1: \documentclass[aps]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[11pt]{article}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1cm}

5: \setlength{\headsep}{2.2cm}

6: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0cm}

7: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0cm}

8: \setlength{\textheight}{23cm}

9: \setlength{\textwidth}{16cm}

10: 

11: \ProvidesPackage{times}

12: [1999/03/29 PSNFSS v.7.2

13: Times font as default roman

14: : S Rahtz]

15: \renewcommand{\sfdefault}{phv}

16: \renewcommand{\rmdefault}{ptm}

17: \renewcommand{\ttdefault}{pcr}

18: 

19: \begin{document}

20: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

21: \sloppy

22: \newcommand{\rp}{\right)}

23: \newcommand{\lp}{\left(}

24: \newcommand \be  {\begin{equation}}

25: \newcommand \ba {\begin{eqnarray}}

26: \newcommand \ee  {\end{equation}}

27: \newcommand \ea {\end{eqnarray}}

28: 

29: \title{Diffusion of epicenters of earthquake aftershock, Omori law

30: and generalized continuous-time random walk models}

31: \thispagestyle{empty}

32: 

33: \author{A. Helmstetter$^1$ and D. Sornette$^{2,3}$\\

34: $^1$ Laboratoire de G{\'e}ophysique Interne et Tectonophysique,

35: Observatoire de Grenoble, Universit{\'e} Joseph Fourier, BP 53X, 38041

36: Grenoble Cedex, France \\ e-mail: ahelmste@obs.ujf-grenoble.fr\\

37: $^2$ Laboratoire de Physique de la Mati\`{e}re Condens\'{e}e\\ CNRS UMR6622 and

38: Universit\'{e} de Nice-Sophia Antipolis\\ B.P. 71, Parc

39: Valrose, 06108 Nice Cedex 2, France\\

40: $^3$ Institute of Geophysics and

41: Planetary Physics and Department of Earth and Space Science\\

42: University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095\\

43: email: sornette@ess.ucla.edu}

44: 

45: \begin{abstract}

46: 

47: The epidemic-type aftershock

48: sequence model (ETAS) is a simple stochastic process modeling

49: seismicity, based on the two best-established empirical laws, the

50: Omori law (power law decay $\sim 1/t^{1+\theta}$ of seismicity after

51: an earthquake)

52: and Gutenberg-Richter law (power law distribution of earthquake energies).

53: In order to describe also the space distribution of seismicity, we use

54:   in addition a power law distribution $\sim 1/r^{1+\mu}$ of distances between

55: triggered and triggering earthquakes.

56: The ETAS model has been studied for the last two decades to model

57: real seismicity catalogs and to obtain short-term probabilistic forecasts.

58: Here, we present an exact mapping between the ETAS model and a class

59: of CTRW (continuous time random walk) models, based on the identification

60: of their corresponding Master equations.

61: This mapping allows us to use the wealth of results previously

62: obtained on anomalous diffusion of CTRW. After translating into the relevant

63: variable for the ETAS model, we provide a classification of the different

64: regimes of diffusion of seismic activity triggered by a mainshock.

65: Specifically, we derive the relation between the average distance between

66: aftershocks and the mainshock as a function of the time from the mainshock

67: and of the joint probability distribution of the times and locations of

68: the aftershocks.

69: The different regimes are fully characterized by the two exponents

70: $\theta$ and $\mu$.

71: Our predictions are checked by careful numerical simulations.

72: We stress the distinction between the ``bare'' Omori law describing the

73: seismic rate activated directly by a mainshock and the ``renormalized''

74: Omori law taking into account all possible cascades from mainshocks

75: to aftershocks

76: of aftershock of aftershock, and so on. In particular, we predict that

77: seismic diffusion or sub-diffusion occurs and should be observable only

78: when the observed Omori exponent is less than $1$, because this signals

79: the operation of the renormalization of the bare Omori law, also at the

80: origin of seismic diffusion in the ETAS model.

81: We present new predictions and insights provided by the ETAS to CTRW mapping

82: that suggest novel ways for studying seismic catalogs. Finally, we

83: discuss the present

84: evidence for our predicted sub-diffusion of seismicity triggered by a

85: main shock,

86: stressing the caveats and limitations of previous empirical works.

87: 

88: \end{abstract}

89: 

90: \maketitle

91: 

92: 

93: \pagenumbering{arabic}

94: 

95: \section{Introduction}

96: 

97: The spatio-temporal complexity of earthquakes is often invoked as

98: an illustration of the phenomenon of critical self-organization with

99: scale-invariant properties

100: \cite{Geilo,Rundleklein,Main,Sorreview,Turcottereview}.

101: This concept points to the importance of developing a system approach in which

102: large scale properties can emerge from the repeating interactions occurring

103: at smaller scales. Such ideas are implemented

104: in models proposing links between the physics of earthquakes

105: and concepts of statistical physics, such as

106: critical points, self-organized criticality, spinodal decomposition,

107: critical depinning, etc., in order to explain the most

108: solidly established facts in

109: the phenomenology of earthquakes, of which we cite the three most important.

110: \begin{itemize}

111: \item LAW 1: The Gutenberg-Richer law \cite{GR} states that the cumulative

112: distribution of earthquake magnitudes $m$

113: sampled over broad regions and large time intervals is proportional

114: to $10^{-b m}$, with a $b$-value $b \approx 1$. Translating into energies $E$

115: with the correspondence

116: $m=(2/3) \log_{10} E + $ constant leads to a

117: power law $\sim 1/E^{B}$ with $B \approx 2/3$.

118: 

119: \item LAW 2: Omori law for aftershocks \cite{Omori} states that the

120: rate of earthquakes

121: triggered by a mainshock decays with time according to an inverse power

122: $1/t^{p}$ of time with an exponent $p \approx 1$.

123: \item LAW 3: The earthquakes are clustered in space along hierarchical fault

124: structures \cite{Ouillonetal} and their spatial distribution over

125: long times can be approximately

126: described by a fractal dimension close to $2.2$ (in three dimensions)

127: \cite{KK80}.

128: \end{itemize}

129: There are many other empirical ``laws'' but these three characterize the

130: very fundamentals of seismicity in size, time and space.

131: 

132: We should immediately point out that these three laws come with

133: significant caveats.

134: \begin{enumerate}

135: \item There have been on-going controversies on the universality

136: of the exponent $B$ or $b$-value of the Gutenberg-Richter law \cite{Pissor,kaganuniv}.

137: % On the other hand, Kagan \cite{kaganuniv} is a

138: % vigorous proponent of the universality

139: % of $B \approx 2/3$ for all zones.

140: 

141: \item The exponent $p$ of Omori law exhibits a large variability from one

142: aftershock sequence to another aftershock sequence and

143: is found typically in the range from $0.3$ to $2$.

144: We note however that not all these values, especially the extreme ones,

145: automatically reflect a bona-fide power law decay and one should exert

146: caution in attributing too much confidence to them.

147: 

148: \item The view that geological faults and earthquake hypocenters are fractal

149: objects is now recognized to be a naive description of a much more

150: complex reality in which a hierarchy of scales occur with possibly

151: different organizations at different scales \cite{Ouillonetal}.

152: \end{enumerate}

153: 

154: In addition, a major difficulty for making progress in modeling and

155: predicting earthquakes

156: is that these three and other laws may be ``explained'' by a large variety of

157: models, with many different mechanisms. For instance,

158: with respect to the first two laws, we observe the

159: following.

160: \begin{itemize}

161: \item There are many mechanisms that create a power

162: law distribution of earthquake sizes (see for instance the list of

163: mechanisms described in chapter 14 of Ref.~\cite{Sorbook}).

164: \item Omori law

165: is essentially a slowly decaying ``propagator'' describing

166: a long-time memory of past events impacting on the

167: future seismic activity. Such slow power law time decay of the

168: Omori propagator

169: may result from several and not necessarily exclusive mechanisms

170: (see \cite{Harrisreview}

171: and references therein): pore-pressure changes due to pore-fluid flows coupled

172: with stress variations, slow redistribution of stress by aseismic creep,

173: rate-and-state dependent friction within faults, coupling between

174: the viscoelastic lower crust and the brittle upper crust, stress-assisted

175: micro-crack corrosion \cite{Yamakno,Leesor}, slow tectonic driving of

176: a hierarchical geometry

177: with avalanche relaxation dynamics \cite{Huangetal}, etc.

178: \end{itemize}

179: 

180: The zeroth order description of earthquakes is to consider a single isolated

181: homogeneous fault on which earthquakes are recurrent to accommodate

182: the long-term slow tectonic loading. But faults are not isolated and

183: the most conspicuous observation is that earthquakes interact and

184: influence each other on complex fault structures. Understanding these

185: interactions is essential

186: for understanding earthquakes and fault self-organization. However, the

187: full impact of interactions between earthquakes is still far

188: from being well understood. The simplest and clearest observation of

189: earthquake interaction is provided by aftershocks whose phenomenology

190: is captured by Omori law (LAW 2). Indeed,

191: aftershocks are the most obvious and striking signature of the clustering

192: of the seismicity in time and space, and are observed after all

193: large  shallow earthquakes.

194: Most aftershocks are triggered a few hours or days after the mainshock.

195: However, due to the very slow power law decay of the rate of aftershock,

196: known as the Omori law \cite{Omori}, aftershocks can be triggered

197: up to a hundred years after the mainshock \cite{Utsu}.

198: Aftershocks often occur near the rupture zone of the mainshock

199: with a variety of focal mechanisms suggesting

200: that they are actually on separate structures 

201: \cite{BathRichter,Beroza}. They are also sometimes

202: triggered at very large

203: distances from the mainshock \cite{Hill,Steeples,KJ1,Meltzner1,Dreger}.

204: As an example, Hill et al. \cite{Hill} observed aftershocks

205: of the Landers earthquake as far as 1250 km  from the epicenter.

206: Similarly to the temporal distribution of aftershocks, a power-law distribution

207: seems to describe well the distribution of distances between pairs

208: of events \cite{KJ1} .

209: Since a power-law decays slowly, it describes a slow decay of the

210: probability of

211: observing aftershocks  at large distances to the mainshock.

212: 

213: Thus, Omori law can be considered as the simplest and best established

214: description of earthquake interactions of a certain kind. The question we

215: investigate is whether it can be used fruitfully to explain a larger

216: variety of earthquake interactions beyond the class of observations that

217: were used to establish it. In a series of papers \cite{SS,HS1,SH2},

218: we find that

219: Omori law for aftershocks plus the constrain that aftershocks

220: are distributed according to the Gutenberg-Richter power law for

221: earthquake size distribution {\it independently} of the magnitude of their

222: progenitor is enough to derive many of the other empirical ``laws,'' as well

223: the variability of the $p$-exponent.

224: Here, we test the potential of this approach to account for

225: and to quantify observations on aftershock diffusion.

226: 

227: Aftershock diffusion refers to the phenomenon of

228: expansion or migration of aftershock zone

229: with time

230: \cite{Mogi,Imoto,Chatelain,Tajima1,Tajima2,Wesson,Ouchi,Noir,Jacques}.

231: Immediately after the

232: mainshock occurrence, most aftershocks are located close to the rupture

233: plane of the mainshock, then aftershocks seem to migrate away from

234: the mainshock,

235: at velocity ranging from 1 km/hour to 1 km/year \cite{Jacques,Rydelek}.

236: Note that this expansion is not universally observed,

237: but is more important in some areas than in others \cite{Tajima1}.

238: 

239: The diffusion of aftershocks is usually interpreted as a diffusion of

240: the stress

241: induced by the mainshock, either by a viscous relaxation process

242: \cite{Rydelek},

243: or due to fluid transfer in the crust \cite{Nur,Hudnut,Noir}.

244: Another interpretation of the expansion of aftershocks is given by

245: Dieterich \cite{Diete},

246: who reproduces the Omori law decay of aftershocks and the expansion of the

247:     aftershock zone with time, using a rate and state friction law and

248: assuming that the

249:     rate of aftershocks is proportional to the stress rate.

250: In his model, the expansion of aftershock zone arises from the

251: non-uniform stress

252: induced by the mainshock.

253: Another alternative explanation is

254: that the diffusion of aftershocks is mainly due to the occurrence

255:     of large aftershocks, and to the localization of secondary

256: aftershock close to

257: the largest aftershocks, as observed by Ouchi \cite{Ouchi}.

258: The apparent diffusion of the seismicity may thus result from a

259: cascade process;

260: the mainshock triggers aftershocks that in turn trigger their own

261: aftershocks, and thus lead to an expansion of the aftershock zone.

262: 

263: In the present paper, we investigate the epidemic time aftershock

264: sequence model (ETAS),

265: and show that the cascade of secondary aftershocks can indeed explain

266: the reported diffusion of aftershocks.

267: The ETAS model was introduced by Kagan and Knopoff \cite{KK} 

268: (in a slightly different form than used here) and Ogata \cite{Ogata1}

269: to describe the temporal and spatial clustering of seismicity.

270: This model provides a tool for understanding the

271: clustering of the seismic activity, without arbitrary distinction between

272: aftershocks, foreshocks and mainshocks.

273: In this model, all earthquakes are assumed to be simultaneously

274: mainshocks, aftershocks and possibly foreshocks. Each earthquake generates

275: aftershocks that decay with time according to Omori law, which

276: will in turn generate their own aftershocks. The seismicity rate at

277: any given time and location is given by

278: the superposition of aftershock sequences of all events impacting that region

279: at that time according to space-time ``propagators.''

280: The additional ingredient in the version of the ETAS model that we

281: study is that the number of aftershocks per earthquake increases exponentially

282: $\propto 10^{\alpha m}$ with the magnitude $m$ of

283: the mainshock (i.e., as a power law $\propto E^{2 \alpha /3}$

284: of the energy released by the mainshock), in agreement with the observations

285: \cite{YaShi,Drakatos}.

286: Since the energy of an earthquake is a power

287: law of its rupture length, this law expresses

288: the very reasonable idea that the number of events related to a given

289: earthquake is proportional to a power of its volume of influence.

290: The value of the exponent $\alpha$ controls the nature of

291: the seismic activity, that is, the relative role of small compared

292: to large earthquakes. Few studies have measured $\alpha$

293: in seismicity data \cite{YaShi,Guo2,H02}.

294: This parameter $\alpha$ is often found close to $b$ \cite{YaShi}

295:  or fixed arbitrarily equal to $b$ \cite{KK,Felzer}.

296: In the case where $\alpha$ is close to the Gutenberg-Richter $b$-value,

297: this law also reproduces

298: \cite{Felzer} the self-similar empirical Bath' s law \cite{Bath},

299: which states that the

300: average difference $m_M-m_A$ in size between a mainshock and its largest aftershock is

301: $1.2$ magnitude units, regardless of the mainshock magnitude:

302: $m_A = m_M - 1.2$.

303: If $\alpha < b$, small earthquakes, taken together, trigger more

304: aftershocks than larger

305: earthquakes. In contrast, large earthquakes dominate earthquake

306: triggering if $\alpha \geq b$.

307: This case $\alpha \geq b$ has been studied analytically in the

308: framework of the ETAS model by Ref. \cite{SH2}

309: and has been shown to eventually lead to a finite time singularity of

310: the seismicity rate. This explosive regime cannot however describe

311: a stationary seismic activity. 

312: 

313: A natural way to tame this singular behavior is to introduce an

314: upper cut-off for the magnitude distribution at large magnitudes,

315: mirroring the cut-off $m_0$ used for the low-magnitude range. The

316: physical argument for introducing this cut-off is based on the finiteness 

317: of the maximum earthquake that the earth is capable of carrying.

318: The specific way of introducing such a cut-off (abrupt or smooth

319: with a transition to a power law with larger exponent or to an exponential taper) is not

320: very important qualitatively because all these laws will regularize the singular

321: behavior and make the average branching ratio finite. Such 

322: regularization with a maximum upper magnitude then allows $\alpha \geq b$.

323: The special case $\alpha = b$ required for Bath's law to hold exactly

324: can not therefore be excluded.

325: 

326: However, based on a recent re-analysis of seismic catalogs using the powerful

327: collapse technique, one of us \cite{H02} has presented strong evidence

328: that $\alpha$ is strictly smaller than $b$.

329: In this paper, we will therefore consider only the case $\alpha<b$

330: and take $\alpha=0.5$ specifically in our numerical simulations.

331: In this regime $\alpha<b$, Bath' s law cannot be reproduced because

332: the average difference in size between a mainshock and its largest aftershock

333: increases with the mainshock magnitude. For $\alpha < b$, it is 

334: easy to show that Bath's law

335: is replaced by $m_A = (\alpha/b) m_M -$ constant, where $m_M$ and 

336: $m_A$ are the magnitudes of the mainshock and of the largest aftershock.

337: Tests of this prediction will be reported in a future publication but 

338: we expect that distinguishing this

339: modified Bath's law from Bath's law will be a difficult task due to the

340: limited range of the studied magnitudes as well as the dependence 

341: of the distribution of $m_M-m_A$ on the magnitude thresholds chosen for the mainshocks and

342: for the aftershocks \cite{consolebath}.

343: %In addition, 

344: %the ``pure''~ Bath' s law may be an artefact of the method used to define

345: %mainshocks and aftershocks \cite{VJ69}. 

346: 

347: We assume that the distribution of all earthquakes follow the

348: Gutenberg-Richter distribution and take this

349: distribution of aftershock sizes to be independent of the magnitude

350: of the mainshock. Therefore,

351: an earthquake can trigger a larger earthquake, albeit with

352: a small probability. This model can thus describe a priori

353: both aftershock and foreshock sequences.

354: The ETAS model has been calibrated to real seismicity

355: catalogs to retrieve its parameters

356: \cite{Ogata1,Ogata2,Ogata3,Ogata5,Ogata6,Kagan,Guo2,Felzer}

357: and to give short-term probabilistic forecast of

358: seismic activity by extrapolating past seismicity into the future

359: via the use of its space-time propagator \cite{KK,KJ2,Console}.

360: 

361: The ETAS model is a branching model which exhibits different

362: regimes \cite{HS1} depending upon the value of

363: the branching ratio $n$, defined by the

364: average number of primary aftershocks per earthquake.

365: The critical case $n=1$ corresponds to exactly one primary aftershock

366: per earthquake, when averaging over all mainshock magnitudes larger

367: than a threshold $m_0$. Let us stress that $n$ is an average quantity

368: which does not reflect adequately the large variability of the number of

369: aftershocks per main shock, as a function of its magnitude. Indeed,

370: the number of aftershocks per mainshock

371: increases exponentially fast as a function of the mainshock magnitude,

372: so that large mainshocks

373: will have significantly more than $n$ aftershocks. For $\alpha =0.5$,

374:  a magnitude $7$-earthquake gives typically $10$

375: times more direct aftershocks than a magnitude $5$, and $100$ times more

376: direct aftershocks than a magnitude $3$-earthquake. The increase

377: in triggered seismic activity with the magnitude of the mainshock

378: is obviously stronger for a larger value of $\alpha$. Note that these

379: numbers refer to aftershocks of the first generation; the total number

380: of triggered events is larger by the factor $1/(1-n) \sim 10$ 

381: (for $n \approx 0.9$ which is typical),

382: due to the cascades of secondary aftershocks.

383: Notwithstanding this large variability, the average

384: number $n$ of primary aftershocks per earthquake controls the global regime.

385: For $n$ exactly equal to $1$,

386: seismicity is at the border between death and growth.

387: In the sub-critical regime $n<1$, since each earthquake triggers on

388: average less

389: that one aftershock, starting from a large event, the seismicity will decrease

390: with time and finally die out.

391: The super-critical  $n>1$ corresponds to more that one primary aftershock per

392: earthquake on average. Starting from a large earthquake, after a transient

393: regime, the average seismicity will finally increase exponentially 

394: with time \cite{HS1},

395: but there is still a finite probability for aftershock sequences to die out.

396: 

397: The numerical simulations reported below have been performed with $\alpha=0.5$.

398: It is probable that a good fit to seismic

399: data is obtained by using a value of $\alpha \approx 0.8$ larger that the value $0.5$,

400: as reviewed and documented recently by one of us \cite{H02}.

401: We have checked that results similar to those presented below hold true qualitatively for larger 

402: values $0.5< \alpha <1$. Such larger values of $\alpha$ lead however to stronger fluctuations

403: which are more difficult to handle numerically because the variance of

404: the number $\rho(m)$ of direct triggered aftershocks defined below in 

405: (\ref{formrho}) becomes undefined for $\alpha > 0.5$. 

406: A full understanding of this regime requires a special treatment

407: that will be reported elsewhere.

408: 

409: Sornette and Sornette \cite{SS} studied analytically a particular case of this

410: model, without magnitude and spatial dependence, and they considered only the

411: subcritical regime $n<1$. Starting with one event at time $t=0$ and

412: considering that each earthquake generates an aftershock sequence

413: with a ``local''   Omori exponent $p=1+\theta$, where $\theta>0$,

414: they studied  the decay law of the ``global'' aftershock sequence,

415: composed of all secondary  aftershock sequences, i.e., by taking into

416: account that the primary aftershocks can create secondary aftershocks

417: which themselves may trigger tertiary aftershocks and so on.

418: They found that the global aftershock rate decays according to an Omori law

419: with an exponent $p=1-\theta <1$,

420: up to a characteristic time \cite{SS,HS1}

421: \be

422: t^* = c ~\left({n~\Gamma(1-\theta) \over |1-n|}\right)^{1/\theta}~,

423: \label{tstar}

424: \ee

425: and then recovers the local Omori exponent

426: $p=1+\theta$ for time larger than  $t^*$.

427: Helmstetter and Sornette \cite{HS1} extended their analysis to the general ETAS

428: model with magnitude dependence, and considered both the sub- and the

429: super-critical regime, but still restricted the analysis to the temporal

430: distribution of the seismicity, without spatial dependence.

431:  In the sub-critical regime, they recovered

432: the crossover found by Sornette and Sornette \cite{SS}. 

433: In addition, Helmstetter and Sornette \cite{HS1} give the explicit mathematical

434: formula for the gradual transition between the Omori law with exponent 

435: $p=1-\theta$ for $t \ll t^*$ to the Omori law with exponent

436: $p=1+\theta$ for $t \gg t^*$. This smooth transition can be observed

437: in figure \ref{n} on the line calculated for $t^*=10^9$ days 

438: with $n<1$. $t^*$ can thus be viewed as the time where the 

439: apparent exponent $p$ of the Omori law is

440: approximately in between the two asymptotic values $1-\theta$

441: and $1+\theta$. A more rigorous

442: mathematical definition \cite{HS1} is that $t^*$ is the

443: characteristic time scale such that $\beta t^*$ is the dimensionless

444: variable of the Laplace transform (with variable $\beta$) of the seismicity rate. 

445: 

446: In the super-critical

447: regime, Helmstetter and Sornette \cite{HS1}

448: found a novel transition between a power-law decay with exponent

449: $p=1-\theta$ at early times, similar to the sub-critical regime, to

450: an exponential increase of the seismicity at large times.

451: The regime where $\alpha > b$ or equivalently $2 \alpha/3 > B$ has been found

452: to lead to a new kind of critical stochastic finite-time-singularity

453: \cite{SH2}, relying on the interplay

454: between long-memory and extreme fluctuations. Recall that

455: the number of aftershocks per earthquake increases as a power law 

456: $\propto E^{2 \alpha/3}$ of the energy released by the mainshock

457: whereas the number of earthquakes of energy $E$ decreases as

458: the Gutenberg-Richter law $\propto 1/E^{1+B}$.

459: Intuitively, when $2 \alpha /3 > B$,

460: the increase in the rate of creation of aftershocks with the mainshock

461: energy more than compensate the decrease of the probability to get

462: a large mainshock when the mainshock energy increases.

463: This theory based solely on the ETAS model has been found to account for the

464: main observations (power law acceleration and discrete scale invariant

465:  structure) of critical rupture of heterogeneous materials, of the largest

466: sequence of starquakes ever attributed to a neutron star as well as of some

467: earthquake sequences \cite{SH2}.

468: 

469: In the sequel, we extend the analytical study of the temporal ETAS

470: model \cite{SS,HS1,SH2}

471: to the spatio-temporal domain. To model the spatial distribution of

472: aftershocks, we assume that the distance between a mainshock and each

473:  of its direct aftershock is drawn from a given distribution,

474:  independently of the magnitude of the mainshock and of

475: the delay between the mainshock and its aftershocks. For illustration but

476: without loss of generality for the mapping to the

477: continuous time random walks model (CTRW) discussed later, we

478: shall take a power law distribution of distances between earthquakes.

479: We take the simplest and most parsimonious hypothesis that

480: space, time and magnitude are decoupled in the earthquake propagator.

481: Our first result is to establish a correspondence between

482: the ETAS model and the CTRW, first introduced

483: by Montroll and Weiss \cite{Montroll1} and used to model many

484: physical processes.

485: We then build on this analogy to derive the joint

486: probability distribution of the times and locations of aftershocks.

487: We show analytically that, for sufficiently short times $t<t^*$,

488: the average distance between a mainshock and its aftershock increases

489: subdiffusively

490: as $R \sim t^H$, where the exponent $H$ depends on the local Omori

491: exponent $1+\theta$ and

492: on the distribution of the distances between an earthquake and its aftershocks.

493: We also demonstrate that the local Omori law is not universal, but varies as

494: a function of the distance from the mainshock. Due to the diffusion

495: of aftershocks with time, the decay of aftershock is faster close

496: to the mainshock than at large distances. These non-trivial space-time

497: couplings occur notwithstanding the decoupling

498: between space, time and magnitude in the ``bare'' propagator, and is due to

499: the existence of cascades of aftershocks.

500: 

501: A recent work of Krishnamurthy et al. \cite{Tanguy} substantiates the general

502: modeling strategy used here of representing the space-time dynamics of earthquakes

503: by an effective stochastic process (the ETAS model) entirely defined

504: by two exponents

505: (corresponding to our $\mu$ and $H(\theta, \mu)$ defined below), where $\mu$ is

506: the exponent of

507: the power law distribution of jumps between successive active sites and $H$

508: is the (sub-)diffusion exponent.

509: Indeed, Krishnamurthy et al. \cite{Tanguy} show

510: that the Bak and Sneppen model and the Sneppen model of extremal dynamics

511: (corresponding to a certain class of self-organized critical behavior

512: \cite{Sorbook})

513: can be completely characterized by a suitable stochastic process called

514: ``Linear fractional stable motion.'' Beyond recovering the scaling exponents

515: of this model, the stochastic process strategy predicts the conditional

516: probabilities of successive activations at different sites and thus offers

517: novel insights. We note that this approach with the

518: Linear fractional stable motion is extremely close in spirit as well as

519: in form to our approach mapping the ETAS model to the CTRW model.

520: The ETAS model can thus be taken to represent an effective stochastic process

521: of the complex self-organization of seismicity.

522: 

523: \section{The ETAS model}

524: 

525: \subsection{Definitions and specific parameterization of the ETAS model}

526: 

527: We assume that a given event (the ``mother'') of magnitude

528: $m_i$ occurring at time $t_i$ and position $\vec r_i$

529: gives birth to other events (``daughters'') of any possible

530: magnitude chosen with some independent Gutenberg-Richter

531: distribution at a later time

532: between $t$ and $t+dt$ and at point $\vec r \pm \vec dr$ to within

533: $d\vec r $ at the rate

534: \be

535: \phi_{m_i}(t-t_i, \vec r-\vec r_i) = \rho(m_i)~\Psi(t-t_i)~\Phi(\vec

536: r-\vec r_i)~.

537: \label{first}

538: \ee

539: We will refer to $\phi_{m_i}(t-t_i, \vec r-\vec r_i)$ both as

540: the seismic rate induced by a single mother or as the ``bare propagator''.

541: It is the product of three independent contributions:

542: \begin{enumerate}

543: \item $\rho(m_i)$ gives the number of daughters born from a mother with

544: magnitude $m_i$. This term will in general be chosen to account for the

545:    fact that large earthquakes have many more triggered events than small 

546: earthquakes. 

547: Specifically, we take

548: \be

549: \rho(m_i) = K ~10^{\alpha (m_i-m_0)}~,  \label{formrho}

550: \ee

551: which, as we said earlier, is justified by the power law dependence of the

552: volume of stress perturbation as a function of the earthquake size. 

553: $\alpha$ quantifies how fast the

554: average number of daughters per mother increases with the magnitude of the mother.

555: 

556: \item $\Psi(t-t_i)$ is a normalized waiting time distribution giving the rate

557: of daughters born at time $t-t_i$ after the mother. The normalization condition

558: reads $\int_0^{+\infty} dt ~\Psi(t) =1$. $\Psi(t-t_i) dt$  can thus

559: be interpreted as the probability for a daughter to be born between $t$ and

560:  $t+dt$ from the mother that was born at time $t_i$. $\Psi(t-t_i)$ embodies

561:   Omori law: it is the ``bare'' or ``direct'' Omori law

562: \be

563: \Psi(t) = {\theta~c^{\theta}  \over (t+c)^{1+\theta}}~H(t)~,

564: \label{psidef}

565: \ee

566: where $\theta>0$ and $H(t)$ is the Heaviside function.

567: 

568: \item $\Phi(\vec r-\vec r_i)$ is a normalized spatial ``jump'' distribution from

569: the mother to each of her daughter, quantifying the probability for a daughter

570: to be triggered at a distance $|\vec r-\vec r_i|$ from the mother.

571: Specifically, we take

572: \be

573: \Phi(\vec r) = {\mu \over d ({|\vec r| \over d}+1)^{1+\mu}}~,

574: \label{phidef}

575: \ee

576: which has the form of an (isotropic) elastic Green function

577: dependence describing the stress transfer in an elastic upper crust.

578: The exponent $\mu$ is left adjustable to account for heterogeneity

579: and the possible complex modes of stress transfers.

580: The normalization condition reads $\int d\vec r ~\Phi(\vec r) =1$ where

581: the integral is carried out over the whole space.

582: \end{enumerate}

583: 

584: The physical justification for this decoupled model (\ref{first}) in which

585: $\phi_{m_i}(t-t_i, \vec r-\vec r_i)$ is the product of three independent

586: distributions is that elastic waves propagate at kilometers per second

587: and thus almost instantaneously reset the stress field after a large

588: main shock.

589: In other words, there is a well-defined separation of time scales

590: between the time

591: of propagation of seismic waves (seconds to minutes)

592: which control the convergence to a new mechanical

593: equilibrium after the main shock and the time scales involved in

594: aftershock sequences

595: (hours, days, months to many years).

596: The spatial dependence in (\ref{first}) reflects the stress redistribution.

597: This new stress field then relaxes slowly and more or less

598: independently from point to

599: point leading to the local Omori law $\Psi(t-t_i)$. Notwithstanding this

600: argument, the decoupling in (\ref{first})

601: between the local responses in magnitudes, space and time

602: is mostly performed because of its simplicity. It constitutes

603: an approximation that should be checked and relaxed in future

604: studies.

605: 

606: We assume a distribution $P(m)$ of earthquake

607: sizes expressed in magnitudes $m$ which follows the Gutenberg-Richter

608: distribution

609: \be

610: P(m) = b~ \ln(10) ~ 10^{-b (m-m_0)}~, \label{gojfwo}

611: \ee

612: with a $b$-value usually close to $1$.

613:    $m_0$ is a lower bound magnitude below which no daughter is triggered.

614: 

615: 

616: \subsection{The branching ratio $n$}

617: 

618: A key parameter of the ETAS is the average number $n$ of

619: daughter-earthquakes

620: created per mother-event, summed over all possible magnitudes. As we shall see,

621: it is also natural to call it the ``branching ratio''.

622: To see this,

623: consider the integral of the seismic rate $\phi_{m_i}(t-t_i, \vec r-\vec r_i)$

624: induced by one earthquake

625: over all times after $t_i$, over all spatial positions and over all

626: magnitudes $m_i \geq m_0$,

627: which must give by definition the average number $n$ of direct

628: (or primary) daughter-earthquakes

629: created per mother-event independently of its magnitude.

630: For $\alpha<b$ and using (\ref{first}), (\ref{formrho}) and (\ref{gojfwo}),

631: it is exactly given by

632: \be

633: n \equiv \int d\vec r ~ \int_{t_i}^{+\infty} dt ~\int_{m_0}^{+\infty}

634: dm_i~P(m_i)~

635: \phi_{m_i}(t-t_i, \vec r-\vec r_i) =

636: \int_{m_0}^{+\infty} dm_i~P(m_i)~ \rho(m_i)={K~b\over b-\alpha} ~,

637: \label{second}

638: \ee

639: since the two integrals over time and space contribute

640: each a factor $1$ by the normalization of $\Psi$ and $\Phi$.

641: This result (\ref{second}) is identical to that found

642: in absence of spatial dependence of

643: $\phi_{m_i}(t-t_i)$ with respect to $\vec r-\vec r_i$ due to the

644: factorization of the rate $\rho$,

645: time $\Psi$ and space $\Phi$ dependences \cite{HS1}.

646: The branching ratio has also been evaluated in the  case

647: where the magnitude distribution follows a gamma distribution \cite{Kagan}.

648: 

649: We stress again that $n$ is an {\it average} quantity which does not reflect

650: the large fluctuations in the number of aftershocks from events to events.

651: Indeed, large events with magnitudes $M$ produce

652: in general many more aftershocks than small events with magnitude $m<M$, simply

653: because $\rho(M) \gg  \rho(m)$ if $M>m$ (see the exponential

654: dependence (\ref{formrho}) of $\rho(m)$ on the magnitude $m$).

655: 

656: \subsection{Numerical simulation of the spatial ETAS model}

657: \label{num}

658: The ETAS model has been simulated numerically using the algorithm

659: described in Refs.~\cite{Ogata4,Ogata5}.

660: Starting with a large event of magnitude $M$ at time $t=0$, events are

661: then simulated sequentially. At any given time $t$, we calculate the

662: conditional seismic rate $\lambda(t)$ defined by

663: \be

664: \lambda(t)=\sum_{t_i\leq t} K~10^{\alpha(m_i-m_0)}

665:  {\theta c^\theta \over (t-t_i+c)^{1+\theta}}

666: \label{mgmkr}

667: \ee

668: where $K = n  (b-\alpha)/b$, and $t_i$ and $m_i$ are the

669: times and magnitudes of all preceding events that occurred at time $t_i\leq t$.

670: Note that we use the bare propagator because the sum in (\ref{mgmkr}) is

671: performed exhaustively on the complete catalog of past events.

672: The time of the following event is then determined according to the

673: non-stationary Poisson process of conditional intensity $\lambda(t)$,

674: and its magnitude is chosen according to the Gutenberg-Richter

675: distribution with parameter $b$.

676: To determine the position in space of this new event, we first choose

677: its mother randomly among all preceding events with a probability proportional to

678: their rate of aftershocks $\phi_{m_i}(t-t_i)$ evaluated at the time

679: of the new event. Once the mother has been chosen, we generate the

680: distance $r$ between the new earthquake and its mother according to

681: the power-law distribution $\Phi(\vec r)$ given by (\ref{phidef}).

682: The location of the new event is determined by assuming an isotropic

683: distribution of aftershocks.

684: By this rule, it is clear that new events tend to be close in general

685: to the last large earthquakes, leading to space clustering.

686: 

687: Note that this two-steps procedure is equivalent to

688: but more convenient for a numerical implementation than the one-step method,

689: consisting of calculating at each point on a fine

690: space-covering grid the seismic rate, equal to the sum over all

691: preceding mothers

692: weighted by the bare space $\Phi(\vec r)$ and time $\Psi(t)$ propagators

693: given by (\ref{phidef}) and (\ref{psidef}); after normalizing, these rates then

694: provide to each grid point a probability for the event to occur on that point.

695: The equivalence between our two-step procedure and the direct calculation

696: of the seismic rates is based on the law of conditional probabilities:

697: probability of next event ($A$) = probability of next event conditioned on its mother

698: (event $B$) $\times$ probability of choosing the mother, i.e., $P(A,B) = P(A | B)

699: \times P(B)$.

700: 

701: Figure \ref{map} shows the result of a numerical simulation of the ETAS model

702: which exhibits a diffusion of the seismic activity.

703: We simulate a sequence of aftershocks and secondary aftershocks starting

704: from a mainshock of magnitude $M=7$, with the following parameters:

705: $\theta=0.2$, $b=1$, $\alpha=0.5$, $n=1$ and $\mu=1$.

706: At early times, aftershocks are localized close to the mainshock,

707: and then diffuse and cluster close to the largest aftershocks. This

708: (sub-)diffusion is extremely slow, as we shall quantify in the sequel.

709: Our purpose is to provide a theory for this process based on the ETAS

710: model. This theory will be tested by numerical simulations.

711: 

712: 

713: The different regimes are illustrated by Figure \ref{n} which shows

714: the seismicity rate $N(t)$ for the temporal ETAS model studied by 

715: \cite{SS,HS1} obtained by summing the seismic activity over all space

716: for the 3 cases $n<1$ (sub-critical), $n=1$ (critical) and $n>1$ 

717: (super-critical). 

718: The sub-critical regime is characterized by the existence of

719: the time scale $t^*$ given by (\ref{tstar}).

720: There is no difference between the critical case $n=1$ and the

721: sub-critical case for $t<t^*$ (see figure \ref{n}). Indeed, the difference

722: between the sub-critical regime and the critical regime can be observed

723: only for $t>t^*$. A simple way to see this is to realize that the critical

724: regime $n=1$ gives $t^* = +\infty$, meaning that, in the critical regime,

725: one is always in the situation $t<t^*$.

726: 

727: 

728: It is interesting to note that the spatial distribution of epicenters shown in

729: the right panel of figure \ref{map}

730: has the visual appearance of a fractal set of points.

731: This is confirmed by the calculation

732: of the correlation dimension of this set of $N=3000$ points

733: generated in the time interval $[30, 70]$ yrs, which is found

734: approximately equal to $D_2=1.5 \pm 0.05$ over more than

735: two decades in spatial scales, as shown in figure \ref{cordim}.

736: If we use instead all $30,000$ events of the simulation performed

737: up to time $t=70$ yrs, we find

738: $D_2=1.85 \pm 0.05$ while the correlation dimension of the geometrical set

739: made of the epicenters of the $10,000$ last events (time interval $[7, 70]$ yrs) is

740: $D=1.7 \pm 0.05$, also over more than two decades in scale. These values

741: are similar to those reported for 2D maps of active fault systems

742: \cite{ScholzMandel,Anneexp,BartonLapointe1,Ouillonetal},

743: %but cannot be compared directly with the value $d=2.2$ obtained

744: %in Ref.~\cite{KK80} from an analysis of hypocenters.

745: and are in good agreement with $D_2$ values in the range $[1.65, 1.95]$

746: measured for aftershocks epicenters \cite{Nanjo}.

747: The fractal clustering of the earthquake epicenters,

748: according to the ETAS model, occurs because of a self-similar process

749: taking place on many different scales. However, the description

750: of this multi-scale process solely in terms of a single fractal dimension

751: fails to fully embody the complex spatial superposition of

752: local ``singularities'' associated with each aftershock on the one hand

753: and finite-size effects (stemming from the finite lifetime

754: of each aftershock sequence) on the other hand. Each event indeed creates

755: its cloud

756: of direct aftershocks which can be characterized by its singular exponent

757: $1-\mu$ for $\mu \leq 1$ and $0$ for $\mu>1$, defined by the scaling 

758: $\propto\int_0^R r dr/ r^{1+\mu} \propto R^{1-\mu}$ of the ``mass'' 

759: of the cloud  with its radius $R$. Finite-size effects and 

760: randomness have been documented to generate realistic but 

761: sometimes spurious fractal signatures

762: \cite{Ouillonsor,Hamburger,Eneva,Malcai}. This problem requires

763: a special study which is left for another work.

764: 

765: 

766: \subsection{Relationship with the space-independent ETAS model \label{consosk}}

767: 

768: The spatial ETAS model reduces to the space-independent ETAS model solved

769: in \cite{HS1} by integrating the dressed propagator

770: obtained below over all space.

771: In the Fourier representation (see expression (\ref{ngnslqw})), this

772: corresponds to putting the wavenumber $k$ to zero. Indeed,

773: for $k=0$, the Fourier transform amounts to perform a simple integration over

774: all space. Since ${\hat \Phi}(\vec k=\vec 0)=1$, expression (\ref{ngnslqw})

775: derived below reduces to the form studied at length in \cite{HS1}.

776: Therefore, all results reported previously hold also for the version of the

777: space-dependent ETAS model studied here, when averaging over the whole space.

778: This is an important property that all the solutions discussed below must obey.

779: 

780: 

781: \section{Mapping of the ETAS model on the CTRW model}

782: 

783: In order to study the space-time properties of the ETAS model,

784: it is very useful to use an exact correspondence between

785: the ETAS model and the continuous time random walk (CTRW) that we

786: establish here. In this way,

787: we can adapt and use the wealth of results previously derived

788: for the CTRW. But first, let us demonstrate the correspondence

789: between the ETAS and CTRW models. For this, our

790: strategy is to derive the Master equation for both models and show

791: that they are identical. 

792: 

793: \subsection{The Master equation of the ETAS model}

794: 

795: The ETAS model can be rephrased by defining the rate

796: $\phi_{m_i \to m}(t-t_i, \vec r-\vec r_i)$ at which

797: a given event (the ``mother'') of magnitude

798: $m_i \geq m_0$ occurring at time $t_i$ and position $\vec r_i$

799: gives birth to other events (``daughters'') of specified magnitude

800: $m$ at a later time

801: between $t$ and $t+dt$ and at point $\vec r$ to within an

802: infinitesimal volume $|d{\vec r}|$.

803: Note that the only difference with respect to the previous definition

804: (\ref{first})

805: is that we now specify also the magnitude $m$ of the daughter.

806: $\phi_{m_i \to m}(t-t_i, \vec r-\vec r_i)$ is given by

807: \be

808: \phi_{m_i \to m}(t-t_i, \vec r-\vec r_i) = \rho(m_i \to

809: m)~\Psi(t-t_i)~\Phi(\vec r-\vec r_i)~,

810: \label{firstprime}

811: \ee

812: where $\Psi(t-t_i)$ and $\Phi(\vec r-\vec r_i)$ are the same as

813: previously while

814: \be

815: \rho(m_i \to m) = P(m)~ \rho(m_i)~.

816: \ee

817: With the parameterization (\ref{formrho}) and (\ref{gojfwo}), this reads

818: \be

819: \rho(m_i \to m) = n~ \ln(10)~(b - \alpha) ~10^{\alpha

820: (m_i-m_0)}~10^{-b (m-m_0)}~.

821: \label{formrhafdgo}

822: \ee

823: 

824: Let us consider the case where there is an

825: origin of time $t=0$ at which we start recording the rate of

826: earthquakes, assuming that

827: a large earthquake has just occurred at $t=0$ and somehow

828: reset the clock. In the

829: following calculation, we will forget about the effect of events

830: at times prior to $t=0$

831: and count all aftershocks that are created only by this main shock.

832: 

833: Let us call $N_m(t,\vec r) dt ~dm ~d\vec r$ the number of earthquakes

834: occurring between

835: $t$ and $t+dt$ of magnitude

836: between $m$ and $m+dm$ inside of box of volume $|d{\vec r}|$ centered

837: at point $\vec r$.

838: $N_m(t,\vec r)$ is the

839: solution of a self-consistency equation that formalizes

840: mathematically the following

841: process\,: an earthquake may trigger aftershocks; these aftershocks may trigger

842: their own aftershocks, and so on. The rate of seismicity at a given

843: time $t$ and position $\vec r$ is the

844: result of this cascade process. The self-consistency equation that sums up this

845: cascade reads

846: \be

847: N_m(t,\vec r) =  S(t, \vec r, m) +\int {\vec dr}' \int_{m_0}^{\infty} dm'

848: \int_0^t d\tau~ \phi_{m' \to m}(t-\tau,\vec r-{\vec r}') ~N_{m'}(\tau,

849: {\vec r}') ~.

850: \label{third}

851: \ee

852: The rate $N_m(t,\vec r)$ at time $t$ and position $\vec r$ is the sum

853: over all induced rates from all earthquakes of all possible magnitudes

854: that occurred at all previous times and locations propagated to the present

855: time $t$ and to the position $\vec r$ of observation by the corresponding

856: bare propagator. The induced rate

857: of events per earthquake that occurred at an earlier time $\tau$ and

858: position ${\vec r'}$ is equal to $\phi_{m' \to m}(t-\tau,\vec r-{\vec r}')$.

859: The source term $S(t, \vec r)$ is the main shock plus the background

860: seismicity, if any.

861: In absence of background seismicity, a main earthquake which occurs

862: at the origin

863: of time $t=0$ at position $\vec r= \vec 0$ with magnitude $M$ gives

864: \be

865: S(t,\vec r, m)=\delta(t)~\delta(m-M)~\delta(\vec r)

866: \label{S(t,r,m)}

867: \ee

868: where $\delta$ is the Dirac distribution.

869: Other arbitrary source functions can be chosen.

870: 

871: The source term corresponding to a single mainshock is

872: indeed the delta function (\ref{S(t,r,m)}) rather than 

873: the direct Omori law

874: created by this mainshock in direct lineage. To see this,

875: notice that the direct Omori law

876: is recovered from (\ref{third}) by replacing $~N_{m'}(\tau, {\vec r}')$ 

877: in the integral by $S(t, \vec r, m)$ given by (\ref{S(t,r,m)}). This

878: shows that the difference between the renormalized 

879: and the direct Omori laws comes from taking into account the

880: secondary, tertiary, etc., cascade of aftershocks.

881: 

882: As we have seen, a key assumption of the ETAS model is that the

883: daughters born from a

884: given mother have their magnitude drawn independently of the magnitude

885: of the mother and of the process that give them birth, with a

886: probability given by the

887: Gutenberg-Richter distribution (\ref{gojfwo}). The consequences

888: resulting from relaxing this hypothesis will be reported elsewhere.

889: Keeping this assumption, it can be shown \cite{HSG} that for $\alpha \leq b/2$

890: an ensemble of realizations will obey

891: \be

892: N_m(t,\vec r) = P(m) ~N(t,\vec r)~,~~~~{\rm for}~~t>0~,  \label{ggnnlalaq}

893: \ee

894: which makes explicit the separation of the magnitude from the time

895: and space variables.

896: $N(t,\vec r)$ is the number of events at position $\vec r$ at time $t$ of any

897: possible magnitude. Expression (\ref{ggnnlalaq}) means that the

898: Gutenberg-Richter

899: distribution is preserved at all times.

900: That (\ref{ggnnlalaq}) holds for the ETAS model stems from

901: the fact that

902: the waiting time $\Psi(t)$ distribution (\ref{psidef}) and jump size

903: $\Phi(\vec r)$

904: distribution (\ref{phidef}) are independent of the magnitudes and that

905: fluctuations in the seismicity rate are not too wild for $\alpha \geq b/2$.

906: Note that, in a more complex model in which time, space and magnitudes are

907: interdependent, expression (\ref{ggnnlalaq}) would become a

908: mean-field approximation,

909: in which the fluctuations of the rates induced by the fluctuations of the

910: realized magnitudes of the daughters factorize from the process.

911: 

912: Putting (\ref{ggnnlalaq}) in (\ref{third}), for $t>0$ when the source

913: term $S(t,\vec r, m)$ is identically zero, one can simplify by $P(m)$

914: and obtain

915: \be

916: N(t,\vec r) =  \int d\vec r'

917: \int_0^t d\tau~ \phi(t-\tau,\vec r-\vec r') ~N(\tau, \vec r') ~, ~~~~t>0~,

918: \label{thirdterter}

919: \ee

920: where

921: \be

922: \phi(t-\tau,\vec r-\vec r') = \int_{m_0}^{\infty} dm' ~ P(m')

923: \phi_{m'}(t-\tau,\vec r-\vec r')~.

924: \label{fngnflq}

925: \ee

926: 

927: Equation (\ref{thirdterter}) is nothing but the expectation

928: (or statistical average, i.e., average over an ensemble of

929: realizations) of expression (\ref{mgmkr}),

930: with the definition $N(t,\vec r) \equiv {\rm E}[\lambda(t)~\Phi(\vec r)]$.

931: Therefore, the Master

932: equation obtained here gives us only the first moment of the space-time

933: dynamics of seismicity. It is not difficult to derive the equations for the

934: variance and covariance of the seismic rate as well as higher moments.

935: 

936: The value of the source term at $t=0$ that should be incorporated

937: in (\ref{thirdterter}) requires more care. Indeed, a naive treatment would give

938: a source term $\delta(t) \delta(m-M) \delta({\vec r}) / P(M)$ obtained by

939: simply dividing by $P(m)$, expressed at $m=M$ due to the Dirac

940: distribution $\delta(m-M)$.

941: However, this source term still depends on $m$ via the Dirac

942: distribution $\delta(m-M)$ and

943: is thus unsuitable as a source term of the equation

944: (\ref{thirdterter}) which is

945: independent of $m$. In order to circumvent this difficulty, one has to get

946: rid of the Dirac distribution $\delta(m-M)$. The corresponding

947: procedure has been

948: described in details in Ref.~\cite{HS1} and consists in applying the

949: integral operator $\int_{m_0}^{\infty} dm ~ {\hat \phi}(\beta,\vec r)$

950: to (\ref{third}), where ${\hat \phi}(\beta,\vec r)$ is the Laplace 

951: transform with respect to the time variable of $\phi(t, \vec r)$.

952: In this way, the Dirac distribution $\delta(m-M)$ is regularized.

953: Identifying with the results of Ref.~\cite{HS1}, we obtain that

954: $N(t,\vec r)$ is

955: solution of (\ref{thirdterter}) with a source term

956: \be

957:       S_M(t, \vec r)=\delta(r) \delta(t) \rho(M) /n   ~,

958:        \label{fngnfldq}

959: \ee

960: where $\rho(M)$ is defined in (\ref{formrho}) and $n$ is given by

961: (\ref{second}).

962: Thus, the complete Master equation for the

963: number $N(t,\vec r)$ of events at position $\vec r$ at time $t$ of any

964: possible magnitude is solution of

965: \be

966: N(t,\vec r) =  S_M(t, \vec r) + \int d\vec r'

967: \int_0^t d\tau~ \phi(t-\tau,\vec r-\vec r') ~N(\tau, \vec r') ~, ~~~~t>0~,

968: \label{thirdter}

969: \ee

970: $N(t,\vec r)$ is the ``dressed'' or ``renormalized'' propagator, obtained

971: by summing the bare Omori propagator over all possible aftershock cascades.

972: $N(t,\vec r)$ can also be called the renormalized Omori law \cite{SS}.

973: 

974: The essential assumption used to derive (\ref{third}) is that

975: the fluctuations of the earthquake magnitudes in a given sequence

976: can be considered to be decoupled from those of the seismic rate.

977: This approximation can be shown to be

978: valid for $\alpha \leq b/2$ \cite{HSG}, for which the random variable $\rho(m_i)$ has

979: a finite variance.

980: In this case, any coupling between the fluctuations of the earthquake energies

981: and the instantaneous seismic rate provides only sub-dominant corrections to the

982: equation (\ref{third}). For $\alpha > b/2$, the variance of $\rho(m_i)$ is

983: mathematically infinite or undefined as $\rho(m_i)$ is distributed according

984: to a power law with exponent $b/\alpha <2$.

985: In this case, the Master equation  (\ref{third}) is not completely correct

986: as an additional term must be included to account for the effect of

987: the dependence between the fluctuations of earthquake magnitudes and

988: the instantaneous seismic rate. Our results 

989: are presented below for $\alpha = 0.5$ which belongs to the first

990: regime $\alpha \leq b/2$. For $\alpha > b/2$, Ref.~\cite{HSG} has shown

991: that the renormalization of the bare propagator into the dressed propagator

992: is weaker than for $\alpha \leq b/2$, all the more so as $\alpha \to b$.

993: Preliminary numerical simulations for $\alpha > b/2$ shows that our results

994: presented below hold qualitatively but with a reduction of the observed

995: spatial diffusion exponent compared to the value predicted from the Master

996: equation approach developed here. This regime $\alpha > b/2$ is probably

997: relevant to the real seismicity \cite{YaShi,Guo2,H02}, even if a precise

998: estimation of $\alpha$ is very difficult.

999: 

1000: 

1001: \subsection{A Master equation of the CTRW model}

1002: 

1003: We now demonstrate that the

1004: self-consistent mean field equation (\ref{thirdter}) is identical to

1005: the Master equation of a

1006: continuous-time random walk (CTRW). Random walks underlie many physical

1007: processes and are often the basis of first-order description of

1008: natural processes.

1009: The CTRW model, which is a generalization of the naive model of a random walker

1010: which jumps by $\pm 1$ spatial step on a discrete lattice at each

1011: time step, was introduced

1012: by \cite{Montroll1} and investigated by many other workers

1013: \cite{Montroll12,Scher,Kenkre,Shlesinger1,Weiss1}.

1014: The CTRW  considers a continuous

1015: distribution of spatial steps as well as time steps (which can be seen

1016: either as waiting times between steps or as durations of the steps).

1017: The CTRW model is thus based on the idea that the length of a given 

1018: jump, as well as the waiting time $\tau_i = t_i - t_{i-1}$

1019: elapsing between two successive jumps are drawn from a joint

1020: probability density function (pdf) $\phi(\vec r, t)$, which is

1021: usually referred to as the jump pdf. From a mathematical point of view, 

1022: a CTRW is a process subordinated to

1023: random walks under the operational time defined by the process $\{t_i\}$.

1024: 

1025:     From $\phi(\vec r, t)$, the jump length pdf 

1026: $\Phi(\vec r) = \int_0^{+\infty} dt~\phi(\vec r, t)$ and the waiting time 

1027: pdf $\Psi(t) = \int d\vec r ~\phi(\vec r, t)$

1028: can be deduced. Thus, $\Phi(\vec r) d\vec r$ produces the probability

1029: for a jump length in the interval $(\vec r, \vec r+d\vec r)$

1030: and $\Psi(t) dt$ the probability for a waiting time in the interval

1031: $(t, t+dt)$.

1032: When the jump length and

1033: waiting time are independent random variables, this corresponds

1034: to the decoupled form $\phi(\vec r, t) = \Psi(t) ~ \Phi(\vec r)$.

1035: If both are coupled, a jump of

1036: a certain length involves a time cost or, vice versa in a given time

1037: span the walker can only

1038: travel a maximum distance. With these definitions, a CTRW process can

1039: be described

1040: through a Master equation (see \cite{Weiss1,Hughes,Meltzner2}

1041: for a review and references therein) which turns out to be given by an

1042: equation which is identical to (\ref{thirdter}).

1043: 

1044: This connection between the ETAS model of earthquakes and a model of

1045: random walks provides an important advance for the understanding

1046: of spatio-temporal earthquake processes, as it allows one to borrow

1047: for the deep knowledge accumulated in past decades on random walks.

1048: In the same spirit,

1049: polymer physics acquired its status as a fundamental physical problem

1050: from its previous status of an applied field of research in chemistry

1051: when Flory, Edwards, de Gennes, des Cloizeaux and others showed how

1052: to formulate problems

1053: in polymer physics in the language of random walks and how to extract

1054: novel results. In the sequel of this article, we use this analogy

1055: to provide a wealth of new predictions as well as new questions for

1056: earthquake aftershocks.

1057: 

1058: In the context of the CTRW, we have the following correspondence.

1059: \begin{itemize}

1060: \item $N(t,\vec r)$ is the pdf for the random walker to just

1061: arrive at position $\vec r$ at time $t$.

1062: 

1063: \item The source term $S_M(t, \vec r)$ given by (\ref{fngnfldq})

1064: denotes the initial condition of the random walk, here chosen to be

1065: at the origin of space at time $t=0$. The constant $\rho(M) /n$ adds

1066: the possibility via the parameter $M$ to have more than one initial

1067: walker at the origin.

1068: 

1069: \item In the CTRW context, the Master

1070: equation (\ref{thirdter}) states that the pdf $N(t,\vec r)$ of just

1071: having arrived at position $\vec r$ at time $t$ comes from all possible paths

1072: in number $N(\tau,\vec r')$

1073: having crossed a position $\vec r'$ at an earlier time $\tau$, weighted

1074: by a transfer or propagator function $\phi(t-\tau,\vec r-\vec r')$

1075: describing all the possible steps of the random walker from $(\tau,\vec r')$ to

1076: $(t,\vec r)$.

1077: \end{itemize}

1078: 

1079: It is important to stress that $N(t,\vec r)$ defined above

1080: is different from the standard quantity $W(t,\vec r)$ usually studied

1081: in random walk problems,

1082: defined as the probability to find the random walk at position $\vec

1083: r$ at time $t$.

1084: The relationship between $N(t,\vec r)$ and $W(t,\vec r)$ is

1085: \be

1086: W(t,\vec r) = \int_0^t dt'~\left[ 1 - \int_0^{t-t'} dt''~

1087: \Psi(t'')\right]~N(t',\vec r)~.

1088: \label{bheiw}

1089: \ee

1090: The term $1 - \int_0^{t-t'} dt''~ \Psi(t'')$ in bracket is the probability for

1091: the walker not to jump in the time interval $[t',t]$ and the integral

1092: in the right-hand-side of (\ref{bheiw}) means that the probability

1093: $W(t,\vec r)$ for the random

1094: walker to be at position $\vec r$ at time $t$ is the sum over all possible

1095: scenarios in which the walker just arrives at $\vec r$ at an earlier

1096: time $t'$ and

1097: then does not jump until time $t$. In the context of earthquake aftershocks,

1098: $W(t,\vec r)$ is the probability that

1099: an event at $\vec r$ has occurred at a time $t' \leq t$

1100: and that the whole system has remained quiescent from $t'$ to $t$.

1101: 

1102: In the Fourier-Laplace domain (see below), expression (\ref{bheiw}) reads

1103: \be

1104: {\hat W}(\beta,\vec k) = {1 - {\hat \Psi}(\beta) \over \beta}~{\hat

1105: N}(\beta,\vec k)~.

1106: \label{mhgjhjhd}

1107: \ee

1108: 

1109: 

1110: 

1111: In general, the CTRW models transport phenomena in any

1112: heterogeneous media. It has for instance been used successfully for

1113: describing the behavior

1114: of chemical species as they migrate through porous media

1115: \cite{Margolin,Berko1}.

1116: In insight, it is rather natural that it can be applied to the

1117: ``transport of stress''

1118: through the heterogeneous crust and thus to the description of the anomalous

1119: diffusion of seismic activity.

1120: 

1121: Table \ref{table1} synthesizes

1122: the correspondence between the ETAS and CTRW models and

1123: then draws its consequences.

1124: 

1125: 

1126: 

1127: \subsection{Experimental verifications of the cross-over between the

1128: two power law Omori decays in photoconductivity in amorphous semi-conductors

1129: and in fractal stream chemistry

1130: using the correspondence between the ETAS and CTRW model}

1131: 

1132: The crossover from an Omori law

1133: $1/t^{1-\theta}$ for $t<t^*$ to

1134: $1/t^{1+\theta}$ for $t>t^*$ found in

1135: \cite{SS,HS1} with $t^*$ given by (\ref{tstar})

1136: has actually a counterpart in the CTRW. This

1137: behavior was first studied by Scher and Montroll \cite{Scher} in a CTRW with

1138: absorbing boundary condition to model photoconductivity in amorphous

1139: semi-conductors

1140: As$_2$Se$_3$ and an organic compound TNF-PVK finding $\theta \approx 0.5$ and

1141: $\theta = 0.8$ respectively. In a semiconductor experiment, electric holes

1142: are injected near a positive electrode and then transported to a negative

1143: electrode where they are absorbed. The transient current follows exactly

1144: the transition $1/t^{1-\theta}$ for $t<t^*$ to

1145: $1/t^{1+\theta}$ for $t>t^*$ found for Omori law for earthquake aftershocks

1146: in the ETAS model. In the semiconductor context, the finiteness of $t^*$

1147: results from the existence of a force applied to the holes while in the ETAS

1148: model it results from a finite distance $1-n$ to the critical point $n=1$

1149: in the subcritical regime. When the force goes to zero or $n \to 1$,

1150: $t^* \to +\infty$.

1151: 

1152: A similar transition has been  recently proposed to model

1153: long-term time series measurements of chloride, a natural passive tracer,

1154: in rainfall and runoff in catchments \cite{Schermarklaber}. The

1155: quantity analogous to

1156: the dressed Omori propagator is the effective travel time distribution $h(t)$

1157: which governs the global lag time between injection of the tracer

1158: through rainfall

1159: and outflow to the stream. $h(t)$ has been shown to have a power-law form

1160: $h(t) \sim 1/t^{1-m}$  with $m$ between -0.3 and 0.2 for different time series

1161: \cite{Kirchner}. This variability may be due to the transition

1162: between an exponent

1163:    $1-\theta$ at short times to $1+\theta$ at long times \cite{Schermarklaber},

1164: where $\theta$ is the exponent of the bare distribution of individual

1165: transition times.

1166: 

1167: 

1168: \subsection{General and formal solution of the spatial ETAS model}

1169: 

1170: Let us solve (\ref{thirdter}) for the

1171: number $N(t,\vec r)$ of events at position $\vec r$ at time $t$ of any

1172: possible magnitude. Recall that $N(t,\vec r)$ can also be interpreted

1173: as the dressed Omori propagator. Extending \cite{HS1}

1174: to the spatial domain and also in analogy with the standard approach to

1175: solve the CTRW, the Laplace-in-time Fourier-in-space transform ${\hat

1176: N}(\beta,\vec k)$ of $N(t,\vec r)$ is given by

1177: \be

1178: {\hat N}(\beta,\vec k) = {{\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k) \over

1179: 1 - n {\hat \Psi}(\beta) {\hat \Phi}(\vec k)}~,

1180: \label{ngnslqw}

1181: \ee

1182: where ${\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k)$ is the Laplace Fourier transform of the source

1183: $S_M(t, \vec r)$ given by (\ref{fngnfldq})

1184: and ${\hat \Psi}(\beta)$ (respectively ${\hat \Phi}(\vec k)$) is the Laplace

1185: (respectively Fourier) transforms of $\Psi(t)$ (respectively $\Phi(\vec r)$).

1186: For a mainshock of magnitude $M$ occurring at time $t=0$ and position

1187: $\vec r=0$,

1188: the source term is thus ${\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k)=\rho(M)/n$.

1189: The only difference between expression (\ref{ngnslqw}) and the Laplace-Fourier

1190: transform of the pdf of the CTRW of just having arrived at $\vec r$ at time $t$

1191: occurs when the branching ratio $n$ is different from $1$.  In general,

1192: solutions of CTRW models are expressed for $n=1$ and for the variable

1193: $W(t, \vec r)$

1194: which is simply related to $N(t, \vec r)$ according to (\ref{bheiw}). Using

1195: (\ref{bheiw}) and (\ref{ngnslqw}) leads to

1196: \be

1197: {\hat W}(\beta,\vec k) = {1 - {\hat \Psi}(\beta) \over \beta}~~{{\hat

1198: S}_M(\beta,\vec k) \over

1199: 1 - n {\hat \Psi}(\beta) {\hat \Phi}(\vec k)}~,

1200: \label{ngnslaaqw}

1201: \ee

1202: 

1203: In the following, we exploit (\ref{ngnslaaqw}) to

1204: obtain analytical solutions of the spatial ETAS model in

1205: different regimes,

1206: that provide specific predictions on the conditions necessary for observing

1207: aftershock diffusion. In addition, we provide specific predictions

1208: on the exponent $H$ of the

1209: diffusion law $R \sim t^{H}$ that are tested by numerical simulations.

1210: 

1211: 

1212: \section{Critical regime $n=1$}

1213: 

1214: \subsection{Classification of the different regimes}

1215: 

1216: Numerous works on the CTRW have investigated many possible forms for

1217: $\Psi(t)$ and $\Phi(\vec r)$ and have provided the asymptotic long time

1218: and large scale dependence of $W(t, \vec r)$ (see

1219: \cite{Weiss1,Hughes,Meltzner2,Berko1} and references therein).

1220: Here, we restrict our discussion to the cases where both $\Psi(t)$ and

1221: $\Phi(\vec r)$ have power law tails as given by (\ref{psidef}) and

1222: (\ref{phidef}).

1223: The long-time and large scale behavior of the ETAS and CTRW are controlled by

1224: the behavior of the Laplace-Fourier transforms for small $\beta$ and

1225: small $|\vec k|$.

1226: 

1227: Two cases must be distinguished depending on the exponent $\mu$ controlling

1228: the weight of the tail of $\Phi(\vec r)$.

1229: \begin{itemize}

1230: \item For $\mu > 2$, the variance $\langle (\vec r)^2 \rangle =

1231: \sigma^2$ of the jump

1232: size distribution exists. To leading order in $k = |\vec k|$, ${\hat

1233: \Phi}(\vec k)$

1234: can be expanded as

1235: \ba

1236: {\hat \Phi}(\vec k) = 1- \sigma^2 k^2 + {\cal O}(k^o)~,~~~{\rm with}~~o>2~.

1237: \label{ngnglw}

1238: \ea

1239: 

1240: \item For $\mu\leq 2$, the variance $\langle (\vec r)^2 \rangle$

1241: is infinite. This regime of ``long jumps'' leads to so-called L\'evy flights.

1242: In this case, to leading order in $k = |\vec k|$, ${\hat \Phi}(\vec k)$

1243: can be expanded as

1244: \be

1245: {\hat \Phi}(\vec k) = 1- \sigma^{\mu} k^{\mu} + {\cal O}(k^o)~,~~~{\rm where}~~

1246: 0 < \mu \leq 2, ~~~{\rm with}~~o>\mu~,

1247: \label{ngngfdlw}

1248: \ee

1249: where $\sigma$ is a characteristic distance defined by

1250: \be

1251:        \sigma= \left\{ \begin{array}{lll}

1252:        d~[\Gamma(1-\mu)]^{1/\mu}    , & &  0<\mu < 1~, \\

1253:        {d~\pi \over \mu ~ \Gamma(\mu-1)~\sin(\pi \mu /2) }  , & & 1<\mu<2~.

1254: %\\

1255: %{2 d \over \sqrt{(\mu-1)(\mu-2)}}  , & & \mu > 2~.

1256:        \end{array}

1257:        \right.

1258:        \label{fklj}

1259: \ee

1260: \end{itemize}

1261: 

1262: For a distribution $\Psi(t)$ of waiting times of the form

1263: of a local Omori law (\ref{psidef}) with exponent $\theta < 1$,

1264: ${\hat \Psi}(\beta)$ can be expanded for small $\beta$ as

1265: \be

1266: {\hat \Psi}(\beta) = 1 - (\beta c')^{\theta} + {\cal

1267: O}(\beta^\omega)~,~~~{\rm with}~

1268: \omega \geq 1~.

1269: \label{hgngwlff}

1270: \ee

1271: where $c'$ is proportional to $c$ up to a numerical constant

1272: $c'=c \left(\Gamma(1-\theta)\right)^{1/\theta}$ in the case $\theta<1$.

1273: 

1274: Putting the leading terms

1275: of the expansions of ${\hat \Phi}(\vec k)$ for small $|\vec k|$ and

1276: of ${\hat \Psi}(\beta)$

1277: for small $\beta$ in (\ref{ngnslqw}) gives

1278: \be

1279: {\hat N}(\beta,\vec k) = {{\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k) \over 1-n +

1280: n(\beta c')^{\theta} + n\sigma^{\mu} k^{\mu}}~.

1281: \label{ngnslqwassa}

1282: \ee

1283: The corresponding ${\hat W}(\beta,\vec k)$ is obtained from

1284: (\ref{ngnslaaqw}) by

1285: \be

1286: {\hat W}(\beta,\vec k) = {\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k)~{(\beta)^{\theta

1287: -1}  c'^{\theta} \over

1288: 1-n +n (\beta c')^{\theta} + n\sigma^{\mu} k^{\mu}}~.

1289: \label{ngnslqssaawaa}

1290: \ee

1291: 

1292: 

1293: The critical regime $n=1$ gets rid of the constant term $1-n$ in the

1294: denominator of (\ref{ngnslqwassa}) and (\ref{ngnslqssaawaa}). This case

1295: is analyzed in details below.

1296: 

1297: The regime $n\neq 1$ introduces a characteristic time $t^*$ given by

1298: (\ref{tstar}).

1299: In the sub-critical regime, equation (\ref{ngnslqwassa}) can be rewritten as

1300:    \be

1301: {\hat N}(\beta,\vec k) = {{\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k) \over (1-n)}~

1302: {1 \over 1 + (\beta t^*)^{\theta} + (k r^* )^{\mu}}~.

1303: \label{ngnslqwassa2}

1304: \ee

1305: where $r^*$ is defined by

1306: \be

1307: r^*=\sigma \left({n \over 1-n}\right)^{1/\mu}~.

1308: \label{gnjgrkd}

1309: \ee

1310: For $t<t^*$ and $r<r^*$, the dressed propagator is given by the same

1311: expression as

1312: for the critical case and all our results below hold.

1313: For large times  $t>t^*$ and large distances $r>r^*$,

1314: we can factorize   (\ref{ngnslqwassa2}) as a

1315: product of a function of time and a function of space

1316:    \be

1317: {\hat N}(\beta,\vec k) \simeq {{\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k) \over (1-n)}

1318: {1 \over (1+(\beta t^*)^{\theta})}{1 \over (1 + (k r^*)^{\mu})}~.

1319: \label{ngnslqwassa3}

1320: \ee

1321: Thus, there is no diffusion in the sub-critical regime for $t>t^*$ and $r>r^*$.

1322: We shall not analyze further this

1323: trivial regime $n<1$ and $t>t^*$ and will only analyze the case $t<t^*$.

1324: If there is the need, the cross-over can be calculated

1325: explicitly using (\ref{ngnslqwassa}).

1326: 

1327: In order to get the leading behavior of $N(t, \vec r)$ from that of

1328: $W(t, \vec r)$,

1329: we see from (\ref{ngnslqw}) and (\ref{ngnslaaqw}) that

1330: ${\hat N}(\beta,\vec k)  = {\beta \over 1 - {\hat \Psi}(\beta)}~{\hat

1331: W}(\beta,\vec k)

1332: \approx \beta^{1-\theta} c'^{-\theta} ~{\hat W}(\beta,\vec k)$. The

1333: inverse Laplace transform

1334: of $1/\beta^{\theta}$ is $1/[\Gamma(\theta)~t^{1-\theta}]$. Using the

1335: fact that the Laplace transform of $df/dt$ is $\beta$ times the

1336: Laplace transform

1337: of $f(t)$ minus $f(0)$, we get $N(t, \vec r)$ as the

1338: derivative of a convolution

1339: \be

1340: N(t, \vec r) = {c'^{-\theta} \over \Gamma(\theta)}

1341: {d \over dt}~\int_0^t dt'~ {W(t', \vec r) \over (t-t')^{1-\theta}}

1342: = c'^{-\theta}~ _0D_t^{1-\theta}~ W(t, \vec r)~.

1343: \label{nbjn}

1344: \ee

1345: In (\ref{nbjn}), we have dropped the Dirac function coming from the inverse

1346: Laplace transform of the constant term $f(0)$, which provides

1347: a contribution only at the origin of time $t=0$. Note that the

1348: operator ${1 \over \Gamma(\theta)}

1349: {d \over dt}~\int_0^t dt'~ {W(t', \vec r) \over (t-t')^{1-\theta}}$

1350: is nothing but the so-called fractional Riemann-Liouville derivative operator

1351: of order $1-\theta$ applied to the function $W(t, \vec r)$ of time $t$ and is

1352:     usually denoted

1353: $_0D^{1-\theta}_t W(t, \vec r)$.

1354: 

1355: 

1356: \subsection{The standard diffusion case $\theta >1$ and $\mu>2$ \label{mgmls}}

1357: 

1358: The standard diffusion process is recovered for $\theta \geq 1$

1359: (for which the average waiting time is finite)

1360: and for $\mu \geq 2$ (for which the variance of the jump length is finite).

1361: In this case,

1362: ${\hat N}(\beta,\vec k) = {{\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k) \over

1363: \beta c' + \sigma^{2} k^{2}}$. For an impulsive source

1364: leading to ${\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k) =$ constant, this is the

1365: Laplace-Fourier transform of the standard diffusion propagator

1366: \be

1367: N(t, \vec r) \propto {1 \over (D t)^{d/2}}~

1368: \exp [ - (\vec r)^2/Dt]~,~~~~{\rm where}~~D = \sigma^{2}/c'~,

1369: \label{gngk}

1370: \ee

1371: where $d$ is here the space dimension.

1372: This solution is valid for $|\vec r|/\sqrt{Dt}$ not too large. For

1373: larger values,

1374: large deviations lead to corrections with the power law tail of the

1375: input jump distribution $\Phi(\vec r) \sim 1/|\vec r|^{1+\mu}$ defined in

1376: (\ref{phidef}), along the lines presented for instance in

1377: \cite{Sorbook} (section 3.5). This regime is not relevant to the

1378: aftershock problem for which usually $0 < \theta <1$.

1379: 

1380: 

1381: \subsection{Long waiting times ($\theta < 1$) and finite variance

1382: of the jump sizes ($\mu>2$)}

1383: 

1384: Putting the leading terms of the expansions of ${\hat \Phi}(\vec k)$

1385: (\ref{ngnglw}) and of ${\hat \Psi}(\beta)$ (\ref{hgngwlff})

1386: in (\ref{ngnslqw}) gives

1387: \be

1388: {\hat N}(\beta,\vec k) = {1 \over (\beta c')^\theta + (\sigma k)^2}

1389: \label{ngbnmvd}

1390: \ee

1391: 

1392: The expression (\ref{ngbnmvd}) can be inverted with respect to the

1393: Fourier transform, and then

1394: inverted with respect to the Laplace transform using Fox functions

1395: \cite{Meltzner2,barkai3}.

1396: The solution for $W(t, \vec r)$ in one dimension is given for instance

1397: in \cite{Meltzner2} in terms of an infinite sum

1398:     % eq 46 de  [{\it Metzler and Klafter}, 2000]

1399: \be

1400: W(t,\vec r) ={ 1 \over 2 D}~{1 \over t^{\theta \over 2}}~

1401: \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} {(-1)^k ~ z^{-k} \over k!~\Gamma(1-\theta (k+1)/2)}

1402: \label{giouyt}

1403: \ee

1404: where

1405: \be

1406: z= { D~t^{\theta/2} \over  |\vec r|}

1407: \label{zdef}

1408: \ee

1409: and $D=\sigma /c'^{\theta/2}$.   % metzler and klafter eq 41

1410: 

1411: Expression (\ref{giouyt}) and many others below involve the Gamma function of

1412: negative arguments. We recall that the Gamma function $\Gamma(u)$ can be

1413: analytically continued to the whole complex plane, except for the simple poles

1414: $u=0, -1, -2, -3, ...$ Thus, $\Gamma(u)$

1415: is defined everywhere but at these poles.

1416: In order to get the expression of the Gamma

1417: function for negative arguments, one can use two formulae:

1418: $\Gamma(1-u) \times \Gamma(u) = \pi /\sin(\pi u)$ and

1419: $\Gamma(1+u) = u  \Gamma(u)$.

1420: Both these formulae are valid  for all points with the possible exception of

1421: the arguments at poles $0, -1, -2,...$ For instance,

1422: $\Gamma(-\theta) = \Gamma(1-\theta) / (-\theta) =

1423: -[\pi /\theta \sin(\pi \theta)]/ \Gamma(\theta)$, for $0 < \theta < 1$.

1424: 

1425: Expression (\ref{giouyt}) can be rewritten as a Fox-function \cite{Mathai}

1426: \be

1427: W(t,z) = {1 \over 2D}~ {1 \over t^{\theta \over 2}}~ H_{1,1}^{1,0}

1428: \left[{1 \over z} \left |

1429: {\begin{array}{l} (1-\theta/2,\theta/2) \\ (0,1) \end{array}}

1430: \right .

1431: \right ]

1432: \label{fox4346}

1433: \ee

1434: whose asymptotic dependence for large $z$,

1435: obtained from a standard theorem of the Fox function (equation (1.6.3) of

1436: \cite{Mathai}),

1437: \be

1438: W(t, z) \sim {1 \over D~t^{\theta \over 2}}~

1439: {1 \over z^{1-\theta \over 2-\theta}}~

1440: \exp \left(-\left(1-{\theta \over 2}\right)\left({\theta \over

1441: 2}\right)^{\theta \over 2- \theta}

1442: z^{2 \over 2-\theta} \right )

1443: \label{exp56}

1444: \ee

1445: is in agreement with the result of Roman and Alemany \cite{Roman} and

1446: Barkai et al. \cite{barkai3}

1447: for a space dimension $d_f=1$,

1448: including the dependence in the power law prefactor to the exponential.

1449: The exponential dependence $W(t, r) \sim

1450: \exp \left(- {\rm const}~ (r/D t^{\theta/2})^{2 \over 2-\theta} \right )$

1451: in (\ref{exp56}) holds in arbitrary dimensions $d_f$, the only

1452: modification occurring

1453: in the prefactor whose power of $z$ change with the space

1454: dimension $d_f$ as \cite{Roman,barkai3}

1455: \be

1456: W_{d_f}(t, z) \sim {1 \over D~ t^{{\theta \over 2}}}~

1457: {1 \over z^{d_f (1-\theta) \over 2-\theta}}~

1458: \exp \left(-\left(1-{\theta \over 2}\right)\left({\theta \over

1459: 2}\right)^{\theta \over 2- \theta}

1460: z^{2 \over 2-\theta} \right )~.

1461: \label{exp5a6}

1462: \ee

1463: 

1464: The expression of $N(t,\vec r)$ can be obtained from $W(t,\vec r)$ 

1465: using the fractional

1466: Riemann-Liouville derivation (\ref{nbjn}) of order $1-\theta$.

1467: Inserting expression (\ref{giouyt}) in (\ref{nbjn})

1468: and using the expression of

1469: the fractional Riemann-Liouville derivative operator

1470: $_0D^{\alpha}_t$ applied to an arbitrary power $t^{\mu}$, i.e.,

1471: $_0D^{\alpha}_t t^{\mu} = {\Gamma (1+\mu) \over

1472: \Gamma(1+\mu-\alpha)}~t^{\mu-\alpha}$,   we obtain

1473: % equation A.16 de [Metzler and Klafter, 2000]

1474: % see eq A.16 of metzler and klafter for the fractional derivative

1475: % of a power law

1476: \be

1477: N(t,\vec r) = {c'^{-\theta} \over 2 D t^{1-{\theta \over 2}}}~

1478: \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} {(-1)^k ~ z^k \over k!~ \Gamma((1-k)\theta /2)}~.

1479: \label{qdsi}

1480: \ee

1481:     Expression (\ref{qdsi}) can be used to evaluate $N(t,\vec r)$ for small $z$,

1482:     but the numerical evaluation of (\ref{qdsi}) is impossible for large $z$.

1483:     In order to obtain the asymptotic behavior of $N(t,\vec r)$,

1484:     expression (\ref{qdsi}) can be rewritten as a Fox-function \cite{Mathai}

1485: \be

1486: N(t,\vec r) = {c'^{-\theta} \over 2D t^{1-{\theta \over 2}}}~ H_{1,1}^{1,0}

1487: \left[ {1 \over z } \left |

1488: {\begin{array}{l} (\theta/2,\theta/2) \\ (0,1) \end{array}}

1489: \right .

1490: \right ]  ~.

1491: \label{fox3}

1492: \ee

1493: Employing again the standard theorem of the Fox function (equation (1.6.3) of

1494: \cite{Mathai}),

1495: the asymptotic behavior of $N(t, r)$  for large distances $r$

1496: such that $r>D t^{\theta/2}$ is given by

1497: \be

1498: N(t, r) \sim {c'^{-\theta}  \over D t^{1-{\theta \over 2}}}~

1499: \left({|\vec r| \over D t^{\theta/2}} \right)^{1-\theta \over 2-\theta}~

1500: \exp \left(-\left(1-{\theta \over 2}\right)\left({\theta \over

1501: 2}\right)^{\theta \over 2- \theta}

1502: \left({|\vec r| \over D t^{\theta/2}} \right)^{2 \over 2-\theta} \right )~.

1503: \label{exp1}

1504: \ee

1505: The exponential dependence $N(t, r) \sim

1506: \exp \left(- {\rm const}~ (r/D t^{\theta/2})^{2 \over 2-\theta} \right )$

1507: in (\ref{exp1}) holds in arbitrary dimensions.

1508: 

1509: This expression becomes incorrect for very large distances because it would

1510: predict an exponential or slightly super-exponential decay with $r$.

1511: This cannot be true as the global law cannot decay faster than the

1512: local law (\ref{phidef}). The reason for (\ref{exp1}) to become incorrect at

1513: large distances is that the expansion of

1514: ${\hat N}(\beta,\vec k)$ for small $|\vec k|$ (large distances) given by

1515: (\ref{ngbnmvd}) has been truncated at the order $k^{2}$. There is however

1516: a subdominant term $\propto k^{\mu}$ that describes the power law tail

1517: of the local law (\ref{phidef}) and also of the global law asymptotically.

1518: A similar situation occurs in the application of the

1519: central limit theorem for sums of $N$ random variables with power law

1520: distributions with exponents $\mu>2$ \cite{Sorbook}: the distribution

1521: of the sum $S$

1522: is a Gaussian in its bulk for $|S| < \sqrt{N \ln N}$ and crosses over

1523: to a power law

1524: with tail exponent $\mu$ for larger $S$. In a similar way, the cross-over

1525: of $N(t, r)$ to the

1526: asymptotic local power law (\ref{phidef}) can be recovered by an analysis

1527: including the subleading correction $\propto k^{\mu}$ to the expansion

1528: (\ref{ngbnmvd}).

1529: 

1530: Expression (\ref{qdsi}) shows that the global rate of seismicity cannot be

1531: factorized as a product of a distribution of times and a distribution

1532: of distances.

1533: This space-time coupling implies that the seismic activity diffuses with time,

1534: and that the decay

1535: of the rate of aftershocks depends on the distance from the first mainshock.

1536: This coupling of space and time stems from the cascade of

1537: aftershocks, from the primary aftershocks to the secondary aftershocks to the

1538: tertiary aftershocks and so on.

1539: 

1540: Figure \ref{nrtmus2} presents the decay of the seismic activity

1541: $N(r,t)$ obtained

1542: using expression (\ref{qdsi}) for small $z$ and expression

1543: (\ref{exp1}) for large $z$,

1544: as a function of the time from the mainshock and as a function of the

1545: distances $r$. Close to the mainshock epicenter, expression (\ref{qdsi})

1546: predicts that the global seismicity rate decays with time as the 

1547: renormalized Omori law

1548: \be

1549: N(t,0) \sim  {1 \over t^{1-\theta/2}}~.

1550: \label{oyu}

1551: \ee

1552: The same decay is found at any fixed point $\vec r$ for times $t >

1553: (|\vec r|/D)^{2/\theta}$.  At all times, the same decay $1/t^{1-\theta/2}$

1554:      is also obtained by measuring the

1555: aftershock seismicity in a local box at a distance from the main shock origin

1556: increasing with time as $r \sim t^{\theta \over 2}$ (this is nothing

1557: but putting $z=$ constant in (\ref{qdsi})).

1558: At large distances  $r > D t^{\theta/2}$, the global decay law is

1559: different from a

1560: power-law decay. Figure \ref{nrtmus2} shows that the rate of

1561: aftershocks presents

1562: a truncation at early times, which increases as the distance $r$ increases.

1563: At large times, the rate of

1564: aftershocks recovers the $1/t^{1-\theta/2}$ power-law decay (\ref{oyu}).

1565: We stress that a fit of the global law $N(r,t)$ over the whole

1566: time interval by an Omori law would yield an apparent

1567: exponent  $p< 1-\theta/2$ that decreases with $r$.

1568: 

1569: Integrating (\ref{qdsi}) over the whole one-dimensional space, we recover the

1570: global Omori law

1571: \be

1572: N(t)=\int dr N(t,r) \sim {1 \over t^{1-\theta}}

1573: \ee

1574: found in \cite{SS,HS1}. Thus, we have found an additional source of variability

1575: of the exponent $p$ of the Omori law: if measured over the whole catalog,

1576: we should measure $p=1-\theta$ in the critical regime $n=1$ while

1577: $p=1-\theta/2$ is

1578: slightly larger when measured in certain time- and space-windows,

1579: as described above. Thus, in this regime,

1580: pruning of catalogs may lead to continuous change

1581: from the value $1-\theta$ to $1-\theta/2$. In addition, as we have mentioned,

1582: the cross-over in time may lead to still smaller apparent exponents, thus

1583: enhancing the impression of variability of the exponent $p$. In reality, this

1584: range of $p$-values are seen to result from the complex spatio-temporal

1585: organization of the aftershock seismicity of the ETAS model. These results

1586: should lead us to be cautious when analyzing real catalogs with respect

1587: to the conditions and regimes under which the analysis is performed.

1588: 

1589: There is another observable that

1590: characterizes how an aftershock sequence invades space as a function of time.

1591: Expression (\ref{qdsi}) indeed predicts a sub-diffusion process quantified by

1592: \be

1593: \langle |\vec r|^2 \rangle  \sim t^{2H}~, \label{hgnvaa}

1594: \ee

1595: with $H = \theta/2$ since the natural variable is

1596: $z$ given by (\ref{zdef}).

1597: Indeed, expression (\ref{qdsi})

1598: tells us that, up to a global rescaling function of time, the rate of

1599: aftershocks is identical for a fixed value of $z$. Thus, any

1600: aftershock structure

1601: diffuses according to (\ref{hgnvaa}).

1602: 

1603: This prediction is checked in Figure \ref{poisq} by numerical simulations.

1604: 1000 synthetic catalogs have been generated with $\mu=3$, $\theta=0.2$

1605: and $n=1$. The average distance between the first mainshock

1606: and its aftershocks as a function of the time from the mainshock has

1607: been averaged over these 1000 simulations.

1608: The theoretical diffusion exponent is  $H=\theta/2=0.1$, in

1609: good agreement with the

1610: asymptotic behavior observed in the numerical simulation.

1611: In practice, in order to minimize the effect of fluctuations and optimize

1612: the speed of convergence, we estimate numerically $\exp [\langle \ln

1613: |\vec r| \rangle]$ which is also expected to scale as

1614: $\exp [\langle \ln |\vec r| \rangle] \sim t^{\theta/2}$

1615: due to the simple scaling form of (\ref{fox3}).

1616: 

1617: This problem has also been solved exactly in \cite{barkai1} in the context

1618: of the so-called fractional Fokker-Planck equation, which amounts to

1619: replace the distribution $\Phi(\vec r)$ of jumps (\ref{phidef}) by a

1620: Gaussian function.

1621: This fractional Fokker-Planck equation allows one to introduce the

1622: possibility of bias

1623: or drift in the CTRW and therefore in the aftershock sequence.

1624: 

1625: 

1626: \subsection{Exponential waiting time distribution and long jump size

1627: L\'evy distribution ($\mu<2$)}

1628: 

1629: This case with an exponential distribution

1630: \be

1631: \Psi(t) = \lambda ~e^{-\lambda t}

1632: \label{ngllsa}

1633: \ee

1634: of waiting times with a L\'evy distribution

1635: $\Phi(\vec r)= L_{\mu}(|\vec r|)$ of jump sizes with tail exponent $\mu<2$

1636: has been investigated  by Budde et al. \cite{Budde}.

1637: One finds

1638: \be

1639: \langle |\vec r|^2 \rangle^{1/2} \sim t^{1/\mu}~, \label{hgnvaaaa}

1640: \ee

1641: corresponding to a superdiffusion regime with Hurst exponent $H=1/\mu >1/2$.

1642: The full distribution function $W(t, \vec r)$ corresponding to the

1643: critical regime $n=1$ is known for $\lambda t >> 1$:

1644: \be

1645: W(t, \vec r) \propto {1 \over (\lambda t)^{1/\mu}}~ L_{\mu}\left({|\vec r|

1646: \over (\lambda t)^{1/\mu}}\right)~.

1647: \label{mgmkrl}

1648: \ee

1649: The corresponding $N(t, \vec r)$ is obtained from (\ref{mhgjhjhd}).

1650: The Laplace transform of the exponential distribution (\ref{ngllsa})

1651: is ${\hat \Psi}(\beta)= \lambda/(\beta + \lambda)$. We thus get

1652: \be

1653: {\hat N}(\beta,\vec k) =

1654: \left( \beta + \lambda \right) ~{\hat W}(\beta,\vec k)~,

1655: \ee

1656: and thus

1657: \be

1658: N(t, \vec r) = {\partial W(t, \vec r) \over \partial t}~+~\lambda

1659: ~W(t, \vec r)~.

1660: \label{mgkjhgk}

1661: \ee

1662: Expression (\ref{mgkjhgk}) together with (\ref{mgmkrl}) predicts

1663: a diffusion law $r \sim t^H$ with $H=1/\mu$ which is in good agreement

1664: with our simulations.

1665: At large times $|{\vec r}| \ll (\lambda t)^{1/\mu}$,

1666: $N(t, \vec r) \approx \lambda ~W(t, \vec r) \sim 1/t^{1/\mu}$, given

1667: an apparent local Omori exponent $\theta = 1 - 1/\mu$.

1668: This offers a new mechanism for generating Omori law for aftershocks

1669: from purely

1670: exponential local relaxation but with a heavy distribution of jump sizes.

1671: This power-law decay should be observed only at a fixed distance $r$

1672: or over a limited domain from the mainshock

1673: in the regime of large times.

1674: 

1675: Integrating over the whole space, $\int d\vec r ~W(t, \vec r) =1$ which gives

1676: $N(t) = \delta(t) + \lambda$ equal to a constant seismic rate. This

1677: results from an initial mainshock at $t=0$ leading to the cascade of

1678: aftershocks

1679: adjusting delicately to this constant rate for the critical value $n=1$ of

1680: the branching parameter. In the sub-critical regime $n<1$, the Omori law

1681: integrated over space gives instead $N(t) \propto \exp [-(1-n)\lambda t]$,

1682: showing that the characteristic decay time $1/(1-n)\lambda$ of the dressed

1683: Omori propagator $N(t)$

1684: becomes much larger (much longer memory) that the decay time 

1685: $1/\lambda$ of the bare

1686: Omori propagator.

1687: 

1688: For $\mu>2$, we recover the

1689: standard diffusion corresponding to $\theta >1$ and $\mu>2$ discussed

1690: in section \ref{mgmls}.

1691: 

1692: 

1693: \subsection{Long waiting times ($\theta < 1$) and long jump sizes

1694: (L\'evy flight regime for $\mu \leq 2$)}

1695: 

1696:     Putting the leading terms of the expansions of ${\hat \Phi}(\vec k)$

1697: and of ${\hat \Psi}(\beta)$ in (\ref{ngnslqw}) gives

1698: \be

1699: {\hat N}(\beta,\vec k) = {\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k)~{1 \over

1700: (\beta c')^{\theta} + (\sigma k)^{\mu}}~.

1701: \label{ngnslqwaa}

1702: \ee

1703: The corresponding ${\hat W}(\beta,\vec k)$ is given by

1704: \be

1705: {\hat W}(\beta,\vec k) = {\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k)~{(\beta)^{\theta

1706: -1}  c'^{\theta} \over

1707: (\beta c')^{\theta} + (\sigma k)^{\mu}}~.

1708: \label{ngnslqaawaa}

1709: \ee

1710: 

1711: Equation (\ref{ngnslqaawaa}) has been studied extensively in the context

1712: of the CTRW model as a long wavelength $|\vec k| \to 0$ and long time

1713: $\beta \to 0$

1714: approximation to investigate the long time behavior of the CTRW.

1715: Kotulski \cite{Kot1} has developed a rigorous approach, based on limit

1716: theorems, to classify

1717: the asymptotic behaviors of different type of CTRWs and justifies the

1718: approximation

1719: (\ref{ngnslqaawaa}) for the long time behavior. Barkai \cite{barkai2}

1720: has studied

1721: the quality of the long wavelength $|\vec k| \to 0$ and long time $\beta \to 0$

1722: approximation (\ref{ngnslqaawaa}) by solving the exact CTRW problem for

1723: the case when the waiting time distribution $\Psi(t)$ is a one-sided

1724: stable L\'evy law of index $\theta$ with the same tail as (\ref{psidef})

1725: and the distribution $\Phi(\vec r)$ of jumps is a symmetric

1726: stable L\'evy of index $\mu$ with the same tail as (\ref{phidef}).

1727: Their Laplace and Fourier transforms,

1728: that appear in the denominator of (\ref{ngnslaaqw}), are

1729: respectively ${\hat \Psi}(\beta) = \exp [-\beta^{\theta}]$ and

1730: ${\hat \Phi}(\vec k) = \exp [ -|\vec k|^{\mu}/2 ]$. Note that the

1731: long wavelength $|\vec k| \to 0$ and long time $\beta \to 0$ approximation

1732: gives $1-\exp [-(c' \beta)^{\theta}] ~\exp [ -|\sigma \vec k|^{\mu}]=

1733: (c' \beta)^{\theta}+|\sigma \vec k|^{\mu}$, which recovers (\ref{ngnslqwaa}).

1734: By comparing the exact solution of (\ref{ngnslqw}) for $\Psi(t)$ and

1735: $\Phi(\vec r)$ of the above L\'evy form with that of

1736: the long wavelength $|\vec k| \to 0$ and long time $\beta \to 0$

1737: approximation (\ref{ngnslqaawaa}), Barkai \cite{barkai2} finds that certain

1738: solutions of (\ref{ngnslqaawaa}) diverge on the origin, a behavior not found

1739: for the corresponding solutions of (\ref{ngnslqw}). In addition, certain

1740: solutions of the full equation (\ref{ngnslqw}) converge only very

1741: slowly for $\mu <1$

1742: to the solutions of the long-time approximation (\ref{ngnslqaawaa}). These

1743: results validate our use of the asymptotic long time behavior with respect

1744: to the scaling laws but provide a note of caution if one needs more precise

1745: non-asymptotic information. In this case, such information can be obtained

1746: by a suitable analysis of the full equation (\ref{ngnslqw}).

1747: 

1748: Using power counting,

1749: expression (\ref{ngnslqaawaa}) predicts a diffusion process

1750: (\ref{hgnvaa}) with exponent

1751: \be

1752: H = {\theta \over \mu}~.

1753: \label{mgjgkr}

1754: \ee

1755: This prediction is checked by numerical simulation of the ETAS model

1756: in the critical regime $n=1$, with $\theta=0.2$, $\mu=0.9$, shown in figure

1757: \ref{poimlksq}. The average distance between the first mainshock and its

1758: aftershocks as a function of the time from the mainshock indeed increases

1759: according to (\ref{hgnvaa}) with an exponent $H$ in very

1760: good agreement with the prediction $H=\theta/ \mu=0.22$. As

1761: the form of the denominator in (\ref{ngnslqaawaa})  is

1762: independent of the space dimension, the prediction

1763: (\ref{mgjgkr}) is valid in any space dimension.

1764: 

1765: The natural variable for the expansions given below allowing to compute

1766: $N(t, \vec r)$ is

1767: \be

1768: z={ D ~t^{\theta/\mu} \over |\vec r|}~,

1769: \label{mgjgrk}

1770: \ee

1771: where $D=\sigma / c'^{\theta/\mu}$ and $c'=c 

1772: \left(\Gamma(1-\theta)\right)^{1/\theta}$.

1773: 

1774: 

1775: \subsubsection{$z$-expansion of the solution}

1776: 

1777: $W(t, \vec r)$ can be obtained as the following sum (equation (5.10)

1778: of \cite{Saichev})

1779: \be

1780: W(t, \vec r) = {1 \over \pi  |\vec r|}~

1781: \sum_{m=0}^{+\infty} (-1)^m~ z^{m \mu}

1782: ~{\Gamma(m \mu +1) \over \Gamma(m \theta +1)} ~\cos \left[ {\pi \over

1783: 2} (m \mu +1)\right]~.

1784: \label{njhgrjb}

1785: \ee

1786: 

1787: Applying (\ref{nbjn}) to (\ref{njhgrjb}) term by term in the sum, we get

1788: \be

1789: N(t, \vec r) = {c'^{-\theta} \over D \pi ~

1790: t^{1-\theta+\theta/\mu}}~

1791: \sum_{m=0}^{+\infty} (-1)^m~ z^{1+m \mu}

1792: ~{\Gamma(m \mu +1) \over \Gamma((m+1)\theta)} ~

1793: \cos \left[ {\pi \over 2} (m \mu +1)\right]~,

1794: \label{njhaagrssjb}

1795: \ee

1796: The asymptotics

1797: \be

1798: {\Gamma(m \mu+\mu +1)~\Gamma(m \theta +1)

1799: \over \Gamma(m \theta + \theta +1)~\Gamma(m \mu +1)} \sim

1800: {\Gamma(m \mu +\mu+1)~\Gamma((m+1)\theta) \over \Gamma((m+2)\theta)~

1801: \Gamma(m \mu +1)}

1802: \sim m^{\mu - \theta}

1803: \label{mgjgl}

1804: \ee

1805: show that the series (\ref{njhgrjb})

1806: and (\ref{njhaagrssjb}) exist only for $\mu < \theta$. It can be shown that

1807: these series exist for all $z$ in this case.

1808: This series converges very slowly for large $z$ but

1809: the Pad\'e summation method \cite{BeOr} can be used to improve the convergence

1810: of  (\ref{njhaagrssjb}) in the case $\mu < \theta$, and can also be used

1811:   to estimate     (\ref{njhaagrssjb}) in the case $\mu > \theta$ for which the

1812:   series diverges.

1813: 

1814: The space integral $\int dr ~N(t, r)$ over the whole one-dimensional

1815: volume $V$,

1816: with $N(t, r)$ given by (\ref{njhaagrssjb}),

1817: recovers the global Omori law

1818: \be

1819: \int_V dr ~N(t, r) \sim  {1 \over t^{1 - \theta}}~.

1820: \label{nhnkjbkf}

1821: \ee

1822: Note the non-trivial phenomenon in which the superposition of all

1823: aftershock activities transforms

1824: the local Omori law or ``bare propagator'' (\ref{psidef})

1825: $\Psi(t) \sim  {1 \over t^{1+\theta}}$ into the global

1826: Omori law or ``dressed propagator'' ${1 \over t^{1 - \theta}}$.

1827: This effects was predicted in \cite{SS,HS1} in the version of the ETAS model

1828: without space dependence.

1829: These results are consistent with the claim of section

1830: \ref{consosk} according to which all results

1831: reported previously for the version

1832: of the ETAS model without space dependence hold also for the version of the

1833: space-dependent ETAS model studied here, when averaging over the whole space.

1834: 

1835: The asymptotic behavior for  $|\vec r| \gg D~ t^{\theta \over \mu}$

1836: (i.e., $z \ll 1$)

1837: and $\mu < \theta$  is obtained by keeping only the first non-zero

1838: term ($m=1$) in (\ref{njhaagrssjb})

1839: which is convergent for all $z$ in the case   $\mu < \theta$

1840: \be

1841: N(t, \vec r) = { \sin \left({\pi \mu \over 2}\right) \over \sigma

1842: c'~\pi}~ {\Gamma(1+\mu)

1843: \over \Gamma(2\theta)}~\left({c' \over t}\right)^{1-2 \theta}~

1844: \left({\sigma \over |\vec r|}\right)^{1+\mu}~,~~~~{\rm for}~~

1845: |\vec r| \gg D~t^{\theta \over \mu}~.

1846: \label{gjjsls}

1847: \ee

1848: At fixed large $|\vec r|$ and for $t< |{\vec r}/D|^{\mu \over \theta}$,

1849: this predicts a local Omori law with exponent $p=1-2\theta$.

1850: 

1851: 

1852: \subsubsection{$1/z$-expansion of the solution}

1853: 

1854: We use the theory of Fox functions \cite{Mathai} to obtain

1855: $N(t,\vec r)$ as an infinite series in $1/z$. For this, we first

1856: rewrite expression (\ref{njhaagrssjb}) as a Fox

1857: function \cite{Mathai}

1858: \be

1859: N(t,\vec r) = {c'^{-\theta} \over D ~\mu~ \pi~

1860:     ~ t^{1-\theta+\theta/\mu}}~

1861: R\left( H_{2,2}^{1,2}

1862: \left[ z~e^{i \pi /2} \left |

1863: {\begin{array}{l} (1/\mu, 1/\mu),(1,1) \\ (1/\mu, 1/\mu),

1864: (\theta/\mu-\theta+1, \theta/\mu) \end{array}}

1865: \right .

1866: \right ]  \right)~,

1867: \label{fox4}

1868: \ee

1869: where  $R(z)$ indicates the real part of $z$.

1870: 

1871: The $1/z$ expansion of  $N(t, \vec r)$ can be obtained using

1872: the dual expansion of the Fox function  (\ref{fox4}) (expression

1873: (3.7.2) of \cite{Mathai})

1874: $$

1875: N(t,\vec r) = {c^{-\theta} \over D ~ \pi~ \mu~

1876:            ~ t^{1-\theta+\theta/\mu}}~

1877:           \sum_{m=0}^{+\infty} (-1)^m ~\biggl[\mu~

1878:          z^{1-\mu-m\mu}~{\Gamma(1-(m+1)\mu) ~\sin((m+1)\mu\pi/2)

1879:           \over \Gamma(-m \theta )}

1880: $$

1881: \be

1882: \left.  + {z^{-m} \over m!}~ {\pi   ~\cos(m \pi/2)

1883:           \over  \sin((m+1)\pi/\mu) ~ \Gamma(\theta -(m+1)\theta/\mu )} \biggl]

1884:            \right.

1885: \label{fox5}  ~.

1886: \ee

1887: This expansion exists only for $\mu>\theta$ (conditions of page 71 below

1888: eq.~(3.7.2) of \cite{Mathai}). This is easily checked by the behavior

1889: of an asymptotics similar to (\ref{mgjgl}).  Note that the series (\ref{fox5})

1890: is not defined in the

1891: special case $\mu=1$ due to the presence of the ill-defined ratio

1892: $\Gamma(0)/\Gamma(0)$ and a different approach is required, such as the

1893: integral representation of $W(t,\vec r)$ developed in \cite{Saichev}.

1894: The global Omori law obtained by integrating over the whole space

1895: (\ref{fox5})

1896:   is again $N(t) \sim 1/t^{1-\theta}$ as expected from the analysis of

1897: the ETAS model

1898:   without space dependence \cite{HS1}.

1899: 

1900: Keeping only the largest term of  (\ref{fox5}) for large $z$, we

1901: obtain the asymptotic

1902:   behavior for small distances  $ r < D~t^{\theta /\mu}$

1903:   \ba

1904:   N(t,r) &\simeq&

1905:   {\Gamma(1-2\mu) ~

1906:    ~\sin(\pi \mu) ~\sin(\pi \theta) ~ \over  c' \sigma~ \pi^2}

1907:   {\Gamma(1+\theta) \over  (r/\sigma)^{1-2\mu}}~{1 \over (t/c')^{1+\theta}}

1908:   ~~~\rm{for}~~ \mu<0.5  \nonumber \\

1909:   N(t,r) &\simeq&   { c'^{-\theta}  \over

1910:          c' \sigma~\mu~\Gamma(\theta-\theta/\mu) ~\sin(\pi/ \mu)}~

1911:          {1 \over (t/c')^{1-\theta+\theta/\mu}}

1912:      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\rm{for}~~ 0.5<\mu<2 ~.

1913:   \label{lqps1}

1914:   \ea

1915:   Note that for $ r < D~t^{\theta /\mu}$ and $0.5<\mu<2$, the leading behavior

1916:   of $N(t,r)$ is independent of $r$.

1917: 

1918: Equation (\ref{lqps1}) thus predicts an apparent exponent

1919: \ba

1920:    p &=& 1+\theta        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\rm{for}~~ \mu<0.5  \nonumber \\

1921:    p &=& 1-\theta +  \theta/\mu ~~~~~\rm{for}~~ 0.5<\mu<2

1922: \label{leqps5}

1923: \ea

1924:   for small distances $r < D~t^{\theta /\mu}$.

1925: This prediction is valid only in the case $\mu>\theta$ for which the series

1926: (\ref{fox5}) is convergent.

1927: However, the same asymptotic results are also obtained by different methods

1928: in the case  $\mu<\theta$, for instance

1929: expression (\ref{leqps5}) is recovered for all $\mu<2$ using the

1930: integral representation  of \cite{Saichev} [A. Saichev, private communication].

1931: The numerical evaluation of (\ref{njhaagrssjb}), which converges for

1932:   $\mu < \theta$, also recovers the asymptotic results (\ref{lqps1}).

1933: The two regimes $\mu<0.5$ and $0.5<\mu<2$ are illustrated in Figures

1934: \ref{piuonk}

1935:   and \ref{piuon} respectively. The seismicity rate $N(t,\vec r)$ is evaluated

1936:   from expression (\ref{njhaagrssjb}) for small $z$ and from 

1937: expression (\ref{fox5})

1938:   for large $z$.

1939: 

1940: We also performed numerical

1941: simulations of the ETAS and CTRW models and the results are in good 

1942: agreement with

1943: expression (\ref{njhaagrssjb}) and (\ref{fox5}) for $N(\vec r,t)$ for $t \gg c$

1944:   and $r \gg d$. For very small times $t\ll c$, or for very small distances

1945:   $r \ll d$, expressions (\ref{njhaagrssjb}) and (\ref{fox5}) are not 

1946: valid because

1947:   they are based on a long wavelength $|\vec k| \to 0$ and long time 

1948: $\beta \to 0$

1949:   approximation.

1950: Numerical simulations of the ETAS model in the case $\theta=0.2$ and $\mu=0.9$

1951: are presented in Figure \ref{poiq}, and are in good agreement with 

1952: the analytical

1953: solutions (\ref{njhaagrssjb}) and (\ref{fox5}) shown in Figure \ref{piuon}

1954: for the same parameters, except from the truncation of $N(t,r)$ for times

1955: $t\ll c$ and distances $r \ll d$ that are not reproduced by the 

1956: analytical solution.

1957: 

1958: \subsection{A simple non-separable joint distribution

1959: of waiting times and jump sizes: coupled spatial diffusion and long

1960: waiting time distribution}

1961: 

1962: Consider the choice for $\phi_{m_i}(t-t_i, \vec r-\vec r_i)$

1963: replacing (\ref{first})

1964: by

1965: \be

1966: \phi_{m_i}(t-t_i, \vec r-\vec r_i) = \rho(m_i)~\Psi(t-t_i)~\Phi(|\vec

1967: r-\vec r_i|/\sqrt{D t})~,

1968: \label{firsaat}

1969: \ee

1970: where $\rho(m_i)$ and $\Psi(t)$ are again given by (\ref{formrho})

1971: and (\ref{psidef})

1972: while (\ref{phidef}) is changed into

1973: \be

1974: \Phi(|\vec r-\vec r_i|/\sqrt{D t}) = {1 \over \sqrt{2Dt}} ~

1975: \exp \left(-|\vec r-\vec r_i|^2/D t\right)~.

1976: \label{mgmglw}

1977: \ee

1978: The spatial diffusion of seismic activity is now coupled to the

1979: waiting time distribution. Expression (\ref{mgmglw}) captures the

1980: effect that, in order for aftershocks to spread over large distances

1981: by the underlying physical process, they need time. In fact,

1982: returning to the discussion in the introduction on the various

1983: proposed mechanisms for aftershocks, expression (\ref{mgmglw})

1984: embodies a microscopic diffusion process.

1985: 

1986: In this case, (\ref{ngnslqw}) must be replaced by

1987: \be

1988: {\hat N}(\beta,\vec k) = {{\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k) \over

1989: 1 - n {\hat \phi}(\beta, \vec k)}~,

1990: \label{ngssnslqw}

1991: \ee

1992: where ${\hat \phi}(\beta, \vec k)$ is the Laplace-Fourier transform

1993: of the product

1994: $\Psi(t)~\Phi(|\vec r|/\sqrt{D t})$. For large times and long distances for

1995: which the first terms in the expansion in $\beta$ and $k$ are sufficient, and

1996: for $n=1$, we obtain

1997: \be

1998: {\hat \phi}(\beta, \vec k) \propto {{\hat S}_M(\beta,\vec k) \over

1999: (\beta + D k^2)^{\theta}}~.

2000: \label{gjjgws}

2001: \ee

2002: The inverse Laplace-Fourier transform of (\ref{ngssnslqw}) is

2003: \be

2004: N(t, \vec r) \sim {1 \over t^{1-\theta}}~{1 \over \sqrt{2 \pi Dt}}~

2005:     \exp\left(-|\vec r|^2/D t\right)~.

2006:     \label{mjgwlw}

2007: \ee

2008: As expected, expression (\ref{mjgwlw}) recovers the dressed Omori propagator

2009: in the case of absence of space dependence \cite{HS1}. At finite $r$

2010: and long times,

2011: the dressed Omori law also decay as $1 /t^{1-\theta}$. The diffusion of

2012: aftershocks is normal with the standard diffusion exponent $H=1/2$.

2013: 

2014: 

2015: 

2016: \section{New questions on aftershocks derived from the CTRW analogy}

2017: 

2018: We list a series of comments and questions suggested from the analogy

2019: between the ETAS model and the CTRW model. In particular, we discuss the

2020: possibility of defining new observables for earthquake aftershocks, that could

2021: be worthwhile to investigate in future empirical studies of

2022: earthquake aftershocks.

2023: 

2024: \subsection{Recurrence of aftershock activity in the proximity of the

2025: main shock}

2026: 

2027: A quantity often investigated in studies of random walks is the

2028: probability $W(t, \vec 0)$

2029: to find the random walker at its starting point (the origin) at time $t$.

2030: In the earthquake framework, this is the seismic aftershock rate

2031: close to the main shock.

2032: 

2033: \subsection{First-passage times}

2034: 

2035: The first passage time of a random walk is the first arrival time

2036: of the random walk at a given point $\vec r$. In the earthquake context,

2037: this translates into the study of the waiting time for a given region

2038: to have its own first aftershock after the main shock occurs.

2039: The distribution of such first passage waiting times gives the distribution

2040: of times with no nearby seismic activity. See for instance \cite{barkai1}

2041: in the case of a power law distribution of waiting times and Gaussian

2042: distribution of jump sizes. Margolin and Berkowitz \cite{Margolin} give

2043: the distribution of first-passage times in the case where the jump distribution

2044: is narrow and the waiting distribution is long-tailed $\sim 1/t^{1+\theta}$.

2045: They analyze the three different regimes $\theta <1$, $1<\theta <2$ 

2046: and $\theta \geq 2$.

2047: 

2048: 

2049: \subsection{Occupation time of seismic activity}

2050: 

2051: Weiss and Calabrese \cite{Weiss2} have studied the total amount of time spent

2052: by a lattice CTRW on a subset of points. In the seismic language,

2053: this amounts to study the probability distribution of the durations

2054: of aftershock sequences that are localized in a specific subset of the space.

2055: In other words, how probable are aftershock sequences that are found only

2056: within a given spatial subset over a certain duration?

2057: 

2058: 

2059: \subsection{Transience and recurrence of seismic activity}

2060: 

2061: Another question that has been studied in some details in the CTRW framework

2062: is whether random walks are transient or recurrent. A transient random walk

2063: visits any point $\vec r$ at most a finite number of times before escaping to

2064: infinity. For earthquakes, the transient regime corresponds to the activation

2065: of at most a finite number of aftershocks in any given point $\vec r$.

2066: In contrast, a recurrent random walk may return a growing number of times

2067: to all or a subset of points at time increases. In the aftershock language,

2068: this means that these points will have a

2069: never-ending (decaying) aftershock activity. We stress here the difference

2070: between the global Omori law giving a never-ending power law decay of

2071: the aftershock activity (in the sub-critical regime $n<1$) and its

2072: spatial dependence which must exhibit important variations. In particular,

2073: in the recurrent regime, an Omori law can be documented by counting

2074: aftershocks in those limited regions of space which are activated

2075: again and again.

2076: 

2077: \subsection{Probability for the cumulative  number of aftershocks}

2078: 

2079: Let us define a basic quantity in the CTRW formalism, namely the probability

2080: $\chi_m(t)$ to make exactly $m$ steps up to time $t$. In the

2081: earthquake context,

2082: $\chi_m(t)$ is the probability to have exactly $m$ aftershocks after

2083: the main shock.

2084: In the case in which the spatial transition probability $\Phi(\vec r)$ between

2085: different positions is independent of the waiting times (corresponding to

2086: factorizing $\phi_{m_i}(t-t_i, \vec r-\vec r_i)$ as in (\ref{first})), the

2087: probability density $W(t, \vec r)$ to find the walker at position $\vec r$ at

2088: time $t$ can be written

2089: \be

2090: W(t, \vec r) = \sum_{m=0}^{+\infty} W_m(\vec r)~\chi_m(t)~,

2091: \label{gkmkvms}

2092: \ee

2093: where $W_m(\vec r)$ is the probability to reach $\vec r$ from $\vec

2094: 0$ in $m$ steps.

2095: In the earthquake context, $W_m(\vec r)$ is the probability that

2096: there has been exactly

2097: $m$ events in the time interval $[0,t]$ and that the last one

2098: occurred at $\vec r$.

2099: Equation (\ref{gkmkvms}) states that the CTRW is a random process

2100: subordinated to

2101: simple random walks described by $W_m(\vec r)$

2102: under the operational time given by the $\chi_m(t)$ distribution

2103: \cite{Sokolov1,Sokolov2}.

2104: 

2105: 

2106: \subsection{Random walk models with birth and death and background

2107: seismicity from localized sources}

2108: 

2109: Bender et al. \cite{Bender} have studied models of random walks in

2110: which walkers are born

2111: in proportion to the population

2112: at one specific site (for instance the origin)

2113: with probability $a-1$ (with $a>1$) and die at all

2114: other sites with probability $1-n$ (with $n \leq 1$). In the

2115: earthquake context, this consists in assuming that the aftershock activity is

2116: fed by a localized region in space, which is itself activated by the aftershocks

2117: returning to this region, furthering the overall activity. This may

2118: be considered

2119: to describe the seismic activity close to a plate boundary, in which the plate

2120: boundary is the constant self-consistent source of a seismic activity

2121: which may spread over

2122: a significant region away from the boundary. The excursion of the

2123: random walkers

2124: quantify the spread of the seismic activity away from the main fault structure.

2125: The rate of death of the walkers correspond exactly to the distance $1-n$ from

2126: the critical value $n=1$. Bender et al. \cite{Bender} find a phase

2127: diagram in the

2128: $(a-1, 1-n)$ parameter space in which a boundary separates two possible

2129: asymptotic regimes:

2130: \begin{enumerate}

2131: \item for small $a-1$ and large $1-n$, the seismic activity at the origin

2132: and everywhere eventually dies off;

2133: \item for large $a-1$ and small $1-n$, the average seismic activity

2134: at the origin approaches

2135: a positive constant at long times. In this regime, there is a

2136: transition as $a-1$

2137: is decreased or as $1-n$ is increased, between

2138: a case where the global seismic activity outside the origin goes to

2139: zero and a case where it

2140: diverges at long times. On the boundary between these two regimes in the

2141: $(a-1, 1-n)$ parameter space, the distribution of seismic activity

2142: approaches a steady state

2143: at long times. There is a critical point (for space dimensions

2144: different from $2$)

2145: at a certain value $(a_c-1, 1-n_c)$, for

2146: which the long-time seismic activity away from the source is given by

2147: $\sim (a - a_c)^{\nu}$

2148: where $\nu$ is a critical exponent equal to $2$ in three dimensions.

2149: \end{enumerate}

2150: 

2151: Note that the results of \cite{Bender} are obtained for random

2152: walks on a lattice.

2153: This can easily be converted into a CTRW by the fact that

2154: a CTRW is nothing by a process subordinated to

2155: discrete random walks under the operational time defined by the

2156: process $\{t_i\}$

2157: of the time of just arrival to a given site, as given by (\ref{gkmkvms}).

2158: 

2159: 

2160: \section{Discussion}

2161: 

2162: Using the analogy between the ETAS model and the CTRW model

2163: established here, we have derived the relation between the average

2164: distance between aftershocks and the mainshock as a function of the

2165: time from the mainshock, and the joint probability distribution

2166: of the times and locations of aftershocks.

2167: 

2168: We have assumed that each earthquake triggers aftershocks at a distance $r$

2169: and time $t$ according to the bare propagator $\phi(r,t)$, which can

2170: be factorized as $\Psi(t)\Phi(r)$. This means that the distribution

2171: $\Phi(r)$ of the distances between an event and its direct aftershocks is

2172: decoupled from the distribution  $\Psi(t)$ of waiting time. Hence, the direct

2173: aftershocks triggered by a single mainshock do not diffuse in space with time.

2174: Notwithstanding this decoupling in space and time of the bare propagator

2175: $\phi(r,t)$, we have shown that the global law  or dressed propagator

2176: $N(t,\vec r)$ defined as the global rate of events at time $t$ and at position $\vec r$,

2177: cannot be factorized into two distributions of waiting times and space jumps.

2178: This joint distribution of waiting times and positions of the whole sequence of

2179: aftershocks cascading from a mainshock is different from the product 

2180: of the bare time and space propagators.

2181: 

2182: The mean distance between the mainshock and its aftershocks, including

2183: secondary aftershocks, increases with the time from the mainshock,

2184: due to the cascade process of aftershocks triggering aftershocks triggering

2185: aftershocks, and so on.

2186: In the critical case $n=1$, this diffusion takes the form

2187: of a power-law relation $R \sim t^H$ of the average distance $R$ between

2188: aftershocks and the mainshock, as a function of the time $t$ from the

2189: mainshock.

2190: If the local Omori law is characterized by an exponent $0<\theta<1$, and if

2191: the space jumps follow a power law $\Phi(r) \sim 1/(r +d )^{1+\mu}$,

2192: the diffusion exponent is given by $H=\theta/\mu$ in the case $\mu<2$ and

2193: $H=\theta/2$ in the case $\mu>2$. Depending on the $\theta$ and $\mu$ values,

2194: we can thus observe either sub-diffusion ($H<1/2$) or super-diffusion

2195: ($H>1/2$), as summarized in Figure \ref{H}.

2196: In the sub-critical ($n<1$) and super-critical ($n>1$) regimes,

2197: this relation is still valid up to the characteristic time $t^*$

2198: given by (\ref{tstar})

2199: and for distances smaller than $r^* \propto D t^{*H}$ given by (\ref{gnjgrkd}).

2200: For $t>t^*$ and $r>r^*$ in the sub-critical regime,

2201: the global distributions of times and distances

2202: between the mainshock and its aftershocks are decoupled and there is therefore

2203: no diffusion. In the super-critical regime, the aftershock rate increases

2204: exponentially for $t>t^*$ and the aftershocks diffuses more rapidly

2205: than before $t^*$.

2206: 

2207: 

2208: In the critical regime, the cascade of secondary aftershocks introduces a

2209: variation of the apparent Omori exponent as a function of the

2210: distance from the mainshock. The asymptotic values of the Omori exponent

2211: in the different regimes are summarized in Table \ref{table2}.

2212: In the regime $\mu<2$, we observe a transition from an Omori law decay

2213: with an exponent $p=1-2\theta$ at early times $t^H \ll r/D$ to

2214: a larger exponent at large times. This provides

2215: another mechanism to explain the observed variability of the Omori exponent.

2216: In the regime $\mu>2$, a power-law decay of the seismicity with time is

2217: observed only at large times $t^H \gg r/D$. At early times, or at large

2218: distances $r \gg D t^H$, the seismicity rate is very small, because the

2219: seismicity as not yet diffused up to the distance $r$.

2220: 

2221: We should emphasize that our theoretical analysis of aftershock

2222: diffusion predicts the behavior of the ensemble average of aftershock sequences.

2223: Individual

2224: sequences may depart from this ensemble average, especially for 

2225: sequences with few earthquakes and limited durations. For long sequences

2226: (20,000 events say), we have verified that the exponent $H$

2227: measured on individual sequences does not deviate from the ensemble

2228: average value by more than about 20\%. As already discussed, the

2229: impact of fluctuations become however more effective as the parameter $\alpha$

2230: increases above $b/2$.

2231: 

2232: The diffusion of the seismicity also renormalizes the spatial distribution

2233: of the seismicity, which is very different from the local

2234: distribution $\Phi(r)$

2235: of distances between a triggering event and its direct aftershocks.

2236: In the regime $\mu>2$, the global seismicity rate $N(t,\vec r)$ decays

2237: exponentially with the distance from the mainshock, whereas the local

2238: distribution of distances $\Phi(r)$ is a power-law distribution.

2239: In the regime $\mu<2$, the local law $\Phi(r) \sim r^{-1-\mu}$ is

2240: recovered at large distances, but a slower decay for $0.5<\mu<2$ or a constant

2241: rate for $\mu<0.5$ is observed at small distances $r \ll D t^H$.

2242: These predictions on the decrease of the Omori exponent with $r$

2243: have not yet been observed in earthquake catalogs, but

2244: an expansion of the aftershock zone has been reported in many studies

2245: \cite{Mogi,Imoto,Chatelain,Tajima1,Tajima2,Wesson,Ouchi,Noir,Jacques}.

2246: However, very few studies

2247: have quantified the diffusion law. Noir et al. \cite{Noir}

2248: show that the earthquake Dobi sequence (central Afar, August 1989)

2249: composed of 22 $M>4.6$ earthquakes presented a migration that was

2250: in agreement with a diffusion process due to fluid transfer in the crust,

2251: characterized by a normal diffusion process with exponent $H=0.5$.

2252: Tajima and Kanamori \cite{Tajima1,Tajima2} studied several aftershock

2253: sequences in subduction zone and observed a much slower logarithmic

2254: diffusion, which is compatible with a low exponent $H$ close to $0.1$.

2255: In some cases, the aftershock sequence displays no expansion with time.

2256: For instance, Shaw \cite{Shaw} studied several aftershock sequences in

2257: California and concluded that the distribution of distances between the

2258: mainshock and its aftershocks is independent of time.

2259: This can be explained by the fact that the 0mori exponent  measured

2260: in \cite{Shaw} is very close to $1$, thus $\theta$ is very small and our

2261: prediction is that the exponent $H$ should be very small.

2262: 

2263: In fact, the ETAS model predicts that diffusion should be observed only

2264: for aftershock sequences with a measured Omori exponent $p$ significantly

2265: smaller than $1$, which can only occur according to our model when the bare

2266: Omori propagator with exponent $1+\theta$ is renormalized into the

2267: dressed propagator with global exponent $1-\theta$. We have shown that

2268: this renormalization of the exponent only occurs at times less than $t^*$,

2269: while for longer times in the sub-critical regime $n<1$ the dressed Omori

2270: propagator recovers the value of the bare exponent $1+\theta > 1$

2271: (see figure \ref{n}).

2272: Therefore, identifying an empirical observation of $p<1$ with our

2273: prediction $p=1-\theta$ indicates that the aftershock sequence falls in the

2274:  ``good'' time window $t<t^*$ in which the renormalization operates.

2275: We have also shown that the dressed propagator gives a diffusion only for

2276: $t<t^*$. We can thus conclude that, according to the ETAS model, the

2277: observation of an empirical Omori

2278: exponent larger than $1$ is indicative of the large time $t>t^*$ behavior

2279: in the sub-critical regime $n<1$, for which there is no diffusion.

2280: This provides a possible explanation for why many sequences studied by

2281: \cite{Tajima1,Tajima2,Shaw} do not show a diffusion of the aftershock

2282: epicenters.

2283: Reciprocally, a prerequisite for observing diffusion in

2284: a given aftershock sequence is that the empirical

2285: $p$-value be less than $1$ in order to qualify the regime $t<t^*$.

2286: 

2287: An alternative model has been

2288: discussed by Dieterich \cite{Diete} who showed that the spatial

2289: variability of the stress

2290: induced by a mainshock, coupled with a rate and state friction law, results

2291: in an expansion of the aftershock zone with time. This expansion does not take

2292: the form of a diffusion law as observed in the ETAS model,

2293: the relation between the characteristic size

2294: of the aftershock zone does not grow as a power law of the time from the

2295: mainshock (equation (22) and Figure 6 of \cite{Diete}).

2296: 

2297: Marsan et al. \cite{Marsan1,Marsan2} and Marsan and Bean \cite{Marsan3}

2298: studied several catalogs at different scales, from the scale of a

2299: deep  mine to the world-wide seismicity, and observed that the average

2300: distance between two earthquakes increases as a power-law of the time between

2301: them, with an exponent often close to 0.2, indicative of a sub-diffusion process.

2302: They interpreted their results as a mechanism of stress diffusion, that may

2303: be due to fluid transfer with heterogeneous permeability leading to sub-diffusion.

2304: Their analysis is quite different from those used in other studies, because

2305: they consider all pairs of events, without distinction between

2306: aftershocks and mainshocks.

2307: This analysis can however lead to spurious diffusion, and in some

2308: cases this method  does not detect diffusion in synthetic data set

2309: with genuine diffusion.

2310: We have tested their analysis on a synthetic catalog generated by superposing

2311: a background seismicity with uniform spatial and temporal distribution, and

2312: 10 mainshocks with poissonian distribution in time and space, and with a

2313: power-law distribution of energies. Each of these mainshocks generates only

2314: {\it direct} aftershocks, without secondary cascades of aftershocks,

2315: and the number of aftershocks increases exponentially with the

2316: magnitude of the mainshock.

2317: This way, we generate a synthetic catalog without any physical

2318: process of diffusion, and which includes all the other well-established

2319: characteristics of real seismicity: clustering in space and time superposed

2320: to a seismicity background.

2321: Applying the analysis of \cite{Marsan1,Marsan2,Marsan3} to this

2322: synthetic data set leads to an apparent

2323: diffusion process with a well-defined exponent $H=0.5$.

2324: However, this apparent diffusion does not

2325:    reflect a genuine diffusion but simply describes the crossover

2326: from the characteristic size of an aftershock zone at early times to the

2327: larger average distance between uncorrelated events at large times. In plain

2328: words, the apparent power law $R \propto t^H$ is nothing but a cross-over

2329: and is not real.

2330: Furthermore, applying this analysis to a synthetic catalog generated

2331: using the ETAS model, without seismicity background, and with a theoretical

2332: diffusion exponent $H=0.2$, the method yields $H=0.01$ if we use all the

2333: events of the catalog. If we select only events up to a maximum

2334: distance $r_{max}$ to apply the same procedure as in

2335: \cite{Marsan1,Marsan2,Marsan3},

2336: we obtain larger values of $H$ which are more in agreement with the

2337: theoretical exponent  $H=0.2$ but with large fluctuations that are function of

2338: $r_{max}$.

2339: Therefore, it is probable

2340: that the diffusion reported in \cite{Marsan1,Marsan2,Marsan3} is not real

2341: and results from a cross-over between two characteristic

2342: scales of the spatial earthquake distribution. It may be attributed to

2343: the analyzing methodology which mixes up uncorrelated events.

2344: We are thus reluctant to compare the results of Marsan et al.

2345: \cite{Marsan1,Marsan2,Marsan3}

2346: with the predictions obtained with the ETAS model.

2347: 

2348: One can similarly question the results on anomalous diffusion of seismicity

2349: obtained by Sotolongo-Costa et al. \cite{Sotolongo}, who

2350: considered 7500 micro-earthquakes recorded by a local spanish network

2351: from 1985 to 1995. They interpret the sequence of earthquakes

2352: as a random walk process, in which the walker jumps from an

2353: earthquake epicenter

2354: to the next in sequential order. The time between two successive events is

2355: seen as a waiting time between two jumps and the distance between these

2356: events is taken to correspond to the jump size. Since the distributions of

2357: time intervals and of distances between successive earthquakes are both

2358: heavy-tailed (approximately power laws), their model is a CTRW.

2359: We cannot stress enough that their CTRW model of seismicity has nothing to

2360: do with our results on the mapping of the ETAS model onto a CTRW.

2361: Their procedure is ad-hoc and their results depend obviously strongly on

2362: the space domain of the analysis since distant earthquakes that are

2363: completely unrelated can be almost simultaneous!

2364: We also stress that our mapping of the ETAS model onto the CTRW model

2365: does not correspond to identifying an earthquake sequence as a {\it single}

2366: realization of a CTRW, as assumed arbitrarily by Sotolongo-Costa et al.

2367: \cite{Sotolongo}.

2368: 

2369: Our predictions obtained here are thus difficult to test on

2370: seismicity data, due to the small

2371:   number of events available and the restricted time periods and

2372: distance ranges,

2373:   and because the seismicity background can strongly affect the results.

2374: New methods should hence be developed to investigate if there is a

2375: real physical

2376: process of diffusion in seismic activity and to

2377: compare the observations of real seismicity with the quantitative predictions

2378: of the ETAS model.

2379: Preliminary study of aftershock sequences in California leads to the conclusion

2380: that most aftershock sequences are characterized by an Omori exponent $p>1$,

2381: indicative of the sub-critical regime with $t>t^*$. As expected from our

2382: predictions in this regime, we do not observe

2383: an expansion of the aftershock zone.

2384: However, a few sequences give a value $p<1$ and also exhibit an

2385: increase of the average

2386: distance between the mainshock and its aftershocks consistent with our

2387: predictions. A detailed report of this analysis will be reported elsewhere.

2388: 

2389: 

2390: \section{Conclusion}

2391: 

2392: We have studied analytically and numerically the ETAS

2393: (epidemic-type aftershock) model, which is a simple

2394: stochastic process modeling seismicity, based on the two best-established

2395: empirical laws for earthquakes, the power law decay of seismicity

2396: after an earthquake and a power law distribution of earthquake energies.

2397: This model assumes that each earthquake can trigger aftershocks, with

2398: a rate increasing with its magnitude.

2399: In this model, the seismicity rate is the result of the whole cascade of

2400: direct and secondary aftershocks.

2401: 

2402: We have first established an exact correspondence between the ETAS model

2403: and the CTRW (continuous-time random walk) model. We have then used

2404: this analogy to derive the joint probability of times and distances of the

2405: seismicity following a large earthquake and we have characterized

2406: the different regimes of diffusion.

2407: 

2408: We have shown that the diffusion of the seismicity should be observed only

2409: for times $t<t^*$, where $t^*$ is a characteristic time depending on the model

2410: parameters, corresponding to an observed Omori exponent smaller than one.

2411: Most aftershock sequences have an observed Omori exponent larger than one,

2412: corresponding to the subcritical regime of the ETAS model, for which there

2413: is no diffusion.

2414: The diffusion of the seismicity produces a decrease of the Omori

2415: exponent as a function of the distance from the mainshock, the decay

2416: of aftershocks being faster close to the mainshock than at large distances.

2417: The spatial distribution of seismicity is also renormalized by the

2418: cascade process,

2419: so that the observed distribution of distances between the mainshock

2420: and its aftershocks can be fundamentally different from the bare

2421: propagator $\Phi(r)$ which gives the distribution of the distances

2422: between triggered and triggering earthquakes. We have also

2423: noted that the ETAS model generates apparent but realistical fractal

2424: spatial patterns.

2425: 

2426: Assuming that the distances between triggering and triggered events

2427: are independent of the time between them, this model generates a diffusion of

2428: the whole sequence of aftershocks with the time from the mainshock,

2429: which is induced by the cascade of aftershocks triggering aftershocks, and so on.

2430: Our results thus provides a simple explanation of the diffusion of

2431: aftershock sequences

2432: reported by several studies, which was often interpreted as a mechanism

2433: of anomalous stress diffusion. We see that no such ``anomalous stress

2434: diffusion'' is

2435: needed and our theory provides a parsimonious account of aftershock diffusion

2436: resulting from the minimum physical ingredients of the ETAS model.

2437: As Einstein once said, ``A theory is more impressive the greater

2438: the simplicity of its premises, the more different the kinds of things

2439: it relates and the more extended its range of applicability.''

2440: 

2441: \acknowledgments

2442: We are very grateful to B. Berkowitz,  S. Gluzman, J.-R. Grasso, Y. Klafter, L. Margerin,

2443: A. Saichev and  G. Zaslavsky for useful suggestions and discussions.

2444: 

2445: 

2446: 

2447: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2448: 

2449: \bibitem{Geilo} Sornette, D., 

2450: Spontaneous formation of space-time structures and criticality,

2451: Vol. 349 of NATO Advance Study Institute; Series B: Physics, 

2452: edited by T. Roste and D. Sherrington, (Kluwer, Dordrecht; Boston, 1991),

2453: pp.57-106.

2454: 

2455: \bibitem{Rundleklein} Rundle, J.B. and W. Klein, New ideas about the

2456: physics of earthquakes, Reviews of Geophysics 33, 283-286, 1995.

2457: 

2458: \bibitem{Main} Main, I., Statistical physics, seismogenesis and seismic

2459: hazard, Review of Geophysics 34, 433-462, 1996.

2460: 

2461: \bibitem{Sorreview}  Sornette, D.,

2462: Earthquakes: from chemical alteration to mechanical rupture, Physics

2463: Reports 313, 238-291, 1999.

2464: 

2465: \bibitem{Turcottereview} Turcotte, D.L.,

2466: Self-organized criticality, Reports on Progress in Physics 62, 1377-1429, 1999.

2467: 

2468: \bibitem{GR} Gutenberg, B. and C.F. Richter, Frequency of earthquakes

2469: in California,

2470:     Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 34, 185-188, 1944.

2471: 

2472: \bibitem{Omori} Omori, F., On the aftershocks of earthquakes,

2473:     J. Coll. Sci. Imp. Univ. Tokyo 7, 111-120, 1894.

2474: 

2475: \bibitem{Ouillonetal} Ouillon, G., C. Castaing and D. Sornette,

2476: Hierarchical scaling of faulting, J. Geophys. Res. 101 B3, 5477-5487, 1996.

2477: 

2478: \bibitem{KK80} Kagan Y.Y. and L. Knopoff,

2479: Spatial distribution of earthquakes: the two-point correlation

2480: function, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc. 62, 303-320, 1980.

2481: 

2482: 

2483: 

2484: \bibitem{Pissor} Pisarenko, V.F. and D. Sornette,

2485: Characterization of the frequency of extreme events by the Generalized

2486: Pareto Distribution, in press in Pure and Applied Geophysics, 2002

2487: (e-print cond-mat/0011168)

2488: 

2489: 

2490: \bibitem{kaganuniv}  Kagan, Y.Y.,

2491: Universality of the seismic moment-frequency relation,

2492: Pure and Applied Geophysics, 155, 537-573, 1998.

2493: 

2494: \bibitem{Sorbook} Sornette, D., Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences,

2495: 	Springer Series in Synergetics, Heidelberg, 2000.

2496: 

2497: \bibitem{Harrisreview} Harris, R.A., Stress triggers, stress shadows,

2498: and seismic hazard, International Handbook of Earthquake and

2499: Engineering Seismology,

2500: W.H.K. Lee, H. Kanamori, P. C. Jennings, C. Kisslinger, Eds., Chapter

2501: 73, 48 pages, in press.

2502: 

2503: \bibitem{Yamakno} Yamashita, T. and Knopoff, L.,

2504: Models of aftershock occurrence, Geophys. J. Royal Astron. Soc. 91,

2505: 13-26, 1987.

2506: 

2507: \bibitem{Leesor} Lee, M.W. and D. Sornette,

2508: Novel mechanism for discrete scale invariance in sandpile models,

2509: European Physical Journal B 15, 193-197, 2000.

2510: 

2511: 

2512: \bibitem{Huangetal} Huang, Y., H. Saleur, C. G. Sammis, D. Sornette,

2513: Precursors, aftershocks, criticality and self-organized criticality,

2514:     Europhysics Letters 41, 43-48, 1998.

2515: 

2516: \bibitem{Utsu} Utsu, T., Y. Ogata and S. Matsu'ura, The centenary of the

2517:        Omori Formula for a decay law of aftershock activity,

2518:        J. Phys. Earth 43, 1-33, 1995.

2519: 

2520: \bibitem{BathRichter} Bath, M. and C.F. Richter, 

2521: Mechanisms of the aftershocks of

2522: the Kern County, California earthquake of 1952, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.

2523: 48, 133-146, 1958.

2524: 

2525: \bibitem{Beroza} Beroza, G.C. and M.D. Zoback, Mechanism diversity

2526: of the Loma-Prieta aftershocks and the mechanics of mainshock-aftershock

2527: interaction, Science 259, 210-213, 1993.

2528: 

2529: \bibitem{Hill} Hill, D.P. et al., Seismicity remotely triggered by

2530: the magnitude 7.3

2531:             Landers, California, earthquake, Science 260, 1617-23, 1993.

2532: 

2533: \bibitem{Steeples} Steeples, D.W. and D.D. Steeples, Far-field

2534: aftershocks of the 1906	earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 86, 921-924, 1996.

2535: 

2536: 

2537: \bibitem{KJ1} Kagan, Y.Y. and D.D. Jackson,

2538: 	Spatial aftershock distribution: Effect of normal stress,  J.

2539: 	Geophys. Res. 103,  24453-24467, 1998.

2540: 

2541: \bibitem{Meltzner1} Meltzner, A.J. and D.J. Wald,

2542: 	Foreshocks and aftershocks of the great 1857 California earthquake,

2543:     Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 89, 1109-1120, 1999.

2544: 

2545: \bibitem{Dreger} Dreger, D. and B. Savage,

2546: 	Aftershocks of the 1952 Kern County, California, earthquake sequence,

2547:     Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 89, 1094-1108, 1999.

2548: 

2549: \bibitem{SS} Sornette, A. and D. Sornette, Renormalization of

2550: earthquake aftershocks,

2551:     Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 1981-1984, 1999.

2552: 

2553: \bibitem{HS1} Helmstetter, A. and D. Sornette,

2554: 	Sub-critical and Super-critical Regimes in Epidemic Models of

2555: 	Earthquake Aftershocks, J. Geophys. Res, in press, 2002.

2556: 	(http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0109318)

2557: 

2558: \bibitem{SH2} Sornette, D. and A. Helmstetter,

2559: New Mechanism for Finite-Time-Singularity in Epidemic Models of Rupture,

2560: Earthquakes and Starquakes, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 158501 (2002).

2561: (e-print at cond-mat/0112043).

2562: 

2563: \bibitem{Mogi} Mogi K., Sequential occurrences of recent great earthquakes,

2564:     J. Phys. Earth 16, 30, 1968.

2565: 

2566: \bibitem{Imoto} Imoto,M., On migration phenomena of aftershocks

2567:            following large thrust earthquakes in subduction zones,

2568:            Report of the National Research Center for Disaster Prevention,

2569:            25, 29-71, 1981.

2570: 

2571: \bibitem{Chatelain} Chatelain, J.L., R.K. Cardwell and B.L.Isacks,

2572:        Expansion of the aftershock zone following the Vanuatu (New Hebrides)

2573:            earthquake on 15 July 1981,  Geophys. Res. Lett. 10, 385-388, 1983.

2574: 

2575: \bibitem{Tajima1} Tajima, F. and H. Kanamori, Global survey of aftershock area

2576: 	expansion patterns, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 40, 77-134, 1985a.

2577: 

2578: \bibitem{Tajima2} Tajima, F. and H. Kanamori, Aftershock area

2579: expansion and mechanical

2580: 	 heterogeneity of fault zone within subduction zone,

2581:     Geophys. Res. Lett. 12, 345-348, 1985b.

2582: 

2583: \bibitem{Wesson} Wesson, R. L., Modeling aftershock migration and afterslip

2584: of the San Juan Bautista, California, earthquake of October 3, 1972, 

2585: Tectonophysics 144,            214-229, 1987.

2586: 

2587: 

2588: \bibitem{Ouchi} Ouchi, T. and T. Uekawa, Statistical analysis of the

2589: spatial distribution

2590: 	of earthquakes - variation of the spatial distribution of

2591: earthquakes before

2592: 	 and after large earthquakes, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 44,

2593: 211-225, 1986.

2594: 

2595: \bibitem{Noir} Noir, J., E. Jacques, S. Bekri, P.M. Adler, P. Tapponnier, and

2596: 	G.C.P. King,  Fluid flow triggered migration of events in the 1989 Dobi

2597: 	 earthquake sequence of Central Afar.

2598:     Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 2335-2338, 1997.

2599: 

2600: \bibitem{Jacques} Jacques, E, J.C. Ruegg, J.C. Lepine, P. Tapponnier,

2601: G.C.P. King, GCPand A. Omar, Relocation of $M \geq 2$ events of 

2602: the 1989 Dobi seismic sequence in Afar: evidence for earthquake migration.

2603:      Geophys. J. Int. 138, 447-469, 1999.

2604: 

2605: \bibitem{Rydelek}  Rydelek, P.A. and I.S. Sacks, Migration of large earthquakes

2606:            along the San Jacinto fault; stress diffusion from 1857 Fort Tejon

2607:             earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 3079-3082, 2001.

2608: 

2609: 

2610: \bibitem{Nur}  Nur A. and J.R. Booker, Aftershocks caused by pore fluid flow ?

2611:     Science 175, 885-888, 1972.

2612: 

2613: \bibitem{Hudnut} Hudnut K.W., L. Seeber and J. Pacheco, Cross-fault

2614:           triggering in the

2615: 	November 1987 Superstition Hill earthquake sequence, southern

2616:           California,   Geophys. Res. Lett. 16, 199-203, 1989.

2617: 

2618: \bibitem{Diete}  Dieterich, J., Constitutive law for rate of

2619: earthquake production and

2620:            its application to earthquake clustering, J. Geophys. Res. 99,

2621:            2601-2618, 1994.

2622: 

2623: \bibitem{KK} Kagan, Y.Y. and L. Knopoff,

2624:            Statistical short-term earthquake prediction,

2625:            Science 236, 1563-1467, 1987.

2626: 

2627: \bibitem{Ogata1} Ogata, Y., Statistical models for earthquake occurrence

2628: 	and residual analysis for point processes, J. Am. stat.

2629: Assoc. 83, 9-27, 1988.

2630: 

2631: 

2632: \bibitem{YaShi} Yamanaka, Y. and K. Shimazaki, Scaling relationship between

2633:              the number of aftershocks and the size of the mainshock,

2634:             J. Phys. Earth 38, 305-324, 1990.

2635: 

2636: 

2637: \bibitem{Drakatos} Drakatos, G. and J. Latoussakis,

2638:           A catalog of aftershock sequences in Greece (1971, 1997):

2639:           their spatial and temporal characteristics,

2640:           Journal of Seismology 5, 137 (2001).

2641: 

2642: \bibitem{Guo2} Guo, Z. and Y. Ogata, Statistical relations between the

2643:        parameters of aftershocks in time, space and magnitude,

2644:       J. Geophys. Res. 102, 2857-2873, 1997.

2645: 

2646: \bibitem{H02} Helmstetter, A. Is stress triggering driven by small 

2647: 	earthquakes? submitted to Geophys. Res. Lett., 2002.

2648: 

2649: 

2650: \bibitem{Felzer} Felzer, K.R., T.W. Becker, R.E. Abercrombie, G. Ekstr\"om and

2651: J.R. Rice, Triggering of the 1999 $M_W$ $7.1$ Hector Mine earthquake by

2652: aftershocks of the 1992 $M_W$ $7.3$ Landers earthquake,

2653: submitted to the J. Geophys. Res. (Solid Earth)

2654: 

2655: \bibitem{Bath} Bath, M., Lateral inhomogeneities in the upper mantel,

2656:  	Tectonophysics 2, 483-514, 1965.

2657: 

2658: \bibitem{consolebath} Console, R., A.M. Lombardi, M. Murru and D. Rhoades,

2659: Bath's law and the self-similarity of earthquakes, in press

2660: in J. Geophys. Res., 2002.

2661: 

2662: \bibitem{Ogata2} Ogata, Y., Statistical model for standard seismicity and

2663: 	detection of anomalies by residual analysis, Tectonophysics

2664: 169, 159-174, 1989.

2665: 

2666: \bibitem{Ogata3} Ogata, Y., Detection of precursory relative quiescence before

2667:          great earthquakes though a statistical model, J. Geophys. Res.

2668: 97, 19845-19871, 1992.

2669: 

2670: \bibitem{Ogata5} Ogata, Y., Seismicity analysis through point-process

2671: 	modeling : a review, Pure Appl. Geophys. 155, 471-507, 1999.

2672: 

2673: \bibitem{Ogata6} Ogata, Y., Increased probability of large earthquakes near

2674: 	aftershock regions with relative quiescence, J. Geophys. Res.

2675: 106, 8729-8744, 2001.

2676: 

2677: \bibitem{Kagan} Kagan, Y.Y., Likelihood analysis of earthquake catalogues

2678:       Geophys. J. Int. 106, 135-148, 1991

2679: 

2680: 

2681: \bibitem{KJ2} Kagan, Y.Y. and D.D. Jackson, Probabilistic forecasting of

2682: 	earthquakes, Geophys. J. Int. 143, 438-453, 2000.

2683: 

2684: \bibitem{Console} Console, R. and M. Murru, A simple and testable

2685: model for earthquake clustering, J. Geophys. Res. 166, 8699-8711, 2001.

2686: 

2687: \bibitem{Montroll1} Montroll, E.W. and G.H. Weiss, J. Math. Phys., 6,

2688: 167, 1965.

2689: 

2690: \bibitem{Tanguy} Krishnamurthy, S., Tanguy, A., Abry, P. and Roux, S.,

2691: A stochastic description of extremal dynamics,

2692: Europhysics Lett. 51, 1-7, 2000.

2693: 

2694: \bibitem{Ogata4} Ogata, Y., Space-time point process models for earthquake

2695: 	occurrences, Ann. Inst. stat. Math. 50, 379-402, 1998.

2696: 

2697: \bibitem{Grassproca} Grassberger, P. and Procaccia, I.,

2698: Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 346-349, 1983.

2699: 

2700: \bibitem{ScholzMandel} Scholz, C.H. and B.B. Mandelbrot,

2701: Fractals in geophysics, edited by  Basel; Boston; Birkhauser Verlag, 1989.

2702: 

2703: \bibitem{Anneexp} Sornette, A., P. Davy and D. Sornette,

2704: J. Geophys. Res. 98, 12111-12139, 1993.

2705: 

2706: \bibitem{BartonLapointe1} Barton,~C.C. and La Pointe P.R., eds., Fractals in

2707: the Earth Sciences, Plenum Press, New York and London, 1995.

2708: 

2709: \bibitem{Nanjo} Nanjo, K. and H. Nagahama, Spatial distribution of aftershocks

2710: and the fractal structure of active fault systems, Pure Appl. Geophys. 157, 575-588, 2000.

2711: 

2712: 

2713: \bibitem{Ouillonsor} Ouillon,~G. and Sornette,~D.,

2714: Unbiased multifractal analysis: application to fault patterns, Geophys. Res. Lett.

2715: 23,~3409-3412, 1996.

2716: 

2717: \bibitem{Hamburger} Hamburger,~D., Biham,~O and Avnir,~D.,

2718: Apparent fractality emerging from models of random distributions,

2719: Phys. Rev. E 53, 3342-3358, 1996.

2720: 

2721: \bibitem{Eneva} Eneva, M., Effect of limited data sets in evaluating the

2722: scaling properties of spatially distributed data -- An example from mining-induced

2723: seismic activity, Geophys. J. Int.  124, 773-786, 1996.

2724: 

2725: 

2726: \bibitem{Malcai} Malcai,~O., Lidar,~D.A., Biham,~O. and Avnir,~D.,

2727: Scaling range and cutoffs in empirical fractals, Phys. Rev. E 56,~2817-2828, 1997.

2728: 

2729: \bibitem{HSG} Helmstetter, A, D. Sornette and J.-R. Grasso,

2730: 	Mainshocks are aftershocks of conditional foreshocks:

2731: 	How do foreshock statistical properties emerge from aftershock laws,

2732: 	in press in J. Geophys. Res.,

2733: 	(http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0205499) 2002.

2734: 

2735: \bibitem{Montroll12} Montroll, E.W. and H. Scher, J. Stat. Phys., 9 (2),

2736: 101-135, 1973.

2737: 

2738: 

2739: \bibitem{Scher} Scher, H. and E.W. Montroll,

2740: 	Anomalous transit-time dispersion in amorphous solids, Phys.

2741: Rev. B 12, 2455, 1975.

2742: 

2743: \bibitem{Kenkre} Kenkre,V.M.,  E.W. Montroll and M.F. Shlesinger,

2744: J. Stat. Phys. 9, 45, 1973.

2745: 

2746: \bibitem{Shlesinger1} Shlesinger, M.F.,  Asymptotic solutions of

2747: continuous-time random walks, J. Stat. Phys. 10, 421-433, 1974.

2748: 

2749: \bibitem{Weiss1} Weiss, G.H., Aspects and Applications of random

2750: Walk, North Holland, 1994.

2751: 

2752: \bibitem{Hughes} Hughes, B.D.  Random walks and Random Environments,

2753: Oxford University

2754: 	Press, 1995.

2755: 

2756: \bibitem{Meltzner2} Metzler, R. and J. Klafter, The random walk's

2757: guide to anomalous

2758: 	 diffusion:a fractional dynamics approach, Physics Reports 339,

2759: 	 1-77, 2000.

2760: 

2761: \bibitem{Margolin} Margolin, G. and B. Berkowitz, Application of

2762: continuous time	 random	 walks to transport in porous media, 

2763: J. Phys. Chem. 104, 3942-3947, 2000.

2764: 

2765: \bibitem{Berko1} Berkowitz, B. and H. Scher, The role of

2766: probabilistic approaches to

2767: 	transport theory in heterogeneous media, Transport in Porous

2768: 	Media 42 (1-2), 241-263, 2001.

2769: 

2770: 

2771: \bibitem{Redner} Redner,~S., Random multiplicative processes: An elementary

2772: tutorial, Am. J. Phys., 58,~267-273, 1990.

2773: 

2774: \bibitem{Schermarklaber} Scher, H. G. Margolin, R. Metzler, J. Klafter and

2775: B. Berkowitz, The dynamical foundation of fractal stream chemistry: the origin

2776: of extremely long retention times, accepted to Geophys. Res. Lett,

2777: e-print at cond-mat/0202326

2778: 

2779: \bibitem{Kirchner} Kirchner, J.W., X. Feng and C. Neal, Fractal

2780: stream chemistry

2781: and its implications for contaminant transport in catchments, Nature

2782: 403, 524-527, 2000.

2783: 

2784: \bibitem{barkai3} Barkai, E., R. Metzler and J. Klafter, From

2785: continuous time random walks to the fractional Fokker-Planck

2786: equation, Phys. Rev. E 61,

2787: 132-138, 2000.

2788: 

2789: \bibitem{Mathai} Mathai, A.M. and R.K.Saxena, the H-function with applications

2790:            in statistics and other disciplines,

2791:            Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi, 1978.

2792: 

2793: \bibitem{Roman} Roman, H.E. and P.A. Alemany, Continuous-time random

2794: walks and the fractional diffusion equation, J. Phys. A 27, 3407-3410, 1994.

2795: 

2796: \bibitem{barkai1} Barkai, E., Fractional Fokker-Planck equation,

2797: solution and application,

2798:     Phys. Rev. E 63, 046118, 2001a.

2799: 

2800: \bibitem{Budde} Budde, C., D. Prato and M. Re,

2801: 	Superdiffusion in decoupled continuous time random walks,

2802: 	 Phys. Lett. 283, 309-312, 2001.

2803: 

2804: \bibitem{Kot1} Kotulski, M., Asymptotic distributions of

2805: continuous-time random walks -

2806:         - A probabilistic approach, J. Stat. Phys. 81, 777-792, 1995.

2807: 

2808: \bibitem{barkai2} Barkai, E., CTRW pathways to the fractional

2809: diffusion equation, preprint	cond-mat/0108024, 2001b.

2810: 

2811: \bibitem{Saichev} Saichev, A.I. and G.M. Zaslavsky, Fractional

2812: kinetic equations:

2813: 	 solution and applications, Chaos 7 (4), 753-764, 1997.

2814: 

2815: \bibitem{BeOr} Bender, C. M. and S. Orzag,

2816:    	Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers,

2817: Mc. Graw-Hill, 1978.

2818: 

2819: \bibitem{Weiss2} Weiss, G.H. and P.P. Calabrese, Occupation times of

2820: a CTRW on a lattice with anomalous sites, Physica A 234, 443-454, 1996.

2821: 

2822: \bibitem{Sokolov1} Sokolov, I.M., A. Blumen and J. Klafter, Linear

2823: response in complex systems: CTRW and the fractional Fokker-Planck equations,

2824: preprint cond-mat/0107632, 2001.

2825: 

2826: \bibitem{Sokolov2} Sokolov, I.M., Levy flights from a continuous-time process,

2827: Phys. Rev. E 63, 011104, 2001.

2828: 

2829: \bibitem{Bender} Bender, C. M., S. Boettcher and P.N. Meisinger,

2830: Universality in random-walk

2831: 	models with birth and death, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3210-3213, 1995.

2832: 

2833: 

2834: \bibitem{Shaw} Shaw B.E., Generalized Omori law for aftershocks and foreshocks

2835: 	 from a simple dynamics, Geophys. Res. Lett. 20, 907-910, 1993.

2836: 

2837: 

2838: \bibitem{Marsan1} Marsan, D.,  C.J. Bean, S. Steacy and J. McCloskey,

2839: Observation of

2840: 	diffusion processes in earthquake populations and implications for the

2841:           predictability of seismicity systems, J. Geophys. Res. 105,

2842: 28,081-28,094, 2000.

2843: 

2844: 

2845: \bibitem{Marsan2} Marsan, D., C.J. Bean, S. Steacy and J. McCloskey,

2846: Spatio-temporal

2847: 	 analysis of stress diffusion in a mining-induced seismicity system.

2848:     Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 3697-3700, 1999.

2849: 

2850: 

2851: \bibitem{Marsan3} Marsan, D. and C.J. Bean, Average dynamical

2852: seismicity changes following

2853: 	a stress perturbation, for a world-wide catalogue,

2854: 	Submitted to Geophys. J. Int., 2001;

2855: 

2856: \bibitem{Sotolongo} Sotolongo-Costa, O., J.C. Antoranz, A. Posadas, F. Vidal

2857: and A. V\'asquez, L\'evy flights and earthquakes, Geophys. Res. Lett.

2858: 27, 1965-1968, 2000.

2859: 

2860: \end{thebibliography}

2861: 

2862: \newpage

2863: 

2864: \begin{table}[]

2865: \begin{center}

2866: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}

2867:      & ETAS & CTRW  \\ \hline

2868:      $\Psi(t)$ & pdf for a ``daughter'' to be born at time $t$ & pdf of

2869: waiting times \\

2870:      & from the mother that was born at time $0$ &  \\ \hline

2871: $\Phi(\vec r)$ & pdf for a daughter to be triggered & pdf of jump sizes  \\

2872: & at a distance $\vec r$ from its mother & \\ \hline

2873: $m$ & earthquake magnitude & tag associated with each jump \\ \hline

2874: $\rho(m)$ & number of daughters & local branching ratio \\

2875: & per mother of magnitude $m$  &  \\ \hline

2876: $n$ & average number of daughters created per mother & control

2877: parameter of the random \\

2878:        &  summed over all possible magnitudes &   walk survival

2879: (branching ratio) \\ \hline

2880: $n < 1$ & subcritical aftershock regime & subcritical ``birth and

2881: death'' \\ \hline

2882: $n = 1$ & critical aftershock regime & the standard CTRW  \\ \hline

2883: $n > 1$ & supercritical exponentially & explosive regime of the \\

2884: & growing regime & ``birth and death'' CTRW   \\ \hline

2885: $N(t, \vec r)$ &  number of events of any possible & pdf of just having \\

2886: & magnitude at $\vec r$ at time $t$ & arrived at $\vec r$ at time $t$ \\ \hline

2887: $W(t, \vec r)$ & pdf that an event at $\vec r$ has occurred  at a

2888: time $t' \leq t$

2889:       & pdf of being at $\vec r$ at time $t$ \\

2890:            & and that no event occurred anywhere from $t'$ to $t$  &

2891: \end{tabular}

2892: \vspace{5mm}

2893: \caption{\label{table1}  Correspondence between the ETAS 

2894: (Epidemic-type aftershock sequence)

2895: and CTRW (continuous-time random walk) models. `pdf' stands for 

2896: probability density

2897: function.

2898: }

2899: \end{center}

2900: \end{table}

2901: \newpage

2902: 

2903: \begin{table}[]

2904: \begin{center}

2905: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}

2906:                & large $z$               & small $z$   \\

2907:                & $r \ll D~t^H$           & $r \gg D~t^H$ \\ \hline

2908: $\mu<0.5$     & $p=1+\theta$            & $p=1-2\theta$\\

2909: $0.5 \leq \mu<2$ & $p=1-\theta+\theta/\mu$ & $p=1-2\theta$ \\

2910: $2 \leq \mu$       & $p=1-\theta/2$          & not defined  \tablenotemark\\

2911: \end{tabular}

2912: \tablenotetext{The Omori exponent is not defined in this case because the

2913: dependence of $N(t,\vec r)$ with respect to time

2914: given by expression (\ref{exp1}) and represented in Figure \ref{nrtmus2} has

2915: a contribution from the exponential asymptotics which is different

2916: from a power-law for large distances $r \gg D~t^H$.}

2917: \vspace{5mm}

2918: \caption{\label{table2}  Asymptotic values of the (renormalized) Omori

2919: exponent (of the dressed propagator)

2920: in the different regimes for $z\ll 1$ and $z\gg 1$ where $z \equiv {

2921: D~t^{H} \over r}$.

2922: }

2923: 

2924: \end{center}

2925: \end{table}

2926: \newpage

2927: 

2928: 

2929: %FIGURE 1

2930: \begin{figure}

2931: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{Fig1map2811.2.eps}   %jgrmap.2.dat N=30000 mu=1

2932: % programme ETAS2/mapjgr.m

2933: \caption{\label{map} Maps of seismicity generated by the ETAS model

2934: with parameters

2935: $b=1$, $\theta=0.2$, $\mu=1$, $d=1$ km, $\alpha=0.5$, $c=0.001$ day and a

2936: branching ratio $n=1$.

2937: The mainshock occurs at the origin of space with magnitude $M=7$. The minimum

2938:     magnitude is fixed at $m_0=0$.

2939: The distances between mainshock and aftershocks follow a power-law

2940: with parameter

2941: $\mu=1$ and the local (or bare) Omori law is $\propto 1/t^{1+\theta}$.

2942:   According to the theory developed

2943: in the text, the average distance between the first

2944: mainshock and the aftershocks is thus expected to grow as $R \sim t^{H}$

2945: with $H=0.2$ (equation (\ref{mgjgkr})).

2946: The two plots are for different time periods of the same numerical

2947: simulation, such that the same number of earthquakes $N=3000$ is obtained

2948: for each graph: (a) time between $0$ and $0.3$ days;

2949: (b) time between $30$ and $70$ yrs.

2950: Real aftershock sequences are indeed observed to last decades 

2951: up to a century. Large black dots indicate large

2952: aftershocks around which other secondary aftershocks cluster.

2953: The mainshock is shown by a black star. At early times, aftershocks

2954: are localized close to the mainshock, and then diffuse and cluster around the

2955: largest aftershocks.

2956: }

2957: \end{figure}

2958: 

2959: \clearpage

2960: 

2961: %FIGURE 2

2962: \begin{figure}

2963: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{Fig5Nt-2.eps}

2964: \caption{\label{n} Seismicity rate $N(t)$ for the temporal ETAS model

2965: calculated  for $\theta=0.3$ and $c=0.001$ day. The local law $\phi(t) \propto

2966: 1/t^{1+\theta}$, which gives the

2967:    probability distribution of times between an event and its

2968: (first-generation) aftershocks is

2969:     shown as a dashed line.

2970:    The global law $N(t)$, which includes all secondary and successive

2971: aftershocks generated

2972:     by all the aftershocks of the first event, is shown as a solid line for the

2973:      three regimes, $n<1$, $n=1$ and $n>1$.

2974:      In the critical regime $n=1$, the seismicity rate follows a

2975: renormalized or dressed

2976: Omori law $\propto 1/t^p$ for $t>c$ with an

2977: exponent $p=1-\theta$, smaller than the exponent of the local law $1+\theta$.

2978:      In the sub-critical regime ($n<1$), there

2979:      is a crossover from an Omori law $1/t^{1-\theta}$ for $t<t^*$

2980:      to $1/t^{1+\theta}$ for $t>t^*$. In the super critical regime

2981: ($n>1$), there

2982:      is a crossover from an Omori law $1/t^{1-\theta}$ for $t<t^*$ to an

2983:       exponential increase $N(t) \sim \exp(t/t^*)$ for $t>t^*$. We have chosen

2984:       on purpose values of $n=0.9997 <1$ and $n=1.0003 > 1$ very close to $1$

2985:       such that the crossover time $t^* =10^9$ days given by (\ref{tstar}) is

2986:       very large. In real data, such large $t^*$ would be undistinguishable from

2987:       an infinite value corresponding to the critical regime $n=1$.

2988: This representation

2989:       is chosen for pedagogical purpose to make clear the different

2990: regimes occurring

2991:       at times smaller and larger than $t^*$. In reality, we can expect $n$ to

2992:       be significantly smaller or larger than $1$, such that $t^*$ becomes

2993:       maybe of the order of months, years to decades and the observed

2994: Omori law

2995:       will thus lie in the cross-over regime, given an apparent Omori exponent

2996:       anywhere from $1-\theta$ to $1+\theta$.

2997:       }

2998:     \end{figure}

2999: \clearpage

3000: %FIGURE 3

3001: \begin{figure}

3002: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{Fig2D1.eps}

3003: \caption{\label{cordim} Plot of the correlation function of the $3.000$

3004: epicenters generated in the time interval $[30, 70]$ yrs

3005: and shown in the right panel of figure \ref{map}, calculated

3006: following Grassberger-Procaccia's algorithm \cite{Grassproca}, 

3007: as a function of scale $r$, in double-logarithmic scales.}

3008: \end{figure}

3009: 

3010: \clearpage

3011: 

3012: %FIGURE 4

3013: \begin{figure}

3014: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig6Ntrmus2t0.2.eps}   % DIF/pcfdifmus2.m

3015: \caption{\label{nrtmus2} Rate of seismicity $N(t,r)$ in the critical

3016: regime $n=1$

3017:   for $\theta=0.2$, $\mu>2$, $c'=1$ day and $\sigma=1$ km,

3018: evaluated from expressions (\ref{qdsi}) and (\ref{exp1}), plotted as a function

3019:   of the time (a) for different values of the distance $r$ between the mainshock

3020:    and its aftershocks, and (b,c) as a function of $r$ (logarithmic scale

3021:    for $r$ in (b) and linear scale for $r$ in (c)) for different values of

3022:    the time between the mainshock and its aftershocks.

3023:    The temporal decay of seismicity with time is characterized by a

3024: power-law decay

3025:    $ N(r,t) \sim {1 / t^{1-\theta/2}} $ close to the mainshock epicenter or at

3026:     large times for $r \ll D t^{\theta/2}$.

3027:   For large distances $r \gg D t^{\theta/2}$, there is a truncation of the

3028:   power-law decay at early times $t^{\theta / 2} \ll r/D$, because the

3029: seismicity

3030:    has not yet diffused up to the distance $r$.

3031:    Although the distribution of distances between a mainshock and its

3032: direct aftershocks

3033:    $\Phi(r)$ follows a power-law distribution with exponent $1+\mu$,

3034: the log-linear

3035:    graph (c) shows that the global

3036:    rate of aftershocks $N(\vec r,t)$ decreases approximately

3037:    exponentially as a function of

3038:    the distance from the mainshock, with a characteristic distance

3039: that increases with time.

3040:    This is in agreement with expression (\ref{exp1}) which predicts

3041:    $N(t, r) \sim \exp \left[\left( |\vec r| / D t^{\theta/2}

3042: \right)^{2 \over 2-\theta}\right]$,

3043:    i.e., $N(t, r) \sim \exp \left( C(t) |\vec r|^q \right)$ with an

3044:    exponent $q=2 /(2-\theta)$ close to $1$ within the exponential. The

3045: same remark as for

3046:    figure \ref{n} applies: the representation of our predictions for

3047: very large times

3048:    is made for pedagogical purpose to illustrate clearly the different regimes.

3049: }

3050: \end{figure}

3051: 

3052: 

3053: 

3054: \clearpage

3055: 

3056: %FIGURE 7

3057: \begin{figure}

3058: %\psfig{file=HSim811-1.1.ps ,width=16cm}

3059: %\psfig{file=Hdifmu2.5.eps ,width=16cm}  %dif1302-1

3060: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{Fig7dif1203-1H.eps}  %dif1203-1

3061: \caption{\label{poisq} Average distance between the first mainshock and its

3062: aftershocks as a function of the time from the mainshock, for numerical

3063: simulations of the ETAS model in the critical regime $n=1$, generated with the

3064:    parameters $\theta=0.2$, $d=1$ km, $\mu=3$ and $c=10^{-3}$ day.

3065: The theoretical prediction for the diffusion exponent is thus $H=\theta/2=0.1$.

3066: We observe a crossover from a larger exponent at early times when the

3067: mean distance

3068:     is close to the characteristic scale $d=1$ km of the distribution of

3069: distances between

3070:     an aftershock and its progenitor,

3071: to a sub-diffusion with an exponent close to the theoretical prediction at

3072: large times. The solid line is a fit of the numerical data for times $t>10$ days,

3073: which gives an exponent $H=0.12$ slightly larger than the predicted

3074: value $H=0.1$.

3075: }

3076: \end{figure}

3077: 

3078: \clearpage

3079: 

3080: %FIGURE 8

3081: \begin{figure}

3082: %\psfig{file=Hdifmu0.5.eps ,width=16cm}  %  dif1302-2

3083: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{Fig8dif1103-1H.eps}

3084: \caption{\label{poimlksq} Average distance between the first mainshock and its

3085: aftershocks as a function of the time from the mainshock, for a numerical

3086: simulation of the ETAS model in the critical regime $n=1$, with

3087: $\theta=0.2$, $\mu=0.9$, $c'=1$ day and $d=1$ km.

3088: The solid line is a fit of the data which gives an exponent $H=0.25$ in good

3089:   agreement with the predicted value $H=0.22$.}

3090: \end{figure}

3091: 

3092: \clearpage

3093: 

3094: %FIGURE 9

3095: \begin{figure}

3096: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{Fig9Ntrmu0.2t0.2.eps}

3097: \caption{\label{piuonk} Rate of seismicity $N(t,r)$ for $\theta=0.2$,

3098: $\mu=0.2$,

3099:   $c'=1$ day and $\sigma=1$ km,

3100: evaluated from expressions (\ref{njhaagrssjb}) and (\ref{lqps1}),

3101:   plotted as a function of the time (a) for different values of the distance

3102:   $r$ between the mainshock and its aftershocks, and (b) as a function of $r$

3103:   for different values of the time between the mainshock and its aftershocks.

3104: We stress again that the time scales shown here do not necessarily correspond

3105: to real observable time scales but are presented to demonstrate clearly the

3106: existence of the two regimes. The dashed lines give the predicted

3107: asymptotic dependence in each regime.

3108: }

3109: \end{figure}

3110: 

3111: \clearpage

3112: 

3113: %FIGURE 10

3114: \begin{figure}

3115: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{Fig10Ntrmu0.9t0.2.eps}

3116: \caption{\label{piuon} Rate of seismicity $N(t,r)$ for $\theta=0.2$, $\mu=0.9$,

3117:   $c'=1$ day and $\sigma=1$ km, evaluated from expressions (\ref{njhaagrssjb}) and (\ref{lqps1}),

3118:   plotted as a function of the time (a) for diffe

3119: rent values of the distance $r$

3120:    between the mainshock and its aftershocks, and (b) as a function of

3121: $r$ for different

3122:     values of the time between the mainshock and its aftershocks.

3123:    The dashed lines give the predicted

3124: asymptotic dependence in each regime.

3125:     }

3126: \end{figure}

3127: 

3128: %FIGURE 11

3129: \begin{figure}

3130: %\psfig{file=Hdif1202-23.ps ,width=12cm}

3131: %     Sim111-1.dat

3132: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Fig11dif1103-1Ntr.eps}

3133: \caption{\label{poiq}

3134:   Rate of seismicity $N(t,r)$ obtained from numerical simulations of

3135: the ETAS model generated

3136:   with the same parameters as in Figure \ref{piuon} ($\theta=0.2$, $\mu=0.9$,

3137:   $c'=1$ day and $d=1$ km).

3138: $N(r,t)$ is computed by averaging over 500 numerical

3139: realizations of the ETAS model. (a)  aftershock rate as a function of the

3140:   time from the mainshock for several distances

3141: $|\vec r|$ ranging from $0.01$ to $10^4$ km. (b)

3142: Apparent Omori exponent measured for times $t>10$

3143: as a function of the distance from the mainshock.

3144: The aftershock decay rate (with time) is larger close to the

3145: mainshock epicenter

3146: than at large distances from the mainshock. The asymptotic values for small and

3147: large distances are in agreement with the predictions (\ref{leqps5}) for

3148:   $r \ll D t^{\theta/\mu}$ and (\ref{gjjsls}) for $r \gg D

3149: t^{\theta/\mu}$, which

3150:   are shown as the horizontal dashed lines. (c) Rate of seismicity $N(t,r)$

3151:   as a function of the distance between aftershocks and mainshock for various

3152:   times. The theoretical prediction for large distances is shown as

3153: the dashed line

3154:   with slope $-(1+\mu)$.

3155:   }

3156: \end{figure}

3157: 

3158: \clearpage

3159: \clearpage

3160: %FIGURE 12

3161: \begin{figure}

3162: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Fig12H.eps}

3163: \caption{\label{H} Classification of the different regime of the diffusion

3164: of aftershocks in space as a function of time from the main shock.

3165: The bare Omori law for aftershocks decay with time as $1/t^{1+\theta}$.

3166: The jump size distribution between the earthquake

3167: ``mother'' and its ``daughters'' is proportional to

3168: $1/r^{1+\mu}$. $R(t)$ is the average distance between all

3169: aftershocks triggered up to time $t$ after the mainshock.}

3170: \end{figure}

3171: 

3172: \end{document}

3173: 

3174: