Random noise suppression in node seismometer signals using improved complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise and grey relational analysis

Abstract

Node seismometer signals are often contaminated with substantial environmental noise due to the complex conditions encountered in geophysical exploration and seismic monitoring. This necessitates high precision in the pre-processing of ground motion signals, as inadequate processing may compromise subsequent operations, such as P-wave first-arrival time extraction, peak energy calculation, ground motion period determination, and magnitude estimation. To obtain more authentic seismic waveforms, a node seismometer signal denoising model is proposed. This model integrates grey relational analysis (GRA) with improved complete ensemble empirical modal decomposition adaptive noise (ICEEMDAN). This method first decomposes the noisy signal using ICEEMDAN to obtain multiple intrinsic mode functions (IMFs), which are then sequentially arranged and labeled. Subsequently, for each IMF, the correlation coefficient, mutual information, R ², adjusted R ², Jensen–Shannon divergence, cosine similarity, root mean squared error, mean absolute error, mean absolute percentage error, and sample entropy were calculated, forming an evaluation matrix for assessing the reliability of all IMFs. Finally, using GRA, the correlation coefficients and degrees of association between each evaluation metric and different IMF components were calculated. The IMF components were ranked based on their association degrees to determine the relative effectiveness of their signal components. Linear reconstruction on the top-ranked IMF components was performed to complete the signal denoising process proposed. Experiments on denoising simulated seismic signals, recorded seismic event signals, and recorded ground motion signals all demonstrate that the GRA–ICEEMDAN model outperforms classical denoising methods. The comprehensive denoising scores for the three experiments were 100, 98.0180, and 93.9056, respectively, with signal-to-noise ratio improvements reaching 24.0049 dB, 20.8926 dB, and 16.3523 dB, respectively. The model effectively distinguishes noise components from effective components, with minimal reconstruction errors

Funding

This research was financially supported by Mahasarakham University; the Scientific Research Fund from the Institute of Seismology, CEA and National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China (No. IS202226322, No.IS202436357); the Open Fund of Wuhan Gravitation and Solid Earth Tides, National Observation and Research Station, (No.WHYWZ202406); the Spark Program of Earthquake Technology of CEA (No.XH24025YC, XH25019C); the 2025 Hubei Provincial Key Laboratory Targeted Commissioned Project (No.2025CSA083); research grants from the National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China (Grant number: ZDJ2024-31); the 2025 Doctoral Special Support Program Project of Chengdu Jincheng College (NO.2025JCKY(B)0018); and the Mathematics and Finance Research Center Project of Dazhou Social Science Federation Key Research Base (No. SCMF202505).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Author contributions

Conceptualization:Cong Pang, Tianwen Zhao, Sirui Liu, Xingxing Li, Ya Xiang Formal analysis: Cong Pang, Guoqing Chen, Tianwen Zhao, Yuxuan Liang, Ya Xiang Investigation: Tianwen Zhao, Sirui Liu, Yuxuan Liang, Xingxing Li, Piyapatr Busababodhin Methodology:Cong Pang, Tianwen Zhao, Guoqing Chen, Piyapatr Busababodhin Writing–original draft:Cong Pang, Tianwen Zhao, Guoqing Chen, Piyapatr Busababodhin Writing–review & editing: Cong Pang, Tianwen Zhao, Guoqing Chen, Piyapatr Busababodhin

Availability of data

Some data used in this study cannot be shared publicly due to collaborative agreement restrictions but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

[1] Baker B , Holt MM , Pankow KL , Koper KD , Farrell J. Monitoring the 2020 Magna, Utah, earthquake sequence with nodal seismometers and machine learning. Seismol Res Lett. 2021; 92(2A): 787-801. doi: 10.1785/0220200316

[2] Xiong C , Deng Y , Wang L , Ye X , Zhang Y. High—resolution monitoring of Urban activities with nodal seismometers in the Guangdong—Hong Kong—Macao greater bay area, China. Earth Space Sci . 2025; 12(4): e2024EA004088. doi: 10.1029/2024EA004088

[3] Nayak A , Verónica RT , Jonathan AF , et al. Nodal and broadband seismometer complement to the imperial valley dark fiber DAS array. Seismol Res Lett. 2023; 94(6): 2852-2867. doi: 10.1785/0220230081

[4] Gaishan Z , Zhanxiang HE . Comprehensive view of the development of nodal seismic technology. Geophys Prospect Petrol. 2024; 63(4): 718-734. doi: 10.12431/issn.1000—1441.2024.63.04.002

[5] Li YE , Nilot EA , Zhao Y , Fang G. Quantifying Urban activities using nodal seismometers in a heterogeneous Urban space. Sensors (Basel). 2023; 23(3): 1322. doi: 10.3390/s23031322

[6] Abbas A , Cox BR, Tran KT, Corey I , Dawadi N. An open—access data set of active—source and passive—wavefield DAS and nodal seismometer measurements at the newberry florida site. Seismol Res Lett. 2024; 95(2A): 1082-1098. doi: 10.1785/0220230216

[7] Liu S , Yan A , Huang S. Seismic data denoising based on DC—PCNN image fusion in NSCT domain. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett. 2024; 21: 1-5. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2024.3369727

[8] Liang C , Lin H , Ma H. Reinforcement learning—based denoising model for seismic random noise attenuation. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2023; 61: 1-17. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2023.3268718

[9] Li F , Liu H , Wang W , Ma J. Swin transformer for seismic denoising. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett. 2024; 21: 1-5. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2024.3358234

[10] Cao M , Hua Y , Zhang J , Zhang H , Ma F , Ji P. Denoising method for ultrasonic echo signal of mining well logging instrument based on NRBO—ICEEMDAN wavelet thresholding. IEEE Sens J. 2025; 25(15): 29700-29710. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2025.3578599

[11] Chen X , Chen XY , Zhao LY , et al. Feature—adaptive self—supervised leaning for microthrust measurement signals’ blind denoising. IEEE Sens J. 2025; 25(1): 1015-1028. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2024.3493104

[12] Qiao J , Ai W , Hu X , Liu M , Hu S. An identification method of melting layer using the covariance wavelet transform based on GPM—DPR observations. Earth Space Sci. 2022; 9(3): e2021EA002103. doi: 10.1029/2021EA002103

[13] Sun M , Wu J , Lu Y , Yu F , Zhou H. Engineering safety—oriented blasting—induced seismic wave signal processing: An EMD endpoint suppression method based on multi—scale feature. Sensors (Basel). 2025; 25(13): 4194. doi: 10.3390/s25134194

[14] Zhao Y , Zhong Z , Li Y , et al. Ensemble empirical mode decomposition and stacking model for filtering borehole distributed acoustic sensing records. Geophysics. 2023; 88(1): WA319-WA334. doi: 10.1190/geo2022—0273.1

[15] Ji M , Zhao X , Zhu W , et al. Noise attenuation using adaptive wavelet threshold based on CEEMD inf—X domain. J Seism Explor. 2023; 32(2): 131-153.

[16] Yin X , Liu Q , Huang X , Pan Y. Development and application of a novel hybrid CEEMDAN—LWT denoising approach in microseismic monitoring. Pure Appl Geophys. 2022; 179(9): 3279-3294. doi: 10.1007/s00024—022—03115—8

[17] Zhang Y , Zhan K , Song P , Liang C , Xu R , Kong C. Improved first arrival picking of microseismic P—waves in coal mines using multi—denoising and adaptive characteristic functions. Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1): 33141. doi: 10.1038/s41598—025—18503—y

[18] Shi Y , Yang C , Wang J , Zhang Z , Meng F , Bai H. A forecasting model of ionospheric foF2 using the LSTM network based on ICEEMDAN decomposition. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2023; 61: 1-16. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2023.3336934

[19] Li X , Li H , Yang Z , Zhou J , Li H , Bu J. Radiation signal denoising method of loaded coal—rock based on ICEEMDAN—PCK—means—IP. IEEE Sens J. 2023; 23(19): 23103-23118. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2023.3306932

[20] Nguyen VT , Nguyen MT. Advanced noise reduction for in—cylinder combustion pressure data using ICEEMDAN and optimal wavelet selection. IEEE Access. 2025; 13: 62029-62044. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3558428

[21] Esangbedo MO , Xue J , Bai S , Esangbedo CO. Relaxed rank order centroid weighting MCDM method with improved grey relational analysis for subcontractor selection: Photothermal power station construction. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 2024; 71: 3044-3061. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2022.3204629

[22] He J , Wang H , Wang J , Zuo C , Wang Z , Zhao X. Decision—making method for multiobjective demagnetization strategies of underwater vehicles based on improved gray relation analysis. IEEE Trans Instrument Measure. 2024; 73: 1-13. doi: 10.1109/TIM.2023.3341120

[23] Tan R , Zhang W , Chen S. Decision—making method based on grey relation analysis and trapezoidal fuzzy neutrosophic numbers under double incomplete information and its application in typhoon disaster assessment. IEEE Access. 2020; 8: 3606-3628. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2962330

[24] Fu J , Fan R , Cao J , Zhang X , Shi S. Seismic impedance inversion using a joint deep learning model based on convolutional neural network and transformer. IEEE J Select Topics Appl Earth Observ Remote Sens. 2023; 16: 8913-8922. doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.2023.3318078

[25] Yang C , Guan Y , Liu T , Zhang B , Li W. MMI—ML: Maximize mutual information between different views for few—shot remote sensing image classification. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett. 2024; 21: 1-5. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2024.3388463

[26] Pang C , Ding W , Cheng C , et al. Research on seismic discrimination based on particle swarm optimization generalized regression neural network and HHT sample entropy. Prog Geophys. 2022; 37(4): 1457-1463. doi: 10.6038/pg2022FF0438

[27] Mendo L. Estimation of a probability with guaranteed normalized mean absolute error. IEEE Commun Lett . 2009; 13(11): 817-819. doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2009.091128

[28] Liu N , Wu L , Wang J , Wu H , Gao J , Wang D. Seismic data reconstruction via wavelet—based residual deep learning. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2022; 60: 1-13. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2022.3152984

[29] Song J , Ntibahanana M , Luemba M , Tondozi K , Imani G. Ensemble deep learning—based porosity inversion from seismic attributes. IEEE Access. 2023; 11: 8761-8772. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3239688

[30] Dou Y , Li K , Lv W , Li T , Xiao Y. ContrasInver: Ultra—sparse label semi—supervised regression for multidimensional seismic inversion. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2024; 62: 1-13. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2024.3410022

[31] Pourmirzaee R , Hosseini S. Development of an ANN—based technique for inversion of seismic refraction travel times. J Environ Eng Geophys. 2024; 29(2): 75-90. doi: 10.32389/JEEG22—044

[32] Yan Y , Chen X , Li J , Guan J , Li Y , Cui S. Multiparameter shallow—seismic waveform inversion based on the Jensen—Shannon divergence. Geophys J Int. 2024; 238(1): 132-155. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggae143

[33] Kumar DR , Samui P , Burman A , Kumar S. Seismically induced liquefaction potential assessment by different artificial intelligence procedures. Transport Infrast Geotechnol . 2024; 11(3): 1272-1293. doi: 10.1007/s40515—023—00327—w