Are the Horizontal-to-Vertical Spectral Ratios of Earthquakes and Microtremors the Same?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We consider the similarities and differences between earthquake and microtremor horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios (eHVSR and mHVSR, respectively) using a dataset of 161 sites in southern California. Quantitative comparisons are made in terms of the eHVSR and mHVSR lognormal median curves, as well as the frequencies and amplitudes associated with the fundamental- and higher-mode resonances where present. The results show only 58% of the eHVSR–mHVSR pairs agree in terms of their median curve and only 25% of the eHVSR–mHVSR pairs agree in terms of shared resonances, which increases to 68% if flat HVSRs are considered equivalent. Furthermore, while the shared resonances match very well in terms of frequency (root mean square error, RMSE, <0.11 Hz), the amplitudes of those resonances do not agree (RMSE >1.6). These findings demonstrate that while eHVSR and mHVSR agree at some sites, they are not equivalent at all sites. To investigate if the agreement between eHVSR and mHVSR could be related to features of the microtremor data, earthquake recordings, and/or the site conditions, three machine learning (ML) models at varying levels of interpretability are presented. The ML models—which include multivariate logistic regression, gradient-boosted trees, and support vector machines—show only partial success at using site-specific data to predict whether eHVSR and mHVSR will likely agree in terms of their median curve (accuracy of 78%) and number of resonances (accuracy of 84%). Therefore, we conclude that while eHVSR and mHVSR can be quite similar in terms of resonant frequencies at some sites, they are not identical at all sites. Furthermore, preliminary evidence shows that the agreement of eHVSR and mHVSR can be predicted a priori given features of the microtremor measurements, earthquake recordings, and site conditions, although a larger dataset will be necessary for developing a robust predictive 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".