Is Seismicity Operating at a Critical Point?

Seismicity and faulting within the Earth's crust are characterized by many scaling laws that are usually interpreted as qualifying the existence of underlying physical mechanisms associated with some kind of criticality in the sense of phase transitions. Using an augmented epidemic-type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model that accounts for the spatial variability of the background rates mu(x, y), we present a direct quantitative test of criticality. We calibrate the model to the ANSS catalog of the entire globe, the region around California, and the Geonet catalog for the region around New Zealand using an extended expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm including the determination of mu(x, y). We demonstrate that the criticality reported in previous studies is spurious and can be attributed to a systematic upward bias in the calibration of the branching ratio of the ETAS model, when not accounting correctly for spatial variability. We validate the version of the ETAS model that possesses a space varying background rate mu(x, y) by performing pseudoprospective forecasting tests. The noncriticality of seismicity has major implications for the prediction of large events.

Automated summary

Through quantitative testing of criticality in seismic activity, the study shows that the previously reported criticality is spurious, attributed to a systematic upward bias in calibrating the branching ratio of the ETAS model without accounting for spatial variability. The non-criticality of seismicity has significant implications for the prediction of large events.