Estimating Background Activity Based on Interevent-Time Distribution

The statistics of time delays between successive earthquakes has re- cently been claimed to be universal and to show the existence of clustering beyond the duration of aftershock bursts. We demonstrate that these claims are unjustified. Stochastic simulations with Poissonian background activity and triggered Omori- type aftershock sequences are shown to reproduce the interevent-time distributions observed on different spatial and magnitude scales in California. Thus the empirical distribution can be explained without any additional long-term clustering. Further- more, we find that the shape of the interevent-time distribution, which can be ap- proximated by the gamma distribution, is determined by the percentage of main- shocks in the catalog. This percentage can be calculated by the mean and variance of the interevent times and varies between 5% and 90% for different regions in California. Our investigation of stochastic simulations indicates that the interevent- time distribution provides a nonparametric reconstruction of the mainshock magnitude-frequency distribution that is superior to standard declustering algorithm.

[1]  D. Vere-Jones,et al.  Analyzing earthquake clustering features by using stochastic reconstruction , 2004 .

[2]  Christian Goltz,et al.  Are seismic waiting time distributions universal , 2004 .

[3]  Charles F. Richter,et al.  Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy, and acceleration(Second paper) , 1956 .

[4]  Alvaro Corral.  Long-term clustering, scaling, and universality in the temporal occurrence of earthquakes. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[5]  Yan Y. Kagan,et al.  Likelihood analysis of earthquake catalogues , 1991 .

[6]  R. E. Habermann,et al.  Case 23 nomination of precursory seismic quiescence as a significant precursor , 1997 .

[7]  Yosihiko Ogata,et al.  Statistical Models for Earthquake Occurrences and Residual Analysis for Point Processes , 1988 .

[8]  G. Molchan.  Interevent Time Distribution in Seismicity: A Theoretical Approach , 2004, physics/0404111.

[9]  L. R. Sykes,et al.  Evolving Towards a Critical Point: A Review of Accelerating Seismic Moment/Energy Release Prior to Large and Great Earthquakes , 1999 .

[10]  P. Bak,et al.  Unified scaling law for earthquakes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  P. Reasenberg.  Second‐order moment of central California seismicity, 1969–1982 , 1985 .

[12]  Charles F. Richter,et al.  Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy, and acceleration , 1942 .

[13]  Y. Ogata,et al.  The Centenary of the Omori Formula for a Decay Law of Aftershock Activity , 1995 .

[14]  Rachel E. Abercrombie,et al.  Triggering of the 1999 MW 7.1 Hector Mine earthquake by aftershocks of the 1992 MW 7.3 Landers earthquake , 2002 .

[15]  Constraints on the size of the smallest triggering earthquake from the epidemic-type aftershock sequence model, Bath's law, and observed aftershock sequences , 2004, physics/0411114.

[16]  D. Sornette,et al.  Subcritical and supercritical regimes in epidemic models of earthquake aftershocks , 2001, cond-mat/0109318.

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

[18]  Yachen Lin.  Introductory Statistics and Random Phenomena , 1999, Technometrics.