HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kristeková, M. Articles by Day, S. M. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Misfit Criteria for Quantitative Comparison of Seismograms

¹ Geophysical Institute
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Dubravska cesta 9
845 28 Bratislava, Slovak Republic
 (M.K.)
² Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics
Comenius University
Mlynska dolina F1
842 48 Bratislava, Slovak Republic
 (J.K., P.M.)
³ Department of Geological Sciences
San Diego State University
San Diego, California 92182
 (S.M.D.)

We have developed and numerically tested quantitative misfit criteria for comparison of seismograms. The misfit criteria are based on the time-frequency representation of the seismograms obtained as the continuous wavelet transform with the analyzing Morlet wavelet. The misfit criteria include time-frequency envelope and phase misfits, time-dependent envelope and phase misfits, frequency-dependent envelope and phase misfits, and single-valued envelope and phase misfits.

We tested properties of the misfit criteria using canonical signals. The canonical signals, taken as the reference signals, were specifically amplitude, phase shift, time shift, and frequency modified to demonstrate the ability of the misfit criteria to properly quantify the misfits and recognize the character and cause of the misfits between the reference and modified signals. In all cases the misfit criteria properly quantified and characterized the misfits.

The misfit criteria were also calculated for four different numerical solutions for a single layer over half-space (the SCEC LOH.3 problem) and the reference FK solution. The misfit criteria provided useful insight into the misfits between individual numerical solutions and the reference solution.

The standard RMS misfit matches the single-valued envelope misfit only in the case of a pure amplitude modification of the signal. In all other cases RMS considerably overestimates the misfits and does not characterize them.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Kristekova, P. Moczo, P. Labak, A. Cipciar, L. Fojtikova, J. Madaras, and J. Kristek Time-Frequency Analysis of Explosions in the Ammunition Factory in Novaky, Slovakia Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2008; 98(5): 2507 - 2516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Kaser, P. M. Mai, and M. Dumbser Accurate Calculation of Fault-Rupture Models Using the High-Order Discontinuous Galerkin Method on Tetrahedral Meshes Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2007; 97(5): 1570 - 1586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Kristek and P. Moczo On the Accuracy of the Finite-Difference Schemes: The 1D Elastic Problem Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2006; 96(6): 2398 - 2414. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]