Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Villasenor, Antonio

  • Google
  • 2
  • 10
  • 22

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (2/2 displayed)

  • 2022Upper-lithospheric structure of northeastern Venezuela from joint inversion of surface-wave dispersion and receiver functions2citations
  • 2022Performance of Deep Learning Pickers in Routine Network Processing Applications20citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Ferreira, Ana
1 / 2 shared
Cabieces, Roberto
1 / 1 shared
Olivar-Castaño, Andrés
1 / 1 shared
Berg, Elizabeth
1 / 1 shared
Arnaiz-Rodríguez, Mariano S.
1 / 1 shared
Fernandez-Prieto, Luis M.
1 / 1 shared
Suarez, Eduardo Andres Diaz
1 / 1 shared
Garcia, Carmen
1 / 1 shared
Navarro, Jose Enrique Garcia
1 / 1 shared
Sanz, Veronica
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2022

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Ferreira, Ana
  • Cabieces, Roberto
  • Olivar-Castaño, Andrés
  • Berg, Elizabeth
  • Arnaiz-Rodríguez, Mariano S.
  • Fernandez-Prieto, Luis M.
  • Suarez, Eduardo Andres Diaz
  • Garcia, Carmen
  • Navarro, Jose Enrique Garcia
  • Sanz, Veronica
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Performance of Deep Learning Pickers in Routine Network Processing Applications

  • Fernandez-Prieto, Luis M.
  • Villasenor, Antonio
  • Suarez, Eduardo Andres Diaz
  • Garcia, Carmen
  • Navarro, Jose Enrique Garcia
  • Sanz, Veronica
Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Picking arrival times of P and S phases is a fundamental and time-consuming task for the routine processing of seismic data acquired by permanent and temporary networks. A large number of automatic pickers have been developed, but to perform well they often require the tuning of multiple parameters to adapt them to each dataset. Despite the great advance in techniques, some problems remain, such as the difficulty to accurately pick S waves and earthquake recordings with a low signal-to-noise ratio. Recently, phase pickers based on deep learning (DL) have shown great potential for event identification and arrival-time picking. However, the general adoption of these methods for the routine processing of monitoring networks has been held back by factors such as the availability of well-documented software, computational resources, and a gap in knowledge of these methods. In this study, we evaluate recent available DL pickers for earthquake data, comparing the performance of several neural network architectures. We test the selected pickers using three datasets with different characteristics. We found that the analyzed DL pickers (generalized phase detection, PhaseNet, and EQTransformer) perform well in the three tested cases. They are very efficient at ignoring large-amplitude transient noise and at picking S waves, a task that is often difficult even for experienced analysts. Nevertheless, the performance of the analyzed DL pickers varies widely in terms of sensitivity and false discovery rate, with some pickers missing a significant percentage of true picks and others producing a large number of false positives. There are also variations in run time between DL pickers, with some of them requiring significant resources to process large datasets. In spite of these drawbacks, we show that DL pickers can be used efficiently to process large seismic datasets and obtain results comparable or better than current standard procedures.</jats:p>

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • phase