Regression problems for magnitudes

Geophysical Journal International

Volumn 165, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 913-930

  Castellaro, Silvia ^a   Mulargia, F ^a   Kagan, Y Y ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Magnitude conversion; Orthogonal regression; Seismology; Statistical methods

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE; GAUSSIAN METHOD; LEAST SQUARES METHOD; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEISMOLOGY;

EID: 33745948590     PISSN: 0956540X     EISSN: 1365246X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02955.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Aki, K., 1965. Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N =a - bM and its confidence limits, Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. Tokyo Univ., 43, 237-239.
2. Ambraseys, N.N., 1990. Uniform magnitude reevaluation of European earthquakes associated with strong-motion recordings, Earthq. Eng. and Struct. Dyn., 19, 1-20.
3. Bindi, D., Spallarossa, D., Eva, C. & Cattaneo, M., 2005. Local and duration magnitudes in northwestern Italy, and seismic moment versus magnitude relationships, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 95, 592-604.
4. Bird, P. & Kagan, Y.Y., 2004. Plate-tectonic analysis of shallow seismicity: Apparent boundary width, beta, corner magnitude, coupled lithosphere thickness, and coupling in seven tectonic settings, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 94, 2380-2399.
5. Bormann, P. & Khalturin, V.I., 1975. Relations between different kinds of magnitude determinations and their regional variations. Proceedings of the XIVth General Assembly of the European Seismological Commission, Trieste, 16-22 September 1974, ed. Nationalkomitee für Geodäsie und Geophysik, AdK of the GDR, Berlin, 27-35.
6. Bormann, P. & Wylegalla, K., 1975. Untersuchung der Korrelationsbeziehungen zwischen verschiedenen Arten der Magnitudenbestimmung der Station Moxa in Abhängigkeit vom Gerätetyp und vom Herdgebiet, Publs. Inst. Geophys. Pol. Ac. Sci., 93, 159-175.
7. Braunmiller, J., Deichmann, N., Giardini, D., Wiemer, S. & the SED Magnitude Working Group, 2005. Homogeneous moment-magnitude calibration in Switzerland, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 95 (1), 58-74.
8. Carroll, R.J. & Ruppert, D., 1996. The use and misuse of orthogonal regression in linear errors-in-variables models, American Statistician, 50, 1-6.
9. Cavallini, F. & Rebez, A., 1996. Representing earthquake intensity magnitude relationship with a nonlinear function, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., 86 (1), 73-78.
10. Choy, G.L. & Boatwright, J.L., 1995. Global patterns of radiated seismic energy and apparent stress, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 18205-18228.
11. Cornell, C.A, 1968. Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 58, 1583-1606.
12. Draper, N.R. & Smith, H., 1998. Applied Regression Analysis, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, 3rd edn, Wiley, New York.
13. Fuller, W.A., 1987. Measurement Error Models, John Wiley, New York.
14. Gasperini, P., 2002. Local magnitude revaluation for recent Italian earthquakes (1981-1996), J. Seismology, 6, 503-524.
15. Gasperini, P. & Ferrari, G., 2000. Deriving numerical estimates from descriptive information: The computation of earthquakes parameters, Annali di Geofisica, 43, 729-746.
16. w based earthquake catalogue for central, northern and northwestern Europe using a hierarchy of magnitude conversions, J. Seismology, 7 (4), 507-531.
17. Gutdeutsch, R., Kaiser, D. & Jentzsch, G., 2002. Estimation of earthquake magnitudes from epicentral intensities and other focal parameters in Central and Southern Europe, Geophys. J. Int., 151 (3), 824-834.
18. Gutdeutsch, R., Kaiser, D., Bormann, P., Riufeng, L. & Ren, X., 2005. Regressionanalyse zur Umrechnung zwischen Magnituden des chinesischen Erdbebendienstes und des NEIC, Mitteilung der Deutschen Geophysikalischen Gesellschaft, 3, 14-22.
19. Gutenberg, B. & Richter, C.F., 1944, Frequency of earthquakes in California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 46, 105-145.
20. Haberman, R.E., 1986. A test of two techniques for identifying systematic errors in magnitude estimates using data from the Parkfield, California region, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 82, 533 -579.
21. Hanks, T.C., 1992. Small earthquakes, tectonic forces, Science, 256, 1430-1432.
22. Hanks, T.C. & Kanamori, H., 1979. A moment-magnitude scale, J. Geophys. Res., 84, 2348-2350.
23. Hollander, M. & Wolfe, D.A., 1999. Nonparametric Statistical Methods, 2nd edn, New York, Wiley, p. 787.
24. Ishimoto, M. & Iida, K., 1939, Observations sur les seisms energistré per le microseismograph construite dernierment (I), Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst., 17, 443-478, in Japanese.
25. Kagan, Y.Y., 2002a. Seismic moment distribution revisited: II. Moment conservation principle, Geophys. J. Int., 149, 731-754.
26. Kagan, Y.Y., 2002b. Modern California earthquake catalogs and their comparison, Seism. Res. Lett., 73 (6), 921-929.
27. Kagan, Y.Y., 2003. Accuracy of modern global earthquake catalogs, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. (PEPI), 135 (2-3), 173-209.
28. Kagan, Y.Y., 2005. Earthquake slip distribution: A statistical model, J. Geophys. Res., 110 (5), B05S11, doi:, 1-15.
29. Kárnik, V., 1996. Seismicity of Europe and the Mediterranean, ed. Klima, Academy of Science of the Czech Republic StudiaGeo s.s.r.o. and Geophysical Institute, Praha (KA96).
30. Katsura, K. & Ogata, Y., 2004. Simultaneous estimation of b -values and detection rates of earthquakes for the application to aftershock probability forecasting, Eos Trans. AGU, 85 (47), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract S22A-06.
31. Kaverina, A.N., Lander, A.V. & Prozorov, A.G., 1996. Global creepex distribution and its relation to earthquake-source geometry and tectonic origin, Geophys. J. Int., 125, 249-265.
32. Kendall, M.G., 1962. Rank Correlation Methods, 3rd edn, Griffin, London.
33. Kendall, M.G. & Stuart, A., 1979. The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 2, 4th edn, Griffin, London.
34. Knopoff, L., 2000. The magnitude distribution of declustered earthquakes in Southern California, P. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 97, 11880-11884.
35. Lee, W.H.K., Bennet, R.E. & Meagher, K.L., 1972. A method of estimating magnitude of local earthquakes from signal duration, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep., p. 28.
36. Madansky, A., 1959. The fitting of straight lines when both variables are subject to error, J. Am. Statist. Assoc., 54, 173-205.
37. NMSOP, New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice, 2002. GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Bormann P. Editor, 2 Volumes, ISBN 3-9808780-0-7.
38. L): The case of the Italian region, Terra Nova, 5 (2), 150-156.
39. Pérez, O., 1999. Revised world seismicity catalog (1950-1997) for strong (M S ≥ 6) shallow (h ≤ 70 km) earthquakes, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 89, 335-341.
40. Reiersol, O., 1950. Identifiability of a linear relation between variables which are subject to error, Econometrica, 18 (4), 375-389.
41. Sen, P.K., 1968. Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall's tau, J. Am. Stat. Ass., 63, 1379-1389.
42. Stefanski, L.A. & Cook J.R., 1995. Simulation-extrapolation: The measurement error jackknife, in Theory and Methods, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 90 (432), 1247-1256.
43. w based earthquake catalogue for central, northern and northwestern Europe, J. Seismology, 8 (1), 143-153.
44. Tinti, S. & Mulargia, F., 1985. Effects of magnitude uncertainties on estimating the parameters in the Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude law, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., 75, 1681-1697.
45. Utsu, T., 1999. Representation and analysis of the earthquake size distribution: A historical review and some new approaches, Pure Appl. Geophys., 155, 509-535.
46. Weichert, D., 1980. Estimation of earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 70, 1337-1356.
47. Wetherill, G.B., 1986. Regression Analysis with Applications, Chapman and Hall, London, p. 311.
48. York, D., 1967. The best isochron, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 2, 479-482.
49. Zúñiga, F.R. & Wyss, M., 1995. Inadvertent changes in magnitude reported in earthquake catgalogs: Their evalutation through b -value estimates, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 85, 1858-1866.