cosmicraysandearthquakes/results/neff_comparison.json
root 798b0744b5 Fix seismic metric + robustness checks (issues 2a–2d)
2a — Replace physically invalid summed-Mw seismic metric with correct
     log10(ΣE) where E=10^(1.5·Mw+4.8) J (Kanamori 1977).  Updates
     usgs.py (new seismic_energy_per_bin()), scripts 02/07/08.
     Impact: r(+15d) raw 0.310→0.081, peak r 0.469→0.139; sinusoidal
     BF 27.5→0.75 (constant model now preferred).

2b — HP λ derivation: λ_5 = 1600×(365/5)^4 ≈ 4.54×10^10 (Ravn & Uhlig
     2002 rescaling); detrend robustness figure (HP/Butterworth/rolling
     mean), all show r(+15d)<0.04.

2c — Neff comparison: Bartlett 2923, Bretherton 769, Monte Carlo 594;
     MC 95% CI [-0.002, +0.158] straddles zero → raw r not significant
     under most conservative estimate.

2d — Magnitude threshold (M≥4.5/5.0/6.0): r(+15d) range 0.050–0.079
     (Δ=0.029 < 0.05), peak stable at τ=−525 d; no aftershock bias.

Paper (main.tex, refs.bib): update all numbers, add Kanamori/Bartlett/
Ravn–Uhlig refs, new sections for 2b–2d with figures and Neff table.
PDF recompiled (27 pages).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-04-24 14:49:54 +02:00

30 lines
No EOL
795 B
JSON

{
"N_raw": 3214,
"r_at_tau_plus15d": 0.07862,
"methods": {
"Bartlett_1946_first_order": {
"Neff": 2923.1,
"CI_95_r": [
0.04248258115478359,
0.11454542812932819
],
"note": "N\u00b7(1\u2212\u03c1\u2081\u2093\u03c1\u2081\u1d67)/(1+\u03c1\u2081\u2093\u03c1\u2081\u1d67) [current implementation]"
},
"Bretherton_1999_full_sum": {
"Neff": 769.4,
"CI_95_r": [
0.007981897773749757,
0.14847087395884573
],
"note": "N / (1 + 2\u03a3_k \u03c1_xx(k)\u03c1_yy(k)) K=200 lags"
},
"Monte_Carlo_phase_surrogates": {
"Neff": 593.8,
"CI_95_r": [
-0.0018607729923741843,
0.15808238828278748
],
"note": "1/Var(r_null) from 1000 phase-randomised y series"
}
}
}