\relax 
\providecommand\hyper@newdestlabel[2]{}
\providecommand\HyperFirstAtBeginDocument{\AtBeginDocument}
\HyperFirstAtBeginDocument{\ifx\hyper@anchor\@undefined
\global\let\oldnewlabel\newlabel
\gdef\newlabel#1#2{\newlabelxx{#1}#2}
\gdef\newlabelxx#1#2#3#4#5#6{\oldnewlabel{#1}{{#2}{#3}}}
\AtEndDocument{\ifx\hyper@anchor\@undefined
\let\newlabel\oldnewlabel
\fi}
\fi}
\global\let\hyper@last\relax 
\gdef\HyperFirstAtBeginDocument#1{#1}
\providecommand\HyField@AuxAddToFields[1]{}
\providecommand\HyField@AuxAddToCoFields[2]{}
\citation{Homola2023}
\citation{Kanamori1977}
\citation{Stoupel1990,Urata2018}
\citation{Homola2023}
\citation{Bretherton1999}
\citation{Potgieter2013}
\citation{Odintsov2006,Tavares2011}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1}Introduction}{5}{section.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:intro}{{1}{5}{Introduction}{section.1}{}}
\citation{USGS2024}
\citation{Kanamori1977}
\citation{SIDC2024}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}Data}{6}{section.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:data}{{2}{6}{Data}{section.2}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.1}Cosmic-Ray Flux: NMDB Neutron Monitors}{6}{subsection.2.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:nmdb}{{2.1}{6}{Cosmic-Ray Flux: NMDB Neutron Monitors}{subsection.2.1}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.2}Seismic Activity: USGS Earthquake Catalogue}{6}{subsection.2.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:usgs}{{2.2}{6}{Seismic Activity: USGS Earthquake Catalogue}{subsection.2.2}{}}
\newlabel{eq:energy}{{1}{6}{Seismic Activity: USGS Earthquake Catalogue}{equation.2.1}{}}
\citation{Bartlett1946}
\citation{Bretherton1999}
\citation{Theiler1992,Schreiber2000}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.3}Solar Activity: SIDC Sunspot Number}{7}{subsection.2.3}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:sidc}{{2.3}{7}{Solar Activity: SIDC Sunspot Number}{subsection.2.3}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}Methods}{7}{section.3}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:methods}{{3}{7}{Methods}{section.3}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.1}Cross-Correlation at Lag $\tau $}{7}{subsection.3.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:xcorr}{{3.1}{7}{Cross-Correlation at Lag $\tau $}{subsection.3.1}{}}
\newlabel{eq:xcorr}{{2}{7}{Cross-Correlation at Lag $\tau $}{equation.3.2}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.2}Effective Degrees of Freedom}{7}{subsection.3.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:neff}{{3.2}{7}{Effective Degrees of Freedom}{subsection.3.2}{}}
\newlabel{eq:neff_bartlett}{{3}{7}{Effective Degrees of Freedom}{equation.3.3}{}}
\newlabel{eq:neff_breth}{{4}{7}{Effective Degrees of Freedom}{equation.3.4}{}}
\citation{Schreiber2000}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.3}Surrogate Significance Tests}{8}{subsection.3.3}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:surrogates}{{3.3}{8}{Surrogate Significance Tests}{subsection.3.3}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {3.3.1}Phase Randomisation}{8}{subsubsection.3.3.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:phase}{{3.3.1}{8}{Phase Randomisation}{subsubsection.3.3.1}{}}
\newlabel{eq:phase}{{5}{8}{Phase Randomisation}{equation.3.5}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {3.3.2}IAAFT Surrogates}{8}{subsubsection.3.3.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:iaaft}{{3.3.2}{8}{IAAFT Surrogates}{subsubsection.3.3.2}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {3.3.3}Block-Bootstrap Surrogates}{8}{subsubsection.3.3.3}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:blockbootstrap}{{3.3.3}{8}{Block-Bootstrap Surrogates}{subsubsection.3.3.3}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {3.3.4}Global $p$-Value}{8}{subsubsection.3.3.4}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:pvalue}{{3.3.4}{8}{Global $p$-Value}{subsubsection.3.3.4}{}}
\newlabel{eq:pglobal}{{6}{8}{Global $p$-Value}{equation.3.6}{}}
\citation{HP1997}
\citation{RahnUhlig2002}
\citation{Cleveland1990}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {3.3.5}GPU Acceleration}{9}{subsubsection.3.3.5}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:gpu}{{3.3.5}{9}{GPU Acceleration}{subsubsection.3.3.5}{}}
\newlabel{eq:matmul}{{7}{9}{GPU Acceleration}{equation.3.7}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.4}Solar-Cycle Detrending}{9}{subsection.3.4}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:detrend}{{3.4}{9}{Solar-Cycle Detrending}{subsection.3.4}{}}
\newlabel{eq:hp_lambda}{{8}{9}{Solar-Cycle Detrending}{equation.3.8}{}}
\citation{Kraskov2004}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.5}Partial Correlation Analysis}{10}{subsection.3.5}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:methods:partialcorr}{{3.5}{10}{Partial Correlation Analysis}{subsection.3.5}{}}
\newlabel{eq:partialcorr}{{9}{10}{Partial Correlation Analysis}{equation.3.9}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.6}Nonlinear Dependence Tests}{10}{subsection.3.6}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:methods:nonlinear}{{3.6}{10}{Nonlinear Dependence Tests}{subsection.3.6}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Spectral coherence.}{10}{section*.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{eq:coherence}{{10}{10}{Spectral coherence}{equation.3.10}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Mutual information.}{10}{section*.3}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{eq:mi}{{11}{10}{Mutual information}{equation.3.11}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.7}Geographic Localisation Scan}{10}{subsection.3.7}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:geo}{{3.7}{10}{Geographic Localisation Scan}{subsection.3.7}{}}
\citation{Benjamini1995}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.8}Pre-Registered Out-of-Sample Validation}{11}{subsection.3.8}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:prereg}{{3.8}{11}{Pre-Registered Out-of-Sample Validation}{subsection.3.8}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Confirmatory versus exploratory analyses.}{11}{section*.4}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.9}Combined Timeseries: Sinusoidal Envelope Fit}{11}{subsection.3.9}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:sinusoid}{{3.9}{11}{Combined Timeseries: Sinusoidal Envelope Fit}{subsection.3.9}{}}
\newlabel{eq:modA}{{12}{11}{Combined Timeseries: Sinusoidal Envelope Fit}{equation.3.12}{}}
\newlabel{eq:modB}{{13}{11}{Combined Timeseries: Sinusoidal Envelope Fit}{equation.3.13}{}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Analysis scope and pre-registration status. Pre-specified parameters locked before data access: $\lambda = 4.54 \times 10^{10}$, lag range $[-200, +200]$\nobreakspace  {}bins, $M \geq 4.5$, min.\ 3 stations per bin, 5-day bin size, IAAFT surrogate count $S = 10^4$.\relax }}{12}{table.caption.5}\protected@file@percent }
\providecommand*\caption@xref[2]{\@setref\relax\@undefined{#1}}
\newlabel{tab:prereg_scope}{{1}{12}{Analysis scope and pre-registration status. Pre-specified parameters locked before data access: $\lambda = 4.54 \times 10^{10}$, lag range $[-200, +200]$~bins, $M \geq 4.5$, min.\ 3 stations per bin, 5-day bin size, IAAFT surrogate count $S = 10^4$.\relax }{table.caption.5}{}}
\newlabel{eq:bic}{{14}{12}{Combined Timeseries: Sinusoidal Envelope Fit}{equation.3.14}{}}
\newlabel{eq:bf}{{15}{12}{Combined Timeseries: Sinusoidal Envelope Fit}{equation.3.15}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}Results}{12}{section.4}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:results}{{4}{12}{Results}{section.4}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.1}Raw Pairwise Correlations Between CR, Seismic, and Sunspot Data}{12}{subsection.4.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:rawcorr}{{4.1}{12}{Raw Pairwise Correlations Between CR, Seismic, and Sunspot Data}{subsection.4.1}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {4.1.1}CR index: station distribution}{13}{subsubsection.4.1.1}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {4.1.2}Seismic energy metric}{13}{subsubsection.4.1.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{eq:energy_bin}{{16}{13}{Seismic energy metric}{equation.4.16}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {4.1.3}Sunspot number}{13}{subsubsection.4.1.3}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {4.1.4}Correlation results}{13}{subsubsection.4.1.4}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{CR vs.\ seismicity.}{13}{section*.6}\protected@file@percent }
\citation{Potgieter2013}
\citation{Odintsov2006}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{CR vs.\ sunspot number.}{14}{section*.7}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Sunspot vs.\ seismicity.}{14}{section*.8}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {4.1.5}Interpretation: a confounding triangle}{14}{subsubsection.4.1.5}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Raw pairwise correlation statistics across three time windows. Bonferroni correction applied for $3 \times 3 = 9$ tests. CR uses the per-bin station-median index ($\hat  {x}^{(50)}$). Seismic energy is $\log _{10}\!\left (\DOTSB \sum@ \slimits@ 10^{1.5 M_W}\right )$. Sunspot is the 365-day smoothed daily count. $^{*}p_\text  {Bonf}<0.05$, $^{**}p_\text  {Bonf}<0.01$, $^{***}p_\text  {Bonf}<0.001$.\relax }}{15}{table.caption.9}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:rawcorr}{{2}{15}{Raw pairwise correlation statistics across three time windows. Bonferroni correction applied for $3 \times 3 = 9$ tests. CR uses the per-bin station-median index ($\hat {x}^{(50)}$). Seismic energy is $\log _{10}\!\left (\sum 10^{1.5 M_W}\right )$. Sunspot is the 365-day smoothed daily count. $^{*}p_\text {Bonf}<0.05$, $^{**}p_\text {Bonf}<0.01$, $^{***}p_\text {Bonf}<0.001$.\relax }{table.caption.9}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Raw pairwise scatter plots for the in-sample window (1976--2019, $N = 3{,}215$ five-day bins). \textbf  {Left}: CR station-median index vs $\log _{10}$ seismic energy; horizontal error bars span the station $[\hat  {x}^{(5)}, \hat  {x}^{(95)}]$ spread. \textbf  {Centre}: CR index vs 365-day smoothed sunspot number; the strong anti-correlation ($r = -0.82$) reflects the Forbush decrease mechanism. \textbf  {Right}: Smoothed sunspot number vs $\log _{10}$ seismic energy; thin horizontal error bars show the daily sunspot spread within each 5-day bin. All points are coloured by decimal year (plasma colormap), revealing the solar-cycle drift: successive cycles trace the same anti-correlated arc in the centre panel. Black curves are LOWESS trend lines ($f = 0.4$).\relax }}{15}{figure.caption.10}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:rawinsample}{{1}{15}{Raw pairwise scatter plots for the in-sample window (1976--2019, $N = 3{,}215$ five-day bins). \textbf {Left}: CR station-median index vs $\log _{10}$ seismic energy; horizontal error bars span the station $[\hat {x}^{(5)}, \hat {x}^{(95)}]$ spread. \textbf {Centre}: CR index vs 365-day smoothed sunspot number; the strong anti-correlation ($r = -0.82$) reflects the Forbush decrease mechanism. \textbf {Right}: Smoothed sunspot number vs $\log _{10}$ seismic energy; thin horizontal error bars show the daily sunspot spread within each 5-day bin. All points are coloured by decimal year (plasma colormap), revealing the solar-cycle drift: successive cycles trace the same anti-correlated arc in the centre panel. Black curves are LOWESS trend lines ($f = 0.4$).\relax }{figure.caption.10}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Raw pairwise scatter plots for the out-of-sample window (2020--2025, $N = 390$ bins, 27 NMDB stations). Layout identical to Figure\nobreakspace  {}\ref {fig:rawinsample}. The CR--sunspot anti-correlation strengthens to $r = -0.939$ during Solar Cycle\nobreakspace  {}25, which had a particularly wide dynamic range. The CR--seismicity correlation ($r = 0.046$, $p_\text  {Bonf} = 1.0$) is indistinguishable from zero.\relax }}{16}{figure.caption.11}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:rawoos}{{2}{16}{Raw pairwise scatter plots for the out-of-sample window (2020--2025, $N = 390$ bins, 27 NMDB stations). Layout identical to Figure~\ref {fig:rawinsample}. The CR--sunspot anti-correlation strengthens to $r = -0.939$ during Solar Cycle~25, which had a particularly wide dynamic range. The CR--seismicity correlation ($r = 0.046$, $p_\text {Bonf} = 1.0$) is indistinguishable from zero.\relax }{figure.caption.11}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Raw pairwise scatter plots for the full combined window (1976--2025, $N = 3{,}604$ bins). The multi-decadal colour gradient in the centre panel shows CR and sunspot oscillating in anti-phase across four complete solar cycles. The overall CR--seismicity Pearson correlation ($r = 0.055$, $\rho = 0.065$) is statistically significant ($p_\text  {Bonf} = 0.008$) but quantitatively negligible, and its sign follows directly from the confounding triangle described in the text.\relax }}{16}{figure.caption.12}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:rawcombined}{{3}{16}{Raw pairwise scatter plots for the full combined window (1976--2025, $N = 3{,}604$ bins). The multi-decadal colour gradient in the centre panel shows CR and sunspot oscillating in anti-phase across four complete solar cycles. The overall CR--seismicity Pearson correlation ($r = 0.055$, $\rho = 0.065$) is statistically significant ($p_\text {Bonf} = 0.008$) but quantitatively negligible, and its sign follows directly from the confounding triangle described in the text.\relax }{figure.caption.12}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.2}In-Sample Replication (1976--2019)}{17}{subsection.4.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:insample}{{4.2}{17}{In-Sample Replication (1976--2019)}{subsection.4.2}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Cross-correlation function $r(\tau )$ for the raw (undetrended) CR index and global seismic metric, 1976--2019. The dominant peak at $\tau = -525$\nobreakspace  {}days (vertical dashed line, red) corresponds to a half-solar-cycle lag; the claimed $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}days is marked with a vertical solid line (blue). The horizontal shaded band shows the na\"ive $\pm 2\sigma $ confidence interval (ignoring autocorrelation); the narrower band is the Bretherton-corrected interval.\relax }}{17}{figure.caption.13}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:homola}{{4}{17}{Cross-correlation function $r(\tau )$ for the raw (undetrended) CR index and global seismic metric, 1976--2019. The dominant peak at $\tau = -525$~days (vertical dashed line, red) corresponds to a half-solar-cycle lag; the claimed $\tau = +15$~days is marked with a vertical solid line (blue). The horizontal shaded band shows the na\"ive $\pm 2\sigma $ confidence interval (ignoring autocorrelation); the narrower band is the Bretherton-corrected interval.\relax }{figure.caption.13}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.3}IAAFT Surrogate Test}{18}{subsection.4.3}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:surr}{{4.3}{18}{IAAFT Surrogate Test}{subsection.4.3}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {5}{\ignorespaces Null distribution of the peak cross-correlation statistic from 10{,}000 IAAFT surrogates for the raw (blue) and HP-detrended (orange) CR--seismic series. Vertical dashed lines mark the observed peak for each case. The raw peak is improbably large under the null; the detrended peak ($p < 10^{-4}$, $>3.9\sigma $) is nominally significant but sensitive to the choice of $N_\text  {eff}$ estimator (see Table\nobreakspace  {}\ref {tab:neff}), and occurs at a lag inconsistent with the claimed mechanism. The correlation at the claimed $\tau =+15$\nobreakspace  {}d is not significant.\relax }}{18}{figure.caption.14}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:stress}{{5}{18}{Null distribution of the peak cross-correlation statistic from 10{,}000 IAAFT surrogates for the raw (blue) and HP-detrended (orange) CR--seismic series. Vertical dashed lines mark the observed peak for each case. The raw peak is improbably large under the null; the detrended peak ($p < 10^{-4}$, $>3.9\sigma $) is nominally significant but sensitive to the choice of $N_\text {eff}$ estimator (see Table~\ref {tab:neff}), and occurs at a lag inconsistent with the claimed mechanism. The correlation at the claimed $\tau =+15$~d is not significant.\relax }{figure.caption.14}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.4}Effect of Solar-Cycle Detrending}{19}{subsection.4.4}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:detrend}{{4.4}{19}{Effect of Solar-Cycle Detrending}{subsection.4.4}{}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Cross-correlation statistics at $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}days under four preprocessing conditions, in-sample window 1976--2019.\relax }}{19}{table.caption.15}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:detrend}{{3}{19}{Cross-correlation statistics at $\tau = +15$~days under four preprocessing conditions, in-sample window 1976--2019.\relax }{table.caption.15}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.5}Detrending Robustness}{19}{subsection.4.5}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:detrend_robust}{{4.5}{19}{Detrending Robustness}{subsection.4.5}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.6}Comparison of $N_\text  {eff}$ Estimators}{19}{subsection.4.6}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:neff_comparison}{{4.6}{19}{Comparison of $N_\text {eff}$ Estimators}{subsection.4.6}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {6}{\ignorespaces Cross-correlation functions for the raw (blue) and HP-detrended (orange) series. The dominant peak at $\tau = -525$\nobreakspace  {}days in the raw data (dashed blue) is absent after detrending, confirming it is a solar-cycle artefact. Neither series exhibits a significant peak at $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}days (vertical grey line).\relax }}{20}{figure.caption.16}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:detrended}{{6}{20}{Cross-correlation functions for the raw (blue) and HP-detrended (orange) series. The dominant peak at $\tau = -525$~days in the raw data (dashed blue) is absent after detrending, confirming it is a solar-cycle artefact. Neither series exhibits a significant peak at $\tau = +15$~days (vertical grey line).\relax }{figure.caption.16}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {7}{\ignorespaces Cross-correlation $r(\tau )$ under three detrending approaches (HP filter, Butterworth highpass, rolling-mean subtraction) for the raw CR index vs.\ log$_{10}$ seismic energy, 1976--2019. The vertical grey line marks the claimed $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}days. No method produces a positive feature at this lag.\relax }}{20}{figure.caption.17}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:detrend_robust}{{7}{20}{Cross-correlation $r(\tau )$ under three detrending approaches (HP filter, Butterworth highpass, rolling-mean subtraction) for the raw CR index vs.\ log$_{10}$ seismic energy, 1976--2019. The vertical grey line marks the claimed $\tau = +15$~days. No method produces a positive feature at this lag.\relax }{figure.caption.17}{}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Comparison of $N_\text  {eff}$ estimators for raw in-sample series at $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}days ($N = 3{,}214$, $r = 0.079$).\relax }}{21}{table.caption.18}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:neff}{{4}{21}{Comparison of $N_\text {eff}$ estimators for raw in-sample series at $\tau = +15$~days ($N = 3{,}214$, $r = 0.079$).\relax }{table.caption.18}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.7}Magnitude Threshold Sensitivity}{21}{subsection.4.7}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:mag_threshold}{{4.7}{21}{Magnitude Threshold Sensitivity}{subsection.4.7}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {8}{\ignorespaces Cross-correlation $r(\tau )$ for three magnitude cutoffs ($M \geq 4.5$, blue; $M \geq 5.0$, orange; $M \geq 6.0$, green), in-sample window 1976--2019. The vertical grey line marks $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}days. All three cutoffs yield similar, small correlations at the claimed lag, and the dominant peak location ($\tau = -525$\nobreakspace  {}days) is stable.\relax }}{21}{figure.caption.19}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:mag_threshold}{{8}{21}{Cross-correlation $r(\tau )$ for three magnitude cutoffs ($M \geq 4.5$, blue; $M \geq 5.0$, orange; $M \geq 6.0$, green), in-sample window 1976--2019. The vertical grey line marks $\tau = +15$~days. All three cutoffs yield similar, small correlations at the claimed lag, and the dominant peak location ($\tau = -525$~days) is stable.\relax }{figure.caption.19}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.8}Block-Bootstrap Surrogate Comparison}{21}{subsection.4.8}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:blockbootstrap}{{4.8}{21}{Block-Bootstrap Surrogate Comparison}{subsection.4.8}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {9}{\ignorespaces Block-bootstrap null distributions for the raw CR--seismic pair ($B = 804$ bins $\approx 11$\nobreakspace  {}yr, $S = 5{,}000$ surrogates). \textbf  {Left}: distribution of $r(+15\,\text  {d})$ under the CBB null; observed value $r = 0.079$ (red) lies at the $p = 0.022$ tail. \textbf  {Right}: distribution of the peak $|r|$; observed peak $0.135$ at $\tau = -525$\nobreakspace  {}d lies at $p = 0.008$. Grey dashed lines mark the 95\% CI of the null.\relax }}{22}{figure.caption.20}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:blockbootstrap}{{9}{22}{Block-bootstrap null distributions for the raw CR--seismic pair ($B = 804$ bins $\approx 11$~yr, $S = 5{,}000$ surrogates). \textbf {Left}: distribution of $r(+15\,\text {d})$ under the CBB null; observed value $r = 0.079$ (red) lies at the $p = 0.022$ tail. \textbf {Right}: distribution of the peak $|r|$; observed peak $0.135$ at $\tau = -525$~d lies at $p = 0.008$. Grey dashed lines mark the 95\% CI of the null.\relax }{figure.caption.20}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.9}Partial Correlation: Controlling for Sunspot Number}{22}{subsection.4.9}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:partialcorr}{{4.9}{22}{Partial Correlation: Controlling for Sunspot Number}{subsection.4.9}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.10}Spectral Coherence and Mutual Information}{22}{subsection.4.10}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:coherence}{{4.10}{22}{Spectral Coherence and Mutual Information}{subsection.4.10}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Coherence.}{22}{section*.22}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {10}{\ignorespaces Cross-correlation $r(\tau )$ for the raw seismic metric (blue) and the sunspot-regressed seismic residual (orange), both against the CR index, on the raw (unfiltered) in-sample series. The claimed $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}d (grey dashed line) shows $r_\text  {raw} = 0.079$ vs.\ $r_\text  {partial} = 0.029$, a 63\% reduction once the shared solar-cycle component is regressed out.\relax }}{23}{figure.caption.21}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:partialcorr}{{10}{23}{Cross-correlation $r(\tau )$ for the raw seismic metric (blue) and the sunspot-regressed seismic residual (orange), both against the CR index, on the raw (unfiltered) in-sample series. The claimed $\tau = +15$~d (grey dashed line) shows $r_\text {raw} = 0.079$ vs.\ $r_\text {partial} = 0.029$, a 63\% reduction once the shared solar-cycle component is regressed out.\relax }{figure.caption.21}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Mutual information.}{23}{section*.23}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.11}Missing-Data Sensitivity}{23}{subsection.4.11}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:missing}{{4.11}{23}{Missing-Data Sensitivity}{subsection.4.11}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {11}{\ignorespaces \textbf  {Left}: Magnitude-squared coherence between the CR index and seismic metric (blue), with the solar-cycle band shaded (orange, 0.08--0.115 cycles\nobreakspace  {}yr$^{-1}$) and the 95\% significance level (red dashed). The mean coherence in the SC band is 0.840, confirming a strong shared solar-cycle component. \textbf  {Right}: kNN mutual information ($k = 5$) at lag $\tau = 0$ (blue) and $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}d (orange) vs.\ their respective shuffle-null distributions. Both observed MI values are indistinguishable from zero; $p(+15\,\text  {d}) = 1.000$.\relax }}{24}{figure.caption.24}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:coherence}{{11}{24}{\textbf {Left}: Magnitude-squared coherence between the CR index and seismic metric (blue), with the solar-cycle band shaded (orange, 0.08--0.115 cycles~yr$^{-1}$) and the 95\% significance level (red dashed). The mean coherence in the SC band is 0.840, confirming a strong shared solar-cycle component. \textbf {Right}: kNN mutual information ($k = 5$) at lag $\tau = 0$ (blue) and $\tau = +15$~d (orange) vs.\ their respective shuffle-null distributions. Both observed MI values are indistinguishable from zero; $p(+15\,\text {d}) = 1.000$.\relax }{figure.caption.24}{}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {5}{\ignorespaces Missing-data sensitivity: global CR index and correlation at $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}days for three station-threshold values.\relax }}{24}{table.caption.25}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:missing}{{5}{24}{Missing-data sensitivity: global CR index and correlation at $\tau = +15$~days for three station-threshold values.\relax }{table.caption.25}{}}
\citation{GardnerKnopoff1974}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.12}Bin-Size Sensitivity}{25}{subsection.4.12}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:binsize}{{4.12}{25}{Bin-Size Sensitivity}{subsection.4.12}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {12}{\ignorespaces Cross-correlation $r(\tau )$ for three bin sizes: 1-day (left), 5-day (centre), 27-day (right). The dominant peak (red dotted) consistently falls near $\tau \approx -520$\nobreakspace  {}days across all bin sizes. The correlation at the claimed $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}days (grey dashed) increases from 0.036 to 0.123 as bin size increases, consistent with increasing solar-cycle leakage rather than a physical short-lag signal.\relax }}{25}{figure.caption.26}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:binsize}{{12}{25}{Cross-correlation $r(\tau )$ for three bin sizes: 1-day (left), 5-day (centre), 27-day (right). The dominant peak (red dotted) consistently falls near $\tau \approx -520$~days across all bin sizes. The correlation at the claimed $\tau = +15$~days (grey dashed) increases from 0.036 to 0.123 as bin size increases, consistent with increasing solar-cycle leakage rather than a physical short-lag signal.\relax }{figure.caption.26}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.13}Earthquake Declustering (Gardner--Knopoff)}{25}{subsection.4.13}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:decluster}{{4.13}{25}{Earthquake Declustering (Gardner--Knopoff)}{subsection.4.13}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {13}{\ignorespaces Cross-correlation for the full catalogue ($n = 232{,}043$ events, blue) and the Gardner--Knopoff declustered catalogue ($n = 166{,}169$ mainshocks, orange), in-sample 1976--2019. Removing 28.4\% of events as aftershocks changes $r(+15\,\text  {d})$ by only $\Delta r = 0.014$, confirming the result is not driven by aftershock swarms.\relax }}{26}{figure.caption.27}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:decluster}{{13}{26}{Cross-correlation for the full catalogue ($n = 232{,}043$ events, blue) and the Gardner--Knopoff declustered catalogue ($n = 166{,}169$ mainshocks, orange), in-sample 1976--2019. Removing 28.4\% of events as aftershocks changes $r(+15\,\text {d})$ by only $\Delta r = 0.014$, confirming the result is not driven by aftershock swarms.\relax }{figure.caption.27}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.14}Sub-Period Analysis by Solar Cycle}{26}{subsection.4.14}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:subcycles}{{4.14}{26}{Sub-Period Analysis by Solar Cycle}{subsection.4.14}{}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {6}{\ignorespaces Per-solar-cycle cross-correlation at $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}days and the within-cycle dominant peak.\relax }}{26}{table.caption.28}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:subcycles}{{6}{26}{Per-solar-cycle cross-correlation at $\tau = +15$~days and the within-cycle dominant peak.\relax }{table.caption.28}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.15}Geographic Localisation}{26}{subsection.4.15}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:geo}{{4.15}{26}{Geographic Localisation}{subsection.4.15}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {14}{\ignorespaces Cross-correlation $r(\tau )$ within each of the four complete solar cycles (21--24) of the in-sample period (1976--2019). The claimed lag $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}days (grey dashed) shows modest positive correlations (0.018--0.073), but the dominant peak lag (red dotted) is inconsistent across cycles ($-65$, $-125$, $+125$, $-125$\nobreakspace  {}days), pointing to a drift in the relative solar-cycle phase rather than a physical mechanism.\relax }}{27}{figure.caption.29}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:subcycles}{{14}{27}{Cross-correlation $r(\tau )$ within each of the four complete solar cycles (21--24) of the in-sample period (1976--2019). The claimed lag $\tau = +15$~days (grey dashed) shows modest positive correlations (0.018--0.073), but the dominant peak lag (red dotted) is inconsistent across cycles ($-65$, $-125$, $+125$, $-125$~days), pointing to a drift in the relative solar-cycle phase rather than a physical mechanism.\relax }{figure.caption.29}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {15}{\ignorespaces Heatmap of BH-significant station--grid-cell pairs ($q = 0.05$). Each row is an NMDB station; each column is a $10° \times 10°$ seismic grid cell. Significant pairs (455/7{,}037) are scattered without obvious geographic clustering, inconsistent with a local coupling mechanism.\relax }}{28}{figure.caption.30}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:geoheatmap}{{15}{28}{Heatmap of BH-significant station--grid-cell pairs ($q = 0.05$). Each row is an NMDB station; each column is a $10° \times 10°$ seismic grid cell. Significant pairs (455/7{,}037) are scattered without obvious geographic clustering, inconsistent with a local coupling mechanism.\relax }{figure.caption.30}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {16}{\ignorespaces Optimal lag $\tau ^*(s,g)$ vs.\ great-circle distance $d(s,g)$ for all 7{,}037 station--cell pairs (grey) and BH-significant pairs (coloured by peak $|r|$). The OLS regression line (red) has slope $\beta = -0.45$\nobreakspace  {}days/1000\,km ($p=0.21$), indistinguishable from zero. A local propagation or diffusion mechanism predicts a positive slope; the null result is inconsistent with such models but does not exclude globally instantaneous coupling.\relax }}{28}{figure.caption.31}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:geodistlag}{{16}{28}{Optimal lag $\tau ^*(s,g)$ vs.\ great-circle distance $d(s,g)$ for all 7{,}037 station--cell pairs (grey) and BH-significant pairs (coloured by peak $|r|$). The OLS regression line (red) has slope $\beta = -0.45$~days/1000\,km ($p=0.21$), indistinguishable from zero. A local propagation or diffusion mechanism predicts a positive slope; the null result is inconsistent with such models but does not exclude globally instantaneous coupling.\relax }{figure.caption.31}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.16}Pre-Registered Out-of-Sample Validation (2020--2025)}{29}{subsection.4.16}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:oos}{{4.16}{29}{Pre-Registered Out-of-Sample Validation (2020--2025)}{subsection.4.16}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {17}{\ignorespaces Out-of-sample cross-correlation function (2020--2025, $T=390$ bins, $10^5$ phase surrogates). The observed $r(\tau )$ (black) lies within the surrogate 95th-percentile envelope (grey shading). The claimed signal at $\tau = +15$\nobreakspace  {}d (vertical line) is $r = 0.030$ --- below the surrogate 95th percentile of 0.101.\relax }}{29}{figure.caption.32}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:oosxcorr}{{17}{29}{Out-of-sample cross-correlation function (2020--2025, $T=390$ bins, $10^5$ phase surrogates). The observed $r(\tau )$ (black) lies within the surrogate 95th-percentile envelope (grey shading). The claimed signal at $\tau = +15$~d (vertical line) is $r = 0.030$ --- below the surrogate 95th percentile of 0.101.\relax }{figure.caption.32}{}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {7}{\ignorespaces Pre-registered prediction scorecard for the out-of-sample window.\relax }}{29}{table.caption.33}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:prereg}{{7}{29}{Pre-registered prediction scorecard for the out-of-sample window.\relax }{table.caption.33}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {18}{\ignorespaces Rolling $r(+15\,\text  {d})$ in 18-month overlapping windows across the out-of-sample period. Error bars are bootstrap 95\% confidence intervals. The grey horizontal band shows the surrogate 95th percentile. The signal shows no consistent sign or trend.\relax }}{30}{figure.caption.34}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:rolling}{{18}{30}{Rolling $r(+15\,\text {d})$ in 18-month overlapping windows across the out-of-sample period. Error bars are bootstrap 95\% confidence intervals. The grey horizontal band shows the surrogate 95th percentile. The signal shows no consistent sign or trend.\relax }{figure.caption.34}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.17}Combined 1976--2025 Analysis: Sinusoidal Modulation}{30}{subsection.4.17}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:res:combined}{{4.17}{30}{Combined 1976--2025 Analysis: Sinusoidal Modulation}{subsection.4.17}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {19}{\ignorespaces Annual rolling $r(+15\,\text  {d})$ across the full 1976--2025 period (grey points with 95\% bootstrap CI). The sinusoidal best-fit (red curve, $P = 13.0$\nobreakspace  {}yr) and the constant-mean model (dashed) are nearly indistinguishable; BIC comparison slightly favours the constant model ($\text  {BF} = 0.75$). The vertical dashed line marks the in-sample/out-of-sample split (2020).\relax }}{30}{figure.caption.35}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:combined}{{19}{30}{Annual rolling $r(+15\,\text {d})$ across the full 1976--2025 period (grey points with 95\% bootstrap CI). The sinusoidal best-fit (red curve, $P = 13.0$~yr) and the constant-mean model (dashed) are nearly indistinguishable; BIC comparison slightly favours the constant model ($\text {BF} = 0.75$). The vertical dashed line marks the in-sample/out-of-sample split (2020).\relax }{figure.caption.35}{}}
\citation{KassRaftery1995}
\citation{Homola2023}
\citation{Odintsov2006}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Discussion}{31}{section.5}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:discussion}{{5}{31}{Discussion}{section.5}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.1}Why Does the Raw Correlation Appear So Strong?}{31}{subsection.5.1}\protected@file@percent }
\citation{Aplin2005}
\citation{Pulinets2004}
\citation{Homola2023}
\citation{Urata2018}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.2}Physical Plausibility of the Claimed Mechanism}{32}{subsection.5.2}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.3}Comparison with Prior Replication Attempts}{32}{subsection.5.3}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.4}Limitations}{32}{subsection.5.4}\protected@file@percent }
\citation{Homola2023}
\citation{Homola2023}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Conclusions}{33}{section.6}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:conclusions}{{6}{33}{Conclusions}{section.6}{}}
\bibstyle{plainnat}
\bibdata{refs}
\bibcite{Aplin2005}{{1}{2006}{{Aplin}}{{}}}
\bibcite{Bartlett1946}{{2}{1946}{{Bartlett}}{{}}}
\bibcite{Benjamini1995}{{3}{1995}{{Benjamini and Hochberg}}{{}}}
\bibcite{Bretherton1999}{{4}{1999}{{Bretherton et~al.}}{{Bretherton, Widmann, Dymnikov, Wallace, and Blade}}}
\bibcite{Cleveland1990}{{5}{1990}{{Cleveland et~al.}}{{Cleveland, Cleveland, McRae, and Terpenning}}}
\bibcite{GardnerKnopoff1974}{{6}{1974}{{Gardner and Knopoff}}{{}}}
\bibcite{HP1997}{{7}{1997}{{Hodrick and Prescott}}{{}}}
\bibcite{Homola2023}{{8}{2022}{{Homola et~al.}}{{}}}
\bibcite{Kanamori1977}{{9}{1977}{{Kanamori}}{{}}}
\bibcite{KassRaftery1995}{{10}{1995}{{Kass and Raftery}}{{}}}
\bibcite{Kraskov2004}{{11}{2004}{{Kraskov et~al.}}{{Kraskov, St{\"o}gbauer, and Grassberger}}}
\bibcite{Odintsov2006}{{12}{2006}{{Odintsov et~al.}}{{Odintsov, Boyarchuk, Georgieva, Kirov, and Atanasov}}}
\bibcite{Potgieter2013}{{13}{2013}{{Potgieter}}{{}}}
\bibcite{Pulinets2004}{{14}{2004}{{Pulinets and Boyarchuk}}{{}}}
\bibcite{RahnUhlig2002}{{15}{2002}{{Ravn and Uhlig}}{{}}}
\bibcite{Schreiber2000}{{16}{2000}{{Schreiber and Schmitz}}{{}}}
\bibcite{SIDC2024}{{17}{2024}{{SILSO World Data Center}}{{}}}
\bibcite{Stoupel1990}{{18}{1990}{{Stoupel}}{{}}}
\bibcite{Tavares2011}{{19}{2011}{{Tavares and Azevedo}}{{}}}
\bibcite{Theiler1992}{{20}{1992}{{Theiler et~al.}}{{Theiler, Eubank, Longtin, Galdrikian, and Farmer}}}
\bibcite{Urata2018}{{21}{2018}{{Urata and Tanimoto}}{{}}}
\bibcite{USGS2024}{{22}{2024}{{USGS Earthquake Hazards Program}}{{}}}
\gdef \@abspage@last{36}