A Long-Lived Swarm of Hydraulic Fracturing-Induced Seismicity Provides Evidence for Aseismic Slip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Seismic swarms are defined as an increase in seismicity that does not show a clear mainshock–aftershock sequence. Typically, swarms are primarily associated with either fluid migration or slow earthquakes (aseismic slip). In this study, we analyze a swarm induced by hydraulic fracturing (HF) that persisted for an unusually long duration of more than 10 months. Swarms ascribed to fluid injection are usually characterized by an expanding seismicity front; in this case, however, characteristics such as a relatively steady seismicity rate over time and lack of hypocenter migration cannot be readily explained by a fluid-diffusion model. Here, we show that a different model for HF-induced seismicity, wherein an unstable region of a fault is loaded by proximal, pore-pressure-driven aseismic slip, better explains our observations. According to this model, the steady seismicity rate can be explained by a steady slip velocity, while the spatial stationarity of the event distribution is due to lateral confinement of the creeping region of the fault with increased pore pressure. Our results may have important implications for other induced or natural seismic swarms, which could be similarly explained by aseismic loading of asperities driven by fluid overpressure rather than the often-attributed fluid-migration model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".