the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A dynamic informed deep learning method for future estimation of laboratory stick-slip
Abstract. Fault activities modelling holds vital importance for earthquake monitoring, risk management, and early alert. Studies on laboratory earthquakes are instrumental in the modelling of natural fault ruptures and in enhancing our grasp of natural earthquake dynamics. Recently, deep learning methods have been proven effective in predicting instantaneous fault stress in laboratory settings and slow slip events on Earth. However, these methods have struggled to conduct steady future prediction lacking grasping of the complex dynamics of highly nonlinear laboratory fault slip systems. Addressing this, we introduce the Hankel Koopman Auto-encoder (HKAE), a novel method inspired by dynamical system theories. HKAE performs dynamic modelling of laboratory fault system and provides a continuous estimation of the future state of the system. It has been deployed on experiments with different slip behaviours and shows superior ability to predict shear stress variation during a slip cycle and also slip activities in longer-term seismic cycles. The HKAE model surpasses conventional time series prediction deep learning methods, showing superior statistical evaluation metrics like RMSE and R2 with two prediction horizons. Meanwhile, we find that the HKAE can model the slip dynamics better than purely statistical modelling, as evidenced by its more accurate modelling of the slip timing, slip cycle intervals and its ability to summarize the quasi-periodic dynamics as an operator from a small number of samples to generate more robust beyond-horizon prediction. The capability of HKAE to decompose and model complex temporal dynamics highlights its potential in and sparse-observed geophysical system with quasi-periodic characteristics like natural fault activities.
- Preprint
(6055 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-46', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Apr 2024
Yue et al. developed an algorithm (HKAE) to perform time series forecasting. The algorithm exploits concepts derived from dynamical systems theory and Koopman theory, and it uses an autoencoder architecture to realise the link between the two. They decided to apply the algorithm to laboratory earthquakes data, and in particular to shear stress time series.
I think that the idea and the results are interesting. Nonetheless, there are several points that need to be better explained and/or further developed.
I have two major concerns about the manuscript.
1) The first problem that I see comes from your interpretations. You state that your algorithm outperforms the existing ones (e.g., you tested LSTM, TCN and MLP). But in many occasions this is not true. Your Figures 8 and 10 show that, especially for the immediate next future, LSTM performs better than HKAE. I would recommend you to not oversell the HKAE algorithm.
2) The second problem comes from the pre-processing of the data. Reading the code, I noted that there is a pre-processing step to smooth the data. In the manuscript you do not mention any filtering or smoothing step. The smoothing function that you use is taken from the statsmodels package, and it takes the closest data to perform a local linear regression. The closest data in a 1-dim time series can come from both the past and the future. This means that when you smooth the data you are introducing information from the future. This is a problem if you want to evaluate forecasting performances. You need to clarify how many data from the future are used to smooth the data.
Other two, less critical but still important, problems are the following.
One concerns the reproducibility. In order to reproduce the results, it is important that you add a README.txt file in your repository. Furthermore, you should add a requirements.txt file with the details of the packages that you used. It is a good practice to do it so that people can create a local virtual environment and reproduce your results. Some comments in your code are not in English, and you should translate them.
Finally, it is not easy to follow the reasoning and the various steps mainly because of the overall poor English structure. I was trying to write down the correction myself, but after line 70 I gave up because there were too many corrections to suggest. In the Acknowledgments section you mention that the manuscript was polished with GPT-4. Sometimes the feeling is that entire paragraphs were written automatically, without a proper logical connection with the next part. I highly recommend you ask a native English speaker to review and edit the manuscript.
For detailed comments, please see the attached file.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Zhen Hong Du, 02 Jul 2024
Thank you for your affirmation of our ideas and for your very detailed review comments, which are extremely helpful for improving our results. In response to your review comments, we will make the following responses:
First about your two major concerns:
- The most important feature of HKAE is that it considers laboratory earthquake slip from the perspective of dynamical system, rather than using purely statistical methods or black-box deep learning methods. Specifically, it achieves:
- Multi-scale modeling of laboratory slip system under limited observations: By modeling the dynamics of the HKAE, we are able to obtain estimates of the future state of the system in two aspects: between slip cycles, the HKAE is able to better estimate the period of the events, shown in Figure 8; and get more accurate estimate of stress variation within the slip cycle, especially during the stress-release phase, shown in Figure 9. Noticed that we only use shear stress series to reconstruct the system, which will be a potential characteristic when the observations are scarce in field.
- Interpretability and insights of laboratory slip from a dynamical system perspective: By approximating the Koopman operator, we are able to further understand the dynamics of laboratory stick-slip. From the amplitudes and periods of dynamic modes obtained from the HKAE, it can be found that there are stable dynamical modes in all the meta-stable slip systems. and the systems with pure fast slips and slow slips are more stable. In terms of specific modes, the systems with fast slip and slow slip are more stable than those with alternating fast and slow slip, which is consistent with the previous understanding obtained for laboratory slip systems under different normal stress loadings.
Based on your comments, we realize that there is some ambiguity in our statement, and we adjusted it in the revised version.
- Regarding the data smoothing issue, we must clarify that we did not use data smoothing in our actual experiments. Instead, we directly used the preprocessing method in Laurenti’s work (2022), where we resampled the stress sampling data from 0.001s to 0.1s, taking only the first point of the 100 sampling points as the resampled result, thus avoiding information leakage. The smoothing part retained in the code is from our historical processing, and we have removed it in the updated code version.
Then in response to your other two concerns:
- Thank you very much for emphasizing reproducibility. In the updated code version, we have added a requirements document and included a README for quick experimental reproduction. The comments in the code have also been fully translated into English. The new URL of our code is: https://zenodo.org/records/12627258.
- Thank you very much for your detailed correction suggestions. From your attachment, we can see that you have provided very detailed comments on the entire manuscript, which greatly helps improve our results and manuscripts. Once again, thank you for your patience. Additionally, we apologize for the somewhat poor language expression. Considering GPT-4's excellent performance in language polishing, we used it to refine our manuscript, but it may have altered the original meaning during content adjustments. In the revised version, we have comprehensively checked the content expression and had it re-polished. However, the current interactive response does not allow for the submission of a revised version, so we have provided partial responses to the textual portions of your queries within the response manuscript.
Once again, thank you for your detailed and fair review comments. For the detail responses, please see the attached file.
- The most important feature of HKAE is that it considers laboratory earthquake slip from the perspective of dynamical system, rather than using purely statistical methods or black-box deep learning methods. Specifically, it achieves:
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Zhen Hong Du, 02 Jul 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2024-46', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jun 2024
This manuscript explores a novel model that integrates dynamic systems theory with the nonlinear fitting capabilities of deep learning. The HKAE model utilizes the Koopman operator and an autoencoder framework to reconstruct the dynamic behavior of laboratory slip systems, with a specific emphasis on shear stress variations. Through a synthesis of theoretical analysis and experimental validation, the HKAE model showcases exceptional performance in predicting complex nonlinear systems. This study underscores the HKAE model’s advantages in handling intricate nonlinear dynamic systems and proposes promising directions for future research and applications. The following issues could enhance the manuscript’s quality.
- In Lines 70-71, the statement “our model envisions the future prediction as the continuous evolution of laboratory fault slip systems” lacks clarity and requires a detailed explanation.
- In Section 2.1, simple simulation data was utilized. Did the model explore more intricate numerical simulations, and what were the specific outcomes? More details about the simulation should be given. Where is the laboratory data coming from? At least the references should be provided.
- In Section 2.2, please elucidate the advantages of Koopman theory and delay embedding theory in managing the intricate dynamics of laboratory fault slip systems.
- Line 97, “we’re” should be “we are”. No contraction is allowed in formal English writing. Line 340, as well, among others.
- In Section 2.3, how do the functions of these three model modules impact the model’s performance?
- Line 305, “to shows” should be “to show”. The authors should carefully check the whole paper regarding typos.
- In Figure 9, RMSE and R2 should be included.
- In Line 339, the model exhibits subpar performance in Exp. 4581. Is the model particularly sensitive to specific types of data?
- In Section 4, what is the interpretability of the HKAE model? Are there specialized methods or techniques for elucidating the model’s predictions?
- In Section 5, the HKAE model has demonstrated robust predictive capabilities. What are the potential directions for future research?
- The fonts in some figures are extremely large, while in others are too small to read. I highly recommend that the authors re-draw most figures to enhance their quality.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-46-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Zhen Hong Du, 02 Jul 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zhen Hong Du, 02 Jul 2024
Model code and software
Hankel Koopman Auto Encoder Enjiang Yue, Mengjiao Qin, Linshu Hu, Sensen Wu, and Zhenhong Du https://zenodo.org/records/10846361
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
497 | 68 | 40 | 605 | 29 | 30 |
- HTML: 497
- PDF: 68
- XML: 40
- Total: 605
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1