动力地震触发识别中的误报

IF 3.9 2区 地球科学 Q1 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS
Jeanne L. Hardebeck, Nicolas D. DeSalvio, Wenyuan Fan, Andrew J. Barbour
{"title":"动力地震触发识别中的误报","authors":"Jeanne L. Hardebeck,&nbsp;Nicolas D. DeSalvio,&nbsp;Wenyuan Fan,&nbsp;Andrew J. Barbour","doi":"10.1029/2025JB031566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Dynamic earthquake triggering is commonly identified through the temporal correlation between increased seismicity rates and global earthquakes that are possible triggering events. However, correlation does not imply causation. False positives may occur when unrelated seismicity rate changes coincidently occur at around the time of candidate triggers. We investigate the expected false positive rate in Southern California with global <i>M</i> ≥ 6 earthquakes as candidate triggers. We compute the false positive rate by applying the statistical tests used by DeSalvio and Fan (2023), https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487 to synthetic earthquake catalogs with no real dynamic triggering. We find a false positive rate of ∼3.5%–8.5% when realistic earthquake clustering is present, consistent with the 95% confidence typically used in seismology. However, when this false positive rate is applied to the tens of thousands of spatial-temporal windows in Southern California tested in DeSalvio and Fan (2023), https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487, thousands of false positives are expected. The expected false positive occurrence is large enough to explain the observed apparent triggering following 70% of large global earthquakes (DeSalvio &amp; Fan, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487), without requiring any true dynamic triggering. Aside from the known triggering from the nearby El Mayor-Cucapah, Mexico, earthquake, the spatial and temporal characteristics of the reported triggering are indistinguishable from random false positives. This implies that best practice for dynamic triggering studies that depend on temporal correlation is to estimate the false positive rate and investigate whether the observed apparent triggering is distinguishable from the correlations that may occur by chance.</p>","PeriodicalId":15864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth","volume":"130 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"False Positives in the Identification of Dynamic Earthquake Triggering\",\"authors\":\"Jeanne L. Hardebeck,&nbsp;Nicolas D. DeSalvio,&nbsp;Wenyuan Fan,&nbsp;Andrew J. Barbour\",\"doi\":\"10.1029/2025JB031566\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Dynamic earthquake triggering is commonly identified through the temporal correlation between increased seismicity rates and global earthquakes that are possible triggering events. However, correlation does not imply causation. False positives may occur when unrelated seismicity rate changes coincidently occur at around the time of candidate triggers. We investigate the expected false positive rate in Southern California with global <i>M</i> ≥ 6 earthquakes as candidate triggers. We compute the false positive rate by applying the statistical tests used by DeSalvio and Fan (2023), https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487 to synthetic earthquake catalogs with no real dynamic triggering. We find a false positive rate of ∼3.5%–8.5% when realistic earthquake clustering is present, consistent with the 95% confidence typically used in seismology. However, when this false positive rate is applied to the tens of thousands of spatial-temporal windows in Southern California tested in DeSalvio and Fan (2023), https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487, thousands of false positives are expected. The expected false positive occurrence is large enough to explain the observed apparent triggering following 70% of large global earthquakes (DeSalvio &amp; Fan, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487), without requiring any true dynamic triggering. Aside from the known triggering from the nearby El Mayor-Cucapah, Mexico, earthquake, the spatial and temporal characteristics of the reported triggering are indistinguishable from random false positives. This implies that best practice for dynamic triggering studies that depend on temporal correlation is to estimate the false positive rate and investigate whether the observed apparent triggering is distinguishable from the correlations that may occur by chance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\",\"volume\":\"130 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025JB031566\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025JB031566","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

动态地震触发通常通过增加的地震活动率与可能触发事件的全球地震之间的时间相关性来确定。然而,相关性并不意味着因果关系。当不相关的地震活动性变化碰巧发生在候选触发器前后时,可能会出现假阳性。我们以全球M≥6级地震作为候选触发因素,研究南加州的预期假阳性率。我们通过将DeSalvio和Fan (2023) (https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487)使用的统计检验应用于没有实际动态触发的合成地震目录来计算假阳性率。我们发现,当真实地震聚类存在时,假阳性率为~ 3.5%-8.5%,与地震学中通常使用的95%置信度一致。然而,当这个假阳性率被应用到南加州的数万个时空窗口时,在DeSalvio和Fan (2023), https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487中测试,预计会有数千个假阳性。预期的误报发生率足够大,足以解释70%的全球大地震后观察到的明显触发(德萨维尼奥&;Fan, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487),而不需要任何真正的动态触发。除了附近墨西哥El Mayor-Cucapah地震的已知触发外,报告的触发的空间和时间特征与随机误报难以区分。这意味着依赖于时间相关性的动态触发研究的最佳实践是估计假阳性率,并调查观察到的明显触发是否与可能偶然发生的相关性区分开来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
False Positives in the Identification of Dynamic Earthquake Triggering

Dynamic earthquake triggering is commonly identified through the temporal correlation between increased seismicity rates and global earthquakes that are possible triggering events. However, correlation does not imply causation. False positives may occur when unrelated seismicity rate changes coincidently occur at around the time of candidate triggers. We investigate the expected false positive rate in Southern California with global M ≥ 6 earthquakes as candidate triggers. We compute the false positive rate by applying the statistical tests used by DeSalvio and Fan (2023), https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487 to synthetic earthquake catalogs with no real dynamic triggering. We find a false positive rate of ∼3.5%–8.5% when realistic earthquake clustering is present, consistent with the 95% confidence typically used in seismology. However, when this false positive rate is applied to the tens of thousands of spatial-temporal windows in Southern California tested in DeSalvio and Fan (2023), https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487, thousands of false positives are expected. The expected false positive occurrence is large enough to explain the observed apparent triggering following 70% of large global earthquakes (DeSalvio & Fan, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487), without requiring any true dynamic triggering. Aside from the known triggering from the nearby El Mayor-Cucapah, Mexico, earthquake, the spatial and temporal characteristics of the reported triggering are indistinguishable from random false positives. This implies that best practice for dynamic triggering studies that depend on temporal correlation is to estimate the false positive rate and investigate whether the observed apparent triggering is distinguishable from the correlations that may occur by chance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth Earth and Planetary Sciences-Geophysics
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
15.40%
发文量
559
期刊介绍: The Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth serves as the premier publication for the breadth of solid Earth geophysics including (in alphabetical order): electromagnetic methods; exploration geophysics; geodesy and gravity; geodynamics, rheology, and plate kinematics; geomagnetism and paleomagnetism; hydrogeophysics; Instruments, techniques, and models; solid Earth interactions with the cryosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and climate; marine geology and geophysics; natural and anthropogenic hazards; near surface geophysics; petrology, geochemistry, and mineralogy; planet Earth physics and chemistry; rock mechanics and deformation; seismology; tectonophysics; and volcanology. JGR: Solid Earth has long distinguished itself as the venue for publication of Research Articles backed solidly by data and as well as presenting theoretical and numerical developments with broad applications. Research Articles published in JGR: Solid Earth have had long-term impacts in their fields. JGR: Solid Earth provides a venue for special issues and special themes based on conferences, workshops, and community initiatives. JGR: Solid Earth also publishes Commentaries on research and emerging trends in the field; these are commissioned by the editors, and suggestion are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信