What Controls the Presence and Characteristics of Aftershocks in Rock Fracture in the Lab?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aftershock cascades are a characteristic feature of natural seismicity, but underlying mechanisms remain debated. Here, we experimentally explore the presence or absence of aftershocks during failure of intact rock and slip on newly created laboratory faults. We show that the overall activity increase and spatial localization of acoustic emission (AE) events during fracture nucleation occurs without temporal (Omori‐type) correlations. Our analysis shows that this absence of aftershock sequences occurs even beyond peak stress and also when a macroscopic fracture has formed post peak‐stress and propagates. Instead, aftershock triggering does occur during post‐fracture stress relaxation along the newly created lab‐fault and in the presence of large‐scale stress heterogeneities, for example, imposed by a saw‐cut notch. The detected aftershocks in these cases can be described by standard seismological relationships such as a modified Omori‐Utsu relation and its associated inter‐event time distribution and productivity relation. Moreover, AE within all experiments follow the Gutenberg‐Richter relation, with smaller ‐values for triggered events compared to non‐triggered events. Performing full‐moment tensor inversions, we find that seismic events with significant isotropic, compaction components play an important role for aftershock triggering. The resulting triggered events tend to have focal mechanisms similar to their trigger. Seismic events with predominant tensile components, on the other hand, show little evidence for aftershock triggering. This opens up a new perspective on aftershocks, going beyond not only the rate‐and‐state paradigm limited to purely frictional sliding or shear events but also the mainshock attribute paradigm where mainshock attributes control aftershock patterns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".