Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/8636
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorallLolli, B.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italiaen
dc.contributor.authorallGasperini, P.; Università di Bolognaen
dc.date.accessioned2013-04-17T07:54:50Zen
dc.date.available2013-04-17T07:54:50Zen
dc.date.issued2012-08en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2122/8636en
dc.description.abstractUntil a decade ago, regression analyses for conversions between different types of magnitude were using only the ordinary least squares method,which assumes that the independent variable is error free, or the simple orthogonal regression method,which assumes equal uncertainties for the two variables. The recent literature became aware of the inadequacy of such approaches and proposes the use of general orthogonal regression methods that account for different uncertainties of the two regression variables. Under the common assumption that only the variance ratio η between the dependent and independent variables is known, we compared three of such general orthogonal regression methods that have been applied to magnitude conversions: the chi-square regression, the general orthogonal regression, and the weighted total least squares. Although their formulations might appear quite different, we show that, under appropriate conditions, they all compute almost exactly the same regression coefficients and very similar (albeit slightly different) formal uncertainties. The latter are in most cases smaller than those estimated by bootstrap simulation but the amount of the deviation depends on the data set and on the assumed variance ratio.en
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Union project SHARE (Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe) within the ambit of Task 3.1‘European Earthquake Database’.en
dc.language.isoEnglishen
dc.publisher.nameWiley-Blackwellen
dc.relation.ispartofGeophysical Journal Internationalen
dc.relation.ispartofseries/190 (2012)en
dc.subjectEarthquake source observations; Statistical seismologyen
dc.titleA comparison among general orthogonal regression methods applied to earthquake magnitude conversionsen
dc.typearticleen
dc.description.statusPublisheden
dc.type.QualityControlPeer-revieweden
dc.description.pagenumber1135-1151en
dc.subject.INGV04. Solid Earth::04.06. Seismology::04.06.06. Surveys, measurements, and monitoringen
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05530.x.en
dc.description.journalTypeJCR Journalen
dc.description.fulltextrestricteden
dc.relation.issn0956-540Xen
dc.relation.eissn1365-246Xen
dc.contributor.authorLolli, B.en
dc.contributor.authorGasperini, P.en
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italiaen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversità di Bolognaen
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextrestricted-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italia-
crisitem.author.deptUniversità di Bologna-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-4186-9055-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-5314-0563-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.classification.parent04. Solid Earth-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
Appears in Collections:Article published / in press
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat Existing users please Login
09_Lolli_Gasperini_2012_GJI.pdfmain article467.41 kBAdobe PDF
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

222
checked on Apr 17, 2024

Download(s)

25
checked on Apr 17, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric