A Poisson model for identifying characteristic size effects in frequency data: Application to frequency‐size distributions for global earthquakes, “starquakes”, and fault lengths

The standard Gaussian distribution for incremental frequency data requires a constant variance which is independent of the mean. We develop a more general and appropriate method based on the Poisson distribution, which assumes different unknown variances for the frequencies, equal to the means. We explicitly include “empty bins”, and our method is quite insensitive to the choice of bin width. We develop a maximum likelihood technique that minimizes bias in the curve fits, and penalizes additional free parameters by objective information criteria. Various data sets are used to test three different physical models that have been suggested for the density distribution: the power law; the double power law; and the “gamma” distribution. For the CMT catalog of global earthquakes, two peaks in the posterior distribution are observed at moment magnitudes m* = 6.4 and 6.9 implying a bimodal distribution of seismogenic depth at around 15 and 30 km, respectively. A similar break at a characteristic length of 60 km or so is observed in moment-length data, but this does not outperform the simpler power law model. For the earthquake frequency-moment data the gamma distribution provides the best overall fit to the data, implying a finite correlation length and a system near but below the critical point. In contrast, data from soft gamma ray repeaters show that the power law is the best fit, implying infinite correlation length and a system that is precisely critical. For the fault break data a significant break of slope is found instead at characteristic scale of 44 km, implying a typical seismogenic thickness of up to 22 km or so in west central Nevada. The exponent changes from 1.5 to −2.1, too large to be accounted for by changes in sampling for an ideal, isotropic fractal set.

[1]  Shamita Das,et al.  Analysis of the relationship between seismic moment and fault length for large crustal strike‐slip earthquakes between 1977–92 , 1996 .

[2]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1972, Predictive Analytics.

[3]  C. Scholz The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting , 1990 .

[4]  Richard A. Johnson An Asymptotic Expansion for Posterior Distributions , 1967 .

[5]  O. Papasouliotis,et al.  One slope or two? Detecting statistically significant breaks of slope in geophysical data, with application to fracture scaling relationships , 1999 .

[6]  I. Main Apparent Breaks in Scaling in the Earthquake Cumulative Frequency-Magnitude Distribution: Fact or Artifact? , 2000 .

[7]  Barbara Romanowicz,et al.  Strike‐slip earthquakes on quasi‐vertical transcurrent faults: Inferences for general scaling relations , 1992 .

[8]  Javier F. Pacheco,et al.  Changes in frequency–size relationship from small to large earthquakes , 1992, Nature.

[9]  Yan Y. Kagan,et al.  Seismic moment‐frequency relation for shallow earthquakes: Regional comparison , 1997 .

[10]  Philip G. Meredith,et al.  A COMPARISON OF SEISMIC AND STRUCTURAL MEASUREMENTS OF SCALING EXPONENTS DURING TENSILE SUBCRITICAL CRACK-GROWTH , 1993 .

[11]  G. M. Laslett,et al.  GENERALIZATIONS OF POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE TO SAMPLED FAULT-TRACE LENGTHS : MODEL CHOICE, PARAMETER ESTIMATION AND CAVEATS , 1999 .

[12]  Global Seismic Oscillations in Soft Gamma Repeaters , 1998, astro-ph/9803060.

[13]  J. Dickey Approximate Posterior Distributions , 1976 .

[14]  C. E. Meyer,et al.  Surface faulting and paleoseismic history of the 1932 Cedar Mountain earthquake area, west-central Nevada, and implications for modern tectonics of the Walker Lane , 1999 .

[15]  R. Marrett Aggregate properties of fracture populations , 1996 .

[16]  Y. Kagan Universality of the Seismic Moment-frequency Relation , 1999 .

[17]  R. Guyer,et al.  Earthquake-like behaviour of soft γ-ray repeaters , 1996, Nature.

[18]  L. Sykes,et al.  Frequency of occurrence of moderate to great earthquakes in intracontinental regions: Implications for changes in stress, earthquake prediction, and hazards assessments , 1997 .

[19]  Orestis Papasouliotis,et al.  Statistical methods for the analysis of covariance and spatio-temporal models , 2000 .

[20]  T. Utsu Representation and Analysis of the Earthquake Size Distribution: A Historical Review and Some New Approaches , 1999 .

[21]  K. Aki 17. Maximum Likelihood Estimate of b in the Formula logN=a-bM and its Confidence Limits , 1965 .

[22]  D. Sornette,et al.  Rank‐ordering statistics of extreme events: Application to the distribution of large earthquakes , 1995, cond-mat/9510035.

[23]  Ian G. Main,et al.  Statistical physics, seismogenesis, and seismic hazard , 1996 .

[24]  Christopher H. Scholz,et al.  A reappraisal of large earthquake scaling , 1994 .

[25]  I. Main,et al.  Statistical physics of earthquakes: Comparison of distribution exponents for source area and potential energy and the dynamic emergence of log‐periodic energy quanta , 2000 .

[26]  C. Kouveliotou,et al.  Statistical Properties of SGR 1806–20 Bursts , 2000, The Astrophysical journal.

[27]  M. Ishiguro,et al.  A Bayesian approach to the detection of changes in the magnitude-frequency relation of earthquakes. , 1986 .

[28]  M. Imoto An application of Bayesian (ABIC) smoothing methods to estimating space and time variations in the magnitude distributions of earthquakes , 1991 .

[29]  Yosihiko Ogata,et al.  Statistical model for standard seismicity and detection of anomalies by residual analysis , 1989 .