0 views

Uploaded by Cece Solihin

methods GR

- 1968 Paper - Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis
- Course Project - Part A - Math 533
- Creating Simple Graphics Using SAS - Sgplot Sgscatter Sgpanel
- Atkinson Boore
- Why Time Seems to Go by More Quickly as We Get Older
- HF and Seismic Activity Report v2
- B. A Notice.doc
- Carlson Langer (1)
- Earthquake_document.pdf
- Earth Science Earth Quake Unit Test
- Engdahl 1998.pdf
- Biology unit 6 Jan 2012 question paper
- Analisis.docx
- Seismic Analysis of Structures
- DS_3.1_rev1
- Abb Sismo 2750 515-88 en Rev 4
- photo essay analysis
- Collaborative Study Validation Guidelines
- Watchtower, 2012 - Emergency Prepareness Plan
- Historic Earthquakes

You are on page 1of 24

net/publication/303777474

DOI: 10.1007/s10950-016-9589-1

CITATIONS READS

5 408

5 authors, including:

Ensenada Center for Scientiﬁc Research and Higher Education UNAM

92 PUBLICATIONS 458 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Ensenada Center for Scientiﬁc Research and Higher Education

106 PUBLICATIONS 1,068 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Numerical Simulation of Earthquake Rupture using the Fiber Bundle Model View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fidencio Alejandro Nava on 04 July 2016.

Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript b_numJS.docx

1

2

3

4

5

Gutenberg-Richter b-value Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Sample

6

7 Size

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 F.A.Nava, V.H.Márquez-Ramírez, F.R. Zúñiga, L.Ávila-Barrientos, C.B.Quinteros

15

16

17

18

19

20

Abstract

21

22

The Aki-Utsu maximum-likelihood method is widely used for estimation of the

23

24

25 Gutenberg-Richter b-value, but not all authors are conscious of the method’s limitations

26

27 and implicit requirements. The Aki/Utsu method requires a representative estimate of the

28

29

30 population mean magnitude; a requirement seldom satisfied in b-value studies,

31

32 particularly in those that use data from small geographic and/or time windows, such as b-

33

34

35 mapping and b-vs-time studies. Monte-Carlo simulation methods are used to determine

36

37 how large a sample is necessary to achieve representativity, particularly for rounded

38

39

40

magnitudes. The size of a representative sample weakly depends on the actual b-value. It

41

42 is shown that, for commonly used precisions, small samples give meaningless estimations

43

44 of b. Our results give estimates on the probabilities of getting correct estimates of b for a

45

46

47 given desired precision for samples of different sizes. We submit that all published

48

49 studies reporting b-value estimations should include information about the size of the

50

51

52 samples used.

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62 1

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 1. Introduction

5

6

7 Possibly the most widely used statistical relation in seismology is the Gutenberg-Richter

8

9

10 (G-R) distribution (Ishimoto and Iida 1939; Gutenberg and Richter 1944; Richter 1958),

11

12 which relates the number of earthquakes above a given magnitude, N ( M ) , to the

13

14

15 magnitude, M, as

16

17

18 log10 N (M ) a b (M M1 ); M M1 , (1)

19

20

21 where M1 is a lower threshold below which magnitudes are not considered. Parameter a

22

23

24 is the logarithm of the total number of earthquakes with magnitude M M1 , and is a

25

26

27 constant that depends on the seismicity rate and the length of the observation time.

28

29 Parameter b, widely referred to as the b-value, hereafter referred to as b, is a constant

30

31

32 that relates the relative numbers of small to large magnitudes. Typically, b ~ 1, and M1

33

34

35 is the completeness magnitude below which log10 N( M ) ceases to behave linearly due to

36

37 insufficient coverage (e.g. Wiemer and Wyss 2000).

38

39

40

41

Usually M1 is estimated from the observed log10 N( M ) or from the non-cumulative

42

43

44

log10 n( M ) histograms, which requires a sufficiently representative magnitude sample.

45

46 However, this is not always the case: sometimes M1 may be estimated for a given data

47

48

49 set, and then used for a different dataset; not uncommon is the use of the completeness

50

51 magnitude appropriate for the complete data set of a given seismic network or array in

52

53

54 studies involving subsets of the data.

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62 2

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 Since the G-R relation gives estimates for the occurrence ratio of earthquakes with

5

6

7 magnitudes above a given value, b has been widely used for seismic hazard and risk

8

9 estimations (e.g. Bender 1983). An inverse relationship between b and the stress level in a

10

11

12 given region has been proposed (e.g. Scholz 1968; Ghosh et al. 2008), and several studies

13

14 have found possibly premonitory behavior in the values of b before large earthquakes (e.g.

15

16

17 Shaw et al. 1992; Wyss and Wiemer 2000; Enescu and Ito 2001; Márquez-Ramirez 2012).

18

19 Regional variations of b have been used to identify zones susceptible to large ruptures

20

21 (e.g. Wiemer and Wyss 1997; Zúñiga and Wyss 2001, Montuori et al. 2010). Since Aki

22

23

24 (1981) proposed a relation between b and the fractal dimension of fault planes, b has been

25

26 emplyed in seismic fractality studies (e.g. Singh et al. 2009).

27

28

29 The many applications of b in seismology, particularly on the field of seismic hazard

30

31

32 estimation, indicate the necessity of estimating b correctly in order to obtain meaningful

33

34 and reliable results. In what follows we will address the problem of sampling and the

35

36

37 reliability associated with it.

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

2. The Problem

47

48

49

50

51 Equation (1) implies that magnitudes are distributed exponentially as

52

53

54 ( M M1 )

55 f (M ) e ; M M1 , (2)

56

57

58 where b ln(10) .

59

60

61

62 3

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 Based on the premise of this magnitude distribution, Aki (1965) showed that the

5

6

7 maximum-likelihood estimate of b is

8

9

log

10 e

10 𝑏 = 𝑀̅−𝑀 (3)

11 1

12

13

14 where M is the observed mean magnitude.

15

16

17 In practice, magnitudes are rounded to some M , usually M 0.1 , and when

18

19 magnitudes are rounded, the actual minimum magnitude is M1 M / 2 and, instead of

20

21

22 (3), Utsu’s (1965) formula

23

24

25 log10 e

𝑏 = 𝑀̅−(𝑀 (4)

26 1 −∆𝑀/2)

27

28

29 is applicable.

30

31

32 Once M1 has been estimated, formulae (3) or (4) have been used as a simple and

33

34

35

straightforward way of estimating b, which is less cumbersome than that of fitting a

36

37 straight line to the magnitude histogram.

38

39

40 However it is often not taken into account that b and M in the above mentioned

41

42

formulae are population parameters; the actual formula used for estimation is

43

44

45 log10 e

46 𝑏̂ = ̂ −(𝑀 −∆𝑀/2)

̅

(5)

𝑀 1

47

48

49

50 where b̂ and M̂ are estimates; and b̂ will agree with b only if M̂ is representative of,

51

52

53

i.e. reasonably close to, the true M . This, in turn, means that M̂ should be calculated

54

55 from an adequate sample, i.e. one that includes enough data, but in many cases it is

56

57 estimated from too small samples, either because data are scarce or because no attention

58

59

60 is paid to the matter of representativity.

61

62 4

63

64

65

1

2

3

4

5

An example of studies where this problem may appear is b-mapping, where M1 is

6

7 estimated for a given data set in some región, and then the region is subdivided in volume

8

9

10 elements or cells, and some of these cells may not include enough data to yield a reliable

11

12 estimate (e.g. Khan 2005, Bhattacharya et al. 2002, Singh and Singh 2015). Another

13

14

15 example is the study of changes in b vs time, where M̂ is determined from the data in

16

17 time windows, and there is a tradeoff between the length and/or number of data in the

18

19

20 time window and the resolution in time. In these and other cases, not only data may not

21

22 be enough, but the overall M1 may not be appropriate for all data subsets.

23

24

25

26 The question arises: How many data are enough for M̂ to be representative and b̂ to be

27

28

29 reliable? The answer, of course, depends on the desired precision of b̂ ; so we will

30

31 rephrase the question: What is the minimum number of data required in a sample, to

32

33

34 achieve a desired precision for b̂ with a given probability?

35

36

37 Shi and Bolt (1982), hereafter referred to as SB, give an analytical estimate of the b̂

38

39

40 distribution for unrounded magnitudes, as a function of the number of samples N, for

41

42

43 stationary b, and for N large enough for M̂ to approach a normal distribution; the b̂

44

45 distribution is

46

47

48 𝑁 𝑏 𝑏 2

49 𝑔(𝑏̂) = √ ̂2 exp [−𝑁 ( ̂ − 1) /2] (6)

2π 𝛽 𝑏

50

51

52

53 How well does formula (5) agree with b̂ determinations for samples with small N?

54

55

56 In what follows we use Monte Carlo methods to simulate actual sampling in order to

57

58

59

explore the distribution of b̂ for samples of different sizes and different true values of b.

60

61

62 5

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 Our results let us determine the range of applicability of (5), explore the effects of small

5

6

7 N and of magnitude rounding, and establish some quantitative guidelines for sampling.

8

9

10

11

12

13 3. Monte Carlo estimation of sampling

14

15

16 We simulate magnitude sampling, in the ( M1 , M 2 ) magnitude range from the Gutenberg-

17

18

19 Richter distribution as

20

21

22 𝑀 = 𝑀1𝑞 − ln(𝑟)/𝛽 , (7)

23

24

25 where M1q and M 2q equal M1 and M 2 , respectively, when considering unrounded

26

27

28 magnitudes, and equal 𝑀1 − ∆𝑀/2 and 𝑀2 + ∆𝑀/2 , respectively, when considering

29

30 magnitudes rounded to ∆𝑀. r is a uniformly distributed pseudo-random number in the

31

32

33 (0,1) interval, generated using the Matlab rand function with the Twister generator,

34

35 discarding magnitudes larger than an arbitrary upper limit M 2q = 9.2 set to avoid

36

37

38 unacceptably large (potentially infinite) magnitudes; since very large magnitudes are very

39

40

41 scarce, this limit does not significantly affect results.

42

43

44 We also tried the doubly-truncated Gutenberg-Richter distribution, as

45

46

47 𝑀 = −ln[e−𝛽𝑀1𝑞 − 𝑟(e−𝛽𝑀1𝑞 − e−𝛽𝑀2𝑞 )]/𝛽,

48

49

50 but, since both manitude generating schemes yielded essentially the same results, because

51

52

their outputs differ only for very large magnitudes close to M 2 , and since the Aki-Utsu

53

54

55 estimates assume a singly truncated exponential distribution, we present here only the

56

57

58 results obtained from (7)

59

60

61

62 6

63

64

65

1

2

3

4

5 Figure 1 shows results from 250,000 realizations, each, of b̂ determinations, for a true

6

7 b = 1.0, from samples having from 10 to 100,000 data. The thick (blue) line shows the

8

9

10 mean of all estimated b̂ values for each sample size, and the thin (red) lines show the

11

12 mean ±1 standard deviation (continuous) and ±2 standard deviations (dashed).

13

14

15 The graph on the left hand side is for unrounded magnitudes, and shows quantitatively

16

17

18 exactly what would be expected qualitatively; the graph on the right side is for

19

20 magnitudes rounded to the customary 0.1. Both graphs show that estimates from small

21

22

23

samples, besides being probably overestimated, are really meaningless because standard

24

25 deviations are extremely large. The estimate averages over a large number of realizations

26

27 are overestimated, because small magnitudes are much more numerous than large

28

29

30 magnitudes. Thus, any one b̂ estimation from less than, say, 300 data can take values

31

32

33

over a range of several tenths of a unit with large probability.

34

35

While, for large samples the mean estimate from unrounded magnitudes converges to the

36

37

38 true value, for rounded magnitudes large samples lead to an underestimation of it, unless

39

40 a correction for rounding is applied (see, for example, Márquez-Ramírez et al., 2014),

41

42

43 because the magnitude value at the center of each class is not an unbiased representative

44

45 of the magnitudes in the class. This is a minor effect that will be ignored in what follows.

46

47

48 To illustrate how individual estimates can be expected to behave, we obtained b̂

49

50

51 histograms for some representative sample sizes, true b values, and desired precisions.

52

53 All histograms were obtained from sets of 500,000 realizations for each data set length,

54

55

56 and the corresponding SB analytical distributions are plotted over the histograms for

57

58 comparison.

59

60

61

62 7

63

64

65

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 2 shows, on the left, the histograms (blue, continuous lines) with classes ∆𝑏̂ =

6

7 0.010 wide, for b̂ estimated from unrounded magnitudes distributed according to (2) for

8

9

10 b = 1.00 and different sample sizes; it also shows the corresponding SB analytical

11

12 distributions (red, dashed lines). There is extremely good agreement between histogram

13

14

15 and distribution for samples with 𝑁 ≥ 100 , while for samples below N ~ 50 the

16

17 agreement is not so good, because N is not large enough to fulfill the SB assumptions, but

18

19

20

it is not too bad although the modal values do not coincide. As mentioned before, the

21

22

mean b̂ values seriously overestimate the true b values for samples below N ~ 100 .

23

24

25

26 However, as shown on the right in Figure 2, the situation is quite different for b̂

27

28 estimated from the same magnitudes as in the previous case, rounded now, as is usual in

29

30

31

practice, to one decimal place. The histograms show gaps due to the fact that means from

32

33 only a few rounded magnitudes cannot take all values over the specified magnitude

34

35

36 range; hence, possible magnitude means result in peaks for the corresponding b̂ estimates.

37

38 This appearance of preferred values is reduced as samples get larger, but samples larger

39

40

41

than ~200 are needed before the histogram resembles the SB distribution.

42

43

44

Table 1 lists, for each N, the histogram mean and standard deviation values, as well as the

45

46 probabilities Pr ( b̂ = b) , Pr ( b̂ < b) , and Pr ( b̂ > b) , denoted by Pr, Pr-, and Pr+,

47

48

49 respectively, for each given ∆𝑏̂; these probabilities are obtained from the Monte Carlo

50

51 realizations, so they should not be interpreted as figures arrived to analytically, but as

52

53

54 probable values that, however, do not change significantly between different realizations.

55

56

57 From this table it can be seen that the probabilities of getting a correct estimate of

58

59

60

b = 1.00 with ∆𝑏̂ = 0.010 precision is extremely low (<0.1) for samples of up to 500

61

62 8

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 magnitudes, and is low (<0.5) for samples as large as 10,000. Thus, results from studies

5

6

7 claiming to distiguish changes in b of ±0.01 from less than about 20,000 events should

8

9 be taken with a (large) grain of salt.

10

11

12 Of course, reducing the desired precision increases the probability of obtaining a correct,

13

14

15 albeit less precise, result. Figure 3 presents histograms for the same rounded magnitude

16

17 data set for ∆𝑏̂ = 0.025 (left) and ∆𝑏̂ = 0.050 (right), and the corresponding

18

19

20 probabilities are listed in Table 1. For 0.025 precision, a reasonably good agreement

21

22 between histogram and the SB distribution is obtained for N ~ 100 and estimating the

23

24

25 correct b attains an even chance from samples of about 4,000 events. For 0.05 precision

26

27 0.5 probability is attained for less than 1,000 events, and there is a high probability of a

28

29

correct estimation from about 2,000 events on.

30

31

32 Since the magnitude population depends on the b value, results are slightly

33

34

35 different for different values of b; for considerations of space, we will only show here the

36

37

histograms for ∆𝑏̂ = 0.050, for the representative values b = 0.80 and b = 1.20 (Figure

38

39

40 4), and list the resulting probabilities in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

41

42

43 As can be seen from the histograms and the tables, for small samples correct estimation

44

45 of b is easier and the fit of the histograms to the SB distribution is better, for small than

46

47

48 for large b-values.

49

50

51 For small samples in all cases the mean and the mode in the histograms tell different

52

53 stories: if a measurement is repeated many (thousands of) times and b is estimated from

54

55

56 the mean, the result would be overvalued; on the other hand, any single measurement will

57

58 probably result in an overvalued estimation.

59

60

61

62 9

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 4. Discussion

5

6

7 In the results presented above no correction was made for the fact that the mean from

8

9

10 rounded magnitudes is not equal to the “true” mean from unrounded magnitudes, because

11

12 the magnitude representative of a given class is not an unbiased estimator of the

13

14

15 magnitudes containe in the class (e.g. Bender 1983; Tinti and Mulargia 1987, Márquez et

16

17 al. 2015); nor were mean magnitude estimates corrected for large magnitude sampling (eg.

18

19

20

Nava et al. 2015). However, such corrections are small and would not significantly

21

22 change the results.

23

24

25 From our results, it is clear that results from papers dealing with b estimates from less

26

27 than ~12,000, ~2000, and ~500 magnitude data for precisions of 0.01, 0.025, and 0.50

28

29

30 magnitude units, respectively, are valueless. Some papers show results from ~10 data, but

31

32 most do not even report the amount of data used, so their results are not reliable; we will

33

34

35 not reference here examples of these useless papers, but instead recommend a strong

36

37 caveat to the readers of these papers.

38

39

40 It is also clear that papers reporting b estimates should always report the size of the

41

42

43

sample(s) used for estimation, in order that the reader may know how reliable the

44

45 measurements are, and how likely are results from small samples to be overvalued.

46

47

48 For spatio-temporal variations in b to be significant, whatever the method used for

49

50 mapping (e.g. Wiemer and Wyss 2002; Kamer and Hiemer 2015), each b map should

51

52

53 have a sister N map.

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62 10

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 Acknowledgments

5

6

7 Many thanks to José Mojarro for technical support.

8

9

10

11

12

13 References

14

15

16 Ghosh A, Newman A, Amanda M, Thomas A, Farmer G (2008) Interface locking along

17

18

19 the subduction megathrust from b-value mapping near Nicoya Peninsula, Costa

20

21 Rica. Geophys Res Lett 35, L01301. doi:10.1029/2007GL031617

22

23

24 Aki K (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log(N) = a - bM and its

25

26 confidence limits, Bull Earthq Res Inst Tokio Univ 43: 237–239.

27

28

29 Aki K (1981) A probablistic synthesis of precursory phenomena. In: Earthquake

30

31 prediction and international review, Simpson D and Richards P (eds), Am Geophys

32

33

34 U, pp 566-574.

35

36 Bender B (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation of b values for magnitude grouped data.

37

38

39 Bull Seism Soc Am 73: 831–851.

40

41 Bhattacharya P, Majumdar R, Kayal J (2002) Fractal dimension and b-value mapping in

42

43

44 northeast India. Curr Sci 82: 1486-1491.

45

46 Enescu B, Ito K (2001) Some premonitory phenomena of the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu

47

48

49 (Kobe) earthquake: seismicity, b-value and fractal dimension. Tectonophysics 338:

50

51 297-314.

52

53

54 Gutenberg B, Richter C (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc

55

56 Am 34: 185–188.

57

58

59

60

61

62 11

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 Ishimoto M, Iida K (1939) Observations sur les seisms enregistrés par le

5

6

7 microseismograph construit dernièrement (I), Bull Earthquake Res Inst Univ of

8

9 Tokyo, 17: 443-478.

10

11

12 Kamer Y, Hiemer S (2015) Data-driven spatial b-value estimation with applications to

13

14 California seismicity: to b or not to b. doi: 10.1002/2014JB011510

15

16

17 Khan P (2005) Mapping of b-Value beneath the Shillong plateau. Gondwana Research 8:

18

19 271-276. doi:10.1016/S1342-937X(05)71126-6

20

21

22 Márquez-Ramírez V, Nava F, Zúñiga F (2015) Correcting the Gutenberg-Richter b-value

23

24 for effects of rounding and noise. Earthquake Science 28: 129-134.

25

26

27 doi:10.1007/s11589-015-0116-1.

28

29

Márquez-Ramírez V. (2012) Análisis multifractal de la distribución espacial de

30

31

32 sismicidad y su posible aplicación premonitora. Exploración de un posible

33

34 mecanismo para la fractalidad mediante modelado semiestocástico. PhD Thesis,

35

36

37 Programa de Posgrado en Ciencias de la Tierra, Centro de Investigación Científica

38

39 y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, Baja California, México.

40

41

42 Montuori C, Falcone G, Murru M, Thurber C, Reyners M, Eberhart-Phillips D (2010)

43

44 Crustal heterogeneity highlighted by spatial b-value map in the Wellington region

45

46

47 of New Zealand. Geophys J Int 183: 451-460. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

48

49 246X.2010.04750.x

50

51

52 Nava F, Márquez-Ramírez V, Zúñiga F, Lomnitz C (2015) Gutenberg-Richter b-value

53

54 determination and large magnitudes sampling. Nat Haz, submitted.

55

56

57 Richter C (1958) Elementary seismology. W H Freeman and Co, USA.

58

59

60

61

62 12

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 Scholz C (1968) The Frequency-Magnitude Relation of Microfracturing in Rock and its

5

6

7 Relation to Earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58: 399-415.

8

9 Shaw E, Carlson J, Langer J (1992) Patterns of Seismic Activity Preceding Large

10

11

12 Earthquakes. J Geophys Res 97 (B1): 479-488.

13

14

15

Shi Y, Bolt B (1982) The standard error of the magnitude-frequency b value. Bull

16

17 Seismol Soc Am 72: 1677-1687.

18

19

20

Singh C, Singh A, Chadha R (2009) Fractal and b-Value Mapping in Eastern Himalaya

21

22 and Southern Tibet. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99: 3529–3533. doi:

23

24 10.1785/0120090041

25

26

27 Singh C, Singh S (2015) Imaging b-value variation beneath the Pamir-Hindu Kush region.

28

29

Bull Seismol Soc Am 105: 808-815. doi: 10.1785/0120140112

30

31

32 Tinti S, Mulargia F (1987) Confidence intervals of b-values for grouped magnitudes. Bull

33

34

35

Seismol Soc Am 77: 2125–2134.

36

37 Wiemer S, Wyss M (1997) Mapping the frequency-magnitude distribution in asperities:

38

39

40

An improved technique to calculate recurrence times? J Geophys Res 102 (B7):

41

42 15115-15128.

43

44

45 Wiemer S, Wyss M (2000) Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs:

46

47 examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan, Bull Seismol Soc Am

48

49

50

90: 859–869.

51

52 Wiemer S, Wyss M (2002) Mapping spatial variability of the frequency-magnitude

53

54

55

distribution of earthquakes. Adv Geophys 45: 259–302.

56

57 Wyss M, Wiemer S (2000) Change in the probability for earthquakes in southern

58

59

60 California due to the Landers magnitude 7.3 earthquake, Science 290: 1334.

61

62 13

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 Zúñiga R, Wyss M (2001) Most-and least-Likely locations of large to great earthquakes

5

6

7 along the Pacific coast of Mexico estimated from local recurrence times based on b-

8

9 values. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91: 1717-1728.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62 14

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 Figure Captions

5

6

7

8 Figure 1. Estimated b̂ vs sample size N. Left: Unrounded magnitudes. Right: Magnitudes

9

10 rounded to 0.1. The thick, continuous (blue) line is the mean of 250,000 realizations for

11

12

each of various sample sizes N samples, the thin (red) lines indicate mean value ±1

13

14

15 standard deviation (continuous) and ±2 standard deviations (dashed).

16

17

18 Figure 2. Synthetic data histograms for 500,000 realizations for b = 1.0 and classes ∆𝑏̂ =

19

20

21

0.010 wide. Graph on the left is for unrounded magnitudes, and on the right for

22

23 magnitudes rounded to ∆𝑀 = 0.1 . The thick continuous (blue) lines are the

24

25

histograms,while the dashed (red) lines are the SB distribution; The vertical solid line

26

27

28 indicates the true b value, and the verstical dashed line indicates the observed mean value.

29

30

31 Figure 3. Synthetic data histograms for 500,000 realizations for magnitudes rounded to

32

33 ∆𝑀 = 0.1, b = 1.0, and classes ∆𝑏̂ = 0.025 (left) and ∆𝑏̂ = 0.50 (right) wide. The thick

34

35

36 continuous (blue) lines are the histograms,while the dashed (red) lines are the SB

37

38 distribution; The vertical solid line indicates the true b value, and the vertical dashed line

39

40

41 indicates the observed mean value.

42

43

44 Figure 4. Synthetic data histograms for 500,000 realizations for for magnitudes rounded

45

46 to ∆𝑀 = 0.1 classes ∆𝑏̂ = 0.50 wide, and b = 0.8 (left) and b = 1.2 (right). The thick

47

48

49 continuous (blue) lines are the histograms,while the dashed (red) lines are the SB

50

51 distribution; The vertical solid line indicates the true b value, and the vertical dashed line

52

53

54 indicates the observed mean value.

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62 15

63

64

65

1

2

3

4 Table Captions

5

6

7 Table 1. Probabilities of obtaining the correct value (Pr), an underestimated value (Pr-),

8

9

10 and an overestimated value (Pr+) for true b = 1.0 , precisions ∆𝑏̂ = 0.010, 0.025, and

11

12

13 0.050, and different sample sizes N. Also shown are the mean estimate b̂ , and its

14

15 standard deviation s.

16

17

18 Table 2. Same as table 1 for true b = 0.8 .

19

20

21 Table 3. Same as table 1 for true b = 1.2.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62 16

63

64

65

colour figure Click here to download colour figure Fig1.eps

colour figure Click here to download colour figure Fig 2.eps

colour figure Click here to download colour figure Fig 3.eps

colour figure Click here to download colour figure Fig 4.eps

table Click here to download table Table 1.docx

b = 1.0

b̂ = 0.010 b̂ = 0.025 b̂ = 0.050

N b̂ s Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+

10 1.103 0.385 0.462 0.000 0.538 0.462 0.029 0.508 0.434 0.058 0.508

25 1.037 0.214 0.474 0.018 0.508 0.455 0.055 0.489 0.437 0.092 0.470

50 1.015 0.145 0.478 0.026 0.496 0.464 0.066 0.467 0.426 0.144 0.430

100 1.005 0.101 0.485 0.037 0.478 0.457 0.092 0.451 0.403 0.201 0.395

200 1.001 0.071 0.483 0.060 0.457 0.445 0.138 0.418 0.369 0.282 0.349

500 0.998 0.044 0.489 0.087 0.423 0.420 0.221 0.359 0.313 0.424 0.263

1,000 0.997 0.031 0.489 0.124 0.387 0.394 0.306 0.300 0.248 0.570 0.182

2,000 0.996 0.022 0.486 0.175 0.339 0.354 0.419 0.226 0.170 0.731 0.098

5,000 0.996 0.014 0.479 0.266 0.256 0.277 0.605 0.118 0.066 0.913 0.020

10,000 0.996 0.010 0.473 0.353 0.174 0.202 0.752 0.046 0.018 0.981 0.002

Table 1

table Click here to download table Table 2.docx

b = 0.8

b̂ = 0.010 b̂ = 0.025 b̂ = 0.050

N b̂ s Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+

10 0.885 0.310 0.457 0.024 0.519 0.434 0.046 0.519 0.412 0.092 0.496

25 0.831 0.172 0.459 0.029 0.511 0.445 0.058 0.497 0.416 0.117 0.467

50 0.814 0.117 0.469 0.042 0.489 0.448 0.084 0.468 0.398 0.176 0.426

100 0.806 0.081 0.471 0.052 0.477 0.435 0.125 0.440 0.372 0.247 0.381

200 0.802 0.057 0.470 0.069 0.461 0.414 0.177 0.409 0.331 0.340 0.329

500 0.799 0.036 0.463 0.112 0.425 0.380 0.273 0.348 0.250 0.518 0.148

1,000 0.799 0.025 0.451 0.157 0.391 0.335 0.378 0.286 0.174 0.678 0.148

2,000 0.798 0.018 0.433 0.220 0.346 0.276 0.515 0.209 0.093 0.838 0.068

5,000 0.798 0.011 0.395 0.338 0.267 0.174 0.726 0.101 0.019 0.972 0.009

10,000 0.798 0.008 0.357 0.456 0.187 0.093 0.873 0.035 0.002 0.998 0.000

Table 2

table Click here to download table Table 3.docx

b = 1.2

b̂ = 0.010 b̂ = 0.025 b̂ = 0.050

N b̂ s Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+

10 1.321 0.458 0.456 0.000 0.544 0.456 0.035 0.509 0.456 0.035 0.509

25 1.241 0.255 0.474 0.022 0.504 0.474 0.022 0.504 0.452 0.066 0.482

50 1.216 0.174 0.492 0.016 0.492 0.476 0.048 0.476 0.445 0.110 0.445

100 1.204 0.120 0.496 0.033 0.471 0.473 0.078 0.449 0.430 0.165 0.405

200 1.198 0.084 0.496 0.048 0.454 0.467 0.118 0.415 0.405 0.233 0.362

500 1.195 0.053 0.513 0.075 0.412 0.454 0.187 0.359 0.363 0.358 0.279

1,000 1.194 0.037 0.522 0.104 0.374 0.442 0.258 0.300 0.313 0.487 0.199

2,000 1.193 0.026 0.536 0.143 0.321 0.422 0.350 0.230 0.249 0.636 0.115

5,000 1.193 0.017 0.556 0.213 0.231 0.380 0.501 0.120 0.144 0.827 0.028

10,000 1.193 0.012 0.584 0.269 0.147 0.335 0.618 0.047 0.067 0.930 0.003

Table 3

- 1968 Paper - Engineering Seismic Risk AnalysisUploaded byhonestman_usa
- Course Project - Part A - Math 533Uploaded byParker DKD
- Creating Simple Graphics Using SAS - Sgplot Sgscatter SgpanelUploaded byRobin
- Atkinson BooreUploaded byzerlopez
- Why Time Seems to Go by More Quickly as We Get OlderUploaded byLamaC
- HF and Seismic Activity Report v2Uploaded bydownbuliao
- B. A Notice.docUploaded byb4anjum
- Carlson Langer (1)Uploaded bySrdjan Kostic
- Earthquake_document.pdfUploaded bySafwat El Rouby
- Earth Science Earth Quake Unit TestUploaded byRonaldo Manaoat
- Engdahl 1998.pdfUploaded bymanuelflorez1102
- Biology unit 6 Jan 2012 question paperUploaded byAJ_010
- Analisis.docxUploaded byZayed
- Seismic Analysis of StructuresUploaded byBob Om Bahin
- DS_3.1_rev1Uploaded byw_3385621
- Abb Sismo 2750 515-88 en Rev 4Uploaded bymiguelase
- photo essay analysisUploaded byapi-299616620
- Collaborative Study Validation GuidelinesUploaded byJoshua Welch
- Watchtower, 2012 - Emergency Prepareness PlanUploaded bydelkial
- Historic EarthquakesUploaded byR. Borres
- 2aslleUploaded byFares Haif
- oltenia 16Uploaded byrmalciu311
- Quant Assignment 1Uploaded byS Raina
- 2001 to 2010 American DisastersUploaded byAravindan Muthu
- Definition of Primary DataUploaded byTushar Mahmud Sizan
- James Lewis - 1976 - A Report to Establish Guidelnes for the Management of a Regional Fund to Provide Insurance for Natural DisasterUploaded bySeni Nabou
- KKNPP Facts About Issues Being Raised 101011Uploaded byKasimani Baskaran
- engg 319Uploaded byAmelia Li
- SPR 17- T2- Form a -BlankUploaded byUser User
- The Random-Effect DINA Model Huang, H.-y. and W.-c. WangUploaded byRicardo Narváez

- Lecture 12Uploaded byAdexa Putra
- chap10.pptUploaded byCece Solihin
- chap11Uploaded byCece Solihin
- The Distribution of B-Value in Different Seismic Provinces of Iran.pdfUploaded byCece Solihin
- Spatial Analysis of the Frequency-magnitude Distribution and Decay Rate of Aftershock Activity of the 2000 Western Tottori EarthquakeUploaded byCece Solihin
- Atkinson Dan Boore (2003)Uploaded byCece Solihin
- Data PGA Periode Ulang 2475thn CcUploaded byCece Solihin
- data PGA periode ulang 2475thn cc.xlsxUploaded byCece Solihin
- Data PGA Periode Ulang 2475thn CcUploaded byCece Solihin
- How to Pick SeismogramUploaded byCece Solihin
- Bab V GasUploaded byCece Solihin
- Bab XI Pengantar Kimia OrganikUploaded byCece Solihin
- Bab Viii SpuUploaded byCece Solihin
- Metode Regula-falsi With ExcelUploaded byCece Solihin
- Metode Bisection With ExcelUploaded byCece Solihin
- chap01.pptUploaded byCece Solihin
- new pdfUploaded byvijendra maurya
- Slide WinUploaded byCece Solihin
- Theory of Seismic Imaging.pdfUploaded byAngel Saldaña
- Chapter 1 IntroductionUploaded byCece Solihin
- 1_coverUploaded byCece Solihin
- gerbang logika2.pdfUploaded byCece Solihin
- Imaging CourseUploaded byochonogornaphtali
- Elactic Rebound TheoryUploaded byCece Solihin
- Distribution Hypocenter Vulcanic Earthquake at Semeru Mountain Lumajang East JavaUploaded byCece Solihin
- report.pdfUploaded byCece Solihin
- SG2K School Users GuideUploaded byCece Solihin
- 0031-9201%2882%2990101-7Uploaded byCece Solihin

- Chapter 4 Research MethodologyUploaded byAdeniji Olusegun
- AfnanRafique_HarringtonAwardWinner_2014Uploaded bydiana nistoran
- Baye’s RuleUploaded byMark
- Racial Disparities in Taxicab TippingUploaded byTaxiDriverLV
- AstroUploaded byDaniel Nesprias
- 1512.07208Uploaded byAnonymous iztPUhIi
- Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and Interpretation With SPSS _ Hypothesis _ Factor AnalysisUploaded byXenia Khattar Flucked
- Cohens dUploaded bymimi
- SOPE 2016 Syllabus Annex IUploaded byAttaullah Chandio
- Congdon Cambridge TalkUploaded byastari rahmadita
- GARCH TutorialUploaded byMuhammad Mansoor
- 10.11648.j.sjee.20140204.12Uploaded byandri fernando
- bader2Uploaded bytanmaypatil
- CG & Corp Failure-ScidirectUploaded byindahmuliasari
- Chap 001Uploaded byBG Monty 1
- ME 3113 Course PlanUploaded byxxxtoyaxxx
- Percentages and Random Number GenerationUploaded byM S Sridhar
- Msc StatisticsUploaded byMurali Dharan
- G11_Romero_Basic-Concepts-in-Hypothesis-Testing-1.pptxUploaded byAlmira Romero
- 1058_ftpUploaded byAndika Saputra
- Hypothesis TestingUploaded byalawi747594
- GSM Actix AnalisisUploaded byYanharyo Budiharto
- Zero Waste to LandfillUploaded byAntonio Oswaldo Storel Junior
- Practical Statistics for GeoscientistsUploaded bydanjohhn
- Deep Tracking- Seeing Beyond Seeing Using Recurrent Neural NetworksUploaded byJan Hula
- Masters Resume Cover LettersUploaded byrekhajayarajan
- art%3A10.1007%2Fs10064-015-0798-6Uploaded byChristopher Jenkins
- Work student stress level vs non-working studentsUploaded byJeff Enrera
- probalistic wedgeUploaded byr
- biostatsUploaded byAamir Bugti