Båth s law and the self-similarity of earthquakes

Transcription

1 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 108, NO. B2, 2128, doi: /2001jb001651, 2003 Båth s law and the sel-similarity o earthquakes Rodolo Console, Anna Maria Lombardi, and Maura Murru Istituto Nazionale di Geoisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy David Rhoades Institute o Geological and Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt, New Zealand Received 16 November 2001; revised 10 April 2002; accepted 25 June 2002; published 27 February [1] We revisit the issue o the so-called Båth s law concerning the dierence D 1 between the magnitude o the main shock and the second largest shock in the same sequence. A mathematical ormulation o the problem is developed with the only assumption being that all the events belong to the same sel-similar set o earthquakes ollowing the Gutenberg Richter magnitude distribution. This model shows a substantial dependence o D 1 on the magnitude thresholds chosen or the main shocks and the atershocks and in this way partly explains the large D 1 values reported in the past. Analysis o the New Zealand and Preliminary Determination o Epicenters (PDE) catalogs o shallow earthquakes demonstrates a rough agreement between the average D 1 values predicted by the theoretical model and those observed. Limiting our attention to the average D 1 values, Båth s law does not seem to strongly contradict the Gutenberg Richter law. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis o the D 1 distribution shows that the Gutenberg Richter hypothesis with a constant b-value does not ully explain the experimental observations. The theoretical distribution has a larger proportion o low D 1 values and a smaller proportion o high D 1 values than the experimental observations. Thus, Båth s law and the Gutenberg Richter law cannot be completely reconciled, although based on this analysis the mismatch is not as great as has sometimes been supposed. INDEX TERMS: 7223 Seismology: Seismic hazard assessment and prediction; 7215 Seismology: Earthquake parameters; 7260 Seismology: Theory and modeling; KEYWORDS: Båth s law, b-value, sel-similarity, Gutenberg-Richter relation, ordered statistics, cluster Citation: Console, R., A. M. Lombardi, M. Murru, and D. Rhoades, Båth s law and sel-similarity o earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 108(B2), 2128, doi: /2001jb001651, Introduction [2] The relation between the magnitude o the main shock M 0 in the sequence and its largest atershock M 1 is still an open problem. Several attempts have been made to determine statistical relations between these magnitudes. In various circumstances the dierence D 1 = M 0 M 1 was ound approximately equal to the constant value 1.2 (assuming that both magnitudes are reliable). This property appears independent o the absolute magnitudes o the shocks concerned and other aspects o the particular sequence under study. This relation, usually called Båth s law in the seismological literature [Richter, 1958; Båth, 1965], implies that the seismic energy o the main shock is on average about 50 times as large as the energy o the largest atershocks [Båth, 1965]. However, Båth noted possible exceptions to his law, as in the case o a group o several equally large main shocks and atershocks. The results obtained by Utsu [1957, 1961] on Japanese atershock sequences, though the D 1 parameter was distributed Copyright 2003 by the American Geophysical Union /03/2001JB001651$09.00 over a rather large range o values, seem to conirm the above mentioned trend as an average. Utsu [1969] interpreted these results as a proo that main shocks belong to a dierent category rom all the other events in the atershock sequence. Similar results have also been reported in other studies on the statistical distribution o D 1 [Papazachos, 1974; Purcaru, 1974; Tsapanos, 1990]. They agree on average with Båth s law, taking into account dierences in the methods used or selection o main shock atershock pairs. Vere-Jones [1969] discussed a possible dierent interpretation o Båth s law based on the hypothesis that the magnitudes o the shocks in an atershock sequence are independently and exponentially distributed according to the usual Gutenberg Richter requency magnitude law. He assumed that the two shocks, as mentioned above, are just the largest and second largest members o a random sel-similar sample (in disagreement with Utsu [1969]). According to the mathematical theory, the dierence between the largest and next-largest members o a sample randomly chosen (with the same lower limits) rom an exponential distribution is independent o the sample size and is exponentially distributed with the same parameter as the distribution o the individual sample ESE 23-1

2 ESE 23-2 CONSOLE ET AL.: BÅTH S LAW members [Feller, 1966, p. 18]. The theoretical model, illustrated by Vere-Jones in more detail in 1975, does not conirm Båth s law in two important points: it predicts both an exponential distribution o D 1 with a mean o the order o 0.5, rather than a distribution closely concentrated about the value 1.2, and a positive correlation, rather than zero or negative, between D 1 and M 0 magnitude. These discrepancies have been ascribed by Vere-Jones to the dierent magnitude thresholds chosen or the deinition o the samples rom which the strongest and the second largest magnitudes are taken. It does not seem, to our knowledge, that any paper ollowing on the subject has either substantially supported the interpretation given by Vere-Jones, or given an alternative solution to the problem. For instance, Tsapanos [1990], implicitly assuming the validity o Båth s law, points out regional variations in the D 1 value. More recently, Guo and Ogata [1997], in their statistical study o atershock properties, and Evison and Rhoades [2001], treating the predictability o the main shock parameters, quite clearly share the classic Utsu s [1969] view, i.e., the strongest shock in a sequence is not a member o the sel-similar set o atershocks. [3] In this paper, developing the ormulation o the conditional distribution or D 1 initially introduced by Vere-Jones [1975, p. 816] we show how the observed distributions depend both on the particular cuto value chosen or the lower limit o the two magnitudes, M 0 and M 1, and on the number o events N in each sample. We ind that, in the particular case when the dierence between the two cuto magnitude values is equal to 2 units o magnitude and N is approximately equal to 10, the theoretical density unction o the magnitude dierence is strongly peaked near 1.2 (as predicted by Båth s law). In the limit case o N!1the distribution D 1 is represented by the negative exponential Gutenberg Richter s law, regardless o the dierence in the magnitude thresholds. It will also be shown that the experimental distribution o D 1 is well itted by the exponential distribution, independently o N, i the cuto magnitude values are the same or M 0 and M Mathematical Background [4] In this paper we adopt the hypothesis that the magnitudes o a set o seismic events, observed in a given region and a given time interval, ollow the Gutenberg Richter law, i.e., log 10 ðnðmþþ ¼ a bm ð1þ where N(M ) is the number o events with magnitude larger than or equal to M. Equation (1) is equivalent to the statement that the above mentioned magnitudes represent a sample o independent and identically distributed random variables, with density unction b M Mc ðmþ ¼ be ð Þ M M c ð2þ where M c is the completeness threshold o the observed magnitudes and b = b ln (10). The cuto magnitude M c or a sequence is the lowest magnitude above which the data set is considered complete. It may be taken as the lower bound o the interval where the cumulative log requency curve o the magnitudes ollows the linear orm predicted by the Gutenberg Richter relation. [5] It is known that [Feller, 1966; Casella and Berger, 1990], given N independent and identically distributed random variables with density unction (2), the corresponding order statistics M 0... M N 1 are not independent and M i has a density unction N M i ðmþ ¼ N! i!ðn i 1Þ! be bðm McÞ ð1 e bðm MCÞ Þ N i 1 ðe bðm McÞ Þ i i ¼ 0; :::; N 1: ð3þ Furthermore, it ollows that, i N 2, the random variable D 1 = M 0 M 1 has an exponential distribution with parameter b, independently o N. Thereore, having denoted with E[D 1 ] the average o D 1, we have [see, or details, Vere-Jones, 1969, equation (2)]: E½D 1 Š ¼ 1 b : ð4þ Now let M 0 * be a constant larger than or equal to M c and suppose that we have the urther inormation that M 0 M 0 *: The density unction o D 1 conditioned by (5) is: N D 1jM 0M 0* g ðdþ 8 >< ¼ >: be bd 1 1 e bðm 0 McÞ N e bd bne b M 0 Mc 1 1 e bðm 0 McÞ N be bd 1 1 e b M 0 Mc ð Þ 1 e bðm 0 Mc ð5þ Þ N 1 e bd i d M 0 M c ð Þ i d > M N 0 Mc The relative conditioned average is: E N ½D 1 jm 0 M* 0 gš ¼ 1 b þ Ne ð 1 1 e ð Þ b M 0* Mc N b M 0* Mc " # M 0 * M c XN 1 1 e bðm0* McÞk bk From equation (7) is evident that it depends not only on b, but also on the sample size N and on the dierence M between the thresholds M 0 * and M c. In Figure 1 we show examples o density unctions o the magnitude dierence, k¼1 Þ ð6þ ð7þ

3 CONSOLE ET AL.: BÅTH S LAW ESE 23-3 between the main shock and its largest atershock, or various M, considering the usual b value equal to 1. The density unctions are distinguished on the basis o the sample size. We can observe that, as shown by Figure 1a, i M 0 *=M c there is no conditioning: the density unction o D 1 is coincident with the density unction o an exponential random variable or any value o N and, thereore, we have E N [D 1 {M 0 M 0 *}] = 1 b. Analogously it ollows that, or N! + 1, the distribution o D 1 converges to an exponential random variable (see Figures 1b and 1c or N equal to 100 and 1000, respectively) and thereore n o E D 1 j M ðnþ M 0 * h i! N!þ1 1 b ð8þ In Figure 2 the trend o E N [D 1 {M 0 M 0 *}] versus N, compared with the mathematical average o 1000 random variables synthetically obtained through the density unction (6), is displayed or M = 2. A more detailed description o the theoretical model and other examples is given by Lombardi [2002]. 3. Data and Results [6] This study aims to investigate whether the behavior o real seismicity supports the conclusions o the earlier studies [e.g., Utsu, 1961, 1969] regarding the lack o agreement between the Gutenberg Richter and Båth laws, as ar as the main shock magnitudes are concerned. With the aim o testing the statistical model on real data, we used two dierent data sets. The irst is the shallow earthquake (h 33 km) catalog compiled by the New Zealand Seismological Observatory, Wellington, or the time span 1 January 1962 to 30 September We consider all earthquakes contained in a polygonal area bounded by the 165 E and 181 E meridians, and 36 S and 48 S parallels, within which the national network has provided reliable locations or nearly all the events o magnitude (M l ) 4.0 and larger, as Figure 1. (a) Theoretical density unctions o D 1 or the threshold dierences M = M 0 * M c = 0. The unction trend is independent o the sample size. (b) The same as in (a), but or M = 1. Samples or three dierent sample sizes are shown (N = 2, 10, and 100). (c) The same as in (a), but or M = 2. Samples or our dierent sample sizes are shown (N = 2, 10, 100, and 1000). Figure 2. The conditional average o D 1 versus the sample size compared with the arithmetic average o 1000 simulated values or M =2.

4 ESE 23-4 CONSOLE ET AL.: BÅTH S LAW Figure 3. Epicentral map o the shallow seismicity (M 4.0) in the New Zealand region (January 1962 to September 1999). The internal polygon shows the area analyzed in this study. The size o the symbols is scaled in magnitude. The origin o the rectangular coordinates is the point 173 E, 42 S. shown in Figure 3. The number o events alling in this particular time window and geographical area considered or the analysis is 7,182. This data set is characterized by a b-value o ± 0.012, obtained through the maximum likelihood method proposed by Utsu [1965, 1967]. The estimate o the standard deviation has been obtained using the equation by Shi and Bolt [1982]. It must be noted, however, that a c 2 test o the magnitude distribution does not ully support the hypothesis o a perect exponential density unction in the lower magnitude range. We decided to adopt 4.0 or the minimum magnitude o the catalog used in this study as a compromise between the size o the data set and its completeness. [7] For our purposes we need to identiy in the catalog all the subsets o events including a main shock and its atershocks. Since no standard procedure exists or identiication o main shocks and atershocks, we apply an algorithm requiring a minimum number o subjective deinitions. Here atershocks are deined as events with magnitude M 1 exceeding a threshold M 1 * that are preceded in a given time space window by another earthquake o equal or larger magnitude (in this way we consider within the main shock atershocks series some sequences that are elsewhere called multiplets or swarms ). In this context the magnitude threshold or atershocks is considered the same as the completeness magnitude o the whole catalog (M 1 * = M c = 4.0). Main shocks are nonatershocks with magnitude M 0 exceeding a threshold M 0 * ollowed by at least one atershock in the same time space window mentioned above. All the remaining earthquakes are deined as single events. The values o the time and space parameters needed in this deinition are drawn rom the algorithm o Reasenberg [1985], that takes into account the magnitudes o the preceding main shocks. In particular, or the calculation o the time limits within which we declare an event to belong to a cluster, we use a variant o the original Reasenberg s ormula introduced by Kagan [1996]. [8] The analysis has been carried out considering dierent values o M 0 * (4.0, 5.0, and 6.0, respectively). Table 1 gives the results o our analysis in terms o the number o sequences ound in the catalogs and the relative average

5 CONSOLE ET AL.: BÅTH S LAW ESE 23-5 Table 1. Statistical Results o the Analysis or D 1 in the New Zealand and in the PDE Catalogs o Shallow Earthquakes New Zealand (7182 events) PDE (29,343 events) M =0 M =1 M =2 M =0 M =1 M =2 N cl N ec , D E[D 1 jm 0 M 0 *] s psiiii N cl P Ncl i¼1 r Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii cl : Number o clusters with N events. N ec : Number o nonsingle events. D 1 : Average magnitude dierence. s: Estimated standard deviation P! Ncl Ncl ð i¼1 D1ðÞ i D1 Þ 2. p siiii: Estimated mean square error. Ncl Ncl magnitude dierence D 1. It should be noted that most o the clusters, or the New Zealand catalog, have a low number o events. In act or M 0 * =M 1 *, 60% o the clusters have only two events and 80% have a number o events smaller than or equal to 5. The respective values or M 0 * M 1 *=1are 40% and 60%. [9] A visual comparison between the theoretical model and the real seismicity is provided by Figure 4, showing, or the three values o the main shock threshold M 0 *, the histogram o the number o cases observed in each class o D 1. In order to compare the histogram obtained rom the observations with the theoretical density unction o D 1, D1 jm 0 M* 0 g (d), we cannot simply use equation (6) because this equation is written or a single value o N. So we make use o the ormula D1jM 0M 0* g d ð Þ ¼ Xþ1 N¼2 N D 1jM 0M 0* g ðdþp N where p N represents the requency distribution o clusters with N events. In this case, as a theoretical assessment o p N is not available, it is taken as the observed relative requency o clusters with N events (i no clusters are observed with N events, p N is assumed to be 0 and in this case N D1jM0M0* g does not contribute to the sum). The continuous lines o Figure 4 have been plotted ater having applied a proper normalization actor, so that the integral o the density unction is equivalent to that o the histograms. The shape o the theoretical curves compared with the relative experimental histograms allows one to judge in a qualitative way how well the model agrees with the observations. In particular, or the case M = 2 (Figure 4c) we must take into account the act that the number o the main shocks with magnitude equal to or larger than 6.0 is only 20 and that leads to a large dispersion in the observed values. [10] To obtain the theoretical values o the average magnitude dierence D 1, or the three cases, we compute the weighted average o (7): E½D 1 ð9þ Š ¼ Xþ1 E N ½D 1 jm 0 M 0 * gšp N ð10þ N¼2 and so obtain the three values 0.391, 0.796, (as shown in Table 1). Both the observed overall values o D 1 and the corresponding theoretical values show the same tendency to increase with M. Moreover, we may note that the observed D 1 values, except or M = 0, are in agreement with the theory within the mean square deviation. [11] The second data set analyzed in this study is the catalog o Preliminary Determination o Epicenters (PDE) reported by the National Earthquake Inormation Service (NEIC) rom 1 January 1973 to 29 January The magnitude under analysis is that reported by NEIC in the eighty columns ormat (the maximum value among M s, M b and M w ). The analysis has been limited to events with depth shallower than 50 km and magnitude equal to or larger than 5.0, which seems a suitable completeness threshold or this catalog. The total number o events selected in this way is 29,343. The maximum likelihood value o b or this data set, obtained with the same criteria used or the New Zealand data, is ± [12] For the analysis o the PDE catalog we have considered again three dierent values o M 0 *, but one magnitude unit larger than or the New Zealand case (5.0, 6.0, and 7.0, respectively). The relative results are shown in Table 1. The comparison between the observed overall values o D 1 and the theoretical ones obtained by applying equation (10) indicates a dierence o about 20% or M = 0 and a dierence o about 10% or M = 1, the experimental values being larger than the theoretical ones. Unlike what we noted or the New Zealand data, in this case, the range o values deined by the mean square deviation or every M, does not include the expected value o D 1. Furthermore, a visual comparison between the number o cases observed in each class o D 1 and the number predicted by the theoretical model, shown in Figure 5 or the three values o the main shock threshold M 0 *, while still conirming a qualitative agreement, shows some systematic dierences. In particular, or M = 0 and M = 1, a deicit o observed cases or D 1 < 0.6 and an excess or D 1 > 1.0 is quite evident (Figures 5a and 5b). The larger number o earthquakes reported in the PDE catalog allows one to deine in a more robust way than with the New Zealand data, the good agreement between the observed and the theoretical trend o the D 1 distribution or M = Discussion [13] As pointed out by various authors in the past [Utsu, 1957, 1961; Papazachos, 1974; Purcaru, 1974; Tsapanos, 1990] and conirmed by the present data analysis, the D 1 = 1.2 value predicted by Båth s law must be regarded as the average o a wide range o cases. Some o the same authors studied the D 1 distribution in detail and made various

6 ESE 23-6 CONSOLE ET AL.: BÅTH S LAW Figure 4. (a) Histogram o the distribution o D 1 observed in New Zealand or the threshold dierence M = M* 0 M* 1 = 0 compared with the theoretical normalized density unction. (b) The same as in (a), but or M = 1. (c) The same as in (a), but or M =2. Figure 5. (a) Histogram o the distribution o D 1 observed in the PDE catalog or the threshold dierence M = M* 0 M* 1 = 0 compared with the theoretical normalized density unction. (b) The same as in (a), but or M = 1. (c) The same as in (a), but or M =2.

7 CONSOLE ET AL.: BÅTH S LAW ESE 23-7 Table 2. Signiicance Level o the Theoretical D 1 Distributions Based on the Hypothesis o the Linear Gutenberg Richter Frequency Magnitude Relationship M New Zealand PDE 0 <0.001 < < The probabilities are computed or the two catalogs and or three values o the dierence M between the thresholds M 0 * and M 1 *. interpretations. For instance, Purcaru [1974] concluded that the hypothesis o D 1 normally distributed, as well as some other dierent hypotheses including the negative exponential distribution, should be rejected or Greece. Tsapanos [1990] observed two distinct peaks (at 1.2 and 1.8 magnitude units) in the D 1 distribution or large circum-paciic earthquakes and interpreted this circumstance as proo o a dierent behavior between the convergent plate boundaries and the back arc areas. Though a high signiicance level o this distinction was claimed by the author, it is diicult to judge because the paper does not report the D 1 distributions observed separately in the two distinct groups o active regions. [14] In light o the theoretical ramework developed in our study, we may surmise that the variety o cases reported in the literature or the D 1 distribution can be ascribed, not only to particular circumstances (such as the b-value or the size o the earthquake cluster), but also to the way in which the data are treated by dierent authors. Speciically, D 1 depends on the arbitrary choice o the magnitude thresholds M 0 * and M 1 * (typically a dierence o M = 2 has been adopted by the aorementioned authors or these thresholds). The D 1 value can be also biased by the speciic deinition o main shocks adopted in the analysis. For instance, the arbitrary distinction between main shocks, swarms and multiplets [Evison, 1981; Evison and Rhoades, 1993] depending on the dierence between the magnitude o the largest shock and the third largest shock in the sequence, is expected to have signiicant inluence on the observed distribution o D 1, excluding the smallest values rom the average. [15] In this work we obtain the D 1 distribution with a minimum number o arbitrary assumptions on the deinition o main shocks and atershocks. One o these assumptions is that the magnitude distribution or the two catalogs under study is not subject to the numerous systematic and statistical errors, which requently aect earthquake detection, earthquake location, and magnitude determination. Main shocks are identiied automatically by a computer program based on a quantitative deinition, rather than being selected by a subjective inspection o the catalog, as we suspect to be the case in various cases reported in literature. None o the three distributions shown by the histograms o Figures 4 and 5 supports a distinction o the events in separate groups based on the D 1 distribution. The distribution obtained or M =2(M 0 * = 7 and M 1 * = 5) with the world catalog should be close to that reported by Tsapanos [1990] but it does not exhibit two distinct maxima at 1.2 and 1.8 magnitude units. [16] The qualitative agreement between the theoretical model (expressed by the curves o Figures 4 and 5) and the observed data (given by the histograms reported in the same igures) can be better evaluated in a quantitative way by a statistical test. To estimate the signiicance level o such agreement we used the Monte Carlo method or creating 1000 synthetic requency distributions (based on our theoretical model o sel-similarity in magnitude) or each M case, and compare their likelihood with the likelihood o the respective real data. In doing so, we hypothesize that each value o the synthetic distributions is statistically distributed as a Poisson variable having the mean value equal to the theoretical one. The results o the Monte Carlo analysis lead to the probability that a D 1 distribution randomly obtained under the null hypothesis o the Gutenberg Richter sel-similar magnitude distribution has a likelihood smaller than that o the real distribution. This probability, also called the signiicance level, is given in Table 2 or the three dierent values o M and the two catalogs considered in this study. The null Gutenberg Richter hypothesis should be rejected or M=0 with the seismicity o New Zealand, and or M = 0 and M =1 with the seismicity o the world. [17] We considered the hypothesis that the very low signiicance level obtained or M = 0 with both catalogs is related to the imperect agreement between the real magnitude distribution o our catalogs and the ideal log linear requency magnitude distribution used in the model. In Figure 6 the trend o log 10 N(M ) versus M is shown or both catalogs analyzed. The NZ catalog is characterized by a clear linearity over the whole magnitude range. On the other hand, the plot or the PDE catalog shows a good linearity up to the value 7.8, beyond which the magnitude exhibits a clear saturation This circumstance could aect the D 1 distribution, but we consider it as a minor problem (or M = 0 in particular) because it happens only or less than 100 events on the total data set o nearly 30,000 earthquakes. As a test o the hypothesis, we examined the D 1 distribution obtained by rearranging the events o the real catalog in random order and grouping them in clusters containing the same number o Figure 6. Cumulated requency-magnitude relation or the New Zealand catalog (shown with dots) compared with the PDE data set (indicated with stars).

8 ESE 23-8 CONSOLE ET AL.: BÅTH S LAW events. In this test we used a ixed number o 5 events in each cluster. I the disagreement with the theoretical model depended totally on the magnitude distribution, as the magnitudes used in this test are the same as those present in the real catalog, we would expect to obtain the same signiicance level as was obtained or the real catalog. The result o the test is that the signiicance level o the Gutenberg Richter model is increased greatly by randomizing the events in the clusters. This means that the opposite hypothesis is true, i.e., the magnitude distribution o the earthquakes in natural clusters is signiicantly dierent rom that assumed in the null hypothesis. To check this idea, we computed the b-value only or the events that, in both catalogs, belong to clusters, including main shocks and their own atershocks (see Table 1). This gives, or M =0,b = and b = respectively or the New Zealand and the PDE catalog. These values are signiicantly lower than those obtained rom the complete catalogs. By substituting them in equation (7), we obtain E[D 1 ] = or New Zealand and E[D 1 ]= or the PDE, in airly good agreement with the corresponding observed values o D 1 reported in Table 1. [18] It has been shown that the primary events (main shocks and earthquakes with neither atershocks nor oreshocks) display a teleseismic b-value lower than those reported or the secondary events (atershocks and oreshocks) and that it could arise simply rom the act o choosing main shocks as the largest earthquake in a oreshock main shock atershock sequence [Knopo et al., 1982; Frohlich and Davis, 1993]. From this point o view, these eatures, that do not depend on the particular earthquake catalog used, whether it is a real or synthetic one, should not be ascribed any physical signiicance. In this respect, the dierence noticed in Figures 4a and 5a and 5b (i.e., the number o large atershocks is smaller than the prediction based on the Gutenberg Richter relation) could perhaps even be explained as a consequence o asymmetries in data processing procedures, aecting the b-value and consequently the D 1 distribution. 5. Conclusions [19] Following the early works o Vere-Jones [1969, 1975] we have based our study on a rigorous mathematical ormulation o the D 1 distribution with ew essential assumptions (all the events ollow the Gutenberg Richter magnitude distribution). These assumptions have proven to be a simple and reliable basis or models o mutual interaction o earthquakes [Console and Murru, 2001]. The theoretical distributions obtained in this way are quite similar, with an appropriate selection o the ree parameters characterizing the model, with observations carried out and published on this subject or nearly ive decades. Through a test carried out on two real and large data sets (the New Zealand and PDE catalogs o shallow earthquakes) we have shown that the hypothesis that the magnitudes o all the earthquakes belong to the same sel-similar set o data, can substantially explain the observed D 1 values without the introduction o any independent rule such as Båth s law. Nevertheless, the objective analysis presented here has also demonstrated a signiicant dierence between the observed and the theoretical D 1 distributions, in that the number o observed D 1 values is smaller than the expected one or D 1 < 0.6 and vice versa (see Figures 4a and 5a). For the PDE catalog, using the same magnitude thresholds or main shocks and atershocks (M 0 *=M 1 * = 5), the observed D 1 value is about 20% larger than the theoretical one. Thus, although ignoring the bias introduced by the dierent magnitude thresholds chosen or main shocks and atershocks may have been a misleading actor in some past studies, as pointed out by Vere-Jones [1969, 1975], the mismatch between Båth s law and the Gutenberg Richter law [Utsu, 1969; Purcaru, 1974; Evison and Rhoades, 2001] appears to be real. The Gutenberg Richter law does not entirely explain the observed distribution o D 1 values, unless the b-value computed or the set o earthquakes belonging to the clusters is used in the model. Whether this circumstance is to be interpreted as a change in the physical environment beore and ater large earthquakes, or rather connected to a bias that has not been completely removed in the statistical process, is a matter that deserves urther attention. [20] Acknowledgments. The authors are grateul to Yan Kagan or his constructive comments and helpul suggestions. Reerences Båth, M., The energies o seismic body waves and surace waves, in Contributions in Geophysics in Honor o Beno Gutenberg, Int. Ser. Monogr. Earth Sci., vol. 1, edited by H. Benio, M. Ewing, B. F. Howell Jr., and F. Press, pp. 1 16, Pergamon, New York, Båth, M., Lateral inhomogeneities o the upper mantle, Tectonophysics, 2, , Casella, G., and R. L. Berger, Statistical Inerence, Wadsworth, Belmont, Cali., Console, R., and M. Murru, A simple and testable model or earthquake clustering, J. Geophys. Res., 106, , Evison, F., Multiple earthquake events at moderate-to-large magnitudes in Japan, J. Phys. Earth, 29, , Evison, F., and D. Rhoades, The precursory earthquake swarm in New Zealand: Hypothesis tests, N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys., 36, 51 60, Evison, F., and D. Rhoades, Model o long-term seismogenesis, Ann. Geophys., 44, 81 93, Feller, W., An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, 2, John Wiley, New York, Frohlich, C., and S. D. Davis, Teleseismic b values or much ado about 1.0, J. Geophys. Res., 98, , Guo, Z., and Y. Ogata, Statistical relations between the parameters o atershocks in time, space, and magnitude, J. Geophys. Res., 102, , Kagan, Y. Y., VAN earthquake predictions: An attempt at statistical evaluation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, , Knopo, L., Y. Y. Kagan, and R. Knopo, b-values or ore- and atershocks in real and simulated earthquake sequences, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 72, , Lombardi, A. M., Probabilistic interpretation o the Bath s law, Ann. Geophys., 45, , Papazachos, B. C., On certain atershock and oreshock parameters in the area o Greece, Ann. Geophys., 27, , Purcaru, G., On the statistical interpretation o the Båth s law and some relations in atershock statistics, Geol. Inst. Tech. Ec. Stud. Geophys. Prosp. Buchar., 10, 35 84, Reasenberg, P., Second-order moment o central Caliornia seismicity, , J. Geophys. Res., 90, , Richter, C. F., Elementary Seismology, 768 pp., Freeman, San Francisco, Cali., Shi, Y., and B. A. Bolt, The standard error o the magnitude requency b-value, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 72, , Tsapanos, M. T., Spatial distribution o the dierence between the magnitudes o the main shock and the largest atershock in the Circum-Paciic Belt, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 80, , Utsu, T., Magnitude o earthquakes and occurrence o their atershocks, J. Seismol. Soc. Jpn., 10, 35 45, in Japanese, Utsu, T., A statistical study on the occurrence o atershocks, Geophys. Mag., 30, , 1961.

9 CONSOLE ET AL.: BÅTH S LAW ESE 23-9 Utsu, T., A method or determining the value o b in a ormula log n = a bm showing the magnitude requency relation or earthquakes, Geophys. Bull. Hokkaido Univ., 13, , in Japanese with English summary, Utsu, T., Some problems o the requency distribution o earthquakes in respect to magnitude, in Japanese with English summary, Geophys. Bull. Hokkaido Univ., 17, , 18, 53 69, Utsu, T., Atershock and earthquakes statistics (I), J. Fac. Sci. Hokkaido Univ., 3, , Vere-Jones, D., A note on the statistical interpretation o Båth s Law, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 59, , Vere-Jones, D., Stochastic models or earthquake sequences, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 42, , R. Console, A. M. Lombardi, and M. Murru, Istituto Nazionale di Geoisica e Vulcanologia, via di Vigna Murata, 605, I Rome, Italy. (Console@ingv.it; Lombardi@ingv.it; Murru@ingv.it) D. Rhoades, Institute o Geological and Nuclear Sciences, P.O. Box , Lower Hutt, New Zealand. (D.Rhoades@gns.cri.nz)