Seismic Imaging of the Earth’s Deep Mantle using Station Pairs: The

Virtual Receiver Approach

Rafael Abreu * ,1 , Chahana Nagesh1 and Mariano Arnaiz1

1
Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, CNRS, Université de Paris, Paris, France

Abstract
In this contribution we ...
Key words: seismic arrays, seismic imaging

* email: [email protected]

1
1 Introduction
Mantle convection is a fundamental process in Earth’s geodynamics. It is strong enough to drive the vigorous plate tecton-
ics shaping the planet’s surface while being slow enough to retain heat trapped in the core (Parsons and McKenzie, 1978;
Turcotte and Schubert, 2002; Lay et al., 2008). Understanding its dynamics is a monumental challenge, as the mantle is
more inaccessible than the farthest observable stars or the deepest parts of the ocean. Decades of research have provided
a broad understanding of Earth’s lower mantle (Dziewonski et al., 1977; Frost et al., 2004; Kesson et al., 1998; Helf-
frich and Wood, 2001; Garnero and McNamara, 2008; Tsuchiya et al., 2004; Hirose et al., 1999). This region, spanning
from the transition zone (410 km to 670 km) to the core-mantle boundary (CMB) at 2891 km depth, exhibits relatively
smooth seismic velocity and density gradients compare to the highly heterogeneous crust (Davies and Dziewonski, 1975;
Dziewonski et al., 1977; Garnero and McNamara, 2008), largely due to the stability of magnesium-silicate perovskite
under extreme temperature and pressure (Kaminsky, 2012; Kesson et al., 1998; Murakami et al., 2012). Near the CMB,
seismic velocities become more complex, with abrupt increases attributed to a phase transition to the post-perovskite
′′
phase and pronounced thermal and chemical heterogeneity in the boundary layer above the CMB, known as the D region
(Oganov and Ono, 2004; Iitaka et al., 2004; Murakami et al., 2004). However, much remains to be learned about this deep
region of Earth.
Large low-seismic-velocity provinces (LLSVPs) are distinctive structures of the lowermost mantle (Garnero and
Helmberger, 1995; Ritsema et al., 1999; Garnero and McNamara, 2008; Lay et al., 2006; Sun and Miller, 2013; He
and Wen, 2009; McNamara et al., 2010; Avants et al., 2006), that span thousands of kilometers laterally and possibly
extend up to 1000 km vertically from the CMB (Thorne et al., 2013b). They are characterized by reduction in S-wave
and P-wave velocities and sharp edges (Ni et al., 2002; Wang and Wen, 2004; King and Anderson, 1998; Frost and Rost,
2014; Sun and Miller, 2013), corresponding to the base of deep mantle plumes (Burke et al., 2008; He and Wen, 2009;
Ford et al., 2006; He et al., 2006)
Furthermore, LLSVPs may contain ultra-low-velocity zones (ULVZs), characterized by extreme reductions in seismic
velocities (up to -30% for S-waves and -10% for P-waves) and likely increases in density (Brown et al., 2015; Jensen
et al., 2013; Rost et al., 2010, 2006; Rost and Garnero, 2006; Rost and Revenaugh, 2003). These ULVZs lie near the
CMB with variable shapes, widths, and distributions (Wen and Helmberger, 1998; McNamara et al., 2010; Zhang et al.,
2009; Vanacore et al., 2016; Mao et al., 2006; Garnero et al., 1998). They are challenging to detect and characterize
through global tomographic studies (Ritsema et al., 1999, 2011; Bozdağ et al., 2016; French and Romanowicz, 2014).
Currently, the structure, origin, and convective nature of the LLSVPs and ULVZs are still a matter of debate. Different
possible origins have been proposed: (i) compositional in nature (Ritsema et al., 1999; Ishii and Tromp, 2004); (ii)
thermochemical (Davaille et al., 2003; Hansen and Yuen, 2000); and (iii) lithospheric subducted material (Maruyama
et al., 2007; Tanaka et al., 2009). LLSVPs seem to be compositionally subdivided into two domains: a primordial bottom
domain near the core-mantle boundary (serving as an isolated reservoir with distinctive isotopic compositions (Burke et al.,
2008), and a basaltic shallow (perhaps thermally buoyant; McNamara and Zhong (2004, 2005)) domain that extends from
1100 to 2300 km depth (Ballmer et al., 2016). Whereas ULVZs may be part of internal convection mechanisms within
the larger velocity anomalies (McNamara et al., 2010; Thorne et al., 2013a). In any case, it is clear that, to properly
understand the convection system of the lower mantle, it is important to comprehend the origin, composition, physical
properties, and role that LLSVPs and ULVZs play. To achieve this, it is of primary importance to illuminate and image
the structures in Earth’s lower mantle.
One of the most powerful tools for imaging Earth’s interior is seismic tomography. Emerging in the 1970s, this method
revolutionized our understanding of the 3D distribution of physical properties affecting seismic wave propagation, such
as elasticity, anelasticity, anisotropy, and density. Seminal studies by Aki et al. (1977) and Dziewonski et al. (1977);
Dziewonski (1984) laid the foundation for this field. While Aki and colleagues focused on regional-scale structures,
Dziewonski and his team produced the first images of the lower mantle, revealing early on the existence of the two
LLSVPs (originally referred to as "superplumes"). Since then, tomographic models often play a critical role in the
analysis of the subsurface, aiding in the estimation of lithology, temperature, and fluid content while providing a snapshot
of present-day mantle dynamics. Tomography usually presents results in terms of velocity anomalies that are conditioned
on the initial model used, parametrization of the studied space, inverse method used, and seismological theory employed
(ray theory, finite frequency, or full waveform).
The interpretation of velocity anomalies can be misleading. For example, high-shear-velocity regions, like shields, can
appear as cold and sinking but are actually chemically buoyant. Stronger S-wave velocity reductions in the deep mantle
may suggest chemical differences, melt, or high temperatures. This is why it becomes important to try to estimate the
lower mantle’s absolute velocity values.

2
 In this study, we present a new method, the Virtual Receiver Approach (VRA), that allows us to sample the velocity
field at depth from teleseismic travel-time data recorded at neighboring stations. We will show that our VRA is replicable,
efficient, accurate, robust, and easy to implement. We begin by laying the fundamentals of our approach and validating
it. We proceed to test it to probe the lower mantle beneath the Pacific Ocean, aiming to estimate the absolute shear wave
velocity of the Pacific LLSVPs. Finally, we attempt to interpret these results in terms of compositional anomalies and
temperature conditions.

2 Methodology: The Virtual Receiver Approach

We introduce an imaging methodology that we call The Virtual Receiver Approach based on the concept of the slowness
vector u defined as follows (Rost and Thomas, 2002)

1 sin(i)
u= = , (1)
vapp v0

where vapp is the apparent velocity, i is the angle of incidence of the ray and v0 the velocity of the medium (see Fig. 1–a).
The slowness u (eq. (1)) is constant along the ray path and it is equal to the inverse of the medium velocity v0 when
sin(i) = 1, i.e., when the wave does not reflect at an interface and travels horizontally (id = 90◦ ), at the deepest point of
the ray (see Fig. 1–a). Therefore, the velocity of the medium at the deepest point of the ray vd is equal to the inverse of
the slowness vd = 1/u (Stein and Wysession, 2009; Rost and Thomas, 2002).
If we consider a 1D isotropic layered medium, the slowness u in eq. (1) can be approximated as follows (Mula and
Müller, 1980; Souriau and Poupinet, 1994)
t1 − t2 ∆t
u(x0 ) ≈ = , (2)
d1 − d2 ∆d
where t1 ,t2 are the arrival times of the wave of interest at two stations 1 and 2 located at positions x1 , x2 , respectively and
with epicentral distances d1 , d2 .
Equation (2) can be understood in three (fundamental) different ways depending on the interpretation of the location
x0 : If one assumes that x0 = x1 and/or x0 = x2 , then eq. (2) becomes a first-order, forward and backward, finite-difference
approximations of the slowness u respectively, as follows
t1 − t2 t2 − t1
u(x0 = x1 ) = + O (∆d), u(x0 = x2 ) = + O (∆d) . (3)
d1 − d2 d1 − d2
| {z } | {z }
forward approximation backward approximation

Note that we have assumed that d2 > d1 . On the contrary, if one assumes that x0 is the middle point between x1 and x2 ,
then eq. (2) becomes a second-order centered finite difference approximation of the slowness u, as follows
t1 − t2  
u(x0 = (x1 + x2 )/2) = + O ∆d 2 , (4)
| {z ∆d }
centered approximation

which means that the slowness evaluated a the center point x0 between x1 , x2 can be approximated (up to second-order
accuracy) by dividing the arrival travel time of the wave of interest and the difference between epicentral distance of the
stations (see Fig. 1–b and Fig. 1–c).
Equation (4) brings a different physical interpretation since in fact, we are not measuring travel-times at the center
of the two stations. We, however, are computing a second-order approximation to a slowness value located at the virtual
receiver located at the middle between the two stations.
If we consider the calculation of the slowness in a spherical Earth, we can write the velocity of the medium at the
deepest point of the ray vd as follows (Rost and Thomas, 2002)
1 rd
vd = (5)
u rearth
where rearth is the radius of the Earth, and rd is the radius r of the turning (deepest) point of the (non bouncing) ray.

3
 t
<latexit sha1_base64="8fLa2ZzwtaDgsffSMbXp3PaT22E=">AAAB73icbVBNS8NAEJ34WetX1aOXxSJ4KolI9VjQgyepYD+gDWWz3bRLN5u4OxFK6J/w4kERr/4db/4bt20O2vpg4PHeDDPzgkQKg6777aysrq1vbBa2its7u3v7pYPDpolTzXiDxTLW7YAaLoXiDRQoeTvRnEaB5K1gdD31W09cGxGrBxwn3I/oQIlQMIpWandvuERKsFcquxV3BrJMvJyUIUe9V/rq9mOWRlwhk9SYjucm6GdUo2CST4rd1PCEshEd8I6likbc+Nns3gk5tUqfhLG2pZDM1N8TGY2MGUeB7YwoDs2iNxX/8zophld+JlSSIldsvihMJcGYTJ8nfaE5Qzm2hDIt7K2EDammDG1ERRuCt/jyMmmeV7xqpXp/Ua7d5XEU4BhO4Aw8uIQa3EIdGsBAwjO8wpvz6Lw4787HvHXFyWeO4A+czx+Wo4+7</latexit>

a) b)
t
<latexit sha1_base64="dVBqlKA8ngZ49An4O1ZzuX1o+o0=">AAACC3icbZDLSsNAFIYnXmu9RV26GVoEVyURqS4LunAlFewFmlAmk0k7dHJh5kQsIXs3voobF4q49QXc+TZO2wja+sPAx3/O4cz5vURwBZb1ZSwtr6yurZc2yptb2zu75t5+W8WppKxFYxHLrkcUEzxiLeAgWDeRjISeYB1vdDGpd+6YVDyObmGcMDckg4gHnBLQVt+spA5JEhnfYyeQhGbOJRNAMOQ/5Od9s2rVrKnwItgFVFGhZt/8dPyYpiGLgAqiVM+2EnAzIoFTwfKykyqWEDoiA9bTGJGQKTeb3pLjI+34OIilfhHgqft7IiOhUuPQ050hgaGar03M/2q9FIJzN+NRkgKL6GxRkAoMMZ4Eg30uGQUx1kCo5PqvmA6JzgR0fGUdgj1/8iK0T2p2vVa/Oa02ros4SugQVdAxstEZaqAr1EQtRNEDekIv6NV4NJ6NN+N91rpkFDMH6I+Mj28q25st</latexit>

t1 t2
<latexit sha1_base64="72ixVS3xZ3CYhyT2EgmOSZ+FKng=">AAAB6nicbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69LBbBU0lEqseCF09S0X5AG8pmu2mXbjZhdyKU0J/gxYMiXv1F3vw3btsctPXBwOO9GWbmBYkUBl332ymsrW9sbhW3Szu7e/sH5cOjlolTzXiTxTLWnYAaLoXiTRQoeSfRnEaB5O1gfDPz209cGxGrR5wk3I/oUIlQMIpWesC+1y9X3Ko7B1klXk4qkKPRL3/1BjFLI66QSWpM13MT9DOqUTDJp6VeanhC2ZgOeddSRSNu/Gx+6pScWWVAwljbUkjm6u+JjEbGTKLAdkYUR2bZm4n/ed0Uw2s/EypJkSu2WBSmkmBMZn+TgdCcoZxYQpkW9lbCRlRThjadkg3BW355lbQuql6tWru/rNTv8jiKcAKncA4eXEEdbqEBTWAwhGd4hTdHOi/Ou/OxaC04+cwx/IHz+QMMxo2z</latexit>
<latexit sha1_base64="5oOoQjmiqRzNYw5bBaUeIaZ0Zno=">AAAB6nicbVBNS8NAEJ34WetX1aOXxSJ4KkmR6rHgxZNUtB/QhrLZbtqlm03YnQgl9Cd48aCIV3+RN/+N2zYHbX0w8Hhvhpl5QSKFQdf9dtbWNza3tgs7xd29/YPD0tFxy8SpZrzJYhnrTkANl0LxJgqUvJNoTqNA8nYwvpn57SeujYjVI04S7kd0qEQoGEUrPWC/2i+V3Yo7B1klXk7KkKPRL331BjFLI66QSWpM13MT9DOqUTDJp8VeanhC2ZgOeddSRSNu/Gx+6pScW2VAwljbUkjm6u+JjEbGTKLAdkYUR2bZm4n/ed0Uw2s/EypJkSu2WBSmkmBMZn+TgdCcoZxYQpkW9lbCRlRThjadog3BW355lbSqFa9Wqd1flut3eRwFOIUzuAAPrqAOt9CAJjAYwjO8wpsjnRfn3flYtK45+cwJ/IHz+QMOSo20</latexit>

u⇡
Earth’s surface d
distance
i1
<latexit sha1_base64="KNPkbzOHEl63WXtx8nVXTfW/U4o=">AAAB6nicbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69LBbBU0lEq8eCF48V7Qe0oWy2m3bpZhN2J0IJ/QlePCji1V/kzX/jts1BWx8MPN6bYWZekEhh0HW/ncLa+sbmVnG7tLO7t39QPjxqmTjVjDdZLGPdCajhUijeRIGSdxLNaRRI3g7GtzO//cS1EbF6xEnC/YgOlQgFo2ilB9H3+uWKW3XnIKvEy0kFcjT65a/eIGZpxBUySY3pem6CfkY1Cib5tNRLDU8oG9Mh71qqaMSNn81PnZIzqwxIGGtbCslc/T2R0ciYSRTYzojiyCx7M/E/r5tieONnQiUpcsUWi8JUEozJ7G8yEJozlBNLKNPC3krYiGrK0KZTsiF4yy+vktZF1atVr+4vK/VaHkcRTuAUzsGDa6jDHTSgCQyG8Ayv8OZI58V5dz4WrQUnnzmGP3A+fwD0a42P</latexit>

d
<latexit sha1_base64="L6cJ94r4eSqv+ioGDLvGcCQCEtA=">AAAB73icbVBNS8NAEN34WetX1aOXxSJ4KolI9VjQgyepYD+gDWWzmbRLN5u4OxFK6Z/w4kERr/4db/4bt20O2vpg4PHeDDPzglQKg6777aysrq1vbBa2its7u3v7pYPDpkkyzaHBE5nodsAMSKGggQIltFMNLA4ktILh9dRvPYE2IlEPOErBj1lfiUhwhlZqd29AIqNhr1R2K+4MdJl4OSmTHPVe6asbJjyLQSGXzJiO56boj5lGwSVMit3MQMr4kPWhY6liMRh/PLt3Qk+tEtIo0bYU0pn6e2LMYmNGcWA7Y4YDs+hNxf+8TobRlT8WKs0QFJ8vijJJMaHT52koNHCUI0sY18LeSvmAacbRRlS0IXiLLy+T5nnFq1aq9xfl2l0eR4EckxNyRjxySWrkltRJg3AiyTN5JW/Oo/PivDsf89YVJ585In/gfP4AfmOPqw==</latexit>

v1
<latexit sha1_base64="5PYgPOkdD9eC0GujneulL0XwV+U=">AAAB6nicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKeyKr2PQi8eI5gHJEmYns8mQ2dllpjcQlnyCFw+KePWLvPk3TpI9aLSgoajqprsrSKQw6LpfTmFldW19o7hZ2tre2d0r7x80TZxqxhsslrFuB9RwKRRvoEDJ24nmNAokbwWj25nfGnNtRKwecZJwP6IDJULBKFrpYdzzeuWKW3XnIH+Jl5MK5Kj3yp/dfszSiCtkkhrT8dwE/YxqFEzyaambGp5QNqID3rFU0YgbP5ufOiUnVumTMNa2FJK5+nMio5ExkyiwnRHFoVn2ZuJ/XifF8NrPhEpS5IotFoWpJBiT2d+kLzRnKCeWUKaFvZWwIdWUoU2nZEPwll/+S5pnVe+yenF/Xqnd5HEU4QiO4RQ8uIIa3EEdGsBgAE/wAq+OdJ6dN+d90Vpw8plD+AXn4xsL5I2o</latexit>

c)
<latexit sha1_base64="I2TRNOSCVFLi2vd5FaYnPXyts0E=">AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEM36WetX1aOXYBE8lV3R6rHgxWMF+wHtWrJptg3NZkMyWy3L/g8vHhTx6n/x5r8xbfegrQ8GHu/NMDMvUIIbcN1vZ2V1bX1js7BV3N7Z3dsvHRw2TZxoyho0FrFuB8QwwSVrAAfB2kozEgWCtYLRzdRvjZk2PJb3MFHMj8hA8pBTAlZ6GPfSLrAnSIlSWdYrld2KOwNeJl5OyihHvVf66vZjmkRMAhXEmI7nKvBTooFTwbJiNzFMEToiA9axVJKIGT+dXZ3hU6v0cRhrWxLwTP09kZLImEkU2M6IwNAselPxP6+TQHjtp1yqBJik80VhIjDEeBoB7nPNKIiJJYRqbm/FdEg0oWCDKtoQvMWXl0nzvOJVK5d3F+VaNY+jgI7RCTpDHrpCNXSL6qiBKNLoGb2iN+fReXHenY9564qTzxyhP3A+fwCLFZMr</latexit>

vapp
<latexit sha1_base64="I2TRNOSCVFLi2vd5FaYnPXyts0E=">AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEM36WetX1aOXYBE8lV3R6rHgxWMF+wHtWrJptg3NZkMyWy3L/g8vHhTx6n/x5r8xbfegrQ8GHu/NMDMvUIIbcN1vZ2V1bX1js7BV3N7Z3dsvHRw2TZxoyho0FrFuB8QwwSVrAAfB2kozEgWCtYLRzdRvjZk2PJb3MFHMj8hA8pBTAlZ6GPfSLrAnSIlSWdYrld2KOwNeJl5OyihHvVf66vZjmkRMAhXEmI7nKvBTooFTwbJiNzFMEToiA9axVJKIGT+dXZ3hU6v0cRhrWxLwTP09kZLImEkU2M6IwNAselPxP6+TQHjtp1yqBJik80VhIjDEeBoB7nPNKIiJJYRqbm/FdEg0oWCDKtoQvMWXl0nzvOJVK5d3F+VaNY+jgI7RCTpDHrpCNXSL6qiBKNLoGb2iN+fReXHenY9564qTzxyhP3A+fwCLFZMr</latexit>

vapp
virtual receiver
i2 i2
<latexit sha1_base64="AGgvagl6k2BEXjfnj05/F284owE=">AAAB6nicbVBNS8NAEJ34WetX1aOXxSJ4KknR6rHgxWNF+wFtKJvtpF262YTdjVBCf4IXD4p49Rd589+4bXPQ1gcDj/dmmJkXJIJr47rfztr6xubWdmGnuLu3f3BYOjpu6ThVDJssFrHqBFSj4BKbhhuBnUQhjQKB7WB8O/PbT6g0j+WjmSToR3QoecgZNVZ64P1qv1R2K+4cZJV4OSlDjka/9NUbxCyNUBomqNZdz02Mn1FlOBM4LfZSjQllYzrErqWSRqj9bH7qlJxbZUDCWNmShszV3xMZjbSeRIHtjKgZ6WVvJv7ndVMT3vgZl0lqULLFojAVxMRk9jcZcIXMiIkllClubyVsRBVlxqZTtCF4yy+vkla14tUqV/eX5Xotj6MAp3AGF+DBNdThDhrQBAZDeIZXeHOE8+K8Ox+L1jUnnzmBP3A+fwD1742Q</latexit>

<latexit sha1_base64="AGgvagl6k2BEXjfnj05/F284owE=">AAAB6nicbVBNS8NAEJ34WetX1aOXxSJ4KknR6rHgxWNF+wFtKJvtpF262YTdjVBCf4IXD4p49Rd589+4bXPQ1gcDj/dmmJkXJIJr47rfztr6xubWdmGnuLu3f3BYOjpu6ThVDJssFrHqBFSj4BKbhhuBnUQhjQKB7WB8O/PbT6g0j+WjmSToR3QoecgZNVZ64P1qv1R2K+4cZJV4OSlDjka/9NUbxCyNUBomqNZdz02Mn1FlOBM4LfZSjQllYzrErqWSRqj9bH7qlJxbZUDCWNmShszV3xMZjbSeRIHtjKgZ6WVvJv7ndVMT3vgZl0lqULLFojAVxMRk9jcZcIXMiIkllClubyVsRBVlxqZTtCF4yy+vkla14tUqV/eX5Xotj6MAp3AGF+DBNdThDhrQBAZDeIZXeHOE8+K8Ox+L1jUnnzmBP3A+fwD1742Q</latexit>

er 1 receiv
<latexit sha1_base64="I2TRNOSCVFLi2vd5FaYnPXyts0E=">AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEM36WetX1aOXYBE8lV3R6rHgxWMF+wHtWrJptg3NZkMyWy3L/g8vHhTx6n/x5r8xbfegrQ8GHu/NMDMvUIIbcN1vZ2V1bX1js7BV3N7Z3dsvHRw2TZxoyho0FrFuB8QwwSVrAAfB2kozEgWCtYLRzdRvjZk2PJb3MFHMj8hA8pBTAlZ6GPfSLrAnSIlSWdYrld2KOwNeJl5OyihHvVf66vZjmkRMAhXEmI7nKvBTooFTwbJiNzFMEToiA9axVJKIGT+dXZ3hU6v0cRhrWxLwTP09kZLImEkU2M6IwNAselPxP6+TQHjtp1yqBJik80VhIjDEeBoB7nPNKIiJJYRqbm/FdEg0oWCDKtoQvMWXl0nzvOJVK5d3F+VaNY+jgI7RCTpDHrpCNXSL6qiBKNLoGb2iN+fReXHenY9564qTzxyhP3A+fwCLFZMr</latexit>

vapp <latexit sha1_base64="I2TRNOSCVFLi2vd5FaYnPXyts0E=">AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEM36WetX1aOXYBE8lV3R6rHgxWMF+wHtWrJptg3NZkMyWy3L/g8vHhTx6n/x5r8xbfegrQ8GHu/NMDMvUIIbcN1vZ2V1bX1js7BV3N7Z3dsvHRw2TZxoyho0FrFuB8QwwSVrAAfB2kozEgWCtYLRzdRvjZk2PJb3MFHMj8hA8pBTAlZ6GPfSLrAnSIlSWdYrld2KOwNeJl5OyihHvVf66vZjmkRMAhXEmI7nKvBTooFTwbJiNzFMEToiA9axVJKIGT+dXZ3hU6v0cRhrWxLwTP09kZLImEkU2M6IwNAselPxP6+TQHjtp1yqBJik80VhIjDEeBoB7nPNKIiJJYRqbm/FdEg0oWCDKtoQvMWXl0nzvOJVK5d3F+VaNY+jgI7RCTpDHrpCNXSL6qiBKNLoGb2iN+fReXHenY9564qTzxyhP3A+fwCLFZMr</latexit>

vapp v2
<latexit sha1_base64="uyzLq2KI2ouC1VDW1XcVWQbYOAI=">AAAB6nicbVDLTgJBEOzFF+IL9ehlIjHxRHaJryPRi0eM8khgQ2aHXpgwO7uZmSUhhE/w4kFjvPpF3vwbB9iDgpV0UqnqTndXkAiujet+O7m19Y3Nrfx2YWd3b/+geHjU0HGqGNZZLGLVCqhGwSXWDTcCW4lCGgUCm8HwbuY3R6g0j+WTGSfoR7QvecgZNVZ6HHUr3WLJLbtzkFXiZaQEGWrd4lenF7M0QmmYoFq3PTcx/oQqw5nAaaGTakwoG9I+ti2VNELtT+anTsmZVXokjJUtachc/T0xoZHW4yiwnRE1A73szcT/vHZqwht/wmWSGpRssShMBTExmf1NelwhM2JsCWWK21sJG1BFmbHpFGwI3vLLq6RRKXtX5cuHi1L1NosjDydwCufgwTVU4R5qUAcGfXiGV3hzhPPivDsfi9ack80cwx84nz8NaI2p</latexit>

receiv er 2

i3 i3
<latexit sha1_base64="37Tm1X60WLZ2TI8ZyqM+ntHkzMc=">AAAB6nicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKez6iB4DXjxGNA9IljA7mU2GzM4uM71CWPIJXjwo4tUv8ubfOEn2oNGChqKqm+6uIJHCoOt+OYWV1bX1jeJmaWt7Z3evvH/QMnGqGW+yWMa6E1DDpVC8iQIl7ySa0yiQvB2Mb2Z++5FrI2L1gJOE+xEdKhEKRtFK96J/3i9X3Ko7B/lLvJxUIEejX/7sDWKWRlwhk9SYrucm6GdUo2CST0u91PCEsjEd8q6likbc+Nn81Ck5scqAhLG2pZDM1Z8TGY2MmUSB7YwojsyyNxP/87ophtd+JlSSIldssShMJcGYzP4mA6E5QzmxhDIt7K2EjaimDG06JRuCt/zyX9I6q3q16uXdRaVey+MowhEcwyl4cAV1uIUGNIHBEJ7gBV4d6Tw7b877orXg5DOH8AvOxzf3c42R</latexit>

<latexit sha1_base64="37Tm1X60WLZ2TI8ZyqM+ntHkzMc=">AAAB6nicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKez6iB4DXjxGNA9IljA7mU2GzM4uM71CWPIJXjwo4tUv8ubfOEn2oNGChqKqm+6uIJHCoOt+OYWV1bX1jeJmaWt7Z3evvH/QMnGqGW+yWMa6E1DDpVC8iQIl7ySa0yiQvB2Mb2Z++5FrI2L1gJOE+xEdKhEKRtFK96J/3i9X3Ko7B/lLvJxUIEejX/7sDWKWRlwhk9SYrucm6GdUo2CST0u91PCEsjEd8q6likbc+Nn81Ck5scqAhLG2pZDM1Z8TGY2MmUSB7YwojsyyNxP/87ophtd+JlSSIldssShMJcGYzP4mA6E5QzmxhDIt7K2EjaimDG06JRuCt/zyX9I6q3q16uXdRaVey+MowhEcwyl4cAV1uIUGNIHBEJ7gBV4d6Tw7b877orXg5DOH8AvOxzf3c42R</latexit>

deepest point 1
Earth’s surface
virtual deepest point
1
<latexit sha1_base64="cvvqUQfyHebTKRo6RplHwH0EJD4=">AAACB3icbVDLSsNAFJ3UV62vqEtBBovgqiQq1Y1QdOOygn1AU8JkOmmHTh7M3BRLyM6Nv+LGhSJu/QV3/o3TNgttPXDhcM693HuPFwuuwLK+jcLS8srqWnG9tLG5tb1j7u41VZRIyho0EpFse0QxwUPWAA6CtWPJSOAJ1vKGNxO/NWJS8Si8h3HMugHph9znlICWXPNw5KYOsAdISRxnGb7Cji8JTe0sHblnmWuWrYo1BV4kdk7KKEfdNb+cXkSTgIVABVGqY1sxdFMigVPBspKTKBYTOiR91tE0JAFT3XT6R4aPtdLDfiR1hYCn6u+JlARKjQNPdwYEBmrem4j/eZ0E/MtuysM4ARbS2SI/ERgiPAkF97hkFMRYE0Il17diOiA6B9DRlXQI9vzLi6R5WrGrlerdebl2ncdRRAfoCJ0gG12gGrpFddRAFD2iZ/SK3own48V4Nz5mrQUjn9lHf2B8/gBlpZmn</latexit>

x x
x
vapp =
<latexit sha1_base64="I2TRNOSCVFLi2vd5FaYnPXyts0E=">AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEM36WetX1aOXYBE8lV3R6rHgxWMF+wHtWrJptg3NZkMyWy3L/g8vHhTx6n/x5r8xbfegrQ8GHu/NMDMvUIIbcN1vZ2V1bX1js7BV3N7Z3dsvHRw2TZxoyho0FrFuB8QwwSVrAAfB2kozEgWCtYLRzdRvjZk2PJb3MFHMj8hA8pBTAlZ6GPfSLrAnSIlSWdYrld2KOwNeJl5OyihHvVf66vZjmkRMAhXEmI7nKvBTooFTwbJiNzFMEToiA9axVJKIGT+dXZ3hU6v0cRhrWxLwTP09kZLImEkU2M6IwNAselPxP6+TQHjtp1yqBJik80VhIjDEeBoB7nPNKIiJJYRqbm/FdEg0oWCDKtoQvMWXl0nzvOJVK5d3F+VaNY+jgI7RCTpDHrpCNXSL6qiBKNLoGb2iN+fReXHenY9564qTzxyhP3A+fwCLFZMr</latexit>

vapp v3 <latexit sha1_base64="I2TRNOSCVFLi2vd5FaYnPXyts0E=">AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEM36WetX1aOXYBE8lV3R6rHgxWMF+wHtWrJptg3NZkMyWy3L/g8vHhTx6n/x5r8xbfegrQ8GHu/NMDMvUIIbcN1vZ2V1bX1js7BV3N7Z3dsvHRw2TZxoyho0FrFuB8QwwSVrAAfB2kozEgWCtYLRzdRvjZk2PJb3MFHMj8hA8pBTAlZ6GPfSLrAnSIlSWdYrld2KOwNeJl5OyihHvVf66vZjmkRMAhXEmI7nKvBTooFTwbJiNzFMEToiA9axVJKIGT+dXZ3hU6v0cRhrWxLwTP09kZLImEkU2M6IwNAselPxP6+TQHjtp1yqBJik80VhIjDEeBoB7nPNKIiJJYRqbm/FdEg0oWCDKtoQvMWXl0nzvOJVK5d3F+VaNY+jgI7RCTpDHrpCNXSL6qiBKNLoGb2iN+fReXHenY9564qTzxyhP3A+fwCLFZMr</latexit>

vapp v3
<latexit sha1_base64="EOJnlfDKBnkS7K5vvvMThZvXyPQ=">AAAB6nicbVDLTgJBEOzFF+IL9ehlIjHxRHZ9H4lePGKURwIbMjs0MGF2djMzS0I2fIIXDxrj1S/y5t84wB4UrKSTSlV3uruCWHBtXPfbya2srq1v5DcLW9s7u3vF/YO6jhLFsMYiEalmQDUKLrFmuBHYjBXSMBDYCIZ3U78xQqV5JJ/MOEY/pH3Je5xRY6XHUee8Uyy5ZXcGsky8jJQgQ7VT/Gp3I5aEKA0TVOuW58bGT6kynAmcFNqJxpiyIe1jy1JJQ9R+Ojt1Qk6s0iW9SNmShszU3xMpDbUeh4HtDKkZ6EVvKv7ntRLTu/FTLuPEoGTzRb1EEBOR6d+kyxUyI8aWUKa4vZWwAVWUGZtOwYbgLb68TOpnZe+qfPlwUarcZnHk4QiO4RQ8uIYK3EMVasCgD8/wCm+OcF6cd+dj3ppzsplD+APn8wcO7I2q</latexit>

ray 1
deepest point 2

ray 2 heterogeneity
velocity varying with depth
Source
sin i
<latexit sha1_base64="I4lgf4qEPwfT5RFZYA2UQtHpg+E=">AAACHHicbVDLSsNAFJ34rPUVdelmsAiuSuKjuhEKblxWsA9oSplMJ+3QySTM3BRLyIe48VfcuFDEjQvBv3GadqGtBwYO55zLnXv8WHANjvNtLS2vrK6tFzaKm1vbO7v23n5DR4mirE4jEamWTzQTXLI6cBCsFStGQl+wpj+8mfjNEVOaR/IexjHrhKQvecApASN17bNRN/WAPUBK4jjL8DX2AkVo6mkuMc/SUS7lARpJDURC1rVLTtnJgReJOyMlNEOta396vYgmIZNABdG67ToxdFKigFPBsqKXaBYTOiR91jZUkpDpTpofl+Fjo/RwECnzJOBc/T2RklDrceibZEhgoOe9ifif104guOqkXMYJMEmni4JEYIjwpCnc44pREGNDCFXc/BXTATHlgOmzaEpw509eJI3TslspX9ydl6qVWR0FdIiO0Aly0SWqoltUQ3VE0SN6Rq/ozXqyXqx362MaXbJmMwfoD6yvH30Motg=</latexit>

vapp = = constant
v CMB

Figure 1: a) Ray theory in a layered medium. b) Second-order finite-difference slowness approximation. c) The virtual
receiver approach methodology proposed in this study.

3 Validation
3.1 Theory
We validate the accuracy of eq. (4), for which we will assume, like in the rest of the paper, that x0 is the middle location
between x1 and x2 . We assume that the observed slowness (uobserved ) can be written as the predicted slowness using certain
earth model (umodel ) plus a slowness perturbation/deviation (δ u) as follows

uobserved (x0 ) = umodel (x0 ) + δ u,

∆t observed
≈ , (6)
∆d
∆t2 − ∆t1
≈ umodel (x0 ) + ,
∆d
observed − t model .
where we have used the notation (∆t1 , ∆t2 ) = ∆t1,2 and with ∆t1,2 = t1,2 1,2
Note that the slowness variation δ u is simply given by the difference time anomalies ∆t1 , ∆t2 measured at the two
stations and divided by ∆d, that is,
∆t1 − ∆t2
δu = . (7)
∆d
Equation (7) means that any error in the slowness calculations will arise from travel time measurements only. If we
observed ) as follows
assume a linear dependence between the model and observations we can write observed travel times (t1,2

observed model
t1,2 = α1,2t1,2 , with α1,2 ∈ R, (8)

which leads to
model observed model
∆t1,2 (x0 ) = t1,2 − t1,2 = (1 − α1,2 )t1,2 , with α1,2 ∈ R, (9)

where α1,2 are non-dimensional real parameters. Equation (9) implies that both rays should see the same (anomalous)
structure (see Fig. 1–c, otherwise we will not be able to correctly image a structure). This means that the non-dimensional

4
a) b)

zoom
zoom

Figure 2: a) Illustration of a 1D model v0 and its corresponding predicted models for a relative slowness calculations of
±2% predicted using eq. (4). b) Bouncing depth (deepest point) of the S wave predicted by different tomographic models.

parameters (α1,2 ) should be the same at both receivers, i.e., α1 = α2 = α. We thus can write eq. (6) as follows

∆t observed t2model − t1model

uobserved (x0 ) ≈ = (1 − α) . (10)
∆d ∆d
In practice, however, α1 ̸= α2 and therefore we must allow some error (ε), i.e.,
|α1 − α2 | < ε, with ε ∈ R+ . (11)

3.2 Numerical results

For travel time and slowness calculations we use the TauP toolkit (Crotwell et al., 1999) implemented in Obspy (Krischer
et al., 2015).

What does a velocity perturbation of X% mean?: The approximation of the slowness given by eq. (4) suggests that
any travel time perturbation α will make a change in the slowness prediction. This means that any change in the slowness
will be mapped into the whole initial assumed velocity model. In other words, any 1D or 2D initial model will be equally
perturbed in its totality (see Fig. 2–a).

Depth predictions: Absolute velocity predictions obtained using eq. 4 are independent of the earth model assumed.
However, to locate/assign the deepest point of the ray (bounding location) we need to assume an earth model. Different
1D tomographic models can be used for this purpose. To develop intuition on the different depth obtained we assume a
200 km deep event and four different tomographic models: PREM (Dziewonski and Anderson, 1981), AK135 (Kennett
et al., 1995), SP6 (Morelli and Dziewonski, 1993) and IASP91 (Kennett and Engdahl, 1991). Different bouncing point
for S waves are presented in Fig. 2–b, where we can observe that at short distances (∼ 40◦ ) the maximum differences
between in the depths predictions is ∼ 4 km, and a larger distances (∼ 90◦ ) the maximum differences between in the
depth predictions is ∼ 30 km.
For the rest of the calculations we will assume the earth model PREM (Dziewonski and Anderson, 1981). Assuming
any other earth model will lead to the same analysis presented next.

The sensitivity to station-to-station distance: To evaluate the influence of station-to-station distance in slowness cal-
culations using eq. (4), we first assume an event at 500 km depth and a first station located at 70◦ epicentral distance.
We next vary the epicentral distance of the second station between [0.001◦ , 15◦ ]. Results are presented in Fig. 3–a, were
we can observe that the relative error is smaller than 0.0004 for station-to-station distance smaller than fifteen degrees.
These are unexpected results since at distances larger than two degrees one can, intuitively, expect the approximation to
break-down.

5
a) b)

c) d)

Figure 3: Methodology validation.

6
 Figure 4: Data used int this study.

The sensitivity to the event depth: Having validated the sensitivity to station-to-station distance, we now evaluate the
sensitivity to the event depth. We select two stations at 77◦ and 80◦ , i.e., separated by three degrees. We select three
degrees as the largest distance that one can intuitively apply eq. (4). Results are presented in Fig. 3–b, were we can
observe that the relative errors are always smaller than 0.0001. It thus seems that the approximation made in eq. (4) is
also insensitive to the event depth.

The sensitivity to velocity perturbations: We can evaluate a velocity perturbation as seen by the slowness by simply
adding travel-time perturbations to eq. (10) using a single α parameter. This means that we are assuming that both
recorded travel times (t1 ,t2 ) see exactly the same anomaly perturbation. Results are presented in Fig. 3–c, where we
can observe that predictions are accurate up to ∼ ±3%. This result is consistent and expected due to limitations of the
approximations made by ray theory. We thus cannot expect to realistically obtain/interpret velocity perturbations larger
than ∼ ±3%.

The sensitivity to ε (eq. (11)): In realistic scenarios, when evaluating eq. (9), we should expect that α1 ̸= α2 . These
parameters give information about the heterogeneities that both rays are crossing: If α1 = α2 = α, then it is guarantied
that both rays see the same structure. In realistic scenarios, on the contrary, we must allow some error ε (see eq. (11)).
We next evaluate the magnitude of the error ε in eq. (11) for different velocity perturbations. Results are presented
in Fig. 3–d, where we can observe that predictions are highly sensitive to small perturbations of ε. These results suggest
that in order to have consistent predictions ∼ ±3%, we should set ε ≤ 0.001.

4 Application to seismological observations

We use the travel-time database provided by Lai et al. (2019). Data selected bouncing depth larger than 2500 km for a
total of 4245 measurements

7
High velocity anomalies inside the LLSVP High velocity anomalies inside the LLSVP

Galapagos Galapagos

LLSVP
LLSVP
boundary
boundary

High velocity anomalies inside the LLSVP High velocity anomalies inside the LLSVP

Galapagos Galapagos

LLSVP LLSVP
boundary boundary

High velocity anomalies inside the LLSVP

High velocity anomalies inside the LLSVP

Galapagos
Galapagos

LLSVP LLSVP
boundary boundary

Figure 5: Galapagos plume....

8
5 Discussion
Slowness calculations can also be done, for example, using a pair of translational and rotational stations (Igel et al., 2021;
Fichtner and Igel, 2009; Bernauer et al., 2020, 2012; Trifunac, 2006; Bernauer et al., 2009, 2014; Reinwald et al., 2016;
Abreu et al., 2023).

6 Conclusions
7 Acknowledgments
XX.

References
Abreu, R., Durand, S., Rost, S., and Thomas, C. (2023). Deep earth rotational seismology. Geophysical Journal International, 234(3):2365–2374.

Aki, K., Christoffersson, A., and Husebye, E. S. (1977). Determination of the three-dimensional seismic structure of the lithosphere. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 82(2):277–296.

Avants, M., Lay, T., Russell, S. A., and Garnero, E. J. (2006). Shear velocity variation within the D" region beneath the central Pacific. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B5).

Ballmer, M. D., Schumacher, L., Lekic, V., Thomas, C., and Ito, G. (2016). Compositional layering within the large low shear-wave velocity provinces
in the lower mantle. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 17(12):5056–5077.

Bernauer, F., Wassermann, J., and Igel, H. (2020). Dynamic tilt correction using direct rotational motion measurements. Seismological Society of
America, 91(5):2872–2880.

Bernauer, M., Fichtner, A., and Igel, H. (2009). Inferring earth structure from combined measurements of rotational and translational ground motions.
Geophysics, 74(6):WCD41–WCD47.

Bernauer, M., Fichtner, A., and Igel, H. (2012). Measurements of translation, rotation and strain: new approaches to seismic processing and inversion.
Journal of Seismology, 16(4):669–681.

Bernauer, M., Fichtner, A., and Igel, H. (2014). Reducing nonuniqueness in finite source inversion using rotational ground motions. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 119(6):4860–4875.

Bozdağ, E., Peter, D., Lefebvre, M., Komatitsch, D., Tromp, J., Hill, J., Podhorszki, N., and Pugmire, D. (2016). Global adjoint tomography: first-
generation model. Geophysical Journal International, 207(3):1739–1766.

Brown, S. P., Thorne, M. S., Miyagi, L., and Rost, S. (2015). A compositional origin to ultralow-velocity zones. Geophysical Research Letters,
42(4):1039–1045.

Burke, K., Steinberger, B., Torsvik, T. H., and Smethurst, M. A. (2008). Plume generation zones at the margins of large low shear velocity provinces on
the core–mantle boundary. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 265(1):49–60.

Crotwell, H. P., Owens, T. J., and Ritsema, J. (1999). The TauP Toolkit: Flexible seismic travel-time and ray-path utilities. Seismological Research
Letters, 70(2):154–160.

Davaille, A., Le Bars, M., and Carbonne, C. (2003). Thermal convection in a heterogeneous mantle. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 335(1):141–156.

Davies, G. and Dziewonski, A. (1975). Homogeneity and constitution of the Earth’s lower mantle and outer core. Physics of the Earth and Planetary
Interiors, 10(4):336–343.

Dziewonski, A. M. (1984). Mapping the lower mantle: determination of lateral heterogeneity in P velocity up to degree and order 6. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 89(B7):5929–5952.

Dziewonski, A. M. and Anderson, D. L. (1981). Preliminary reference Earth model. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 25(4):297 – 356.

Dziewonski, A. M., Hager, B. H., and O’Connell, R. J. (1977). Large-scale heterogeneities in the lower mantle. Journal of Geophysical Research,
82(2):239–255.

Fichtner, A. and Igel, H. (2009). Sensitivity densities for rotational ground-motion measurements. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
99(2B):1302–1314.

Ford, S. R., Garnero, E. J., and McNamara, A. K. (2006). A strong lateral shear velocity gradient and anisotropy heterogeneity in the lowermost mantle
beneath the southern Pacific. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B3).

9
French, S. and Romanowicz, B. (2014). Whole-mantle radially anisotropic shear velocity structure from spectral-element waveform tomography.
Geophysical Journal International, 199(3):1303–1327.

Frost, D. A. and Rost, S. (2014). The P-wave boundary of the large-low shear velocity province beneath the Pacific. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, 403:380–392.

Frost, D. J., Liebske, C., Langenhorst, F., McCammon, C. A., Trønnes, R. G., and Rubie, D. C. (2004). Experimental evidence for the existence of
iron-rich metal in the Earth’s lower mantle. Nature, 428(6981):409–412.

Garnero, E. J. and Helmberger, D. V. (1995). A very slow basal layer underlying large-scale low-velocity anomalies in the lower mantle beneath the
Pacific: evidence from core phases. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 91(1-3):161–176.

Garnero, E. J. and McNamara, A. K. (2008). Structure and dynamics of Earth’s lower mantle. Science, 320(5876):626–628.

Garnero, E. J., Revenaugh, J., Williams, Q., Lay, T., and Kellogg, L. H. (1998). Ultralow velocity zone at the core-mantle boundary. In The Core–Mantle
Boundary Region, volume 28, pages 319–334. Wiley Online Library.

Hansen, U. and Yuen, D. (2000). Extended-boussinesq thermal–chemical convection with moving heat sources and variable viscosity. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, 176(3):401–411.

He, Y. and Wen, L. (2009). Structural features and shear-velocity structure of the “Pacific Anomaly". Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth,
114(B2).

He, Y., Wen, L., and Zheng, T. (2006). Geographic boundary and shear wave velocity structure of the “Pacific anomaly" near the core–mantle boundary
beneath western Pacific. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 244(1):302–314.

Helffrich, G. R. and Wood, B. J. (2001). The Earth’s mantle. Nature, 412(6846):501–507.

Hirose, K., Fei, Y., Ma, Y., and Mao, H.-K. (1999). The fate of subducted basaltic crust in the Earth’s lower mantle. Nature, 397(6714):53–56.

Igel, H., Schreiber, K. U., Gebauer, A., Bernauer, F., Egdorf, S., Simonelli, A., Liny, C.-J., Wassermann, J., Donner, S., Hadziioannou, C., et al. (2021).
Romy: A multi-component ring laser for geodesy and geophysics. Geophysical Journal International, 225(1):684–698.

Iitaka, T., Hirose, K., Kawamura, K., and Murakami, M. (2004). The elasticity of the MgSiO3 post-perovskite phase in the Earth’s lowermost mantle.
Nature, 430(6998):442–445.

Ishii, M. and Tromp, J. (2004). Constraining large-scale mantle heterogeneity using mantle and inner-core sensitive normal modes. Physics of the Earth
and Planetary Interiors, 146(1):113–124.

Jensen, K. J., Thorne, M. S., and Rost, S. (2013). SPdKS analysis of ultralow-velocity zones beneath the western Pacific. Geophysical Research Letters,
40(17):4574–4578.

Kaminsky, F. (2012). Mineralogy of the lower mantle: A review of ’super-deep’ mineral inclusions in diamond. Earth-Science Reviews, 110(1-4):127–
147.

Kennett, B. and Engdahl, E. (1991). Traveltimes for global earthquake location and phase identification. Geophysical Journal International, 105(2):429–
465.

Kennett, B. L., Engdahl, E., and Buland, R. (1995). Constraints on seismic velocities in the Earth from traveltimes. Geophysical Journal International,
122(1):108–124.

Kesson, S., Fitz Gerald, J., and Shelley, J. (1998). Mineralogy and dynamics of a pyrolite lower mantle. Nature, 393(6682):252–255.

King, S. D. and Anderson, D. L. (1998). Edge-driven convection. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 160(3):289–296.

Krischer, L., Megies, T., Barsch, R., Beyreuther, M., Lecocq, T., Caudron, C., and Wassermann, J. (2015). ObsPy: a bridge for seismology into the
scientific Python ecosystem. Computational Science and Discovery, 8(1):014003.

Lai, H., Garnero, E. J., Grand, S. P., Porritt, R. W., and Becker, T. W. (2019). Global travel time data set from adaptive empirical wavelet construction.
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 20(5):2175–2198.

Lay, T., Hernlund, J., and Buffett, B. A. (2008). Core–mantle boundary heat flow. Nature geoscience, 1(1):25–32.

Lay, T., Hernlund, J., Garnero, E. J., and Thorne, M. S. (2006). A post-perovskite lens and D" heat flux beneath the central Pacific. Science,
314(5803):1272–1276.

Mao, W. L., Mao, H.-k., Sturhahn, W., Zhao, J., Prakapenka, V. B., Meng, Y., Shu, J., Fei, Y., and Hemley, R. J. (2006). Iron-rich post-perovskite and
the origin of ultralow-velocity zones. Science, 312(5773):564–565.

Maruyama, S., Santosh, M., and Zhao, D. (2007). Superplume, supercontinent, and post-perovskite: mantle dynamics and anti-plate tectonics on the
core–mantle boundary. Gondwana Research, 11(1):7 – 37.

10
McNamara, A. K., Garnero, E. J., and Rost, S. (2010). Tracking deep mantle reservoirs with ultra-low velocity zones. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, 299(1):1–9.

McNamara, A. K. and Zhong, S. (2004). Thermochemical structures within a spherical mantle: Superplumes or piles? Journal of Geophysical Research:
Solid Earth, 109(B7).

McNamara, A. K. and Zhong, S. (2005). Thermochemical structures beneath Africa and the Pacific Ocean. Nature, 437(7062):1136–1139.

Morelli, A. and Dziewonski, A. M. (1993). Body wave traveltimes and a spherically symmetric P-and S-wave velocity model. Geophysical Journal
International, 112(2):178–194.

Mula, A. H. and Müller, G. (1980). Ray parameters of diffracted long period P and S waves and the velocities at the base of the mantle. pure and applied
geophysics, 118:1272–1292.

Murakami, M., Hirose, K., Kawamura, K., Sata, N., and Ohishi, Y. (2004). Post-perovskite phase transition in MgSiO3 . Science, 304(5672):855–858.

Murakami, M., Ohishi, Y., Hirao, N., and Hirose, K. (2012). A perovskitic lower mantle inferred from high-pressure, high-temperature sound velocity
data. Nature, 485(7396):90–94.

Ni, S., Tan, E., Gurnis, M., and Helmberger, D. (2002). Sharp sides to the African superplume. Science, 296(5574):1850–1852.

Oganov, A. R. and Ono, S. (2004). Theoretical and experimental evidence for a post-perovskite phase of mgsio3 in earth’s d” layer. Nature,
430(6998):445–448.

Parsons, B. and McKenzie, D. (1978). Mantle convection and the thermal structure of the plates. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth,
83(B9):4485–4496.

Reinwald, M., Bernauer, M., Igel, H., and Donner, S. (2016). Improved finite-source inversion through joint measurements of rotational and translational
ground motions: a numerical study. Solid Earth, 7(5):1467–1477.

Ritsema, J., Deuss, A., van Heijst, H. J., and Woodhouse, J. H. (2011). S40RTS: a degree-40 shear-velocity model for the mantle from new Rayleigh
wave dispersion, teleseismic traveltime and normal-mode splitting function measurements. Geophysical Journal International, 184(3):1223–1236.

Ritsema, J., van Heijst, H. J., and Woodhouse, J. H. (1999). Complex shear wave velocity structure imaged beneath Africa and Iceland. Science,
286(5446):1925–1928.

Rost, S. and Garnero, E. J. (2006). Detection of an ultralow velocity zone at the core-mantle boundary using diffracted PKKPab waves. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B7):B07309.

Rost, S., Garnero, E. J., and Stefan, W. (2010). Thin and intermittent ultralow-velocity zones. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 115(B6).

Rost, S., Garnero, E. J., and Williams, Q. (2006). Fine-scale ultralow-velocity zone structure from high-frequency seismic array data. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B9).

Rost, S. and Revenaugh, J. (2003). Small-scale ultralow-velocity zone structure imaged by ScP. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 108(B1).

Rost, S. and Thomas, C. (2002). Array seismology: Methods and applications. Reviews of Geophysics, 40(3):2–1.
′′
Souriau, A. and Poupinet, G. (1994). Lateral variations in P velocity and attenuation in the D layer, from diffracted P waves. Physics of the earth and
planetary interiors, 84(1-4):227–234.

Stein, S. and Wysession, M. (2009). An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure. John Wiley & Sons.

Sun, D. and Miller, M. S. (2013). Study of the western edge of the African large low shear velocity province. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems,
14(8):3109–3125.

Tanaka, S., Suetsugu, D., Shiobara, H., Sugioka, H., Kanazawa, T., Fukao, Y., Barruol, G., and Reymond, D. (2009). On the vertical extent of the large
low shear velocity province beneath the south Pacific superswell. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(7):L07305.

Thorne, M. S., Garnero, E. J., Jahnke, G., Igel, H., and McNamara, A. K. (2013a). Mega ultra low velocity zone and mantle flow. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, 364:59–67.

Thorne, M. S., Zhang, Y., and Ritsema, J. (2013b). Evaluation of 1-D and 3-D seismic models of the Pacific lower mantle with S, SKS, and SKKS
traveltimes and amplitudes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 118(3):985–995.

Trifunac, M. D. (2006). Effects of torsional and rocking excitations on the response of structures. In Earthquake Source Asymmetry, Structural Media
and Rotation Effects, pages 569–582. Springer.

Tsuchiya, T., Tsuchiya, J., Umemoto, K., and Wentzcovitch, R. M. (2004). Phase transition in MgSiO3 perovskite in the Earth’s lower mantle. Earth
and Planetary Science Letters, 224(3-4):241–248.

Turcotte, D. L. and Schubert, G. (2002). Geodynamics. Cambridge university press.

11
Vanacore, E., Rost, S., and Thorne, M. (2016). Ultralow-velocity zone geometries resolved by multidimensional waveform modelling. Geophysical
Journal International, 206(1):659–674.

Wang, Y. and Wen, L. (2004). Mapping the geometry and geographic distribution of a very low velocity province at the base of the Earth’s mantle.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 109(B10).

Wen, L. and Helmberger, D. V. (1998). Ultra-low velocity zones near the core-mantle boundary from broadband PKP precursors. Science,
279(5357):1701–1703.

Zhang, Y., Ritsema, J., and Thorne, M. S. (2009). Modeling the ratios of SKKS and SKS amplitudes with ultra-low velocity zones at the core-mantle
boundary. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(19):L19303.

12