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

net/publication/303777474

Gutenberg-Richter b-value maximum likelihood estimation and sample size

Article  in  Journal of Seismology · June 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s10950-016-9589-1

CITATIONS READS

5 408

5 authors, including:

Fidencio Alejandro Nava Víctor Márquez-Ramírez

Ensenada Center for Scientific Research and Higher Education UNAM
92 PUBLICATIONS   458 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

F. Ramón Zúñiga Lenin Ávila-Barrientos

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Ensenada Center for Scientific Research and Higher Education
106 PUBLICATIONS   1,068 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

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

Seismicity catalogs evaluation and detection of artificial anomalies. View project

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

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript b_numJS.docx

Click here to view linked References

1
2
3
4
5
Gutenberg-Richter b-value Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Sample
6
7 Size
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 F.A.Nava, V.H.Márquez-Ramírez, F.R. Zúñiga, L.Ávila-Barrientos, C.B.Quinteros
15
16
17
18
19
20
Abstract
21
22
The Aki-Utsu maximum-likelihood method is widely used for estimation of the
23
24
25 Gutenberg-Richter b-value, but not all authors are conscious of the method’s limitations
26
27 and implicit requirements. The Aki/Utsu method requires a representative estimate of the
28
29
30 population mean magnitude; a requirement seldom satisfied in b-value studies,
31
32 particularly in those that use data from small geographic and/or time windows, such as b-
33
34
35 mapping and b-vs-time studies. Monte-Carlo simulation methods are used to determine
36
37 how large a sample is necessary to achieve representativity, particularly for rounded
38
39
40
magnitudes. The size of a representative sample weakly depends on the actual b-value. It
41
42 is shown that, for commonly used precisions, small samples give meaningless estimations
43
44 of b. Our results give estimates on the probabilities of getting correct estimates of b for a
45
46
47 given desired precision for samples of different sizes. We submit that all published
48
49 studies reporting b-value estimations should include information about the size of the
50
51
52 samples used.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 1
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 1. Introduction
5
6
7 Possibly the most widely used statistical relation in seismology is the Gutenberg-Richter
8
9
10 (G-R) distribution (Ishimoto and Iida 1939; Gutenberg and Richter 1944; Richter 1958),
11
12 which relates the number of earthquakes above a given magnitude, N ( M ) , to the
13
14
15 magnitude, M, as
16
17
18 log10 N (M ) a b (M M1 ); M M1 , (1)
19
20
21 where M1 is a lower threshold below which magnitudes are not considered. Parameter a
22
23
24 is the logarithm of the total number of earthquakes with magnitude M M1 , and is a
25
26
27 constant that depends on the seismicity rate and the length of the observation time.
28
29 Parameter b, widely referred to as the b-value, hereafter referred to as b, is a constant
30
31
32 that relates the relative numbers of small to large magnitudes. Typically, b ~ 1, and M1
33
34
35 is the completeness magnitude below which log10 N( M ) ceases to behave linearly due to
36
37 insufficient coverage (e.g. Wiemer and Wyss 2000).
38
39
40
41
Usually M1 is estimated from the observed log10 N( M ) or from the non-cumulative
42
43
44
log10 n( M ) histograms, which requires a sufficiently representative magnitude sample.
45
46 However, this is not always the case: sometimes M1 may be estimated for a given data
47
48
49 set, and then used for a different dataset; not uncommon is the use of the completeness
50
51 magnitude appropriate for the complete data set of a given seismic network or array in
52
53
54 studies involving subsets of the data.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 2
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Since the G-R relation gives estimates for the occurrence ratio of earthquakes with
5
6
7 magnitudes above a given value, b has been widely used for seismic hazard and risk
8
9 estimations (e.g. Bender 1983). An inverse relationship between b and the stress level in a
10
11
12 given region has been proposed (e.g. Scholz 1968; Ghosh et al. 2008), and several studies
13
14 have found possibly premonitory behavior in the values of b before large earthquakes (e.g.
15
16
17 Shaw et al. 1992; Wyss and Wiemer 2000; Enescu and Ito 2001; Márquez-Ramirez 2012).
18
19 Regional variations of b have been used to identify zones susceptible to large ruptures
20
21 (e.g. Wiemer and Wyss 1997; Zúñiga and Wyss 2001, Montuori et al. 2010). Since Aki
22
23
24 (1981) proposed a relation between b and the fractal dimension of fault planes, b has been
25
26 emplyed in seismic fractality studies (e.g. Singh et al. 2009).
27
28
29 The many applications of b in seismology, particularly on the field of seismic hazard
30
31
32 estimation, indicate the necessity of estimating b correctly in order to obtain meaningful
33
34 and reliable results. In what follows we will address the problem of sampling and the
35
36
37 reliability associated with it.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
2. The Problem
47
48
49
50
51 Equation (1) implies that magnitudes are distributed exponentially as
52
53
54 ( M M1 )
55 f (M ) e ; M M1 , (2)
56
57
58 where b ln(10) .
59
60
61
62 3
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Based on the premise of this magnitude distribution, Aki (1965) showed that the
5
6
7 maximum-likelihood estimate of b is
8
9
log
10 e
10 𝑏 = 𝑀̅−𝑀 (3)
11 1
12
13
14 where M is the observed mean magnitude.
15
16
17 In practice, magnitudes are rounded to some M , usually M 0.1 , and when
18
19 magnitudes are rounded, the actual minimum magnitude is M1 M / 2 and, instead of
20
21
22 (3), Utsu’s (1965) formula
23
24
25 log10 e
𝑏 = 𝑀̅−(𝑀 (4)
26 1 −∆𝑀/2)
27
28
29 is applicable.
30
31
32 Once M1 has been estimated, formulae (3) or (4) have been used as a simple and
33
34
35
straightforward way of estimating b, which is less cumbersome than that of fitting a
36
37 straight line to the magnitude histogram.
38
39
40 However it is often not taken into account that b and M in the above mentioned
41
42
formulae are population parameters; the actual formula used for estimation is
43
44
45 log10 e
46 𝑏̂ = ̂ −(𝑀 −∆𝑀/2)
̅
(5)
𝑀 1
47
48
49
50 where b̂ and M̂ are estimates; and b̂ will agree with b only if M̂ is representative of,
51
52
53
i.e. reasonably close to, the true M . This, in turn, means that M̂ should be calculated
54
55 from an adequate sample, i.e. one that includes enough data, but in many cases it is
56
57 estimated from too small samples, either because data are scarce or because no attention
58
59
60 is paid to the matter of representativity.
61
62 4
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
An example of studies where this problem may appear is b-mapping, where M1 is
6
7 estimated for a given data set in some región, and then the region is subdivided in volume
8
9
10 elements or cells, and some of these cells may not include enough data to yield a reliable
11
12 estimate (e.g. Khan 2005, Bhattacharya et al. 2002, Singh and Singh 2015). Another
13
14
15 example is the study of changes in b vs time, where M̂ is determined from the data in
16
17 time windows, and there is a tradeoff between the length and/or number of data in the
18
19
20 time window and the resolution in time. In these and other cases, not only data may not
21
22 be enough, but the overall M1 may not be appropriate for all data subsets.
23
24
25
26 The question arises: How many data are enough for M̂ to be representative and b̂ to be
27
28
29 reliable? The answer, of course, depends on the desired precision of b̂ ; so we will
30
31 rephrase the question: What is the minimum number of data required in a sample, to
32
33
34 achieve a desired precision for b̂ with a given probability?
35
36
37 Shi and Bolt (1982), hereafter referred to as SB, give an analytical estimate of the b̂
38
39
40 distribution for unrounded magnitudes, as a function of the number of samples N, for
41
42
43 stationary b, and for N large enough for M̂ to approach a normal distribution; the b̂
44
45 distribution is
46
47
48 𝑁 𝑏 𝑏 2
49 𝑔(𝑏̂) = √ ̂2 exp [−𝑁 ( ̂ − 1) /2] (6)
2π 𝛽 𝑏
50
51
52
53 How well does formula (5) agree with b̂ determinations for samples with small N?
54
55
56 In what follows we use Monte Carlo methods to simulate actual sampling in order to
57
58
59
explore the distribution of b̂ for samples of different sizes and different true values of b.
60
61
62 5
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Our results let us determine the range of applicability of (5), explore the effects of small
5
6
7 N and of magnitude rounding, and establish some quantitative guidelines for sampling.
8
9
10
11
12
13 3. Monte Carlo estimation of sampling
14
15
16 We simulate magnitude sampling, in the ( M1 , M 2 ) magnitude range from the Gutenberg-
17
18
19 Richter distribution as
20
21
22 𝑀 = 𝑀1𝑞 − ln(𝑟)/𝛽 , (7)
23
24
25 where M1q and M 2q equal M1 and M 2 , respectively, when considering unrounded
26
27
28 magnitudes, and equal 𝑀1 − ∆𝑀/2 and 𝑀2 + ∆𝑀/2 , respectively, when considering
29
30 magnitudes rounded to ∆𝑀. r is a uniformly distributed pseudo-random number in the
31
32
33 (0,1) interval, generated using the Matlab rand function with the Twister generator,
34
35 discarding magnitudes larger than an arbitrary upper limit M 2q = 9.2 set to avoid
36
37
38 unacceptably large (potentially infinite) magnitudes; since very large magnitudes are very
39
40
41 scarce, this limit does not significantly affect results.
42
43
44 We also tried the doubly-truncated Gutenberg-Richter distribution, as
45
46
47 𝑀 = −ln[e−𝛽𝑀1𝑞 − 𝑟(e−𝛽𝑀1𝑞 − e−𝛽𝑀2𝑞 )]/𝛽,
48
49
50 but, since both manitude generating schemes yielded essentially the same results, because
51
52
their outputs differ only for very large magnitudes close to M 2 , and since the Aki-Utsu
53
54
55 estimates assume a singly truncated exponential distribution, we present here only the
56
57
58 results obtained from (7)
59
60
61
62 6
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5 Figure 1 shows results from 250,000 realizations, each, of b̂ determinations, for a true
6
7 b = 1.0, from samples having from 10 to 100,000 data. The thick (blue) line shows the
8
9
10 mean of all estimated b̂ values for each sample size, and the thin (red) lines show the
11
12 mean ±1 standard deviation (continuous) and ±2 standard deviations (dashed).
13
14
15 The graph on the left hand side is for unrounded magnitudes, and shows quantitatively
16
17
18 exactly what would be expected qualitatively; the graph on the right side is for
19
20 magnitudes rounded to the customary 0.1. Both graphs show that estimates from small
21
22
23
samples, besides being probably overestimated, are really meaningless because standard
24
25 deviations are extremely large. The estimate averages over a large number of realizations
26
27 are overestimated, because small magnitudes are much more numerous than large
28
29
30 magnitudes. Thus, any one b̂ estimation from less than, say, 300 data can take values
31
32
33
over a range of several tenths of a unit with large probability.
34
35
While, for large samples the mean estimate from unrounded magnitudes converges to the
36
37
38 true value, for rounded magnitudes large samples lead to an underestimation of it, unless
39
40 a correction for rounding is applied (see, for example, Márquez-Ramírez et al., 2014),
41
42
43 because the magnitude value at the center of each class is not an unbiased representative
44
45 of the magnitudes in the class. This is a minor effect that will be ignored in what follows.
46
47
48 To illustrate how individual estimates can be expected to behave, we obtained b̂
49
50
51 histograms for some representative sample sizes, true b values, and desired precisions.
52
53 All histograms were obtained from sets of 500,000 realizations for each data set length,
54
55
56 and the corresponding SB analytical distributions are plotted over the histograms for
57
58 comparison.
59
60
61
62 7
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
Figure 2 shows, on the left, the histograms (blue, continuous lines) with classes ∆𝑏̂ =
6
7 0.010 wide, for b̂ estimated from unrounded magnitudes distributed according to (2) for
8
9
10 b = 1.00 and different sample sizes; it also shows the corresponding SB analytical
11
12 distributions (red, dashed lines). There is extremely good agreement between histogram
13
14
15 and distribution for samples with 𝑁 ≥ 100 , while for samples below N ~ 50 the
16
17 agreement is not so good, because N is not large enough to fulfill the SB assumptions, but
18
19
20
it is not too bad although the modal values do not coincide. As mentioned before, the
21
22
mean b̂ values seriously overestimate the true b values for samples below N ~ 100 .
23
24
25
26 However, as shown on the right in Figure 2, the situation is quite different for b̂
27
28 estimated from the same magnitudes as in the previous case, rounded now, as is usual in
29
30
31
practice, to one decimal place. The histograms show gaps due to the fact that means from
32
33 only a few rounded magnitudes cannot take all values over the specified magnitude
34
35
36 range; hence, possible magnitude means result in peaks for the corresponding b̂ estimates.
37
38 This appearance of preferred values is reduced as samples get larger, but samples larger
39
40
41
than ~200 are needed before the histogram resembles the SB distribution.
42
43
44
Table 1 lists, for each N, the histogram mean and standard deviation values, as well as the
45
46 probabilities Pr ( b̂ = b) , Pr ( b̂ < b) , and Pr ( b̂ > b) , denoted by Pr, Pr-, and Pr+,
47
48
49 respectively, for each given ∆𝑏̂; these probabilities are obtained from the Monte Carlo
50
51 realizations, so they should not be interpreted as figures arrived to analytically, but as
52
53
54 probable values that, however, do not change significantly between different realizations.
55
56
57 From this table it can be seen that the probabilities of getting a correct estimate of
58
59
60
b = 1.00 with ∆𝑏̂ = 0.010 precision is extremely low (<0.1) for samples of up to 500
61
62 8
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 magnitudes, and is low (<0.5) for samples as large as 10,000. Thus, results from studies
5
6
7 claiming to distiguish changes in b of ±0.01 from less than about 20,000 events should
8
9 be taken with a (large) grain of salt.
10
11
12 Of course, reducing the desired precision increases the probability of obtaining a correct,
13
14
15 albeit less precise, result. Figure 3 presents histograms for the same rounded magnitude
16
17 data set for ∆𝑏̂ = 0.025 (left) and ∆𝑏̂ = 0.050 (right), and the corresponding
18
19
20 probabilities are listed in Table 1. For 0.025 precision, a reasonably good agreement
21
22 between histogram and the SB distribution is obtained for N ~ 100 and estimating the
23
24
25 correct b attains an even chance from samples of about 4,000 events. For 0.05 precision
26
27 0.5 probability is attained for less than 1,000 events, and there is a high probability of a
28
29
correct estimation from about 2,000 events on.
30
31
32 Since the magnitude population depends on the b value, results are slightly
33
34
35 different for different values of b; for considerations of space, we will only show here the
36
37
histograms for ∆𝑏̂ = 0.050, for the representative values b = 0.80 and b = 1.20 (Figure
38
39
40 4), and list the resulting probabilities in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
41
42
43 As can be seen from the histograms and the tables, for small samples correct estimation
44
45 of b is easier and the fit of the histograms to the SB distribution is better, for small than
46
47
48 for large b-values.
49
50
51 For small samples in all cases the mean and the mode in the histograms tell different
52
53 stories: if a measurement is repeated many (thousands of) times and b is estimated from
54
55
56 the mean, the result would be overvalued; on the other hand, any single measurement will
57
58 probably result in an overvalued estimation.
59
60
61
62 9
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 4. Discussion
5
6
7 In the results presented above no correction was made for the fact that the mean from
8
9
10 rounded magnitudes is not equal to the “true” mean from unrounded magnitudes, because
11
12 the magnitude representative of a given class is not an unbiased estimator of the
13
14
15 magnitudes containe in the class (e.g. Bender 1983; Tinti and Mulargia 1987, Márquez et
16
17 al. 2015); nor were mean magnitude estimates corrected for large magnitude sampling (eg.
18
19
20
Nava et al. 2015). However, such corrections are small and would not significantly
21
22 change the results.
23
24
25 From our results, it is clear that results from papers dealing with b estimates from less
26
27 than ~12,000, ~2000, and ~500 magnitude data for precisions of 0.01, 0.025, and 0.50
28
29
30 magnitude units, respectively, are valueless. Some papers show results from ~10 data, but
31
32 most do not even report the amount of data used, so their results are not reliable; we will
33
34
35 not reference here examples of these useless papers, but instead recommend a strong
36
37 caveat to the readers of these papers.
38
39
40 It is also clear that papers reporting b estimates should always report the size of the
41
42
43
sample(s) used for estimation, in order that the reader may know how reliable the
44
45 measurements are, and how likely are results from small samples to be overvalued.
46
47
48 For spatio-temporal variations in b to be significant, whatever the method used for
49
50 mapping (e.g. Wiemer and Wyss 2002; Kamer and Hiemer 2015), each b map should
51
52
53 have a sister N map.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 10
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Acknowledgments
5
6
7 Many thanks to José Mojarro for technical support.
8
9
10
11
12
13 References
14
15
16 Ghosh A, Newman A, Amanda M, Thomas A, Farmer G (2008) Interface locking along
17
18
19 the subduction megathrust from b-value mapping near Nicoya Peninsula, Costa
20
21 Rica. Geophys Res Lett 35, L01301. doi:10.1029/2007GL031617
22
23
24 Aki K (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log(N) = a - bM and its
25
26 confidence limits, Bull Earthq Res Inst Tokio Univ 43: 237–239.
27
28
29 Aki K (1981) A probablistic synthesis of precursory phenomena. In: Earthquake
30
31 prediction and international review, Simpson D and Richards P (eds), Am Geophys
32
33
34 U, pp 566-574.
35
36 Bender B (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation of b values for magnitude grouped data.
37
38
39 Bull Seism Soc Am 73: 831–851.
40
41 Bhattacharya P, Majumdar R, Kayal J (2002) Fractal dimension and b-value mapping in
42
43
44 northeast India. Curr Sci 82: 1486-1491.
45
46 Enescu B, Ito K (2001) Some premonitory phenomena of the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu
47
48
49 (Kobe) earthquake: seismicity, b-value and fractal dimension. Tectonophysics 338:
50
51 297-314.
52
53
54 Gutenberg B, Richter C (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc
55
56 Am 34: 185–188.
57
58
59
60
61
62 11
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Ishimoto M, Iida K (1939) Observations sur les seisms enregistrés par le
5
6
7 microseismograph construit dernièrement (I), Bull Earthquake Res Inst Univ of
8
9 Tokyo, 17: 443-478.
10
11
12 Kamer Y, Hiemer S (2015) Data-driven spatial b-value estimation with applications to
13
14 California seismicity: to b or not to b. doi: 10.1002/2014JB011510
15
16
17 Khan P (2005) Mapping of b-Value beneath the Shillong plateau. Gondwana Research 8:
18
19 271-276. doi:10.1016/S1342-937X(05)71126-6
20
21
22 Márquez-Ramírez V, Nava F, Zúñiga F (2015) Correcting the Gutenberg-Richter b-value
23
24 for effects of rounding and noise. Earthquake Science 28: 129-134.
25
26
27 doi:10.1007/s11589-015-0116-1.
28
29
Márquez-Ramírez V. (2012) Análisis multifractal de la distribución espacial de
30
31
32 sismicidad y su posible aplicación premonitora. Exploración de un posible
33
34 mecanismo para la fractalidad mediante modelado semiestocástico. PhD Thesis,
35
36
37 Programa de Posgrado en Ciencias de la Tierra, Centro de Investigación Científica
38
39 y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, Baja California, México.
40
41
42 Montuori C, Falcone G, Murru M, Thurber C, Reyners M, Eberhart-Phillips D (2010)
43
44 Crustal heterogeneity highlighted by spatial b-value map in the Wellington region
45
46
47 of New Zealand. Geophys J Int 183: 451-460. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
48
49 246X.2010.04750.x
50
51
52 Nava F, Márquez-Ramírez V, Zúñiga F, Lomnitz C (2015) Gutenberg-Richter b-value
53
54 determination and large magnitudes sampling. Nat Haz, submitted.
55
56
57 Richter C (1958) Elementary seismology. W H Freeman and Co, USA.
58
59
60
61
62 12
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Scholz C (1968) The Frequency-Magnitude Relation of Microfracturing in Rock and its
5
6
7 Relation to Earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58: 399-415.
8
9 Shaw E, Carlson J, Langer J (1992) Patterns of Seismic Activity Preceding Large
10
11
12 Earthquakes. J Geophys Res 97 (B1): 479-488.
13
14
15
Shi Y, Bolt B (1982) The standard error of the magnitude-frequency b value. Bull
16
17 Seismol Soc Am 72: 1677-1687.
18
19
20
Singh C, Singh A, Chadha R (2009) Fractal and b-Value Mapping in Eastern Himalaya
21
22 and Southern Tibet. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99: 3529–3533. doi:
23
24 10.1785/0120090041
25
26
27 Singh C, Singh S (2015) Imaging b-value variation beneath the Pamir-Hindu Kush region.
28
29
Bull Seismol Soc Am 105: 808-815. doi: 10.1785/0120140112
30
31
32 Tinti S, Mulargia F (1987) Confidence intervals of b-values for grouped magnitudes. Bull
33
34
35
Seismol Soc Am 77: 2125–2134.
36
37 Wiemer S, Wyss M (1997) Mapping the frequency-magnitude distribution in asperities:
38
39
40
An improved technique to calculate recurrence times? J Geophys Res 102 (B7):
41
42 15115-15128.
43
44
45 Wiemer S, Wyss M (2000) Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs:
46
47 examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan, Bull Seismol Soc Am
48
49
50
90: 859–869.
51
52 Wiemer S, Wyss M (2002) Mapping spatial variability of the frequency-magnitude
53
54
55
distribution of earthquakes. Adv Geophys 45: 259–302.
56
57 Wyss M, Wiemer S (2000) Change in the probability for earthquakes in southern
58
59
60 California due to the Landers magnitude 7.3 earthquake, Science 290: 1334.
61
62 13
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Zúñiga R, Wyss M (2001) Most-and least-Likely locations of large to great earthquakes
5
6
7 along the Pacific coast of Mexico estimated from local recurrence times based on b-
8
9 values. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91: 1717-1728.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 14
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Figure Captions
5
6
7
8 Figure 1. Estimated b̂ vs sample size N. Left: Unrounded magnitudes. Right: Magnitudes
9
10 rounded to 0.1. The thick, continuous (blue) line is the mean of 250,000 realizations for
11
12
each of various sample sizes N samples, the thin (red) lines indicate mean value ±1
13
14
15 standard deviation (continuous) and ±2 standard deviations (dashed).
16
17
18 Figure 2. Synthetic data histograms for 500,000 realizations for b = 1.0 and classes ∆𝑏̂ =
19
20
21
0.010 wide. Graph on the left is for unrounded magnitudes, and on the right for
22
23 magnitudes rounded to ∆𝑀 = 0.1 . The thick continuous (blue) lines are the
24
25
histograms,while the dashed (red) lines are the SB distribution; The vertical solid line
26
27
28 indicates the true b value, and the verstical dashed line indicates the observed mean value.
29
30
31 Figure 3. Synthetic data histograms for 500,000 realizations for magnitudes rounded to
32
33 ∆𝑀 = 0.1, b = 1.0, and classes ∆𝑏̂ = 0.025 (left) and ∆𝑏̂ = 0.50 (right) wide. The thick
34
35
36 continuous (blue) lines are the histograms,while the dashed (red) lines are the SB
37
38 distribution; The vertical solid line indicates the true b value, and the vertical dashed line
39
40
41 indicates the observed mean value.
42
43
44 Figure 4. Synthetic data histograms for 500,000 realizations for for magnitudes rounded
45
46 to ∆𝑀 = 0.1 classes ∆𝑏̂ = 0.50 wide, and b = 0.8 (left) and b = 1.2 (right). The thick
47
48
49 continuous (blue) lines are the histograms,while the dashed (red) lines are the SB
50
51 distribution; The vertical solid line indicates the true b value, and the vertical dashed line
52
53
54 indicates the observed mean value.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 15
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Table Captions
5
6
7 Table 1. Probabilities of obtaining the correct value (Pr), an underestimated value (Pr-),
8
9
10 and an overestimated value (Pr+) for true b = 1.0 , precisions ∆𝑏̂ = 0.010, 0.025, and
11
12
13 0.050, and different sample sizes N. Also shown are the mean estimate b̂ , and its
14
15 standard deviation s.
16
17
18 Table 2. Same as table 1 for true b = 0.8 .
19
20
21 Table 3. Same as table 1 for true b = 1.2.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 16
63
64
65
colour figure Click here to download colour figure Fig1.eps
colour figure Click here to download colour figure Fig 2.eps
colour figure Click here to download colour figure Fig 3.eps
colour figure Click here to download colour figure Fig 4.eps
table Click here to download table Table 1.docx
b = 1.0
b̂ = 0.010 b̂ = 0.025 b̂ = 0.050
N b̂ s Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+
10 1.103 0.385 0.462 0.000 0.538 0.462 0.029 0.508 0.434 0.058 0.508
25 1.037 0.214 0.474 0.018 0.508 0.455 0.055 0.489 0.437 0.092 0.470
50 1.015 0.145 0.478 0.026 0.496 0.464 0.066 0.467 0.426 0.144 0.430
100 1.005 0.101 0.485 0.037 0.478 0.457 0.092 0.451 0.403 0.201 0.395
200 1.001 0.071 0.483 0.060 0.457 0.445 0.138 0.418 0.369 0.282 0.349
500 0.998 0.044 0.489 0.087 0.423 0.420 0.221 0.359 0.313 0.424 0.263
1,000 0.997 0.031 0.489 0.124 0.387 0.394 0.306 0.300 0.248 0.570 0.182
2,000 0.996 0.022 0.486 0.175 0.339 0.354 0.419 0.226 0.170 0.731 0.098
5,000 0.996 0.014 0.479 0.266 0.256 0.277 0.605 0.118 0.066 0.913 0.020
10,000 0.996 0.010 0.473 0.353 0.174 0.202 0.752 0.046 0.018 0.981 0.002
Table 1
table Click here to download table Table 2.docx
b = 0.8
b̂ = 0.010 b̂ = 0.025 b̂ = 0.050
N b̂ s Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+
10 0.885 0.310 0.457 0.024 0.519 0.434 0.046 0.519 0.412 0.092 0.496
25 0.831 0.172 0.459 0.029 0.511 0.445 0.058 0.497 0.416 0.117 0.467
50 0.814 0.117 0.469 0.042 0.489 0.448 0.084 0.468 0.398 0.176 0.426
100 0.806 0.081 0.471 0.052 0.477 0.435 0.125 0.440 0.372 0.247 0.381
200 0.802 0.057 0.470 0.069 0.461 0.414 0.177 0.409 0.331 0.340 0.329
500 0.799 0.036 0.463 0.112 0.425 0.380 0.273 0.348 0.250 0.518 0.148
1,000 0.799 0.025 0.451 0.157 0.391 0.335 0.378 0.286 0.174 0.678 0.148
2,000 0.798 0.018 0.433 0.220 0.346 0.276 0.515 0.209 0.093 0.838 0.068
5,000 0.798 0.011 0.395 0.338 0.267 0.174 0.726 0.101 0.019 0.972 0.009
10,000 0.798 0.008 0.357 0.456 0.187 0.093 0.873 0.035 0.002 0.998 0.000
Table 2
table Click here to download table Table 3.docx
b = 1.2
b̂ = 0.010 b̂ = 0.025 b̂ = 0.050
N b̂ s Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+ Pr- Pr Pr+
10 1.321 0.458 0.456 0.000 0.544 0.456 0.035 0.509 0.456 0.035 0.509
25 1.241 0.255 0.474 0.022 0.504 0.474 0.022 0.504 0.452 0.066 0.482
50 1.216 0.174 0.492 0.016 0.492 0.476 0.048 0.476 0.445 0.110 0.445
100 1.204 0.120 0.496 0.033 0.471 0.473 0.078 0.449 0.430 0.165 0.405
200 1.198 0.084 0.496 0.048 0.454 0.467 0.118 0.415 0.405 0.233 0.362
500 1.195 0.053 0.513 0.075 0.412 0.454 0.187 0.359 0.363 0.358 0.279
1,000 1.194 0.037 0.522 0.104 0.374 0.442 0.258 0.300 0.313 0.487 0.199
2,000 1.193 0.026 0.536 0.143 0.321 0.422 0.350 0.230 0.249 0.636 0.115
5,000 1.193 0.017 0.556 0.213 0.231 0.380 0.501 0.120 0.144 0.827 0.028
10,000 1.193 0.012 0.584 0.269 0.147 0.335 0.618 0.047 0.067 0.930 0.003
Table 3

View publication stats