See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257596714

Comparison of seismicity declustering methods using a probabilistic measure

of clustering

Article  in  Journal of Seismology · July 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s10950-013-9371-6

CITATIONS READS

13 3,158

5 authors, including:

K. Z. Nanjo Kenji Satake

76 PUBLICATIONS   1,136 CITATIONS   
The University of Tokyo
408 PUBLICATIONS   13,762 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Jiancang Zhuang Hamdache Mohamed

The Institute of Statistical Mathematics Center for Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics Geophysics
139 PUBLICATIONS   2,834 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   487 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Tsunami Data Assimilation Without a Dense Observation Network View project

Human Capacity Building at The University of Tokyo towards Knowledge Base Development for Nuclear Risk Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamdache Mohamed on 01 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
DOI 10.1007/s10950-013-9371-6
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Comparison of seismicity declustering methods
using a probabilistic measure of clustering
Abdelhak Talbi & Kazuyoshi Nanjo & Kenji Satake &
Jiancang Zhuang & Mohamed Hamdache
Received: 2 April 2012 / Accepted: 23 April 2013 / Published online: 24 May 2013
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract We present a new measure of earthquake
clustering and explore its use for comparing the
performance of three different declustering methods.
The advantage of this new clustering measure over
existing techniques is that it can be used for non-
Poissonian background seismicity and, in particular, to
compare the results of declustering algorithms where
different background models are used. We use our ap-
proach to study inter-event times between successive
earthquakes using earthquake catalog data from Japan
and southern California. A measure of the extent of
clustering is introduced by comparing the inter-event
time distributions of the background seismicity to that
of the whole observed seismicity. Theoretical aspects of
the clustering measure are then discussed with respect to
the Poissonian and Weibull models for the background
inter-event time distribution. In the case of a Poissonian
A. Talbi (*) : K. Nanjo : K. Satake
Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo,
1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0032, Japan
e-mail: abdelhak_t@yahoo.fr
A. Talbi
e-mail: a.talbi@craag.dz
A. Talbi : M. Hamdache
Département Etude et Surveillance Sismique,
Centre de Recherche en Astronomie Astrophysique
et Géophysique (CRAAG), BP 63 Route de l’observatoire,
Bouzaréah, 16340 Algiers, Algeria
J. Zhuang
Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 10-3 Midori-Cho,
Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-8562, Japan
background, the obtained clustering measure shows a
decrease followed by an increase, defining a V-shaped
trend, which can be explained by the presence of short-
and long-range correlation in the inter-event time series.
Three previously proposed declustering methods (i.e.,
the methods of Gardner and Knopoff, Reasenberg, and
Zhuang et al.) are used to obtain an approximation of the
residual “background” inter-event time distribution in
order to apply our clustering measure to real seismicity.
The clustering measure is then estimated for different
values of magnitude cutoffs and time periods, taking
into account the completeness of each catalog. Plots of
the clustering measure are presented as clustering atten-
uation curves (CACs), showing how the correlation de-
creases when inter-event times increase. The CACs
demonstrate strong clustering at short inter-event time
ranges and weak clustering at long time ranges. When
the algorithm of Gardner and Knopoff is used, the CACs
show strong correlation with a weak background at the
short inter-event time ranges. The fit of the CACs using
the Poissonian background model is successful at short
and intermediate inter-event time ranges, but deviates
at long ranges. The observed deviation shows that
the residual catalog obtained after declustering remains
non-Poissonian at long time ranges. The apparent back-
ground fraction can be estimated directly from the CAC
fit. The CACs using the algorithms of Reasenberg and
Zhuang et al. show a relatively similar behavior, with a
time correlation decreasing more rapidly than the CACs
of Gardner and Knopoff for shorter time ranges. This
study offers a novel approach for the study of different
types of clustering produced as a result of various
hypotheses used to account for different backgrounds.
1042
Keywords Seismicity . Correlations . Clustering .
Declustering algorithms . Probability distributions
1 Introduction
Seismicity is characterized by a complex pattern of
events in space and time (e.g., Utsu 2002). In
particular, earthquakes exhibit space–time clustering,
which is notably enhanced during seismically active
periods following major events or during a series of
related events referred to as “earthquake swarms.”
However, it is still problematic to differentiate between
clustered and background seismicity components due to
the overlap (superposition) of the two components in
time and space (e.g., Touati et al. 2009, 2011).
Currently, there is no standard definition of the dif-
ferent series of earthquakes, and a working definition is
needed to support the use of the terms “aftershock,”
“mainshock,” and “foreshock.” Given this, many
seismological studies have used a series of declustering
algorithms based on subjective constraints to capture
observed clustering (e.g., Utsu 1969; Gardner and
Knopoff 1974; Reasenberg 1985; Frohlich and Davis
1990; Davis and Frohlich 1991; Knopoff 2000; see van
Stiphout et al. 2012 for a complete review). These
approaches are based on constraints derived from
characteristic space–time patterns of seismicity follow-
ing major events (Omori 1894; Utsu 1969). Seismicity
data following major events are treated with subjective
rules to characterize the clustered seismicity, including
spatial and temporal constraints, the number and size of
triggered events, and constraints linked to the physical
fault model under consideration.
Most of the studies that assume a Poisson distribu-
tion of the earthquake catalog, particularly in probabi-
listic seismic hazard assessment, use declustering
algorithms to remove clustering from the original cata-
log. The residual catalog is then assumed to reflect
Poissonian earthquake occurrences. However, artifacts
from the use of such residual catalogs have not been
rigorously assessed (Beauval et al. 2006). Furthermore,
the process of filtering the original catalog to obtain a
Poissonian residual catalog is not unique, but a type of
“Poissonianization” rather than “declustering” sensu
stricto (Luen and Stark 2012).
One successful approach developed in the study of
seismicity clustering is the use of stochastic declustering
techniques, whereby events are triggered according to a
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
probability law (Kagan and Knopoff 1976; Zhuang et al.
2002, 2004). The algorithm of Zhuang et al. (2004) uses
the standardized intensity rates of triggered and
background events from the epidemic-type aftershock
sequence (ETAS) intensity rate as probabilities for the
construction of the cluster and background processes,
respectively. More recently, non-parametric approaches
have been considered in order to obtain objective
declustering algorithms. For example, Hainzl et al.
(2006) developed a non-parametric reconstruction of
background rates based on the first- and second-order
mean proprieties of inter-event times. This method
can be used to decluster earthquake catalogs by com-
paring the whole and background probability density
functions (van Stiphout et al. 2013). Similarly, Marsan
and Lengline (2008) used rate weighting to decluster
earthquake catalogs using assumptions of a linear trig-
gering process and a magnitude-dependent mean field
response to the occurrence of an earthquake. More
recently, Bottiglieri et al. (2009) used the coefficient of
variation (ratio of the standard deviation to the mean) of
inter-event times to distinguish periods of pure back-
ground activity from coeval cluster periods.
The present study was motivated by the common use
of the mean properties of inter-event times in all these
aforementioned approaches. The use of inter-event times,
instead of occurrence rates, is motivated by the stability
of the statistics based on the mean inter-event time, t
(defined in Section 3), as compared with those based on
the average occurrence rate (Naylor et al. 2009).
In general, all of the previously described declustering
algorithms either explicitly or implicitly use a measure of
clustering (or dependence) between successive earth-
quakes. However, a comparison between these different
approaches is not readily possible because different hy-
potheses and models are used in each case. This limita-
tion motivated us to introduce a clustering measure that
rates each declustering algorithm according to its refer-
ence background model, so that the performances of the
different algorithms can be evaluated. While a general
class of clustering measures, such as the Ripley K-
function (Ripley 1976) and its variants, already exists,
their application is limited because estimation of the K-
function is complicated by stationarity and edge effects
(e.g., Cressie 1991). Hence, application of this type of
clustering measure to earthquake data is presently lim-
ited (e.g., Veen and Schoenberg 2006).
To further contribute to the debate about the merits
of different declustering methods, this study focuses
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
on scoring the methods using as a reference the
hypothesis adopted by each method rather than evalu-
ating each method according to the subjective definition
of what is an “aftershock,” “mainshock,” or “foreshock.”
As such, we used time clustering at different ranges as the
measure of the relative distance between the empirical
whole and background inter-event time distributions
(Talbi and Yamazaki 2010). Relatively high values of
our measure reflect the presence of clustering in the
corresponding inter-event time range, whereas low
values correspond to the dominance of background
events. Our proposed new measure for recognizing
clustering offers a number of advantages over existing
techniques, including the ability to theoretically measure
the clustering relative to a hypothetical background
model under general assumptions and applicability to
non-Poissonian background seismicity. In application,
each algorithm is rated by the measure according to the
deviation between its output and the hypothetical back-
ground model it assumes. As a result, the proposed
measure can be used to compare the performance of
different declustering algorithms, even if they use
different background assumptions.
This study builds on our former efforts to study
inter-event time distributions (Talbi 2009; Talbi and
Yamazaki 2009, 2010). In particular, the mixed
Weibull model of the inter-event time distribution
(Talbi and Yamazaki 2010) is used in estimating the
proposed clustering measure.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 introduces the declustering approaches used
to filter the catalogs from aftershocks, while Section 3
describes the mathematical formulations used to de-
fine the clustering measure, in addition to discussing
the shape and behavior of the proposed measure.
The sampling methodology and description of the
earthquake catalogs are presented in Sections 4 and
5, respectively, and Section 6 introduces the esti-
mation of the proposed clustering measure using
real catalog data and analysis of clustering attenua-
tion curves. Finally, Section 7 reports the main
results of this study.
It is important to distinguish between the theoretical
aspects and subsequent applications of our work in
this paper. The main part of this work introduces the
theoretical basis of our clustering measure and dis-
cusses its shape and behavior using two hypothetical
models for background seismicity (Section 3 and the
Appendix). The objective of this main part of the
1043
paper was to measure directly the physical clustering
process. Hence, this part of the study is detailed and is
not concerned with artifacts arising from the use of
declustering algorithms as such algorithms are not
employed. Applications of our clustering measure are
considered in Section 6, where the use of different
declustering algorithms is pivotal in comparing their
performances.
2 Declustering
In this study, the terms “clustered,” “residual,” and
“whole” seismicity correspond to “dependent,”
“background,” and “all” events in the catalog, respective-
ly. The term “residual” is preferred to “background”
when used with reference to the outputs of a declustering
algorithm. In fact, the subjective algorithms used
for declustering only provide a catalog that approxi-
mately (not rigorously) reflects background seismicity;
in particular, testing as to whether the declustered
catalog is Poissonian should be carefully considered
(Luen and Stark 2012). The term “background seismic-
ity” is the ideal, unknown, independent structure that we
seek to estimate in our clustering study. A preliminary
assessment of the background seismicity structure is
obtained by processing with the algorithms of Gardner
and Knopoff (1974), Reasenberg (1985), and Zhuang et
al. (2002). These algorithms are based on space–
time windows, physical fault models, and ETAS
models, respectively. This multifaceted approach is
expected to minimize artifacts and focus on real
and dominant characteristics of earthquake clustering.
Additionally, the results may be used to test the perfor-
mance of these declustering algorithms. Although over-
views of seismicity declustering methods are described
elsewhere (e.g., van Stiphout et al. 2012), this section
provides a brief description of each of the declustering
algorithms used later in this study.
Gardner and Knopoff (1974) introduced a declustering
algorithm that uses the proximity of earthquakes in
space and time as an indicator of clustering. For a
given catalog of data, events are ordered in decreasing
magnitude. Starting from the first event, space–time
windows are measured around each event in the catalog.
The size L and duration T of each window vary with the
magnitude M of the potential mainshock. The largest
event in each window is identified as a mainshock, while
the others (foreshocks or aftershocks) are identified and
1044
removed. The window parameters are estimated using
the following regressions:
logðT Þ ¼ a1 M þ b1 ð1Þ
logðLÞ ¼ a2 M þ b2 ð2Þ
For a specific earthquake catalog, the parameters
a1, b1, a2, and b2 can be estimated by interpolation of
past aftershock zone extent and aftershock duration
data. However, most studies use standard values of
these parameters estimated from, for example, the mag-
nitude–length–time data (M, L, and T, respectively)
given in Table 1 of Gardner and Knopoff (1974).
The algorithm of Reasenberg (1985) assumes an in-
teraction zone centered on each earthquake. Earthquakes
occurring within the interaction zone of a prior
earthquake are considered aftershocks. The zone is
dynamically modeled with spatial (Rfact) and temporal
(τmax) parameters. The length scale Rfact is proportional
to the source dimension, and the temporal scale τmax is
determined using a heterogeneous Poisson process for
aftershocks with rate l(t). Given t>0, the probability of
observing n earthquakes in the time interval [t, t+C[ is
given by
elðtÞt ½lðtÞt n
Pð@ð½t; t þ t ½Þ ¼ nÞ ¼ ð3aÞ
n!
with l(t) following the Omori law
lðtÞ ¼ k ðt þ cÞp ð3bÞ
ℵ is the process that counts the number of after-
shocks occurring in the time interval [t, t+τ[, whereas
k, c, and p are positive constants representing the
Omori law parameters. The waiting time interval, τw,
required to observe the next event with probability, P,
in a given sequence of aftershocks is
t logð1  PÞ
tw ¼ ð4Þ
102ðMmax mc 1Þ=3
Mmax and mc in this equation are the largest mag-
nitude in the sequence and completeness magnitude,
respectively. The waiting time is constrained as falling
between the minimum and the maximum look-ahead
times (i.e., τmin ≤τw ≤τmax).
Figures 1a and 2a show the original seismicity data
before declustering for southern California and Japan,
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
respectively. The earthquake databases used are
described in Section 5. Figures 1b and 2b show plots
of the residual seismicity obtained using the algorithm
of Gardner and Knopoff (1974) for southern California
and Japan, respectively. Figure 1c presents seismicity
data for southern California filtered using the algorithm
of Reasenberg (1985). In Fig. 1c, most of the clustering
structure is not evident in the filtered data, giving rise to
lower spatial density, which is concentrated close to
active faults. In contrast, there is less concentrated and
more diffuse southern Californian seismicity in Fig. 1b.
For Japan, the residual seismicity is mostly diffuse when
filtered using Gardner and Knopoff’s (1974) algorithm
(Fig. 2b). The main difficulty in the application of
Reasenberg’s (1985) algorithm is adjustment of the
algorithm parameters according to the seismicity of the
region. Typically, a selection of parameters is made after
attempting different runs with varying parameters, and
the various residual catalogs that are obtained from these
runs are examined. Even after undertaking such a
procedure, clustering cannot be adequately removed and
background seismicity is usually overestimated (Hainzl et
al. 2006; Tibi et al. 2011). For this reason, we restrict our
testing of Reasenberg’s (1985) algorithm to the southern
California data where the original parameters have been
set, and for which a set of suitably chosen parameters has
already been identified (Hutton et al. 2010).
The stochastic declustering procedure of Zhuang et
al. (2004) is based on space–time ETAS models
(Ogata 1988) that use the following form of the con-
ditional intensity:
lðt; x; y; M jHt Þ ¼ lðt; x; yjHt ÞJ ð M Þ ð5aÞ
X  
lðt; x; yjHt Þ ¼ μðx; yÞ þ k ðMi Þg ðt  ti Þf x  xi; y  yi jMi
i:ti <t
ð5bÞ
l is the conditional intensity on the history of
observation ℋt until time t, whereas μ, κ(M), g, f,
and J are the background intensity, the expected num-
ber of triggered events from a magnitude M event, the
probability distribution function of the occurrence
times of the triggered events, the spatial distribution
of the triggered events, and the magnitude probability
distribution function, respectively. An important
ingredient in Eq. 5b is the modified Omori law, g
(Utsu 1969; Yamanaka and Shimazaki 1990).
p1 t p
gðtÞ ¼ 1þ ð5cÞ
c c
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061 1045

Fig. 1 Epicenter distribution of whole (a) and residual seismic-
ity (b, c) in southern California for magnitude M≥2.5 events
within the period 1932–2010. The residual catalog is obtained
using the algorithm of Gardner and Knopoff (1974), where a
total of 16,848 events are identified as non-clustered out of
60,092 events in the whole catalog and most of the clustering
structure is eliminated giving rise to lower spatial density, which
is concentrated close to active fault segments (b) and
Reasenberg’s (1985) algorithm with τmin =5, τmax =150, P=
0.90, and R fact =6, where a total of 26,417 events are identified
as non-clustered and a similar picture of background seismicity
is depicted (c)

     
In the above equation, p and c are the Omori law z i tj ; xj ; yj ¼ kðMi Þg tj  ti f xj  xi ; yj  yi jMi
parameters defined in Eq. 3b. ð7Þ
The principle behind this algorithm is the classifi-
cation of each event j as a triggered or background 8j ¼ 1  ρj ð8Þ
event using the following standardized intensity rates,
ρj and φj, respectively, obtained from Eq. 5b: This stochastic declustering algorithm simulates
X background and triggered events from the whole catalog
ρj ¼ ρi j ð6aÞ
i<j by scanning all events and treating them according to
8 the probabilities calculated using Eqs. 6–8. Hence, the
< z ðtj ;xj ;yj Þ  resulting catalog is not unique because it uses the like-
;j > i
ρij ¼ l tj ;xj ;yj jHt j ð6bÞ lihood of such probabilities. Figure 2c, d shows the
:
0 otherwise seismicity in Japan before and after applying the
1046
declustering algorithm of Zhuang et al. (2004).
Background seismicity is concentrated along the Japan
Trench, whereas it is relatively diffuse at distances
farther from the Japan Trench. In contrast with the
algorithm of Gardner and Knopoff (1974) (i.e., the
seismicity inside the dashed rectangle in Fig. 2a, b),
the overall structure of the spatial distribution of
seismicity is preserved after the application of the
declustering method of Zhuang et al. (2004).
3 Mathematical background
Assume seismicity to occur as a point process in space
and time (e.g., Cox and Isham 1980; Daley and
Vere-Jones 1988). Within a finite region in space, the
process is inferred to follow an inter-event time prob-
ability density function f, which is a perturbed form of
the probability density function fB of the background
seismicity component. It is then possible to write the
following equations:
f ðt Þ ¼ f B ðt Þ þ ½ f ðt Þ  f B ðt Þ ð9aÞ
f ðt Þ  f B ðt Þ þ " ðt Þ ð9bÞ
The variable τ≥0 is the inter-event time and ε(τ)≈
f(τ)−fB(τ) is the corresponding deviation from the
background distribution. The proprieties of ε are
discussed further in part A of the Appendix.
It is important to note that ε is zero in the case of a
pure background process. For inter-event times τ≥
0 with f(τ)>0, the deviation ε(τ) defines a standardized
probabilistic measure C(τ) of the distance between the
whole and background inter-event time distributions
as follows:
" ðt Þ f ðt Þ  f B ðt Þ
C ðt Þ   ð10aÞ
f ðt Þ f ðt Þ
In this case, both fB and ε appear as filtered versions
of the whole seismicity probability density function f,
in which C and 1−C represent the role of time-varying
multiplicative filters.
" ðt Þ  C ðt Þf ðt Þ ð10bÞ
f B ðt Þ  ð1  C ðt ÞÞ f ðt Þ ð10cÞ
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
Accordingly, f can be divided into two components
obtained by filtering
f ðt Þ  ð1  C ðt ÞÞ f ðt Þ þ C ðt Þ f ðt Þ ð11Þ
Furthermore, dividing Eq. 10a by f(τ) allows one to
reduce the scaling effect of the distributions. For ex-
ample, if e
f and e f B are the inter-event time probability
density functions scaled using the inter-event time
mean t of the whole series, then
Z þ1
t¼ t f ðt Þ d t ð12aÞ
0
1e
f ðt Þ ¼ f ð t =t Þ ð12bÞ
t
1e
f B ðt Þ ¼ f ð t =t Þ ð12cÞ
t B
e is defined
The corresponding induced measure C
for scaled inter-event times as
e e
e ð t =t Þ  f ð t =t Þ  f B ð t =t Þ
C ð13Þ
e
f ð t =t Þ
It then follows that the two measures are equivalent
in the sense that
e ð t =t Þ ¼ C ð t Þ
C ð14Þ
In Eqs. 12b and 13, the mixed inter-event time
distribution, which has been defined for heteroge-
neous seismicity (e.g., Bak et al. 2002; Talbi and
Yamazaki 2010), is used as the scaled inter-event time
probability density function e f . This function has ap-
proximately the same shape for different time periods,
magnitudes, and space scales (Talbi and Yamazaki
2010). It should be noted that the local inter-event
time distribution fitted using a gamma distribution
(e.g., Fig. 2 of Corral 2003) is different and holds only
for stationary periods. It is important to stress this dif-
ference because both are confusingly called the “scaling
law for earthquake inter-event time distribution” by
different authors. In our case, the probability density
function ef can be analytically approximated using
previously published fitting models (Saichev and
Sornette 2007; Talbi and Yamazaki 2010). As a result of
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
Fig. 2 Seismicity map for Japan for magnitude M≥3.5 events
registered during the period 1923–2010. a Original data includ-
ing 87,037 events. b Declustered catalog using the algorithm of
Gardner and Knopoff (1974) including 22,317 events. Dashed
rectangle shows the area used by Zhuang et al. (2004) to test
their stochastic declustering algorithm. In our study, the JMA
this, C depends mainly on the mean scaled background
distribution e
f B and can be calculated using a hypothetical
1047
catalog data used by Zhuang et al. (2004) are extended to 2009
and used in schemes J4a-c (see the following c and d). c, d
Japan seismicity with magnitudes M≥4.2 registered within the
period 1923–2009 using the original data including 31,644
events (c) and the declustered catalog of Zhuang et al. (2004)
including 12,753 events (d)
background model. In the following analysis, the approx-
imation of C used in application is given by Eq. 33 in the
1048
case of absolutely continuous probability measures P and
P(⋅|B) and also in term of frequencies in Eq. 25. These
definitions are equivalent, and it is according to the
properties of the measures P and P(⋅|B) whether to use
the exact expression (Eqs. 30b and 25) or the approxi-
mation (Eqs. 33 and 25). It is important to note that
Eqs. 25, 30b, 33, and 38 are general and holds for a
user-defined background model such as the gamma or
the inverse Gaussian distributions (Talbi and Yamazaki
2010; Matthews et al. 2002).
To provide a working definition of C, it is
necessary to define the probability P(B)=P(τ∈B)
that an inter-event time τ belongs to the background.
For a sufficiently large number of events, this probabil-
ity is comparable to the proportion ν of background
events in the whole catalog, which is commonly called
the background fraction; that is
P ðBÞ  v ð15Þ
For regions where aftershock activity is not domi-
nant, a simple biased nonparametric estimate of ν is
the ratio of the first- to second-order moments of the
inter-event times, i.e., inter-event time mean over var-
iance (Molchan 2005; Hainzl et al. 2006).
It is possible to distinguish two cases, where the
first is the general case when the cluster (non-back-
ground) inter-event time distribution is unknown and
the second is a specific case where it is driven from a
specific probability density function fN. In both cases,
the measure C is calculated explicitly.
3.1 Case 1: Cluster inter-event time distribution
is unknown
In this case, C can be defined in the neighborhood of
an inter-event time τ0 as
PðBjt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt Þ
C ðt 0 Þ ¼ 1  ð16Þ
n k, θ) with c=0.2, p=1.5, k=0.5, and θ=0.7 (Eqs. 14, 28,
The variables Δτ, ν, and PðBjt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ
Δt:Þ are a positive time increment, the background
fraction, and the posteriori probability of background
inter-event times, respectively. The derivation of
Eq. 16 is detailed in part B of the Appendix.
The posteriori conditional probability in the former
equation describes approximately the proportion of
local background inter-event times from all inter-
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
event times close to τ0, within the range Iτ0 defined
by t 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt. This probability is sub-
sequently referred to here as the local background
frequency (LBF). LBF is estimated from the number
of background inter-event times τ within the range Iτ0
divided by the total number of inter-event times in the
same range. Given that ν is the mean background
frequency on the whole inter-event time scale, the
measure C(τ0) compares LBF and ν locally around
τ0. For a given ν, 1−C(τ0) is proportional to LBF, so
that low C(τ0) values correspond to high LBF and vice
versa. C(τ0) is zero when the local background fre-
quency is equal to the mean ν, whereas it is positive
when LBF is below the mean and negative when it
exceeds the mean. Conversely, C(τ0) tends toward
unity for very low background frequencies at the dis-
tribution tails. C(τ0) cannot be defined if no inter-event
time is registered in the vicinity of τ0 (i.e., when
Pðt 0  Δt  t  t 0 þ Δt Þ ¼ 0Þ.
In the following discussion, C has been calculated
analytically and plotted for a set of inter-event time models
to assess its behavior. For this purpose, the use of the exact
expression of C obtained from Eq. 30a is preferred over
the use of the approximation given by Eq. 33 (part B of
the Appendix). As previously mentioned, the analytical
expressions of the cumulative distribution function for all
the inter-event times and its corresponding probability
distribution function, which are required in Eqs. 30a and
33 to calculate Pðt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt Þand f ðt0 Þ,
respectively, can be found in, for example, Saichev and
Sornette (2007) and Talbi and Yamazaki (2010). In this
study, Poissonian and non-Poissonian models are tested
as background.
Figure 3a shows a plot of two analytical fits of the
inter-event time probability distribution function f against
three exponential distributions with different means μB,
symbolizing the background distribution fB. For f, we
consider the mixed Weibull distribution MixWeib(c, p,
54, and 55 of Talbi and Yamazaki 2010).
" #
f ðxÞ ¼ μ 
1 k
 Q1 ðxÞeðx=θÞ þ
1
Q2 ðxÞ
1
θΓ 1þ k
1 μ D ðx þ cÞ1þa
  ð17aÞ
ca c
Q1 ðxÞ ¼ 1 ðx þ cÞ1a þ kθk xk1
ð1  aÞμD ð1  aÞμD
2ca 1
þ ð17bÞ
μD ðx þ cÞa
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061 1049

!
1 3.1.1 Example 1: Poisson background
a   Jk;θ ðxÞ
Q2 ðxÞ ¼ a c 1 ð17cÞ
θ Γ 1 þ 1k
In this example,
 
Z x et 0 =μB eΔt =μB  eΔt =μB
k C ðt 0 Þ ¼ 1  ð18Þ
Jk;θ ðxÞ ¼ eðt=θÞ d t ð17dÞ F ðt 0 þ Δ t Þ  F ðt 0  Δ t Þ
0

The derivation of Eq. 18 is detailed in part C of the

aca c1þa c1a
μD ¼ ðt max þ cÞ1a þ a 
1a ðt max þ cÞ a ð1  a Þ
ð17eÞ
The variables μ and τmax are equal to 1 and 103, respec-
tively, while α is linked to p as α=1−1/p, 0<α<1.
Alternatively, we use a rational interpolation to
mimic the behavior of inter-event times at short and
1θ
long ranges, hðt Þ ¼ 1þθnt1þt 2þc , with n=0.9, θ=0.03,
and χ=0.7 (Eq. 76 of Saichev and Sornette 2007).
Figure 3b shows the plots of the probability distribu-
tion function f against a set of Weibull distributions
with different parameters. In most cases, departure
between the whole and the background probability
distribution functions, f and fB, respectively, is
observed at the distribution tails, while the two proba-
bility distribution functions are relatively similar around
the mean t. The deviation between f and fB observed in
Fig. 3a, b is studied using the measure C in the following
two examples.
Appendix. Although the analytical form of F can be
calculated in this case (Talbi and Yamazaki 2010), its
substitution into Eq. 18 is not carried out here for the
sake of simplicity.
The calculated C measures are plotted in Fig. 4a for
different μB values. For the mixed Weibull model, C
decreases gradually to reach its minimum for inter-
event times close to the background mean μB. In
contrast, for the interpolating function h, C decreases
irregularly to a minimum value that deviates from the
background mean. At short inter-event times, C has
values around unity, which correspond to very low
proportions of background inter-event times compared
with the overall series. At long inter-event times, C
increases rapidly to unity. This behavior is clearly
linked to the steep decrease in the exponential proba-
bility distribution function observed in Fig. 3a and is
an unsurprising result given that the models for f
mimic real data with a non-exponential Weibull or
power law-like long tail (Talbi and Yamazaki 2010).

Fig. 3 Plots of the probability distribution function f of earth-
quake inter-event times using a mixed Weibull distribution
MixWeib(c, p, k, θ) with c=0.2, p=1.5, k=0.5, and θ=0.7 (Eq.
15 of Talbi and Yamazaki 2010), shown as a black solid curve, and
the rational interpolation hðt Þ ¼ 1þθnt
1θ
1þt 2 þc with n=0.9, θ=0.03,
and χ=0.7 (Eq. 76 of Saichev and Sornette 2007), shown in
magenta. The distribution f is coupled with plots of the exponential
distribution with different means μB =2, 1, and 0.5, symbolizing
Poissonian background occurrences (shown in red) (a), and plots
of the Weibull distribution with different scale and shape param-
eters k=2 and 0.5, θ=2, 1, and 0.5, symbolizing Weibull back-
ground occurrences (shown in blue and red) (b)
1050
Fig. 4 Theoretical plots of the clustering measure C calculated
using the mixed Weibull distribution (in black) and the rational
interpolation h (in magenta). a Dotted, solid, and dashed curves
correspond to an exponential background distribution with
Figure 3a clearly supports the presence of long-range
clustering in real data. The two maxima in C visible for
the interpolating function h with μB =1 (solid magenta
curve) are caused by the failure of h to account for the
behavior of inter-event times near the mean (Talbi 2009).
3.1.2 Example 2: Weibull background
In this example,
k k
e½ðt 0 Δt Þ=θ  e½ðt 0 þΔt Þ=θ
C ðt 0 Þ ¼ 1  ð19Þ
F ðt 0 þ Δ t Þ  F ðt 0  Δ t Þ
The derivation of Eq. 19 is detailed in part D of the
Appendix. Although the analytical form of F is provided
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
mean μB =0.5, 1, and 2, respectively. b, c The curves correspond
to a Weibull background distribution with scale parameter θ and
shape parameter k=2 (b) and k=0.5 (c). Dotted, solid, and
dashed curves correspond to θ=0.5, 1, and 2, respectively
in Talbi and Yamazaki (2010), it is not reproduced here
for the sake of simplicity.
The calculated C measures are plotted in Fig. 4b, c
for different values of the parameters k and θ. In the case
k=2, which corresponds to the Rayleigh distribution, C
is plotted in Fig. 4b. Its behavior is quite similar to
Fig. 4a, but with a sharper and deeper V-shaped behav-
ior. The minimum C value for all curves is quite close to
the scale parameter θ. Given that θ and μB are compa-
rable (θ=0.5, 1, and 2 correspond to μB =0.44, 0.89, and
1.77, respectively), the minima are also close to the
mean background inter-event time μB. The case
for k=0.5 is shown in Fig. 4c. For τ≤1, C is quite
stable, with values close to zero, particularly for the
mixed Weibull distribution (black curves). This type of
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061 1051

behavior reflects the dominance of the background pro- ν can be estimated from the normalization condition
cess at short ranges, with a relatively constant LBF close imposed by weights in Eq. 20 as follows:
to the mean ν within each inter-event time bin. At longer
μ μ
inter-event times (i.e., τ≥1), it is possible to distinguish ð1  n Þ þn ¼1 ð21Þ
μN μB
two cases corresponding to θ<1 and θ≥1. In the first
case, where θ=0.5, which corresponds to μB =1, C is
quite stable, varying around zero for a wide range of Subsequently, for μ>0 and μB −μN >0,
inter-event times (dotted curves). This stability reflects  
the contiguity of the probability distribution functions μB μ  μN
n¼ ð22Þ
fB and f and the fact that fB (the stretched exponen- μ μB  μN
tial distribution) is successful in capturing the long-
term behavior of the whole inter-event time series. In Combining Eqs. 10a, 20, and 22, an expression for
the second case, where θ≥1 (i.e., θ=1 and 2, which the approximation of C can be derived as
corresponds to μB =2 and 4, respectively), C de-
1
creases to a minimum in the case of the linear C ðt Þ  1      ð23Þ
μB μ fD ðt Þ μμN
interpolation h. The minimum C value is much μB μN fB ðt Þ þ μB μN
higher than the mean μB value in this case. The
differences between the background and the whole
distributions at short and long time ranges indicate This expression can be simplified to
time clustering, whereas the minimum C value
1
attained at around the mean background inter-event C ðt Þ  1  ;
time μB identifies the maximum observed LBF, and ð1  bÞ ffNB ððttÞÞ þ b
ð24Þ
hence the dominance of inter-event times from back- μ  μN
ground seismicity. with b ¼
μB  μN
Finally, it is important to note the typical V-shaped
behavior observed in Fig. 4a, b. For very large μB
values that are much greater than the mean t, C Equation 24 shows that for a given β, C tracks the
reaches a minimum outside the observable range; con- same variations (increase and decrease with τ) as the
sequently, C appears to decrease along the whole inter- ratio of cluster to background probability distribution
event time range and the V-shaped behavior cannot be functions.
observed.

3.2 Case 2: Cluster inter-event time distribution
is known
In this case, the probability distribution function f can
be separated into two components as follows:
μ μ
f ðt Þ ¼ ð1  n Þ fN ðt Þ þ n fB ðt Þ ð20Þ
μN μB
The variables ν, μB, μN, and μ are the back-
ground fraction (Eq. 15), the mean inter-event time
of the background, and the clustered and whole
seismicity components, respectively. fB and fN are
the conditional probability distribution functions of
the background and clustered seismicity compo-
nents, respectively. The derivation of Eq. 20 is
detailed in part E of the Appendix. The proportion
4 Inter-event time sampling and inference
The approach adopted in this study uses earth-
quake random sampling (ERS) to produce inter-
event time series. The algorithm performs an iter-
ative sampling by computing seeds from a network
of local disks with radius R in each run (Talbi and
Yamazaki 2010). R is increased with larger mag-
nitudes when sampling is judged to be poor.
Subsequently, the obtained time series are mixed
and scaled using the arithmetic mean inter-event
time t obtained from the whole series. In addition
to this approach being able to reveal an approxi-
mately unique shape of the inter-event time distri-
bution (e.g., Bak et al. 2002; Christensen et al.
2002; Corral 2007), such a scaling procedure provides a
standard dimensionless reference where the terminology
1052
“short term” versus “long term” can be used relative to
the mean value. “Short term” is used in reference to
inter-event times with t and “long term” is used in
reference to inter-event times with t >> t. The unique-
ness of the scaled inter-event time distribution f for
different regions and completeness magnitudes was pre-
viously used in the theoretical calculation of C in
Section 3. In this section, the same scaled distribution
is used for consistency. We also use the mean inter-event
time scaling because it is more stable than the mean
event rate scaling. It should be noted that the occurrence
of an extreme event adds a large number to the sum of
past events rates and a small amount to the sum of past
inter-event times (Naylor et al. 2009).
The degree or effect of clustering is calculated using
the measure C as defined in Eq. 10a. As the independent
seismicity structure is unknown, fB cannot be estimated
reliably. However, the measure C allows us to constrain,
at least in part, how time correlation between events is
linked. Even in the case where the declustering method
fails to remove all correlations, C should be able to
identify at least large and small deviations between the
whole and background distributions along different
inter-event timescales.
In Section 6, C is computed using the inter-event
time frequencies fr and frB, corresponding to the em-
pirical whole distribution obtained from the original
data and the residual empirical distribution obtained
using a chosen declustering approach, respectively.
The frequencies fr and frB are calculated given a par-
ticular inter-event time bin I; then, for each inter-event
time τ∈I, C(τ) is approximated as
frB
C ðt Þ  1  ; fr > 0 ð25Þ
fr
Since broad timescales are involved (from seconds
and minutes to years), an appropriate bin size along the
inter-event time axes can be obtained by considering the
logarithmic scale (e.g., Bak et al. 2002) or an exponen-
tially increasing series ci, where i is the label of consec-
utive bins and c>1 (e.g., Corral 2004, 2005). In this
study, we set c=1.5; other choices give similar results.
5 Earthquake data
Earthquake catalog data from southern California and
Japan were used in this analysis. For southern California,
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
the catalog for the period 1932–2010 was compiled from
the Southern California Seismic Network (http://
www.data.scec.org/ftp/catalogs/SCSN/). The region be-
tween latitudes 32°–37° N and longitudes 114°–122° W
was considered (Fig. 1a). Seismicity in southern
California is dominated by mainshock–aftershock se-
quences. Dense clusters are formed by aftershocks con-
centrated on mainshock rupture zones, in addition to
individual swarms. Some of the largest earthquake se-
quences recorded were the 1952 Mw =7.5 Kern County,
the 1992 Mw =7.3 Landers, and the 1999 Mw =7.1 Hector
Mine earthquakes, which all ruptured slow-slipping
faults east of the San Andreas Fault. These events in-
duced long-lasting aftershocks that continue today,
which are distributed over tens of kilometers within the
corresponding mainshock epicentral zones (Hutton et al.
2010). The catalog also includes smaller but still damag-
ing earthquakes such as the 1933 Mw =6.4 Long Beach,
the 1971 Mw =6.7 San Fernando, and the 1994 Mw =6.7
Northridge earthquakes. Hutton et al. (2010) showed that
the magnitude of completeness of the SCSN catalog
exceeds roughly 3.2 and 1.8, starting from 1932 and
1981, respectively, whereas it reaches 1.0 within the core
of the network coverage area.
In our case studies, the magnitudes of complete-
ness, the corresponding time periods, together with the
number of events and depths are shown in Table 1 for
both southern California and Japan. The letters SC and
J in the first column refer to southern California and
Japan, respectively. In the case of southern California,
the magnitude of completeness and their correspond-
ing time periods (Table 1) are taken from Talbi and
Yamazaki (2009). These magnitudes of completeness
for southern California are higher than those given by
Hutton et al. (2010).
For Japan, we used the Japan Meteorological
Agency (JMA) catalog covering the period 1923–
2010 and within the region between latitudes 24°–
50° N and longitudes 122°–152° E. This data
source is a modern seismic network operated and
maintained by the JMA. Most seismicity is typi-
cally concentrated along the Japan Trench in the
subduction zone between the Pacific and Eurasian
plates (Fig. 2a). A recent study by Nanjo et al.
(2010) showed that relatively low completeness
magnitudes, mc ≥1.9, characterize the mainland re-
gion, which is consistent with the high density of
seismic stations in this region; in contrast, com-
pleteness magnitudes are high in offshore areas
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061 1053

Table 1 Parameters of the sampling schemes

Scheme Period mc Depth N R (km) Figure Dec

SC1 1990–2010 2.5 All 27,693 50 Fig. 5b, d GK, R

SC2 1947–2010 3.5 All 6,308 50 Fig. 5b, d GK, R
SC3a 1932–2010 4.5 All 781 50 Fig. 5b GK
SC3b 1932–2010 4.5 All 781 100 Fig. 5d R
J1a 1990–2010 3.5 All 47,686 50 Fig. 5a GK
J1b 1990–2010 3.5 <100 km 39,718 50 Fig. 5a GK
J2a 1975–2010 4.5 All 12,741 50 Fig. 5a GK
J2b 1975–2010 4.5 <100 km 10,985 50 Fig. 5a GK
J3a 1923–2010 5.5 All 3,864 100 Fig. 5a GK
J3b 1923–2010 5.5 <100 km 3,180 100 Fig. 5a GK
J4 1926–2009 4.2 <100 km 31,644 50 Fig. 5e Z

Period, mc, N, R, and Dec denote the start and end year of events considered in the scheme, the magnitude of completeness, the number
of all events with magnitudes M≥mc, the ERS sampling radius, and the declustering method used, respectively. These parameters are
grouped and labeled according to the sampling schemes defined in the first column. SC and J correspond to southern California and
Japan, respectively. GK, R, and Z correspond to the declustering algorithms proposed by Gardner and Knopoff (1974), Reasenberg
(1985), and Zhuang et al. (2004), respectively. The last two columns (Figure and Dec) list the figures in this paper that correspond to the
use of each of the sampling schemes and declustering methods. For example, for SC1, Fig. 5b corresponds to the GK algorithm,
whereas Fig. 5d corresponds to the R algorithm

where few seismic stations are present. As is the
case for southern California, the magnitudes of
completeness listed in Table 1 for Japan, excluding
scheme J4, were derived in our former study
encompassing time periods up to 2005 (Talbi and
Yamazaki 2009). Here, the time periods in Table 1
of Talbi and Yamazaki (2009) were extended to
2010. In addition to the study of Talbi and
Yamazaki (2009), the schemes J1a–b, J2a–b, J3a–
b have magnitudes of completeness and time pe-
riods comparable with the magnitudes of complete-
ness derived by Nanjo et al. (2010). Scheme J4
corresponds to the JMA catalog data used in the
study of Zhuang et al. (2004), but with the time
period extended in our study to 2009. Scheme J4
covers the region with latitudes 30°–46° N and
longitudes 128°–148° E. This scheme is only used
in this study to test the stochastic declustering
algorithm.
6 Results and analysis
The measure C is computed and plotted for each sam-
pling scheme listed in Table 1, and then the usefulness
of the results in the characterization of clustering and
background processes, and in identifying differences
between declustering algorithms, are discussed. For this
discussion, different declustering algorithms are applied
to reduce possible artifacts and then C is computed in
each case, combined with its corresponding sampling
scheme as given in Table 1. Only major and persistent
trends are used for the characterization of the clustering
and background seismicity structures. Although the in-
terpretation of the results is sensitive to artifacts, it still
clearly distinguishes between the clustering behaviors
produced by the different declustering techniques.
Given that C typically decreases with increasing
inter-event times, it is convenient to introduce the term
“clustering attenuation curves” (CACs) in reference to
the behavior of C. Figure 5a, b shows the CACs obtained
for Japan and Southern California seismicity, respective-
ly, using the algorithm of Gardner and Knopoff (1974).
The last column of Table 1 identifies the schemes and
parameters used in each figure. In Fig. 5a, the CACs for
shallow depth events (d<100 km) are plotted with red
markers, and the theoretical fit of C is shown using the
mixed Weibull distribution as the whole distribution f and
an exponential background distribution fB with mean
μB =4. This fit suggests a background fraction of about
25 %, which is comparable with the ratio of 22,317
independent events out of 87,037 total events identified
1054 J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061

by the declustering algorithm. An increase in C is not fluctuations at long range and cannot be adequately
observed in the real data because of the shortage of data fitted as in Fig. 5a. However, it is possible to consider
at long range, ðt > 10t Þ. The data in Fig. 5b show high the best fit to the data with the models presented in
 J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
R Fig. 5 Plots of the clustering measure C calculated using the
algorithm of Gardner and Knopoff (1974) for Japan (a) and
southern California (b). Red markers in (a) show C calculated
for shallow (d<100 km) events. Dashed and dotted curves in (b)
show theoretical fits calculated using the mixed Weibull distri-
bution as the whole inter-event time distribution and an expo-
nential background distribution with μB =2 and 3, respectively.
Solid curves in (a) and (b) show the fits calculated using the
mixed Weibull distribution as the whole inter-event time distri-
bution and an exponential background distribution with μB =4
and a mixed exponential−Weibull distribution, respectively. c
Plot of the residual mean squares, RMS, corresponding to the fit
in (b). Blue, red, and black markers correspond to the residuals
of the dashed, dotted, and solid curves in (b). d Plots of the
clustering measure C calculated using the algorithm of
Reasenberg (1985) for southern California using the parameters
τmin =5, τmax =150, P=0.9, and Rfact =6. Solid line shows loga-
rithmic fits to the data between 102 t and t , whereas the 95 %
limiting curves are shown by dashed lines. e Plots of the
clustering measure C calculated using the algorithm of Zhuang
et al. (2004) for Japan seismicity with magnitudes M≥4.2 within
the period 1923–2009. The solid curve shows the mean C curve
obtained from 100 runs, whereas the dashed curves show the
95 % confidence limits of the mean curve
Section 3. Data in Fig. 5b are fitted in a similar
fashion to Fig. 5a, but with μB =2 and 3 as dashed
and dotted curves, respectively. This model suggests
a background fraction ranging between 33 and 50 %,
although only about 25 % of the data are identified as
background by the declustering algorithm (i.e.,
16,848 events out of 60,092 total events). This in-
consistency between the real data and the fitted mod-
el for t > t can be explained by the deviation of the
residual events identified by the declustering algo-
rithm from the assumed Poissonian behavior. Let us
show that the behavior of C for t > t can be
reproduced using a mixed exponential–Weibull back-
ground distribution, i.e., fB~ pr ExpðμÞ þ ð1  pr Þ
Weibðk; θÞ; 0  pr  1. The solid line in Fig. 5b
corresponds to a mixed exponential–Weibull back-
ground distribution with pr=0.45. It fits quite well
the data for t > t. The whole data set is the best fitted
by an exponential background with μB = 3 (dotted
curve) for t  t and the mixed exponential–Weibull
background distribution (solid curve) for t > t. A
consistent way to test point process fitting is to use
diagnostic methods applicable to point processes
with known conditional intensity (Stoyan and
Grabarnik 1991; Lawson 1993; Baddeley et al.
2005, 2008, 2011; Zhuang 2006). However, in our
case, these methods are not applicable because the
conditional intensity is not defined. Alternatively, to
1055
test the fitting models in Fig. 5b, we use the mean
square residual function defined as
1 X  2
RMSðt Þ ¼ b
i=xi t C ðxi Þ  C ðxi Þ ð26Þ
nm
C and Cb are the measure predicted by the models in
Fig. 5b and the measure calculated from Eq. 25 for the
schemes in Fig. 5b, respectively. The variables n and
m are the sample size and the number of free param-
eters in the model, respectively. In our case, we sup-
pose f fixed and count the number of free parameters
in the model for fB. Therefore, m=1 when fB is expo-
nential and m=4 when fB follows the mixed exponen-
tial–Weibull model. From the RMS plot in Fig. 5c, we
confirm that the best fit is obtained using an exponen-
tial background distribution with μB =3 (red markers)
for t  t, while for t > t, the use of the mixed expo-
nential–Weibull background distribution (black
markers) provides the best fit to our data. In Fig. 5b,
the slight increase of C visible at long range for
scheme SC2 supports the validity of the theoretical
fit. It should be noted that, in general, C trends to zero
around the mean inter-event time t in the case of
shallow depth events (red markers in Fig. 5a), and
otherwise at shorter times (black markers in Fig. 5a,
b). Exceedingly small values of C indicate that LBF is
reaching the mean ν (LBF≈ν). For t  0:1t, C(τ) has
values around 1, indicating a very low background
frequency. The clustering component is expected to
be dominant because of the very low background
frequency registered at a short inter-event time range.
For t  t in Fig. 5a and t  0:1t in Fig. 5b, C(τ)
decreases rapidly to values less than −1, which
corresponds to a background inter-event time fre-
quency more than twice the whole inter-event time
frequency. In this case, the clustering is expected to
be low and to decrease with increasing LBF. Both
positive and negative C values indicate the pres-
ence of clustered pairs of events in the correspond-
ing time ranges.
In order to test the consistency of the former obser-
vations, C has been calculated using the algorithms of
Reasenberg (1985) and Zhuang et al. (2004) for south-
ern California and Japan, respectively. Figure 5d is a
graph of the CACs for southern California calculated
using Reasenberg’s (1985) declustering algorithm
with the parameters τmin =5, τmax =150, P=0.90, and
1056
Rfact =6. These values are slightly below the middle
range of acceptable values used by Hutton et al.
(2010) for the SCSN catalog. This choice of parame-
ters accounts for low-magnitude events since the
declustering algorithm is applied to M≥2.45 events
instead of M≥2.95 events, as used by Hutton et al.
(2010). The same periods and magnitude of complete-
ness used in Fig. 5b are considered with a sampling
radius R=100 km instead of R=50 km for M≥4.5
events. A linear fit with 95 % confidence limits shows
that C decreases logarithmically for 102 t  t  t.
After the mean, C appears to be relatively constant, with
values between approximately −0.8 and −0.6. This be-
havior is partly a function of the use of Reasenberg’s
(1985) algorithm for aftershocks (assuming a non-
homogeneous Poissonian with an Omori law rate, Eqs.
3a and 3b), which results in a power law inter-event time
distribution (Utsu et al. 1995; Shcherbakov et al. 2005,
2006; Yakovlev et al. 2005). Figure 5d shows the mean
CAC obtained using 100 stochastically declustered cat-
alogs with corresponding 95 % confidence limit curves.
This figure is highlighted for two reasons. Firstly, the
CAC demonstrates the clustering in the ETAS model,
which is one of the most successful approaches previ-
ously used to model seismicity. Secondly, the stochastic
declustering method does not use any subjective param-
eters, but objectively estimates them from the observed
seismicity. In Fig. 5e, the plot of C shows three different
types of behavior. A rapid logarithmic decrease in C that
is similar to that observed in Fig. 5d is evident for
t  0:1t. C then shows a slower decrease for
0:1 t  t  t. At long ranges, a stationary-like regime
appears to exist, but it is masked by marked fluctuations
in C. As is the case in Fig. 5d, the behavior of C for inter-
event times t  0:1t is linked to the Omori law hypoth-
esis for cluster events in the ETAS. This illustrates the
regular disruption of the clustering structure and the
gradual settling of a relative increase in background
inter-event time frequency. LBF reaches the mean ν at
around t  0:1t as C trends to zero.
Finally, the CACs plotted in Fig. 5a, b can be
modeled quite successfully using the mixed Weibull
model with exponential background distribution, with
the exception of the discrepancy observed in Fig. 5b at
long ranges, which is fitted using a mixed exponential–
Weibull background distribution. The need of such
mixed background distribution can be explained by the
failure of the declustering algorithm to closely model
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
Poissonian residual inter-event time distribution. The
correlation identified using our clustering measure
varies with the declustering algorithm used. While the
algorithm of Gardner and Knopoff (1974) shows a
strong correlation with a weak background component
at short ranges (Fig. 5a, b), time correlation decreases
more rapidly at short term and saturates at long ranges
with an almost constant LBF when the algorithms of
Reasenberg (1985) and Zhuang et al. (2004) are used
(Fig. 5d, e). This discrepancy can be explained by the
basic assumptions used by each of the algorithms.
Reasenberg (1985) and Zhuang et al. (2004) assume
an Omori law non-homogenous Poisson process for
aftershocks (Eqs. 3b and 5c), whereas Gardner and
Knopoff (1974) do not use such assumption. The algo-
rithm of Gardner and Knopoff is removing all events
that occur close in time around each event (i.e., digging
time holes), resulting in the overestimation of clustering
(aftershocks), especially at short time ranges.
Finally, it is interesting to note the typical behavior of
C in both Fig. 5d, e. At short range, Omori law holds for
aftershocks worldwide and, thus, constitutes a bench-
mark hypothesis. The Omori law aftershock model is
more than a simple hypothesis; it is an empirical law
fitting broad aftershock sequences worldwide. If we
believe the Omori law, C should typically decrease reg-
ularly (almost linearly) on the semi-logarithmic scale
governed by the aftershocks that constitute most of the
clustered events. At long range, C should be more stable
or vary slowly. Figure 5a, b relative to the algorithm of
Gardner and Knopoff are more fitting our model with
Poissonian background, but are missing important infor-
mation about the clustered events that is the Omori law.
In consequence, the algorithm of Gardner and Knopoff is
deficiently overestimating the clustering at short range
and underestimating the clustering at long range. The
fact that the different behaviors of our measure are linked
to the assumptions made for the aftershock models in
each algorithm is not a limitation since our measure can
deal with any available hypothetical aftershock model.
7 Concluding remarks
The first objective of this study was to introduce a
clustering measure for seismicity by assuming a given
background seismicity model. The clustering measure
is simply defined as the standardized difference
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
between the whole and background inter-event time
frequencies. The proposed clustering measure does
not make any preconceived assumptions about the
nature of the clustered seismicity, but instead describes
it using a simple clustering attenuation curve. In par-
ticular, the Omori law assumed by the methods of
Reasenberg (1985) and Zhuang et al. (2004) induces
a linear decrease in the CACs (Fig. 5d, e). The pro-
posed clustering measure is then used in the analysis
of earthquake clustering at different inter-event time-
scales and for the interpolation of the results to describe
clustered and background seismicity. Our results show
that the clustering measure successfully quantifies local
perturbations of seismicity produced by time clustering.
In particular, it distinguishes between a strong clustering
at short inter-event time ranges versus a weak and less
apparent clustering at long time ranges that is dependent
on the declustering algorithm used.
The second objective was to use our clustering
measure to compare the results obtained with three
different declustering methods. The algorithms of
Reasenberg (1985) and Zhuang et al. (2004), which
assume an Omori-type aftershock decay, show that
time clustering decreases more rapidly as a power
law decay at short inter-event times and saturates at
long inter-event times. These different behaviors are
linked to the assumptions made for the aftershock
models in each algorithm. The algorithm of Gardner
and Knopoff (1974), which assumes a finite space–
time range of aftershocks, shows a strong time clus-
tering with weak background seismicity at short inter-
event times. If we believe the Omori-type decrease for
the number of events after the mainshock, the algo-
rithm of Gardner and Knopoff (1974) only removes
events close in space and time, resulting in the
overestimation of clustering at short range and under-
estimation of clustering at long range.
In addition to the characterization of earthquake
time clustering over different inter-event time ranges,
our proposed clustering measure is particularly useful
in the detection of long-term clustering. Future work
using this approach could be extended to the study of
space clustering and the combination of space and time
clustering analysis to construct a stochastic declustering
strategy.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by a fellowship
from the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science. The authors
1057
are grateful to the Japanese Meteorological Agency and the South-
ern California Seismic Network for providing the catalog data used
in this study. The authors thank Rodolfo Console from INGV, an
anonymous reviewer and the editor Torsten Dahm for their
comments, which improved an earlier version of the manuscript.
Appendix
A. Proprieties of the deviation ε
Earthquake clustering is typically observed after the
occurrence of intermediate- to high-magnitude events.
A series of events called “aftershocks” that occur closely
in space and time are triggering phenomena. Our general
hypothesis assumes that the overall pattern of seismicity
can be described by a stable seismicity component
overprinted by local perturbations that reflect clustering
in space and time. The stable component is linked to
some background process reflecting regional constraints
that are mainly tectonically driven seismicity, whereas
the local perturbations produce clustering through the
time-dependent relaxation of the Earth’s crust.
The deviation ε has the noise propriety that sums to
zero.
Z þ1
E ðC ðt ÞÞ ¼ CðsÞf ðsÞ d s ¼ 0 ð27Þ
0
These perturbations contribute to the observation of
clustering at different time ranges, with the clustering
effect or extent calculated using the measure C as
defined in Eq. 10a.
A simple case where the deviation ε can be calcu-
lated is the case of a simple mixed distribution be-
tween background and cluster events. In such a case,
Eq. 20 holds and f can be written as
f ðt Þ ¼ bfB ðt Þ þ ð1  b ÞfN ðt Þ ð28aÞ
With α defined as in Eq. 24,
f ðt Þ ¼ fB ðt Þ þ ð1  bÞ½fN ðt Þ  fB ðt Þ ð28bÞ
Subsequently, ε can be derived from Eqs. 9b and 28b.
"ðt Þ  ð1  b Þ½fN ðt Þ  fB ðt Þ ð29Þ
Equation 29 shows that ε is proportional to the differ-
ence between the two component distributions fN and fB.
1058 J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061

B. Derivation of Eq. 16

In terms of probability, the measure C can be defined

in the vicinity of an inter-event time τ0 as follows:

1
C ðt 0 Þ ¼ ½Pðt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt Þ  Pðt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt j BÞ ð30aÞ
P ðt 0  Δ t  t < t 0 þ Δ t Þ

Where Δτ > 0 is a time increment for which
Pðt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt Þ > 0. Simplifying Eq. 30a
gives
Pðt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt j BÞ
C ðt 0 Þ ¼ 1  ð30bÞ
P ðt 0  Δ t  t < t 0 þ Δ t Þ
Equation 30b gives the exact expression C(τ0) that
is used in parts C and D of the Appendix.
If the probability P and its conditional form Pðj BÞ
are absolutely continuous and the increment Δt is
small enough, then two probability distribution func-
tions, f and fB, exist such that
Pðt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt Þ  f ðt 0 Þ Δt ð31Þ
Pðt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt j BÞ  fB ðt 0 Þ Δt ð32Þ
In this case, the following approximation is
obtained:
f B ðt 0 Þ
C ðt 0 Þ  1  ; f ðt 0 Þ > 0 ð33Þ
f ðt 0 Þ
Equation 33 is equivalent to Eq. 10a for τ=τ0.
In practice, C(τ0) is estimated using the whole and
background inter-event time frequencies in the vi-
cinity of τ0 instead of f(τ0) and fB(τ0). In fact, our
clustering measure simply compares the back-
ground and whole frequencies along the inter-
event time axes.
Alternatively, a useful expression of C(τ0) can be
calculated in terms of the background fraction ν. The
conditional probability in Eq. 30b is equivalent to

PðBjt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt ÞPðt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt Þ

P ðt 0  Δ t  t < t 0 þ Δ t j B Þ ¼ ð34Þ
PðBÞ

Finally, the expression of the measure C in Eq. 16 is 1 t=μB

fB ðt Þ ¼ e ð35aÞ
obtained from Eqs. 15, 30b, and 34. μB
t
 0
FB ðt 0 Þ ¼ 1  e μB ð35bÞ
C. Calculation of C in the case of Poissonian
background seismicity (Eq. 18) The variable μB is the mean inter-event time for
background events.
This example is important because it should mimic C The probabilities in Eq. 30b are calculated
calculated using real residual catalogs, which are as- using the cumulative distribution functions F and
sumed to be Poissonian. In this case, the background FB of the whole and background inter-event times,
inter-event time distribution is exponential. f B ∼ respectively.
Exp(μB), with a probability distribution function fB P ðt 0  Δ t  t < t 0 þ Δ t j B Þ
and a cumulative distribution function FB, respectively,
written as ¼ FB ðt 0 þ Δt Þ  FB ðt 0  Δt Þ ð36Þ
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061 1059

P ðt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt Þ Similarly to the former case, C can be calculated

¼ F ðt 0 þ Δt Þ  F ðt 0 þ Δt Þ ð37Þ
Substituting Eqs. 36 and 37 into Eq. 30b yields
FB ðt 0 þ Δt Þ  FB ðt 0 þ Δt Þ
C ðt 0 Þ ¼ 1  ð38Þ
F ðt 0 þ Δt Þ  F ðt 0 þ Δt Þ
Finally, by using Eq. 35b, the expression of the
measure C is that given in Eq. 18.
D. Calculation of C in the case of Weibull background
seismicity (Eq. 19)
The Weibull distribution (Weibull 1951) is able to
capture the long-term behavior of inter-event
times. For example, it has been used in a number
of recurrence time models for large earthquakes
(e.g., Newman et al. 2005; Yakovlev et al. 2006;
Turcotte et al. 2007; Zoller and Hainzl 2007). It is
used here as a model for the background inter-
event time distribution. In this case, the probability
distribution function fB and cumulative distribution
function FB are
fB ðt Þ ¼ kθk xk1 eðx=θÞ
k
ð39aÞ
k
FB ðt 0 Þ ¼ 1  eðt 0 =θÞ ð39bÞ
The variables k and θ>0 are the shape and scale
parameters, respectively. The Weibull distribution is
noted hereafter Weib(k,θ), and we write fB ∼Weib(k,θ)
in reference to its density fB defined in Eq. 39a. The
mean μB of the Weibull distribution is a function of the
Weibull parameters.
using the whole inter-event cumulative distribution
function F as given in Eq. 19.
E. Derivation of Eq. 20
If we assume that seismicity can be separated into
background and clustered components both described
by corresponding independent processes, the probabil-
ity P(τ1 >τ) that the time to the next event from a fixed
origin 0 exceeds a given time τ>0 can be calculated
using the total probability theorem. This is given by
the sum of the probabilities for the two components.
P ðt 1 > t Þ ¼ P ðt 1 > t j BÞ P ðBÞ
þ P ðt 1 > t j N Þ P ðN Þ ð42Þ
B and N correspond to the following events:
B: “A background event occurs.”
N: “A clustered event occurs.”
P ðt 1 > t j BÞ and P ðt 1 > t j N Þ are the conditional
probabilities of the forward recurrence time τ1 on the
events B and N, respectively (i.e., the probabilities that
starting from an arbitrary time, there occur no back-
ground events or no cluster events, respectively, in the
following time interval of length t).
In this case, P(B) is the former background fraction
defined in Eq. 15.
PðBÞ ¼ n; PðN Þ ¼ 1  n ð43Þ
Applying the linear derivation operator to both
sides of Eq. 42 gives
d P ðt 1 > t Þ d Pðt 1 > t j BÞ
¼n þ ð1  n Þ
dt dt
d P ðt 1 > t j N Þ
 ð44Þ
dt

  The derivatives in Eq. 44 can be obtained using Palm–

1 Khintchine equations (Cox and Isham 1980; Daley and
μB ¼ θ Γ 1þ ð40Þ
k Vere-Jones 1988). This also holds for the background and
clustered and whole seismicity components.
Using Eq. 39b, the following conditional probabil- d Pðt 1 > t j BÞ 1  DB ðt Þ
¼ ð45aÞ
ity is calculated: dt μB

Pðt 0  Δt  t < t 0 þ Δt j BÞ
d P ðt 1 > t j N Þ 1  D N ðt Þ
k
¼ e½ðt 0 Δt Þ=θ  e½ðt 0 þΔt Þ=θ
k
ð41Þ ¼ ð45bÞ
dt μN
1060
d P ðt 1 > t Þ 1  Dðt Þ
¼ ð45cÞ
dt μ Cressie N (1991) Statistics for spatial data. Wiley, New York
The substitution of the derivatives defined in Eqs. 45a,
45b, and 45c into Eq. 44 yields
1  D ðt Þ 1  D N ðt Þ 1  D B ðt Þ
¼ ð1  n Þ þn ð46Þ
μ μN μB
The variables D, μ, DB, μB, DN, and μN are the
whole seismicity distribution, its mean inter-event
time, the conditional distribution, and the mean inter-
event time of the background and cluster series of
events, respectively. Finally, the following analytical
expression of the distribution D is obtained:
 Hutton K, Woessner J, Hauksson E (2010) Earthquake
μ μ
D ð t Þ ¼ 1 ð1  n Þð1  D N ðt ÞÞ þ n ð1  DB ðt ÞÞ
μN μB
ð47Þ
Equation 20 then follows by derivation.
References
Baddeley A, Turner R, Moller J, Hazelton M (2005) Residual
analysis for spatial point processes. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat
Methodol 67:617–666
Baddeley A, Moller J, Pakes AG (2008) Properties of residuals
for spatial point processes. Ann Inst Stat Math 60:627–649
Baddeley A, Rubak E, Moller J (2011) Score, pseudo-score and
residual diagnostics for spatial point process models. Stat
Sci 26(4):613–646
Bak P, Christensen K, Danon L, Scanlon T (2002) Unified
scaling law for earthquakes. Phys Rev Lett 88:178501.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.178501
Beauval C, Hainzl S, Scherbaum F (2006) Probabilistic seismic
hazard estimation in low seismicity regions considering
non-Poissonian seismic occurrence. Geophys J Int
164:543–550. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02863.x
Bottiglieri M, Lippiello E, Godano C, Arcangelis LDE (2009)
Identification and spatiotemporal organization of aftershocks.
J Geophys Res 114(B03303):1978–2012
Christensen K, Danon L, Scanlon T, Bak P (2002) Unified scaling
law for earthquakes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:2509–2513
Corral A (2003) Local distributions and rate fluctuations in a
unified scaling law for earthquakes. Phys Rev E 68:035102.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.68.035102
Corral A (2004) Long-term clustering, scaling, and universality
in the temporal occurrence of earthquakes. Phys Rev Lett
92:108501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.108501
Corral A (2005) Mixing of rescaled data and Bayesian
inference for earthquake recurrence times. Nonlinear
Process Geophys 12:89–100
Corral A (2007) Statistical features of earthquake temporal occur-
rence. In Bhattacharyya P, Chakrabarti BK (eds) Lect Notes
Phys, vol 705. Springer, Berlin, pp 191–221
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
Cox DR, Isham V (1980) Point processes. Chapman and Hall,
London
Daley DJ, Vere-Jones D (1988) An introduction to the theory of
point processes. Springer, New York
Davis SD, Frohlich C (1991) Single-link cluster analysis, syn-
thetic earthquake catalogs, and aftershock identification.
Geophys J Int 104:289–306
Frohlich C, Davis SD (1990) Single-link cluster analysis as a
method to evaluate spatial and temporal properties of earth-
quake catalogs. Geophys J Int 100:19–32
Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in
Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?
Bull Seismol Soc Am 64(5):1363–1367
Hainzl S, Scherbaum F, Beauval C (2006) Estimating back-
ground activity based on inter-event–time distribution.
Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(1):313–320
monitoring in southern California for seventy-seven
years (1932–2008). Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(2):423–
446
Kagan Y, Knopoff L (1976) Statistical search for non-random
features of the seismicity of strong earthquakes. Phys Earth
Planet Inter 12:291–318
Knopoff L (2000) The magnitude distribution of declustered
earthquakes in southern California. Proc Natl Acad Sci U
S A 97(22):11880–11884
Lawson AB (1993) A deviance residual for heterogeneous spa-
tial point processes. Biometrics 49:889–897
Luen B, Stark PB (2012) Poisson tests of declustered catalogs.
Geophys J Int 189(1):691–700
Marsan D, Lengline O (2008) Extending earthquakes’ reach
through cascading. Science 319:1076. doi:10.1126/
science.1148783
Matthews MV, Ellsworth WL, Reasenberg PA (2002) A
Brownian model for recurrent earthquakes. Bull Seismol
Soc Am 92(6):2233–2250
Molchan G (2005) Interevent time distribution in seismicity: a
theoretical approach. Pure Appl Geophys 162:1135–1150.
doi:10.1007/s00024-004-2664-5
Nanjo KZ, Ishibe T, Tsuruoka H, Schorlemmer D, Ishigaki Y,
Hirata N (2010) Analysis of completeness magnitude and
seismic network coverage of Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am
100(6):3261–3268
Naylor M, Main IG, Touati S (2009) Quantifying uncertainty in
mean earthquake inter-event times for a finite sample. J
Geophys Res 114, B01316. doi:10.1029/2008JB005870
Newman W, Turcotte DL, Shcherbakov R, Rundle JB (2005)
Why Weibull? In: Abstracts of the American Geophysical
Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, California, 5−9
December 2005
Ogata Y (1988) Statistical models for earthquakes occurrences
and residual analysis for point processes. J Am Stat Assoc
83(401):9–27
Omori F (1894) On the after-shocks of earthquakes. J Coll Sci
Tokyo Imp Univ 7:111–200
Reasenberg P (1985) Second-order moment of Central
California seismicity, 1969−1982. J Geophys Res 90:5479–
5495
Ripley BD (1976) The second-order analysis of stationary point
processes. J Appl Probab 13:255–266
J Seismol (2013) 17:1041–1061
Saichev A, Sornette D (2007) Theory of earthquake recurrence
times. J Geophys Res 112(B04313):1–26. doi:10.1029/
2006JB004536
Shcherbakov R, Yakovlev G, Turcotte DL, Rundle JB (2005) A
model for the distribution of aftershock waiting times. Phys
Rev Lett 95:1–4. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.218501
Shcherbakov R, Turcotte DL, Rundle JB (2006) Scaling prop-
erties of the Parkfield aftershock sequence. Bull Seismol
Soc Am 96(4B):S376–S384. doi:10.1785/0120050815
Stoyan D, Grabarnik P (1991) Second-order characteristics for
stochastic structures connected with Gibbs point processes.
Mathematische Nachrichten 151:95–100
Talbi A (2009) Fluctuation of power law parameters in earth-
quake inter-event time distribution and development of
fitting model. PhD thesis, Chiba University
Talbi A, Yamazaki F (2009) Sensitivity analysis of the param-
eters of earthquake recurrence time power law scaling. J
Seismol 13:53–72. doi:10.1007/s10950-008-9115-1
Talbi A, Yamazaki F (2010) A mixed model for earthquake
inter-event times. J Seismol 14:289–307. doi:10.1007/
s10950-009-9166-y
Tibi R, Blanco J, Fatehi A (2011) An alternative and efficient
cluster-link approach for declustering of earthquake cata-
logs. Seismol Res Lett 82(4):509–518. doi:10.1785/
gssrl.82.4.509
Touati S, Naylor M, Main IG (2009) Origin and nonuniversality
of the earthquake inter-event time distribution. Phys Rev
Lett 102:168501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.168501
Touati S, Naylor M, Main IG, Christie M (2011) Masking of
earthquake triggering behavior by a high background rate
and implications for epidemic-type aftershock sequence in-
versions. J Geophys Res 116(B03304):1–26. doi:10.1029/
2010JB007544
Turcotte DL, Abaimov SG, Shcherbakov R, Rundle JB (2007)
Nonlinear dynamics of natural hazards. In: Tsonis,
Anastasios A, Elsner, James B (eds) Nonlinear dynamics in
geosciences. Springer, New York, pp 557–580. doi:10.1007/
978-0-387-34918-3_30
Utsu T (1969) Aftershock and earthquake statistics (I): Some
parameters which characterize an aftershock sequence and
View publication stats
1061
their interrelations. J Fac Sci Hokkaido Univ Ser VII
3:129–195
Utsu T (2002) Statistical features of seismicity. Int Handb
Earthq Eng Seismol 81A:719–732
Utsu T, Ogata Y, Matsu’ura RS (1995) The centenary of the
Omori formula for a decay law of aftershocks activity. J
Phys Earth 43:1–33
van Stiphout T, Zhuang J, Marsan D (2012) Seismicity
declustering. Community Online Resource for Statistical
Seismicity Analysis. doi:10.5078/corssa-52382934. http://
www.corssa.org
Veen A, Schoenberg FP (2006) Assessing spatial point process
models using weighted K-functions: analysis of California
earthquakes. In: Baddeley A et al (ed) Lecture Notes in
Statistics, vol 185. Springer, Berlin, pp 293–306
Weibull W (1951) A statistical distribution of wide applicability.
J Appl Mech 18(3):293–297
Yakovlev G, Rundle JB, Shcherbakov R, Turcotte DL (2005)
Inter-arrival time distribution for the non-homogeneous
Poisson process. arXiv:cond-mat/0507657v1
Yakovlev G, Turcotte DL, Rundle JB, Rundle PB (2006)
Simulation-based distributions of earthquake recurrence
times on the San Andreas fault system. Bull Seismol Soc
Am 96(6):1995–2007
Yamanaka Y, Shimazaki K (1990) Scaling relationship between
the number of aftershocks and the size of the main shock. J
Phys Earth 38:305–324
Zhuang J (2006) Second order residual analysis of spatio-
temporal point processes and applications in model evalu-
ation. J R Statist Soc Series B 68(4):635–653
Zhuang J, Ogata Y, Vere-Jones D (2002) Stochastic declustering
of space–time earthquake occurrences. J Am Stat Assoc
97:369–380
Zhuang J, Ogata Y, Vere-Jones D (2004) Analyzing earthquake
features by using stochastic reconstruction. J Geophys Res
109, B05301. doi:10.1029/2003JB002879
Zoller G, Hainzl S (2007) Recurrence time distributions of large
earthquakes in a stochastic model for coupled fault sys-
tems: the role of fault interaction. Bull Seismol Soc Am
97(5):1679–1687