J Seismol (2017) 21:127135

DOI 10.1007/s10950-016-9589-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Gutenberg-Richter b-value maximum likelihood estimation

and sample size
F. A. Nava & V. H. Mrquez-Ramrez & F. R. Ziga &
L. vila-Barrientos & C. B. Quinteros

Received: 21 November 2015 / Accepted: 23 May 2016 / Published online: 2 June 2016
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract The Aki-Utsu maximum likelihood meth-
od is widely used for estimation of the Gutenberg-
Richter b-value, but not all authors are conscious of
the methods limitations and implicit requirements.
The Aki/Utsu method requires a representative esti-
mate of the population mean magnitude; a require-
ment seldom satisfied in b-value studies, particularly
in those that use data from small geographic and/or
time windows, such as b-mapping and b-vs-time
studies. Monte Carlo simulation methods are used
to determine how large a sample is necessary to
achieve representativity, particularly for rounded
magnitudes. The size of a representative sample
weakly depends on the actual b-value. It is shown
that, for commonly used precisions, small samples
give meaningless estimations of b. Our results give
estimates on the probabilities of getting correct esti-
mates of b for a given desired precision for samples
of different sizes. We submit that all published stud-
ies reporting b-value estimations should include in-
formation about the size of the samples used.
F. A. Nava (*) : L. vila-Barrientos : C. B. Quinteros
Sismologa, Centro de investigacin Cientifica y de Educacin
Superior de Ensenada, Ensenada, B.C., Mexico
e-mail: fnava@cicese.mx
V. H. Mrquez-Ramrez : F. R. Ziga
Centro de Geociencias, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de
Mxico, Juriquilla, Qro., Mexico
V. H. Mrquez-Ramrez
SisVoc, CUC, Universidad de Guadalajara, Puerto Vallarta, Jal.,
Mexico
Keywords Gutenberg-Richter b-value . Maximum
likelihood estimation . Aki/Utsu method
1 Introduction
Possibly the most widely used statistical relation in
seismology is the Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) distribu-
tion (Ishimoto and Iida 1939; Gutenberg and Richter
1944; Richter 1958), which relates the number of
earthquakes above a given magnitude, N(M), to the
magnitude, M, as
log10 N M ab M M 1 ; M M 1; 1
where M1 is a lower threshold below which magnitudes
are not considered. Parameter a is the logarithm of the
total number of earthquakes with magnitude M M1 and
is a constant that depends on the seismicity rate and the
length of the observation time. Parameter b, widely
referred to as the b-value, hereafter referred to as b, is
a constant that relates the relative numbers of small to
large magnitudes. Typically, b 1, and M1 is the com-
pleteness magnitude below which log10 N(M) ceases to
behave linearly due to insufficient coverage (e.g.,
Wiemer and Wyss 2000).
Usually M 1 is estimated from the observed
log10 N(M) or from the noncumulative log10 n(M)
histograms, which requires an adequate magnitude
sample. However, this is not always the case: Some-
times, M1 may be estimated for a given data set and
then used for a different dataset; not uncommon is
the use of the completeness magnitude appropriate
128
for the complete data set of a given seismic network
or array in studies involving subsets of the data.
Since the G-R relation gives estimates for the
occurrence ratio of earthquakes with magnitudes
above a given value, b has been widely used for
seismic hazard and risk estimations (e.g., Bender
1983). An inverse relationship between b and the
stress level in a given region has been proposed
(e.g., Scholz 1968; Ghosh et al. 2008), and several
studies have found possibly premonitory behavior in
the values of b before large earthquakes (e.g., Shaw
et al. 1992; Wyss and Wiemer 2000; Enescu and Ito
2001; Mrquez-Ramirez 2012). Regional variations
of b have been used to identify zones susceptible to
large ruptures (e.g., Wiemer and Wyss 1997; Ziga
and Wyss 2001; Montuori et al. 2010). Since Aki
(1981) proposed a relation between b and the fractal
dimension of fault planes, b has been emplyed in
seismic fractality studies (e.g., Singh et al. 2009).
The many applications of b in seismology, partic-
ularly on the field of seismic hazard estimation,
indicate the necessity of estimating b correctly in
order to obtain meaningful and reliable results. In
what follows, we will address the problem of sam-
pling and the reliability associated with it.
2 The problem
Equation (1) implies that magnitudes are distributed
exponentially as
f M eM M 1 ; M M 1; 2 these cells may not include enough data to yield a
where = b ln(10) (c.f. Epstein and Lomnitz 1966;
Lomnitz 1966, 1974).
Based on the premise of this magnitude distribution,
Aki (1965) showed that the maximum likelihood esti-
mate of b is
log10 e
b 3
M M 1
where M is the observed mean magnitude.
In practice, magnitudes are rounded to some
M, usually M = 0.1, and when magnitudes are
rounded, the actual minimum magnitude is
J Seismol (2017) 21:127135
M1 M/2 and, instead of Eq. (3), Utsus (1965)
formula
log10 e
b 4
M M 1 M =2
is applicable.
Once M1 has been estimated, Eqs. (3) or (4) have been
used as a simple and straightforward way of estimating b,
which is less cumbersome than that of fitting a straight
line to the magnitude histogram. We will refer to this
approach to b-value estimation as the Aki-Utsu method.
However, when using the Aki-Utsu method, it is
often not taken into account that b and M in the
abovementioned formulae are population parameters;
the actual formula used for estimation is
^b log10 e
5
b
M M 1 M =2
where ^b and Mb are estimates, and ^b will agree with b
b is representative of, i.e., reasonably close to,
only if M
the true M . This, in turn, means that M b should be
calculated from an adequate sample, i.e., one that in-
cludes enough data, but in many cases, it is estimated
from too small samples, either because data are scarce or
because no attention is paid to the matter of
representativity.
An example of studies where this problem may ap-
pear is b-mapping, where M1 is estimated for a given
data set in some regin, and then the region is
subdivided in volume elements or cells, and some of
reliable estimate (e.g., Khan 2005; Bhattacharya et al.
2002; Singh and Singh 2015). Another example is the
study of changes in b vs time, where M b is determined
from the data in time windows, and there is a tradeoff
between the length and/or number of data in the time
window and the resolution in time. In these and other
cases, not only data may not be enough, but also the
overall M1 may not be appropriate for all data subsets.
The question arises: How many data are enough for
b
M to be representative and b^ to be reliable? The answer,
of course, depends on the desired precision of ^b; so we
will rephrase the question: What is the minimum num-
ber of data required in a sample, to achieve a desired
precision for ^b with a given probability?
J Seismol (2017) 21:127135 129

This question has been addressed by Shi and Bolt considering magnitudes rounded to M. r is a uniformly
(1982), hereafter referred to as SB, who give an analyt- distributed pseudo-random number in the (0,1) interval,
ical estimate of the ^
b distribution for unrounded magni- generated using the Matlab rand function with the
tudes, as a function of the number of samples N, for Twister generator, discarding magnitudes larger than
stationary b, and for N large enough for Mb to approach a an arbitrary upper limit M2q = 9.2 set to avoid unaccept-
ably large (potentially infinite) magnitudes; since very
normal distribution; the ^b distribution is large magnitudes are very scarce, this limit does not
2 !2 3
  rN b b
significantly affect results.
g ^
b exp4N 1 =25 6 We also tried the doubly truncated Gutenberg-
2 ^ 2
^
b Richter distribution, as
  
How well does Eq. (6) agree with ^b determinations M ln eM 1q r eM 1q eM 2q =;
for samples with small N?
In what follows, we use Monte Carlo methods to but, since both manitude generating schemes yielded
simulate actual sampling in order to explore the distri- essentially the same results, because their outputs differ
bution of ^b for samples of different sizes and different only for very large magnitudes close to M2, and since the
true values of b. Our results let us determine the range of Aki-Utsu estimates assume a singly truncated exponen-
applicability of Eq. (6), explore the effects of small N tial distribution, we present here only the results obtain-
and of magnitude rounding, and establish some quanti- ed from Eq. (7).
tative guidelines for sampling. Figure 1 shows results from 250,000 realizations,
each, of ^b determinations, for a true b = 1.0, from sam-
ples having from 10 to 100,000 data. The thick (blue)
3 Monte Carlo estimation of sampling line shows the mean of all estimated ^b values for each
sample size, and the thin (red) lines show the mean 1
We simulate magnitude sampling, in the (M1, M2) mag- standard deviation (continuous) and 2 standard devia-
nitude range from the Gutenberg-Richter distribution as tions (dashed).
M M 1q lnr=; 7 The graph on the left hand side is for unrounded
magnitudes and shows quantitatively exactly what
where M1q and M2q equal M1 and M2, respectively, would be expected qualitatively; the graph on the
when considering unrounded magnitudes, and equal right side is for magnitudes rounded to the custom-
M 1 M/2 and M 2 + M/2, respectively, when ary 0.1. Both graphs show that estimates from small

Fig. 1 Estimated ^ b vs sample

size N.Unrounded magnitudes
(left). Magnitudes rounded to 0.1
(right). The thick, continuous
(blue) line is the mean of 250,000
realizations for each of various
sample sizes N samples, and the
thin (red) lines indicate mean
value 1 standard deviation
(continuous) and 2 standard
deviations (dashed)
130
samples, besides being probably overestimated, are
really meaningless (i.e., completely unreliable) be-
cause standard deviations are extremely large. The
estimate averages over a large number of realiza-
tions are overestimated, because small magnitudes
are much more numerous than large magnitudes.
Thus, any one ^ b estimation from less than, say,
300 data can take values over a range of several
tenths of a unit with large probability.
While, for large samples, the mean estimate from
unrounded magnitudes converges to the true value, for
rounded magnitudes, large samples lead to an underes-
timation of it, unless a correction for rounding is applied
(see, for example, Mrquez-Ramrez et al. 2015), be-
cause the magnitude value at the center of each class is
not an unbiased representative of the magnitudes in the
class. This is a minor effect that will be ignored in what
follows.
Fig. 2 Synthetic data histograms for 500,000 realizations for
b = 1.0 and classes ^
b 0:010 wide. Graph on the left is for
unrounded magnitudes, and on the right for magnitudes rounded
to M = 0.1. The thick continuous (blue) lines are the
J Seismol (2017) 21:127135
To illustrate how individual estimates can be expect-
ed to behave, we obtained ^b histograms for some repre-
sentative sample sizes, true b-values, and desired preci-
sions. All histograms were obtained from sets of
500,000 realizations for each data set length, and the
corresponding SB analytical distributions are plotted
over the histograms for comparison.
Figure 2 shows, on the left, the histograms (blue,
continuous lines) with classes ^b 0:010 wide, for ^b
estimated from unrounded magnitudes distributed ac-
cording to Eq. (2) for b = 1.00 and different sample
sizes; it also shows the corresponding SB analytical
distributions (red, dashed lines). There is extremely
good agreement between histogram and distribution
for samples with N 100, while for samples below
N 50, the agreement is not so good, because N is not
large enough to fulfill the SB assumptions, but it is not
too bad although the modal values do not coincide. As
histograms,while the dashed (red) lines are the SB distribution.
The vertical solid line indicates the true b-value, and the vertical
dashed line indicates the observed mean value
J Seismol (2017) 21:127135 131

Table 1 Probabilities of obtaining the correct value (Pr), an underestimated value (Pr), and an overestimated value (Pr+) for true b = 1.0,
precisions ^
b 0:010, 0.025, and 0.050, and different sample sizes N

b = 1.0

^b 0:010 ^b 0:025 ^b 0:050

N s Pr Pr Pr+ Pr Pr Pr+ Pr Pr Pr+

^b

10 1.103 0.385 0.462 0.000 0.538 0.462 0.029 0.508 0.434 0.058 0.508
25 1.037 0.214 0.474 0.018 0.508 0.455 0.055 0.489 0.437 0.092 0.470
50 1.015 0.145 0.478 0.026 0.496 0.464 0.066 0.467 0.426 0.144 0.430
100 1.005 0.101 0.485 0.037 0.478 0.457 0.092 0.451 0.403 0.201 0.395
200 1.001 0.071 0.483 0.060 0.457 0.445 0.138 0.418 0.369 0.282 0.349
500 0.998 0.044 0.489 0.087 0.423 0.420 0.221 0.359 0.313 0.424 0.263
1000 0.997 0.031 0.489 0.124 0.387 0.394 0.306 0.300 0.248 0.570 0.182
2000 0.996 0.022 0.486 0.175 0.339 0.354 0.419 0.226 0.170 0.731 0.098
5000 0.996 0.014 0.479 0.266 0.256 0.277 0.605 0.118 0.066 0.913 0.020
10,000 0.996 0.010 0.473 0.353 0.174 0.202 0.752 0.046 0.018 0.981 0.002

Also shown are the mean estimate ^

b and its standard deviation s

Fig. 3 Synthetic data histograms for 500,000 realizations for lines are the histograms, while the dashed (red) lines are the SB
magnitudes rounded to M = 0.1, b = 1.0, and classes ^ b 0:0 distribution. The vertical solid line indicates the true b-value, and
25 (left) and ^b 0:50 (right) wide. The thick continuous (blue) the vertical dashed line indicates the observed mean value
132
Fig. 4 Synthetic data histograms for 500,000 realizations for for
magnitudes rounded to M = 0.1 classes ^ b 0:50 wide, and
b = 0.8 (left) and b = 1.2 (right). The thick continuous (blue) lines
mentioned before, the mean ^b values significantly over-
estimate the true b-values for samples below N 100.
However, as shown on the right in Fig. 2, the situa-
tion is quite different for ^b estimated from the same
magnitudes as in the previous case, rounded now, as is
usual in practice, to one decimal place. The histograms
show gaps due to the fact that means from only a few
rounded magnitudes cannot take all values over the
specified magnitude range; hence, possible magnitude
means result in peaks for the corresponding ^b estimates.
This appearance of preferred values is reduced as sam-
ples get larger, but samples larger than 200 are needed
before the histogram resembles the SB distribution.
Table 1 lists, for each N, the histogram mean and
standard deviation values, as well as the probabilities
     
Pr ^b b , Pr ^ b < b , and Pr ^b > b , denoted by
Pr, Pr, and Pr+, respectively, for each given ^b; these
probabilities are obtained from the Monte Carlo
J Seismol (2017) 21:127135
are the histograms, while the dashed (red) lines are the SB
distribution. The vertical solid line indicates the true b-value, and the
vertical dashed line indicates the observed mean value
realizations, so they should not be interpreted as figures
arrived to analytically, but as probable values that, how-
ever, do not change significantly between different
realizations.
From this table, it can be seen that the probabilities of
getting a correct estimate of b = 1.00 with ^b 0:010
precision are extremely low (<0.1) for samples of up to
500 magnitudes and are low (<0.5) for samples as large
as 10,000. Thus, results from studies claiming to
distiguish changes in b of 0.01 from less than about
20,000 events should be taken with a (large) grain of salt.
Of course, reducing the desired precision increases
the probability of obtaining a correct, albeit less precise,
result. Figure 3 presents histograms for the same round-
ed magnitude data set for ^b 0:025 (left) and ^b
0:050 (right), and the corresponding probabilities are
listed in Table 1. For 0.025 precision, a reasonably good
agreement between histogram and the SB distribution is
obtained for N 100, and estimating the correct b attains
J Seismol (2017) 21:127135 133

Table 2 Same as Table 1 for true b = 0.8

b = 0.8

^b 0:010 ^b 0:025 ^b 0:050

N s Pr Pr Pr+ Pr Pr Pr+ Pr Pr Pr+

^b

10 0.885 0.310 0.457 0.024 0.519 0.434 0.046 0.519 0.412 0.092 0.496
25 0.831 0.172 0.459 0.029 0.511 0.445 0.058 0.497 0.416 0.117 0.467
50 0.814 0.117 0.469 0.042 0.489 0.448 0.084 0.468 0.398 0.176 0.426
100 0.806 0.081 0.471 0.052 0.477 0.435 0.125 0.440 0.372 0.247 0.381
200 0.802 0.057 0.470 0.069 0.461 0.414 0.177 0.409 0.331 0.340 0.329
500 0.799 0.036 0.463 0.112 0.425 0.380 0.273 0.348 0.250 0.518 0.148
1000 0.799 0.025 0.451 0.157 0.391 0.335 0.378 0.286 0.174 0.678 0.148
2000 0.798 0.018 0.433 0.220 0.346 0.276 0.515 0.209 0.093 0.838 0.068
5000 0.798 0.011 0.395 0.338 0.267 0.174 0.726 0.101 0.019 0.972 0.009
10,000 0.798 0.008 0.357 0.456 0.187 0.093 0.873 0.035 0.002 0.998 0.000

an even chance from samples of about 4000 events. For
0.05 precision, 0.5 probability is attained for less than
1000 events, and there is a high probability of a correct
estimation from about 2000 events on.
Since the magnitude population depends on the b-
value, results are slightly different for different values of
b; for considerations of space, we will only show here
the histograms for ^b 0:050, for the representative
values b = 0.80 and b = 1.20 (Fig. 4), and list the
resulting probabilities in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
As can be seen from the histograms and the tables,
for small samples, correct estimation of b is easier and
the fit of the histograms to the SB distribution is better,
for small than for large b-values.
For small samples in all cases, the mean and the
mode in the histograms tell different stories: If a mea-
surement is repeated many (thousands of) times and b is
estimated from the mean, the result would be
overvalued; on the other hand, any single measurement
will probably result in an overvalued estimation.

Table 3 Same as table 1 for true b = 1.2

b = 1.2

^b 0:010 ^b 0:025 ^b 0:050

N s Pr Pr Pr+ Pr Pr Pr+ Pr Pr Pr+

^b

10 1.321 0.458 0.456 0.000 0.544 0.456 0.035 0.509 0.456 0.035 0.509
25 1.241 0.255 0.474 0.022 0.504 0.474 0.022 0.504 0.452 0.066 0.482
50 1.216 0.174 0.492 0.016 0.492 0.476 0.048 0.476 0.445 0.110 0.445
100 1.204 0.120 0.496 0.033 0.471 0.473 0.078 0.449 0.430 0.165 0.405
200 1.198 0.084 0.496 0.048 0.454 0.467 0.118 0.415 0.405 0.233 0.362
500 1.195 0.053 0.513 0.075 0.412 0.454 0.187 0.359 0.363 0.358 0.279
1000 1.194 0.037 0.522 0.104 0.374 0.442 0.258 0.300 0.313 0.487 0.199
2000 1.193 0.026 0.536 0.143 0.321 0.422 0.350 0.230 0.249 0.636 0.115
5000 1.193 0.017 0.556 0.213 0.231 0.380 0.501 0.120 0.144 0.827 0.028
10,000 1.193 0.012 0.584 0.269 0.147 0.335 0.618 0.047 0.067 0.930 0.003
134
4 Discussion
In the results presented above, no correction was made
for the fact that the mean from rounded magnitudes is
not equal to the Btrue^ mean from unrounded magni-
tudes, because the magnitude representative of a given
class is not an unbiased estimator of the magnitudes
contained in the class (e.g., Bender 1983; Tinti and
Mulargia 1987; Mrquez et al. 2015), nor were mean
magnitude estimates corrected for large magnitude sam-
pling. However, such corrections are small and would
not significantly change the results.
From our results, it is clear that results from papers
dealing with b estimates from less than 12,000, 2000,
and 500 magnitude data for precisions of 0.01, 0.025,
and 0.50 magnitude units, respectively, are valueless.
Some papers show results from 10 data, but most do
not even report the amount of data used, so their results
are not reliable; we will not reference here examples of
these useless papers but instead recommend a strong
caveat to the readers of these papers.
Our analysis has considered complete and correct
rounded magnitudes; dealing in practice with incom-
plete data sets and uncertain magnitude estimations
(Kijko 1988; Kijko and Selevoll 1989, 1992) would
require even larger samples.
It is also clear that papers reporting b estimates
should always report the size of the sample(s) used for
estimation, in order that the reader may know how
reliable the measurements are and how likely are results
from small samples to be overvalued.
For spatiotemporal variations in b to be significant,
whatever the method used for mapping (e.g., Wiemer
and Wyss 2002; Kamer and Hiemer 2015), each b map
should have a sister N map.
Acknowledgments We sincerely thank two anonymouis re-
viewers for useful comments and suggestions. Thanks to Dr. J.L.
Brioso for his guidance and patience. Many thanks to Jos Mojarro
for technical support.
References
Aki K (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula
log(N) = a - bM and its confidence limits. Bull Earthq Res
Inst Tokio Univ 43:237239
Aki K (1981) A probabilistic synthesis of precursory phenomena
In: Simpson DW Richards PG (eds) Earthquake prediction:
J Seismol (2017) 21:127135
an international review (vol. 4). American Geophysical
Union, Washington, p 566574
Bender B (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation of b values for
magnitude grouped data. Bull Seism Soc Am 73:831851
Bhattacharya P, Majumdar R, Kayal J (2002) Fractal dimension and
b-value mapping in northeast India. Curr Sci 82:14861491
Enescu B, Ito K (2001) Some premonitory phenomena of the 1995
Hyogo-Ken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake: seismicity, b-value
and fractal dimension. Tectonophysics 338:297314
Epstein B, Lomnitz C (1966) A model for the occurrence of large
earthquakes. Nature 211:954956
Ghosh A, Newman A, Amanda M, Thomas A, Farmer G (2008)
Interface locking along the subduction megathrust from b-
value mapping near Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. Geophys
Res Lett 35:L01301. doi:10.1029/2007GL031617
Gutenberg B, Richter C (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in
California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185188
Ishimoto M, Iida K (1939) Observations sur les seisms enregistrs
par le microseismograph construit dernirement (I). Bull
Earthquake Res Inst Univ of Tokyo 17:443478
Kamer Y, Hiemer S (2015) Data-driven spatial b-value estimation
with applications to California seismicity: to b or not to b.
doi: 10.1002/2014JB011510.
Khan P (2005) Mapping of b-value beneath the Shillong plateau.
GondwanaRes8:271276.doi:10.1016/S1342-937X(05)71126-6
Kijko A (1988) Maximum likelihood estimation of Gutenberg-
Richter b parameter for uncertain magnitude values.
PAGEOPH 127:573579
Kijko A, Selevoll M (1989) Estimation of earthquake hazard
parameters from incomplete data files. Part I. Utilization of
extreme and complete catalogs with different threshold mag-
nitudes. Bull Seism Soc Am 79:645654
Kijko A, Selevoll M (1992) Estimation of earthquake hazard
parameters from incomplete data files. Part II. Incorporation
of magnitude heterogeneity. Bull Seism Soc Am 82:120134
Lomnitz C (1966) Statistical prediction of earthquakes. Rev
Geophys 4:377393
Lomnitz C (1974) Global tectonics and earthquake risk. Elsevier
Sc. Pub. Co., CH.
Mrquez-Ramrez V. (2012) Anlisis multifractal de la
distribucin espacial de sismicidad y su posible aplicacin
premonitora. Exploracin de un posible mecanismo para la
fractalidad mediante modelado semiestocstico. PhD Thesis,
Programa de Posgrado en Ciencias de la Tierra, Centro de
Investigacin Cientfica y de Educacin Superior de
Ensenada, Baja California, Mxico.
Mrquez-Ramrez V, Nava F, Ziga F (2015) Correcting the
Gutenberg-Richter b-value for effects of rounding and noise.
Earthq Sci 28:129134. doi:10.1007/s11589-015-0116-1
Montuori C, Falcone G, Murru M, Thurber C, Reyners M,
Eberhart-Phillips D (2010) Crustal heterogeneity highlighted
by spatial b-value map in the Wellington region of New
Zealand. Geophys J Int 183:451460. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
246X.2010.04750.x
Richter C (1958) Elementary seismology. W H Freeman and Co, USA
Scholz C (1968) The frequency-magnitude relation of
microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 58:399415
Shaw E, Carlson J, Langer J (1992) Patterns of seismic activity
preceding large earthquakes. J Geophys Res 97(B1):479488
J Seismol (2017) 21:127135
Shi Y, Bolt B (1982) The stand ard error of th e
magnitude-frequency b value. Bull Seismol Soc Am
72:16771687
Singh C, Singh S (2015) Imaging b-value variation beneath the
Pamir-Hindu Kush region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:808
815. doi:10.1785/0120140112
Singh C, Singh A, Chadha R (2009) Fractal and b-value mapping
in Eastern Himalaya and Southern Tibet. Bull Seismol Soc
Am 99:35293533. doi:10.1785/0120090041
Tinti S, Mulargia F (1987) Confidence intervals of b-values
for grouped magnitudes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:
21252134
Utsu T (1965) A method for determining the value of b in a formula
329 log n = a - bM showing the magnitude-frequency relation
for 330 earthquakes. Geophys Bull Hokkaido Univ 13:
99103
135
Wiemer S, Wyss M (1997) Mapping the frequency-magnitude
distribution in asperities: an improved technique to calculate
recurrence times? J Geophys Res 102(B7):1511515128
Wiemer S, Wyss M (2000) Minimum magnitude of completeness
in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the Western
United States, and Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:859869
Wiemer S, Wyss M (2002) Mapping spatial variability of the
frequency-magnitude distribution of earthquakes. Adv
Geophys 45:259302
Wyss M, Wiemer S (2000) Change in the probability for earth-
quakes in southern California due to the Landers magnitude
7.3 earthquake. Science 290:1334
Ziga R, Wyss M (2001) Most-and least-Likely locations of large
to great earthquakes along the Pacific coast of Mexico esti-
mated from local recurrence times based on b-values. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 91:17171728