Reply to “Comment on ‘Two Foreshock Sequences Post Gulia and Wiemer (2019)’ by Kelian Dascher-Cousineau, Thorne Lay, and Emily E. Brodsky” by Laura Gulia and Stefan Wiemer
Reply to “Comment on ‘Two Foreshock Sequences Post Gulia and Wiemer (2019)’ by Kelian Dascher-Cousineau, Thorne Lay, and Emily E. Brodsky” by Laura Gulia and Stefan Wiemer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1785/0220210059
复制
发表时间：
2021-09
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
K. Dascher‐Cousineau;T. Lay;E. Brodsky
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Dascher‐Cousineau;T. Lay;E. Brodsky
Gulia和Wiemer（2019;以下简称GW 2019）提出了一种近实时监测系统来区分前震和余震。我们的分析（Dascher-Rumineau等人，二○二○年;华盛顿特区，2020年）测试了拟议前震地震光系统输出对2019年里奇克雷斯特Mw 7.1和2020年波多黎各Mw 6.4地震序列的参数选择的敏感性。在附带的评论中，Gulia和Wiemer（2021）提出，至少有六种不同的方法偏差导致了不同的伪预期预警水平，特别是对于他们分别评估的里奇克雷斯特余震序列。在此，我们表明，对于六项声称的偏离中的四项，我们符合GW 2019中概述的标准。这里澄清并证明了与规定程序的两个真正偏差。我们的结论与最初一样，强调专家判断对分析结果的影响。
Gulia and Wiemer (2019; hereafter, GW2019) proposed a near-real-time monitoring system to discriminate between foreshocks and aftershocks. Our analysis (Dascher-Cousineau et al., 2020; hereinater, DC2020) tested the sensitivity of the proposed Foreshock Traffic-Light System output to parameter choices left to expert judgment for the 2019 Ridgecrest Mw 7.1 and 2020 Puerto Rico Mw 6.4 earthquake sequences. In the accompanying comment, Gulia and Wiemer (2021) suggest that at least six different methodological deviations lead to different pseudoprospective warning levels, particularly for the Ridgecrest aftershock sequence which they had separately evaluated. Here, we show that for four of the six claimed deviations, we conformed to the criteria outlined in GW2019. Two true deviations from the defined procedure are clarified and justified here. We conclude as we did originally, by emphasizing the influence of expert judgment on the outcome in the analysis.