We evaluate the efficiency of the maximum likelihood estimator introduced by , using synthetic datasets exhibiting diverse but well defined properties. The deviation of the b-value estimation from its real value is quantified by Monte Carlo simulations as a function of catalogue features and data properties such as the sample size, the magnitude uncertainties distribution, the round-off interval of reported magnitude values and the magnitude range. Within the objective of this study, algorithms have been compiled for the determination of such observational-theoretical deviations and to facilitate the construction of nomograms corresponding to diverse cases of input parameters. In this way, a more accurate estimation of the uncertainty level for the b-value and MC determination can be achieved, contributing to a more robust seismic hazard assessment, especially at low activity areas and induced seismicity sites. Our results indicate that b-value analysis, especially for small datasets should be carried out together with Magnitude range analysis. Nomograms should be constructed and adjusted to each particular case study in order to achieve a more accurate estimation of the b-value and the corresponding uncertainty.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aki, K.
    [1965] Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula logN = a - bM and its confidence limits. Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. Tokyo Univ., 43, 237–239.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bender, B.
    [1983] Maximum likelihood estimation of b-values for magnitude grouped data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 73, 831–851.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Kijko, A., and M. A.Sellevoll
    [1989] Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part I. Utilization of extreme and complete catalogs with different threshold magnitudes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 79, 645–654.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Lasocki, S., and E. E.Papadimitriou
    [2006] Magnitude distribution complexity revealed in seismicity from Greece. J. Geophys. Res., 111, B11309, doi:10.1029/2005JB003794.
    https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB003794 [Google Scholar]
  5. Leptokaropoulos, K., Karakostas, V. G., Papadimitriou, E. E., Adamaki, A., Tan, O., İnan, S.
    , [2013] A Homogeneous Earthquake Catalog for Western Turkey and Magnitude of Completeness Determination. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 103, 2739–2751. doi:10.1785/0120120174.
    https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120174 [Google Scholar]
  6. Leptokaropoulos, K., AdamakiA, RobertsR., GkarlaouniC., and ParadisopoulouP.
    [2017] Impact of magnitude uncertainties on seismic catalog properties. (submitted in Geophys J. Int., under revision)
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Page, R.
    , [1968] Aftershocks and microaftershocks. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 58, 1131–1168.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Urban, P., Lasocki, S., Blascheck, P., do Nascimento, A. F., Van Giang, N., and Kwiatek, G.
    [2015] Violations of Gutenberg- Richter relation in anthropogenic seismicity. Pure Appl. Geophys., 173, 1517–1537, doi:10.1007/s00024‑015‑1188‑5.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1188-5 [Google Scholar]
  9. Utsu, T.
    , [1999] Representation and Analysis of the Earthquake Size Distribution: A Historical Review and Some New Approaches. In: Wyss, M., Shimazaki, K., Ito, A. (Eds.), Seismicity Patterns, Their Statistical Significance and Physical Meaning, Pageoph Topical Volumes. Birkhäuser Basel, 509–535. doi:10.1007/978‑3‑0348‑8677‑2_15.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8677-2_15 [Google Scholar]
  10. Woessner, J., and Wiemer, S.
    [2005] Assessing the Quality of Earthquake Catalogues: Estimating the Magnitude of Completeness and Its Uncertainty. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95, 684–698. doi:10.1785/0120040007.
    https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040007 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error