disturbances in ionosphere during quiet day conditions Beata Dziak-Jankowska1, Iwona Stanisławska1,
A. Soloviev (GC RAS, Russia), A. Chulliat (IPGP, France),
Early Alert of Solar Radiation Hazard
Development of a GLE Alarm System Based Upon Neutron Monitors
C. Turbitt, O. Baillie, D. Kerridge, E. Clarke
Instrumental Surface Temperature Record
Magnetometers by IRF observatory
Michael Epstein, Ben Calderhead, Mark A. Girolami, Lucia G. Sivilotti 
Application of Independent Component Analysis (ICA) to Beam Diagnosis
Instrumental Surface Temperature Record
A. Mancusoa,b, M. Compareb, A. Saloa, E. Ziob,c
Masahiro Sonoo, Daniel L. Menkes, Jeremy D.P. Bland, David Burke 
Yuki Takagi1*, Kazuo Shiokawa1, Yuichi Otsuka1, and Martin Connors2  
EGU István Bondár1, Ronan Le Bras2, Nimar Arora3, Noriyuki Kushida2
Volume 111, Issue 2, Pages (July 2016)
A Role for the Superior Colliculus in Decision Criteria
Attentional Modulations Related to Spatial Gating but Not to Allocation of Limited Resources in Primate V1  Yuzhi Chen, Eyal Seidemann  Neuron  Volume.
8.5 Modulation of Signals basic idea and goals
New Experiences Enhance Coordinated Neural Activity in the Hippocampus
Intelligent Contextual Data Stream Monitoring
Singular Behavior of Slow Dynamics of Single Excitable Cells
Instrumental Surface Temperature Record
Recent results from Odessa Observatory
Volume 96, Issue 1, Pages e7 (September 2017)
Volume 57, Issue 6, Pages (March 2008)
Richard A. Andersen, He Cui  Neuron 
Presentation transcript:

A.A. Soloviev, Sh.R. Bogoutdinov, S.M. Agayan, A.D. Gvishiani (GC RAS, Russia), A. Chulliat (IPGP, France) Automated recognition of spikes on 1-minute and 1-second magnetograms

Construction scheme of DMA 2Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

Interpreter’s Logic. Illustration Global level - searching for the uplifts on rectification Local level - rectification of the record Record 3Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

Illustration of rectification Record Rectification “Energy” Rectification “Length” 4Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

Instrumental failure examples on 1-min magnetograms Spikes with an amplitude of less than 30 nT are not considered * Spikes with an amplitude of less than 30 nT are not considered * 5Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

6 Easter Island Observatory Example Big two-side spike is induced by an airplane’s touchdown. Small one-side spikes are induced by moving of big trucks Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

SP algorithm 7Geophysical Center RAS Global level Local level Rectification “Oscillation” Elementary dynamics Spikes Chain of dynamics Informal logic underlying the algorithm: “Spike is a chain of connected elementary dynamics (vertically significant and horizontally insignificant disturbances) on a record not leading to its baseline shift” Uglich, 28 January 2011

SP algorithm. Local level  Recognition of  -fragments containing singular dynamics (1/2)

SP algorithm. Local level 9Geophysical Center RAS Examples of elementary dynamics ,, where, Recognition of  -fragments containing singular dynamics (2/2) 2  -fragment Uglich, 28 January 2011

SP algorithm. Global level 10Geophysical Center RAS Wings Wings: Wings are marked with green Condition for spike (1/2): Uglich, 28 January 2011

SP algorithm. Global level 11Geophysical Center RAS  Condition for spike (2/2): spike no spike Uglich, 28 January 2011

SP algorithm. Learning 12 In total 25 records for 1/1/ /12/2007, points each 275 spikes recognized by INTERMAGNET experts Learning materials Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

SP algorithm. Learning Probability of an error of the first kind (target miss): Probability of an error of the second kind (false alarm): Overall criterion of recognition quality: Indicator of recognition quality on a record fragment 13Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

SP algorithm. Learning Brute-force search of free parameter values: sets of values sets – result of routine processing of magnetograms by experts In criterion = 0.9, which expresses higher degree of expert opinion importance ( criterion) comparing to SP algorithm ( criterion) Optimal parameters of the algorithm: Probability of target miss = 0.0, probability of false alarm = The quality of the recognition = Selection of the optimal values of free parameters 14Geophysical Center RAS 0,9 Uglich, 28 January 2011

SP algorithm. Learning 15Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

SP algorithm. Exam 16 In total 17 records for 1/1/ /12/2008, points each 102 spikes recognized by INTERMAGNET experts Exam materials and results Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

SP algorithm. Exam 17, 110 events recognized on exam materials by algorithm Target miss = 1 spike and so = 1/102 = 0.01 False alarm = 9 events and so = 9/110 = 0.09 The quality of the recognition = Geophysical Center RAS Result of exam of SP with optimal values of free parameters: 0,9 [Sh.R. Bogoutdinov et al. Recognition of disturbances with specified morphology in time series. Part 1: Spikes on magnetograms of the worldwide INTERMAGNET network // Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 2010, Vol.46, No.11, pp. 1004–1016] [Ш.Р.Богоутдинов и др. Распознавание возмущений с заданной морфологией на временных рядах. I. Выбросы на магнитограммах всемирной сети ИНТЕРМАГНЕТ // Физика Земли №11. С ] Uglich, 28 January 2011

SP algorithm. Examples 18Geophysical Center RAS Three cases of spike recognition (bottom – preliminary data, top – definitive data) Uglich, 28 January 2011

Each record should be examined by an expert very attentively SP algorithm. Examples 19Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

Each record should be examined by an expert very attentively SP algorithm. Examples 20Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

SPm: application to 1-sec data (1/5) Raw one-second data XYZF acquired at the Easter Island magnetic observatory in July 2009 ( points of registration for 1-day 1-channel record) Testing dataset (X component) cleaned manually after a detailed inspection of daily magnetograms: – –1-20 July 2009 for learning the algorithm – –21-31 July 2009 for testing the algorithm Blind test data (X component) recorded on 1-31 August 2009 with no a priori expert opinion 21Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

Natural spikes, which represent geomagnetic pulsations (X component, 01/07/2009) SPm: application to 1-sec data (2/5) Artificial spikes, which have to be removed by experts manually (X component, 05/07/2009) 22Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

SPm: application to 1-sec data (3/5) Geophysical Center RAS23Uglich, 28 January 2011

Examples of spike recognition by the algorithm SPm O O SPm: application to 1-sec data (4/5) 24Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

Learning phase, 1-20 July 2009 (1119 spikes): – –Missed targets: 4.7% – –False alarms: 8.7% Testing phase, July 2009 (853 spikes): – –Missed targets: 5.9% – –False alarms: 6.0% Blind test, 1-31 August 2009 (2210 spikes): – –Missed targets: 4.85% – –False alarms: 0.6% SPm: application to 1-sec data (5/5), recognition statistics 25Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

Step 2. Calculating measures of jumpiness using fuzzy bounds, Potential jump (red), wings (green), fuzzy bounds (black) Step 3. Test for absolute values Free parameters: Baseline jump. JM algorithm Definition. “Jump is an anomaly on a record leading to its baseline shift” Step 1. Recognition of all anomalies by FCARS algorithm 26Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

INTERMAGNET 1-min data Comparison of jump recognition results based on preliminary data records processing with definitive data records 27Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011

GOES 2 Hz geomag data 28Geophysical Center RASUglich, 28 January 2011