{"title":"五种常用去聚类算法的比较分析","authors":"Mason Perry, Rebecca Bendick","doi":"10.1007/s10950-024-10221-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Declustering of earthquake catalogs, that is determining dependent and independent events in an earthquake sequence, is a common feature of many seismological studies. While many different declustering algorithms exist, each has different performance and sensitivity characteristics. Here, we conduct a comparative analysis of the five most commonly used declustering algorithms: Garnder and Knopoff (1974), Uhrhammer (1986), Reasenberg (J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 90(B7):5479–5495, 1985), Zhuang et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380, 2002), and Zaliapin et al. (Phys Rev Lett 101(1):4–7, 2008) in four different tectonic settings. Overall, we find that the Zaliapin et al. (Phys Rev Lett 101(1):4–7, 2008) algorithm effectively removes aftershock sequences, while simultaneously retaining the most information (i.e. the most events) in the output catalog and only slightly modifying statistical characteristics (i.e. the Gutenberg Richter b-value). Both Gardner and Knopoff (1974) and Zhuang et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380, 2002) also effectively remove aftershock sequences, though they remove significantly more events than the other algorithms. Uhrhammer (1986) also effectively removes aftershock sequences and removes fewer events than Gardner and Knopoff (1974) or Zhuang et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380, 2002), except when large magnitude events are present. By contrast, Reasenberg (J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 90(B7):5479–5495, 1985) only effectively removed aftershocks in one of the test regions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Seismology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative analysis of five commonly implemented declustering algorithms\",\"authors\":\"Mason Perry, Rebecca Bendick\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10950-024-10221-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Declustering of earthquake catalogs, that is determining dependent and independent events in an earthquake sequence, is a common feature of many seismological studies. While many different declustering algorithms exist, each has different performance and sensitivity characteristics. Here, we conduct a comparative analysis of the five most commonly used declustering algorithms: Garnder and Knopoff (1974), Uhrhammer (1986), Reasenberg (J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 90(B7):5479–5495, 1985), Zhuang et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380, 2002), and Zaliapin et al. (Phys Rev Lett 101(1):4–7, 2008) in four different tectonic settings. Overall, we find that the Zaliapin et al. (Phys Rev Lett 101(1):4–7, 2008) algorithm effectively removes aftershock sequences, while simultaneously retaining the most information (i.e. the most events) in the output catalog and only slightly modifying statistical characteristics (i.e. the Gutenberg Richter b-value). Both Gardner and Knopoff (1974) and Zhuang et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380, 2002) also effectively remove aftershock sequences, though they remove significantly more events than the other algorithms. Uhrhammer (1986) also effectively removes aftershock sequences and removes fewer events than Gardner and Knopoff (1974) or Zhuang et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380, 2002), except when large magnitude events are present. By contrast, Reasenberg (J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 90(B7):5479–5495, 1985) only effectively removed aftershocks in one of the test regions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16994,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Seismology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Seismology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10950-024-10221-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Seismology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10950-024-10221-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
地震目录的解簇,即确定地震序列中的从属事件和独立事件,是许多地震学研究的共同特征。虽然存在许多不同的解簇算法,但每种算法都有不同的性能和灵敏度特征。在此,我们对五种最常用的去簇算法进行比较分析:Garnder 和 Knopoff(1974 年)、Uhrhammer(1986 年)、Reasenberg(J Geophys Res:固体地球 90(B7):5479-5495, 1985)、Zhuang 等人(J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369-380, 2002)和 Zaliapin 等人(Phys Rev Lett 101(1):4-7, 2008)在四种不同构造背景下的算法。总体而言,我们发现 Zaliapin 等人(Phys Rev Lett 101(1):4-7, 2008)的算法可以有效地去除余震序列,同时在输出目录中保留了最多的信息(即最多的事件),并且只对统计特征(即古腾堡里氏 b 值)进行了轻微的修改。Gardner 和 Knopoff(1974 年)以及 Zhuang 等人(J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369-380, 2002 年)也都有效地移除了余震序列,不过他们移除的事件明显多于其他算法。Uhrhammer(1986)也能有效地移除余震序列,而且移除的事件比 Gardner 和 Knopoff(1974)或 Zhuang 等人(J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369-380,2002)要少,除非出现大震级事件。相比之下,Reasenberg(J Geophys Res:固体地球 90(B7):5479-5495, 1985)只有效地消除了其中一个测试区域的余震。
A comparative analysis of five commonly implemented declustering algorithms
Declustering of earthquake catalogs, that is determining dependent and independent events in an earthquake sequence, is a common feature of many seismological studies. While many different declustering algorithms exist, each has different performance and sensitivity characteristics. Here, we conduct a comparative analysis of the five most commonly used declustering algorithms: Garnder and Knopoff (1974), Uhrhammer (1986), Reasenberg (J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 90(B7):5479–5495, 1985), Zhuang et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380, 2002), and Zaliapin et al. (Phys Rev Lett 101(1):4–7, 2008) in four different tectonic settings. Overall, we find that the Zaliapin et al. (Phys Rev Lett 101(1):4–7, 2008) algorithm effectively removes aftershock sequences, while simultaneously retaining the most information (i.e. the most events) in the output catalog and only slightly modifying statistical characteristics (i.e. the Gutenberg Richter b-value). Both Gardner and Knopoff (1974) and Zhuang et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380, 2002) also effectively remove aftershock sequences, though they remove significantly more events than the other algorithms. Uhrhammer (1986) also effectively removes aftershock sequences and removes fewer events than Gardner and Knopoff (1974) or Zhuang et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380, 2002), except when large magnitude events are present. By contrast, Reasenberg (J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 90(B7):5479–5495, 1985) only effectively removed aftershocks in one of the test regions.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Seismology is an international journal specialising in all observational and theoretical aspects related to earthquake occurrence.
Research topics may cover: seismotectonics, seismicity, historical seismicity, seismic source physics, strong ground motion studies, seismic hazard or risk, engineering seismology, physics of fault systems, triggered and induced seismicity, mining seismology, volcano seismology, earthquake prediction, structural investigations ranging from local to regional and global studies with a particular focus on passive experiments.