Regression between earthquake magnitudes having errors with known variances

Abstract

Recent publications on the regression between earthquake magnitudes assume that both magnitudes are affected by error and that only the ratio of error variances is known. If X and Y represent observed magnitudes, and x and y represent the corresponding theoretical values, the problem is to find the a and b of the best-fit line $y = a x + b$ . This problem has a closed solution only for homoscedastic errors (their variances are all equal for each of the two variables). The published solution was derived using a method that cannot provide a sum of squares of residuals. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the goodness of fit for different pairs of magnitudes. Furthermore, the method does not provide expressions for the x and y. The least-squares method introduced here does not have these drawbacks. The two methods of solution result in the same equations for a and b. General properties of a discussed in the literature but not proved, or proved for particular cases, are derived here. A comparison of different expressions for the variances of a and b is provided. The paper also considers the statistical aspects of the ongoing debate regarding the prediction of y given X. Analysis of actual data from the literature shows that a new approach produces an average improvement of less than 0.1 magnitude units over the standard approach when applied to $M_{w}$ vs. $m_{b}$ and $M_{w}$ vs. $M_{S}$ regressions. This improvement is minor, within the typical error of $M_{w}$ . Moreover, a test subset of 100 predicted magnitudes shows that the new approach results in magnitudes closer to the theoretically true magnitudes for only 65 % of them. For the remaining 35 %, the standard approach produces closer values. Therefore, the new approach does not always give the most accurate magnitude estimates.