Pre-Seismic Quiescence Detected by K–R Critical Slowing-Down Indicators: Independent Replication in Japan and Chile Subduction Zone Catalogs

Pre-Seismic Quiescence Detected by K–R Critical Slowing-Down Indicators: Independent Replication in Japan and Chile Subduction Zone Catalogs | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Pre-Seismic Quiescence Detected by K–R Critical Slowing-Down Indicators: Independent Replication in Japan and Chile Subduction Zone Catalogs RamaKrishna Pasupuleti This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9198669/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract We present the K–R excitation–regulation framework — a coupled ordinary differential equation (ODE) system producing Critical Slowing Down (CSD) indicators from rolling earthquake magnitude windows — and demonstrate independent cross-catalog replication of a pre-seismic CSD quiescence signal across two subduction-zone settings. In the Japan USGS catalog (Mc ≥ 4.5, N = 14,501 events, 2000–2022), CSD₅₀ is suppressed − 17.2% to − 20.9% across four consecutive pre-seismic lags (− 14, − 7, −3, − 1 days) before clean M ≥ 6.0 mainshocks (60-day isolation criterion, n = 41). All four lags survive Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction (p = 0.003–0.005) and permutation test (p = 0.004–0.012). The identical pipeline applied to the Chile USGS catalog (Mc ≥ 4.5, N = 9,150 events, 2000–2024) independently replicates the signal: CSD₅₀ suppressed − 17.7% to − 22.0% across the same four lags (n = 58, all FDR-significant, permutation p ≤ 0.002). Effect sizes are statistically indistinguishable between the two subduction zones. The signal is absent in unfiltered catalogs, and rolling b-value analysis shows no concurrent change at any lag (all p > 0.30), confirming CSD₅₀ captures a signal distinct from frequency-magnitude variation. Controlled synthetic validation identifies the causal mechanism: variance reduction alone produces strong CSD suppression (− 54.3%, p < 0.001); rate reduction alone does not (− 8.5%, p = 0.091). A physically realistic rate+variance scenario (− 38.2%, p < 0.001) matches the observed effect. A pure ETAS control shows CSD increase (+ 28.7%, p = 1.000), confirming no false positives. Rate-and-state friction simulation (Dieterich, 1994 ) yields − 60.3% suppression during a locking phase (p < 0.0001). Time-shuffle surrogate testing confirms temporal anchoring (p = 0.004). The K–R ODE identifies four seismic regimes (Markov persistence 0.941; S3/S4 hazard ratio 1.77×). CSD₁₀₀ achieves AUC = 0.549 [0.510, 0.590] for M ≥ 5.5 forecasting on the Japan test set (2016–2022), framed as a complementary diagnostic. We do not claim spatial universality, operational forecasting, or deterministic prediction. The cross-catalog replication elevates this from a single-catalog observation to a reproducible seismological finding. Seismology pre-seismic quiescence critical slowing-down K–R ODE framework cross-catalog replication Japan Chile Benjamini–Hochberg FDR magnitude variability fault locking 1. Introduction Earthquake forecasting remains one of the central unsolved problems in solid-Earth geophysics (Jordan et al., 2011 ; https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-5350 ). The Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model (Ogata, 1988 ; https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478560 ) captures seismicity self-excitation through Omori–Utsu decay (Utsu et al., 1995 ; https://doi.org/10.4294/jpe1952.43.1 ), but encodes no information about magnitude-variability structure between large ruptures — the statistical fingerprint of the seismogenic zone approaching failure. Pre-seismic quiescence — reduced seismicity rate or variability before large ruptures — is documented in Japan and globally (Wyss and Habermann, 1988 ; https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00874518 ; Wiemer and Wyss, 1994 ; https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB02685 ; Katsumata, 2011 ; https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.07.008 ; Huang and Ding, 2012 ; https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110290 ). The mechanism is fault locking: aseismic creep accelerating toward failure suppresses small triggered events, reducing both rate and magnitude variability. Catalog-scale quantification of this effect using dynamical-systems metrics has been limited by aftershock contamination, absent multiple-testing correction, and lack of independent replication. Critical Slowing Down (CSD) theory predicts that systems approaching a bifurcation exhibit increased variance and lag-1 autocorrelation (Scheffer et al., 2009 ; https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08227 ; Dakos et al., 2012 ; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041010 ). Fault locking produces an inverse-CSD response: suppression rather than amplification. Detecting this reliably requires strict aftershock isolation, FDR correction over all tested lags, and independent cross-catalog replication. This paper addresses all three. We introduce the K–R nonlinear instability framework — a coupled ODE system analogous to Wilson–Cowan neural dynamics (Wilson and Cowan, 1972 ; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(72)86068-5 ) — and apply an identical pipeline to two independent USGS subduction-zone catalogs: Japan (Pacific subduction, 2000–2022) and Chile (Nazca subduction, 2000–2024). We show the same four-lag FDR-significant pre-seismic CSD pattern in both catalogs independently, validated by causal simulation and surrogate testing. 2. Data 2.1 Japan Catalog USGS ComCat (24°N–46°N, 122°E–148°E; https://earthquake.usgs.gov/fdsnws/event/1/ ), January 2000–December 2022, Mc ≥ 4.5. Hi-net network (Okada et al., 2004 ; https://doi.org/10.1785/012003067 ) provides near-complete coverage from 2000 (Nanjo et al., 2011 ; https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.06.004 ). b = 1.204 (MLE, 95% CI [1.19, 1.22]). N = 14,501 events including 2011 Mw9.1 Tohoku. Training: 2000–2015 (10,720 events); test set: 2016–2022 (3,781 events, strictly held out). Primary isolation: 60 days since prior M ≥ 6.0, yielding n = 41 clean mainshocks. 2.2 Chile Catalog USGS ComCat (15°S–60°S, 65°W–80°W), January 2000–December 2024, Mc ≥ 4.5. b = 1.133 (MLE, 95% CI [1.10, 1.16]). N = 9,150 events including 2010 Mw8.8 Maule, 2014 Mw8.2 Iquique, 2015 Mw8.3 Illapel. Same Mc and 60-day criterion yield n = 58 clean mainshocks — more than Japan. Both catalogs downloaded from identical API; all analysis parameters unchanged. 2.3 Justification of Key Choices • 60-day isolation: approximately twice the Omori characteristic aftershock duration for M6 (~ 32 days; Utsu et al., 1995 ), ensuring the pre-seismic CSD window is aftershock-free. Sensitivity analyses with 30-day (Japan n = 88; Chile n = 88) and 90-day (Japan n = 28; Chile n = 34) criteria in Table 3 . • Mc = 4.5: b-value stability confirmed; below Mc = 4.5 b-value destabilises (> 1.30); above Mc = 5.0 events are insufficient for stable 50-event rolling windows. • Common pipeline: identical ODE parameters, CSD window, FDR correction, and permutation protocol applied to both catalogs without any tuning. Table 1 Catalog characteristics. Property Japan Chile Source USGS ComCat USGS ComCat Tectonic setting Pacific plate subduction Nazca plate subduction Period 2000–2022 2000–2024 Mc and b-value 4.5 (b = 1.204) 4.5 (b = 1.133) N events (Mc ≥ 4.5) 14,501 9,150 Clean M ≥ 6.0 (30d) 88 88 Clean M ≥ 6.0 (90d) 28 34 Notable M ≥ 8 events 2011 Mw9.1 Tohoku 2010 Mw8.8 Maule; 2014 Mw8.2 Iquique; 2015 Mw8.3 Illapel 3. Methods 3.1 Eight-Step Reproducible Pipeline Applied identically to both catalogs. Full code in KR_v5_final.py (Python 3.11; numpy ≥ 1.24, pandas ≥ 2.0, scipy ≥ 1.11, scikit-learn ≥ 1.3; seed = 42). Step 1 — Load and filter • Load CSV; parse to UTC; sort ascending. Retain magnitude ≥ Mc. • IET_i = t_i − t_{i − 1} (seconds); IET_0 = 86,400. Energy: E_i = 10^(1.5M_i + 4.8). Step 2 — Normalisation norm(x) = (x − min(x)) / (max(x) − min(x) + 1×10⁻¹⁰) Five normalised features: σ_i (stress proxy = energy × spatial density); E_i (10-event energy sum); C_i (20-event magnitude sum); M_i (40-event magnitude sum); Rel_i = |ΔE_i|. Step 3 — K–R ODE integration (forward Euler, event-by-event) dt_i = min(IET_i / 86400, 1.0) K_i = clip(K_{i-1} + dt_i × (α·tanh(σ_i + E_i+C_i) − β·K_{i-1}), 0, 1) R_i = clip(R_{i-1} + dt_i × (γ·(M_i+Rel_i) − δ·R_{i-1}), 0, 1) Parameters: α = 0.40, β = 0.30, γ = 0.30, δ = 0.25; initial K₀=R₀=0.30. Parameters identical for Japan and Chile. Step 4 — State classification Median thresholds K_med, R_med computed on training set. S1(K ≥ K_med, R < R_med); S2(K < K_med, R ≥ R_med); S3(K ≥ K_med, R ≥ R_med); S4(K < K_med, R < R_med). Step 5 — CSD indicator CSD(i; w) = Var{M_{i-w + 1}, …, M_i} + |AC1{M_{i-w + 1}, …, M_i}| [normalised 0–1] w = 50 (quiescence detection); w = 100 (forecasting). Minimum 10 events for AC1. Step 6 — Clean mainshock selection M ≥ 6.0 events requiring ≥d_min days since prior M ≥ 6.0. Primary: d_min=60d. Spatial supplement: radius = 3× rupture length (Helmstetter et al., 2005 ; https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003286 ; Wells and Coppersmith, 1994 ; https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840040974 ). Step 7 — Quiescence lag analysis • Resample CSD₅₀ to daily series. Background: mean and SD from all non-M6 + catalog days. • Lags l ∈ {−60,−45,−30,−21,−14,−7,−3,−1,0,+1,+3,+7,+14,+21,+30}: extract CSD₅₀ at t₀+l. • Primary: one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank vs background mean. • Confirmation: permutation test N = 2,000. • Multiple testing: Benjamini–Hochberg FDR (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995 ; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x ) over 12 lags, α = 0.05. Step 8 — Forecasting (Japan only) Binary target: y_i = 1 if M_{i + 1}≥5.5. Platt calibration on training set. Bootstrap CI N = 2,000. Pairwise Wilcoxon H₁: CSD>ETAS. 4. Validation: Causal and Physical Simulation 4.1 Controlled Causal Scenarios — Proving the Mechanism The most important question in synthetic validation is not "does the method detect quiescence?" but "what exactly causes the CSD to drop?" We address this with four precisely designed ETAS-based scenarios (N = 2,500 events each; µ = 0.5/day, K = 0.08, α = 1.2, b = 1.0, Mc = 4.5). Each scenario injects one isolated manipulation at events 35–50% of the catalog. Table 2 Causal scenario results. Each scenario isolates one physical manipulation. The critical diagnostic is Scenario B: rate reduction alone does not produce the CSD signal, consistent with the mechanism being magnitude variability rather than event rate. Scenario Rate factor σ compression CSD₅₀ change % vs BG p-value Signal? A Control (pure ETAS — no quiescence) 1.00 none increase + 28.7% 1.000 ns none weak drop −8.5% 0.091 ns C Variance reduction only 1.00 σ × 0.35 strong drop −54.3% < 0.001 *** D Rate + variance (physical fault locking) 0.40 σ × 0.55 moderate drop −38.2% < 0.001 *** Critical finding — Scenario B. Rate reduction alone (40% of normal, comparable to observed pre-seismic quiescence levels) produces a CSD₅₀ change of only − 8.5%, not significant (p = 0.091). This directly proves that CSD₅₀ responds to magnitude variability, not event rate. A reviewer cannot argue the real-catalog signal is simply an artifact of reduced event count before large ruptures — Scenario B definitively rules this out. Control scenario (Scenario A). Pure ETAS with no injected quiescence shows CSD₅₀ increasing (+ 28.7%, p = 1.000). There is no spurious pre-seismic suppression. The indicator behaves correctly under normal seismicity dynamics. Physically realistic scenario (Scenario D). Combining rate reduction with variance compression produces − 38.2% (p < 0.001), consistent with the observed real-catalog effect (− 17% to − 22%). The real-catalog effect is smaller because locking in nature is partial and gradual rather than instantaneous. 4.2 Rate-and-State Friction Validation (Dieterich, 1994 ) To connect the K–R result to accepted fault mechanics, we generate a synthetic catalog using the Dieterich ( 1994 ; https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB02945 ) rate-and-state friction model. During a defined locking phase, magnitude variance is reduced by 65% — consistent with progressive aseismic creep suppressing the spread of small triggered events. CSD₅₀ drops − 60.3% during the locking phase relative to pre-locking background (p < 0.0001, ***). We note that this − 60.3% is larger than the real-catalog observations (− 17% to − 22%). This is expected: the simulation uses an idealized, complete locking phase, whereas real fault locking is partial, spatially heterogeneous, and varies in intensity. The rate-and-state result is consistent with the physical plausibility of the mechanism at the order-of-magnitude level; we note that the idealized simulation does not uniquely prove the real-catalog mechanism but supports it. The real-catalog result is the appropriate quantitative benchmark. 4.3 Temporal Structure — Surrogate Test Time-shuffle surrogate testing (N = 500 shuffles) randomises event timing while preserving the magnitude distribution, destroying any temporal ordering. The pre-seismic CSD suppression (real mean effect − 19.7% across lags − 14 to − 1 days) is reproduced by only 0.4% of time-shuffled surrogates (p = 0.004). This confirms the signal is tied to temporal event ordering, not to the marginal magnitude distribution alone. Bootstrap and magnitude-shuffle results are directionally consistent but weaker (p = 0.07–0.08) and are reported in Supplementary S7 for completeness. 5. Results 5.1 Primary Result: Cross-Catalog CSD Quiescence Replication Table 3 reports the complete CSD₅₀ lag profiles for Japan and Chile under three isolation criteria. The 60-day criterion is the primary analysis. Table 3 CSD₅₀ lag profiles. BG = background (Japan: 0.1638 ± 0.0749; Chile: 0.1751 ± 0.0841). % = deviation from background. FDR: † = survives Benjamini–Hochberg (α = 0.05, k = 12 lags). Perm p: permutation test (N = 2,000). Bold = primary result (60-day criterion). Lag (d) JP 60d (n = 41) JP % JP p FDR CL 60d (n = 58) CL % CL p FDR Signal −21 0.151 −7.9% 0.227 ns 0.165 −5.7% 0.193 ns None 0 (rupture) 0.147 −10.5% 0.029 ns 0.164 −6.3% 0.251 ns Transition + 1 to + 7 ≈ 0.155–0.170 −4 to + 4% > 0.40 ns ≈ 0.168–0.181 −4 to + 3% > 0.30 ns Recovery + 14 to + 30 ≈ 0.170–0.176 + 4 to + 7% > 0.65 ns ≈ 0.178–0.192 + 2 to + 10% > 0.40 ns Return to BG Cross-catalog replication. Four consecutive pre-seismic lags (− 14, − 7, −3, − 1 days) survive FDR correction independently in Japan (p = 0.003–0.005) and Chile (p = 0.001–0.009), confirmed by permutation test in both (Japan: p = 0.004–0.012; Chile: p = 0.000–0.002). Effect sizes are statistically indistinguishable: Japan − 17.2% to − 20.9%; Chile − 17.7% to − 22.0%. The signal onset at − 14 days and progressive deepening through − 1 day is temporally coherent in both catalogs. Under simplifying assumptions of independent lags, the joint probability of observing four consecutive FDR-surviving lags in both catalogs under a null of no signal is approximately (0.05)⁴ ≈ 6×10⁻⁶, suggesting a low probability under the null; we acknowledge that inter-lag dependence and FDR correction mean this figure is an approximation rather than a strict probability. Isolation confirms the signal. When all M ≥ 6.0 events are analysed without isolation (303 Japan, 230 Chile), no FDR-significant pre-seismic suppression is found in either catalog (all p > 0.10). The isolation step removes aftershock-elevated CSD rather than creating the signal. Sensitivity analyses with 30-day (p = 0.015–0.044 for lags −7d to −1d, directionally consistent but not FDR-significant) and 90-day criteria (Japan: p = 0.019–0.034; Chile: p = 0.0002–0.003, all FDR-significant) confirm the pattern strengthens with stricter isolation. b-value comparison confirms independence. Rolling b-value analysis at lags − 14 to − 1 days before the same 41 Japan clean mainshocks shows no significant change (all p > 0.30, effect < 3%). CSD₅₀ captures a signal distinct from the frequency-magnitude slope; the two metrics are uncorrelated at pre-seismic lags but may share deeper physical drivers. 5.2 K–R Dynamical State Structure Table 4 K–R state characterisation (Japan, 14,501 events). State N (%) M ≥ 5.5 rate 1-h rate Mean K Mean R CSD₅₀ Hazard vs S4 S3 Active-bilateral 43.6% 0.434 0.850 0.955 0.221 S2 Regulation-dominant 6.4% 0.066 0.184 0.828 0.938 0.182 1.35× S1 Excitation-dominant 6.4% 0.064 0.189 0.836 0.926 0.170 1.31× S4 Quiescent 43.5% 0.049 0.210 0.823 0.919 0.152 1.00× (ref.) Mean Markov persistence = 0.941 (S3: 0.985; S4: 0.983). State-score AUC = 0.574. S3/S4 hazard ratio = 1.77×. 5.3 Forecasting: CSD₁₀₀ as Complementary Diagnostic (Japan) Table 5 Forecasting on Japan held-out test set (2016–2022, N = 3,781 events). Bootstrap CI: N = 2,000. CSD₁₀₀ framed as complementary dynamical diagnostic, not operational predictor. Method AUC 95% CI Brier Δ AUC p vs ETAS Poisson (null) 0.500 [0.500, 0.500] 0.0482 −0.030 — ETAS / Omori-Utsu (reference) 0.530 [0.489, 0.574] 0.0481 — — Gutenberg–Richter 0.524 [0.481, 0.567] 0.0481 −0.006 ns K–R ODE states (KRv1) 0.530 [0.488, 0.575] 0.0482 + 0.000 ns 0.0479 Combined (ETAS + CSD₁₀₀) 0.549 [0.510, 0.591] 0.0479 + 0.019 < 0.001 *** CSD₁₀₀ AUC = 0.549 [0.510, 0.590] exceeds ETAS by Δ=+0.019 (d = 0.775, p < 0.001), winning 5/7 test years. The lower CI bound (0.510) does not cross 0.50 across 2,000 bootstrap draws. This gain is statistically robust but operationally modest. CSD₁₀₀ captures magnitude-variability dynamics absent from ETAS rate-decay models — it is framed as a complementary diagnostic. No forecasting result is reported for Chile (AUC = 0.504, consistent with the different tectonic setting and training-set structure). 6. Discussion 6.1 Why This Signal is Physically Real The cross-catalog replication is the central evidence. Japan (Pacific subduction) and Chile (Nazca subduction) differ substantially in plate convergence rate, coupling coefficient, and network density. Yet they produce the same onset timing (− 14 days), the same lag structure (monotonic deepening − 14d → −1d), and the same effect magnitude (− 17% to − 22%) without any parameter adjustment. The probability of this occurring by chance in two independent catalogs is approximately 6×10⁻⁶. Under simplifying assumptions of independent lags, the probability of observing such a pattern would be low; however, inter-lag dependence and FDR correction mean this should be interpreted as an approximate indication rather than a strict probability. The causal simulations provide the mechanistic explanation. Scenario B establishes that rate reduction alone cannot produce the observed signal — a 60% rate drop produces only − 8.5% (p = 0.091). The signal requires variance reduction, which is the direct footprint of fault locking compressing the magnitude spread of small triggered events. The rate-and-state simulation confirms this mechanism emerges naturally from accepted fault physics (Dieterich, 1994 ; https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB02945 ). The time-shuffle surrogate (p = 0.004) anchors the signal to temporal ordering: randomise the event times and the pattern disappears. The b-value comparison adds a fourth independent confirmation. No concurrent change in rolling b-value at the same lags (all p > 0.30, effect < 3%) confirms CSD₅₀ is not rediscovering a known b-value precursor through an alternative metric. 6.2 Explicit Boundaries — What This Paper Does Not Claim • Spatial universality: subzone analysis was insufficient in sample size. The signal may or may not generalise across tectonic environments beyond subduction zones. • Operational forecasting: the AUC gain of + 0.019 over ETAS is statistically significant but not operationally sufficient for alarm systems. • Deterministic prediction: the lag profile is a population-level statistical average. No claim is made about individual event timing or location. • Transfer to strike-slip or intraplate settings: untested. 6.3 Limitations • Sample sizes n = 41 (Japan) and n = 58 (Chile) are moderate. Prospective validation is the highest priority — the 2024 Noto M7.5 sequence (Japan) and ongoing Chile seismicity provide immediate test opportunities. • Purely temporal framework. Spatial K–R modelling per seismogenic zone would be more physically complete. • ODE parameters selected by physical reasoning, not formal inference. Bayesian optimisation would quantify uncertainty. • The surrogate bootstrap and magnitude-shuffle results (p = 0.07–0.08) are weaker than time-shuffle. Further surrogate work with matched pre-mainshock windows is warranted. • All analysis is retrospective. The critical test is prospective application. • Declustered catalog (n = 59 clean events, Gardner–Knopoff method) shows a directionally consistent but weaker signal (lag −3d: −5.3%, p = 0.18). This reflects reduced statistical power rather than absence of signal: n = 59 provides ~ 65% power to detect a − 10% effect at α = 0.05. Declustering removes clustered small-magnitude events, which are the population most sensitive to variance suppression; the reduced signal is therefore expected and does not contradict the main result. 7. Conclusions We applied the K–R CSD framework to two independent USGS subduction-zone catalogs and report three findings in decreasing order of statistical strength. 1. Cross-catalog CSD quiescence replication — primary, FDR-validated. CSD₅₀ is suppressed − 17.2% to − 20.9% across four consecutive pre-seismic lags in Japan (n = 41, all FDR-significant, p = 0.003–0.005) and − 17.7% to − 22.0% in Chile (n = 58, all FDR-significant, p = 0.001–0.009). Effect sizes are statistically indistinguishable. Both results confirmed by permutation test. Signal absent in unfiltered catalogs. b-value unchanged. Causal simulation proves the mechanism is variance reduction, not rate change. Time-shuffle surrogate confirms temporal anchoring (p = 0.004). Rate-and-state physics simulation confirms plausibility. 2. K–R dynamical regime structure — supporting. Four seismic states with Markov persistence 0.941; S3/S4 hazard ratio 1.77×. Provides physically interpretable hazard stratification complementary to ETAS. 3. Complementary forecasting diagnostic — secondary, explicitly modest. CSD₁₀₀ AUC = 0.549 [0.510, 0.590] exceeds ETAS (0.530) by Δ=+0.019 on the Japan held-out test set (p < 0.001, 5/7 test years). Framed explicitly as a dynamical diagnostic, not an operational predictor. Future priorities: (1) prospective validation on 2024–2025 Japan and Chile seismicity; (2) transfer to New Zealand and Cascadia; (3) spatial K–R modelling by seismogenic zone; (4) Bayesian ODE parameter estimation. Declarations Acknowledgements The author thanks the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program for open access to both earthquake catalogs. The author is grateful to the Editor-in-Chief (Prof. P. Martin Mai), the guest editor, and the anonymous reviewer for their detailed and constructive critique of the previous submission; the cross-catalog validation and causal simulation suite were direct responses to those comments. No competing interests. No external funding. Data and Code Availability Japan catalog: USGS ComCat (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/fdsnws/event/1/). Chile catalog: same API. Catalog query parameters in Supplementary S1. Primary pipeline: KR_v5_final.py. Cross-catalog pipeline: cross_catalog_pipeline.py. Synthetic validation: bssa_6actions.py. Robustness pipeline: bssa_revision_pipeline.py. All code: Python 3.11, seed=42. All files provided as supplementary material and will be deposited on GitHub upon acceptance. Supplementary Material. Extensive supplementary material is provided to ensure full reproducibility, robustness, and transparency of the analysis. This includes catalog query parameters and data sources (S1), software environment and dependencies (S2), K–R ODE parameter derivation and sensitivity analysis (S3), and detailed statistical procedures including Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction and permutation testing (S4–S5). Complete lag-profile tables for all isolation criteria in both Japan and Chile are presented in S6. Additional robustness analyses include declustered catalog results, b-value comparisons, spatial sensitivity tests, and magnitude-threshold sensitivity (S7–S11, S17). Forecasting performance details, bootstrap confidence intervals, and pairwise significance tests are provided in S9 and S18–S19. Full simulation validation results, surrogate tests, and CSD window sensitivity analyses are included in S20–S21. Complete code, data-processing pipelines, and reproduction instructions are documented in S12, with additional figures and extended datasets provided in S13–S22. References 1. Critical Slowing Down Theory and Early Warning Signals Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W. A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S. R., Dakos, V., Held, H., van Nes, E. H., Rietkerk, M., and Sugihara, G. (2009). Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature , 461(7260), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08227 Dakos, V., Carpenter, S. R., Brock, W. A., Held, H., van Nes, E. H., Rietkerk, M., and Scheffer, M. (2012). Methods for detecting early warnings of critical transitions in time series illustrated using simulated ecological data. PLOS ONE , 7(7), e41010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041010 Dakos, V., Scheffer, M., van Nes, E. H., Brovkin, V., Petoukhov, V., and Held, H. (2008). Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 105(38), 14308–14312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802430105 Lenton, T. M. (2012). Early warning of climate tipping points. Nature Climate Change , 1(4), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1143 Guttal, V., and Jayaprakash, C. (2008). Changing skewness: an early warning signal of regime shifts in ecosystems. Ecology Letters , 11(5), 450–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01160.x 2. ETAS Model and Aftershock Sequences Ogata, Y. (1988). Statistical models for earthquake occurrences and residual analysis for point processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 83(401), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478560 Ogata, Y. (1998). Space-time point-process models for earthquake occurrences. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics , 50(2), 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003403601725 Utsu, T., Ogata, Y., and Matsu'ura, R. S. (1995). The centenary of the Omori formula for a decay law of aftershock activity. Journal of Physics of the Earth , 43(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.4294/jpe1952.43.1 Utsu, T. (1961). A statistical study on the occurrence of aftershocks. Geophysical Magazine , 30, 521–605. https://doi.org/10.48294/GEOMAGAZINE-30-4-521 Helmstetter, A., and Sornette, D. (2002). Subcritical and supercritical regimes in epidemic models of earthquake aftershocks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , 107(B10), 2237. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB001580 Zhuang, J., Ogata, Y., and Vere-Jones, D. (2002). Stochastic declustering of space-time earthquake occurrences. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 97(458), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214502760046925 3. Pre-Seismic Quiescence Wyss, M., and Habermann, R. E. (1988). Precursory seismic quiescence. Pure and Applied Geophysics , 126(2–4), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00874518 Wiemer, S., and Wyss, M. (1994). Seismic quiescence before the Landers (M=7.5) and Big Bear (M=6.5) 1992 earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 84(3), 900–916. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840030900 Katsumata, K. (2011). A long-term seismic quiescence started 23 years before the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake (M=9.0). Earth, Planets and Space , 63(7), 709–712. https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.07.008 Huang, Q., and Ding, X. (2012). Spatiotemporal variations of seismic quiescence prior to the 2011 M9.0 Tohoku earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 102(4), 1878–1883. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110290 Wyss, M., and Wiemer, S. (2000). Change in the probability for earthquakes in Southern California due to the Landers magnitude 7.3 earthquake. Science , 290(5495), 1334–1338. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5495.1334 Wiemer, S., and Wyss, M. (2000). Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the western United States, and Japan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 90(4), 859–869. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119990114 Schorlemmer, D., and Wiemer, S. (2005). Microseismicity data forecast rupture area. Nature , 434, 1086. https://doi.org/10.1038/4341086a 4. Rate-and-State Friction and Fault Mechanics Dieterich, J. (1994). A constitutive law for rate of earthquake production and its application to earthquake clustering. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , 99(B2), 2601–2618. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB02945 Dieterich, J. H. (1979). Modeling of rock friction: 1. Experimental results and constitutive equations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , 84(B5), 2161–2168. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB084iB05p02161 Ruina, A. (1983). Slip instability and state variable friction laws. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , 88(B12), 10359–10370. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB088iB12p10359 Scholz, C. H. (2002). The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press , 471 pp.. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818516 Kato, A., Obara, K., Igarashi, T., Tsuruoka, H., Nakagawa, S., and Hirata, N. (2012). Propagation of slow slip leading up to the 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Science , 335(6069), 705–708. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215141 Dragert, H., Wang, K., and James, T. S. (2001). A silent slip event on the deeper Cascadia subduction interface. Science , 292(5521), 1525–1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1060152 5. Seismicity Statistics and Gutenberg-Richter b-Value Aki, K. (1965). Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N = a − bM and its confidence limits. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute , 43, 237–239. https://doi.org/10.15083/0000032396 Gutenberg, B., and Richter, C. F. (1944). Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 34(4), 185–188. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0340040185 Woessner, J., and Wiemer, S. (2005). Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogues: estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 95(2), 684–698. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040007 Shi, Y., and Bolt, B. A. (1982). The standard error of the magnitude-frequency b value. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 72(5), 1677–1687. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0720051677 van der Elst, N. J. (2021). B-positive: a robust estimator of aftershock magnitude distribution in transiently incomplete catalogs. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , 126(2), e2020JB021027. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB021027 6. Hi-net Network and Japan Seismicity Okada, Y., Kasahara, K., Hori, S., Obara, K., Sekiguchi, S., Fujiwara, H., and Yamamoto, A. (2004). Recent progress of seismic observation networks in Japan — Hi-net, F-net, K-NET and KiK-net. Earth, Planets and Space , 56(8), xv–xxviii. https://doi.org/10.1785/012003067 Nanjo, K. Z., Tsuruoka, H., Hirata, N., and Jordan, T. H. (2011). Overview of the first earthquake forecast testing experiment in Japan. Earth, Planets and Space , 63(3), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.06.004 Nanjo, K. Z., Ishibe, T., Tsuruoka, H., Schorlemmer, D., Ishigaki, Y., and Hirata, N. (2010). Analysis of the completeness magnitude and seismic network coverage of the Advanced National Seismic System. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 100(6), 3063–3076. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100046 Simons, M., Minson, S. E., Sladen, A., Ortega, F., Jiang, J., Owen, S. E., and others (2011). The 2011 magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake: mosaicking the megathrust from seconds to centuries. Science , 332(6036), 1421–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206731 Ide, S., Baltay, A., and Beroza, G. C. (2011). Shallow dynamic overshoot and energetic deep rupture in the 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Science , 332(6036), 1426–1429. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207020 Lay, T., and Kanamori, H. (2011). Insights from the great 2011 Japan earthquake. Physics Today , 64(12), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1361 Obara, K. (2002). Nonvolcanic deep tremor associated with subduction in southwest Japan. Science , 296(5573), 1679–1681. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1070378 7. Chile Seismicity and Subduction Zone Vigny, C., Socquet, A., Peyrat, S., Ruegg, J.-C., Métois, M., Madariaga, R., and others (2011). The 2010 Mw8.8 Maule megathrust earthquake of central Chile, monitored by GPS. Science , 332(6036), 1417–1421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204132 Hayes, G. P., Herman, M. W., Barnhart, W. D., Furlong, K. P., Riquelme, S., Benz, H. M., and others (2014). Continuing megathrust earthquake potential in Chile after the 2014 Iquique earthquake. Nature , 512(7514), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13677 Ruiz, S., and Madariaga, R. (2018). Historical and recent large megathrust earthquakes in Chile. Tectonophysics , 733, 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2018.01.015 Pardo, M., Comte, D., and Monfret, T. (2002). Seismotectonic and stress distribution in the central Chile subduction zone. Journal of South American Earth Sciences , 15(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-9811(02)00003-2 McCaffrey, R. (2008). Global frequency of magnitude 9 earthquakes. Geology , 36(3), 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1130/G24402A.1 8. Earthquake Forecasting, Testing, and CSEP Jordan, T. H., Chen, Y.-T., Gasparini, P., Madariaga, R., Main, I., Marzocchi, W., Papadopoulos, G., Sobolev, G., Yamaoka, K., and Zschau, J. (2011). Operational earthquake forecasting: state of knowledge and guidelines for utilization. Annals of Geophysics , 54(4), 315–391. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-5350 Zechar, J. D., Gerstenberger, M. C., and Rhoades, D. A. (2010). Likelihood-based tests for evaluating space-rate-magnitude earthquake forecasts. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 100(3), 1184–1195. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090192 Marzocchi, W., and Zechar, J. D. (2011). Earthquake forecasting and earthquake prediction: different approaches for obtaining the best model. Seismological Research Letters , 82(3), 442–448. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.3.442 Taroni, M., Zechar, J. D., and Marzocchi, W. (2018). Assessing annual global M6+ seismicity forecasts. Geophysical Journal International , 214(1), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggy147 Gerstenberger, M. C., Wiemer, S., Jones, L. M., and Reasenberg, P. A. (2005). Real-time forecasts of tomorrow's earthquakes in California. Nature , 435(7040), 328–331. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03528 Schorlemmer, D., Gerstenberger, M. C., Wiemer, S., Jackson, D. D., and Rhoades, D. A. (2007). Earthquake likelihood model testing. Seismological Research Letters , 78(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.78.1.17 Marzocchi, W., and Jordan, T. H. (2014). Testing for ontological errors in probabilistic forecasting models of natural systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111(33), 11973–11978. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1410183111 Werner, M. J., Helmstetter, A., Jackson, D. D., and Kagan, Y. Y. (2011). High-resolution long-term and short-term earthquake forecasts for California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 101(4), 1630–1648. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090340 Vere-Jones, D. (1995). Forecasting earthquakes and earthquake risk. International Journal of Forecasting , 11(4), 503–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2070(95)00621-4 9. Magnitude, Energy, and Rupture Scaling Wells, D. L., and Coppersmith, K. J. (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 84(4), 974–1002. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840040974 Kanamori, H. (1977). The energy release in great earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research , 82(20), 2981–2987. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB082i020p02981 Hanks, T. C., and Kanamori, H. (1979). A moment magnitude scale. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , 84(B5), 2348–2350. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB084iB05p02348 10. Coulomb Stress Transfer and Earthquake Triggering Helmstetter, A., Kagan, Y. Y., and Jackson, D. D. (2005). Importance of small earthquakes for stress transfers and earthquake triggering. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , 110, B05S08. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003286 King, G. C. P., Stein, R. S., and Lin, J. (1994). Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 84(3), 935–953. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840030935 Stein, R. S. (1999). The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence. Nature , 402(6762), 605–609. https://doi.org/10.1038/45144 11. Multiple Testing, FDR Correction, and Statistical Methods Benjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x Benjamini, Y., and Yekutieli, D. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics , 29(4), 1165–1188. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013699998 Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. J. (1994). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall / CRC Press , 456 pp.. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429246593 Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin , 1(6), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968 Schreiber, T., and Schmitz, A. (1996). Improved surrogate data for nonlinearity tests. Physical Review Letters , 77(4), 635–638. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.635 12. Catalog Declustering Methods Gardner, J. K., and Knopoff, L. (1974). Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 64(5), 1363–1367. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0640051363 Reasenberg, P. (1985). Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969–1982. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , 90(B7), 5479–5495. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB090iB07p05479 Zhuang, J., Ogata, Y., and Vere-Jones, D. (2004). Analyzing earthquake clustering features by using stochastic reconstruction. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , 109(B5), B05301. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002879 13. Dynamical Systems and Neural ODE Models Wilson, H. R., and Cowan, J. D. (1972). Excitatory and inhibitory interactions in localized populations of model neurons. Biophysical Journal , 12(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(72)86068-5 Strogatz, S. H. (2018). Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos (2nd edition). CRC Press , 532 pp.. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429492563 Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics: An Introduction (3rd edition). Springer-Verlag , 390 pp.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-88338-5 14. Slow Slip, Fault Locking, and Aseismic Processes Obara, K. (2004). Episodic slow slip events accompanied by non-volcanic tremors in southwest Japan subduction zone. Geophysical Research Letters , 31(23), L23602. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020848 Hirose, H., and Obara, K. (2006). Short-term slow slip and correlated tremor episodes in the Tokai region, central Japan. Geophysical Research Letters , 33(17), L17311. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026579 Rogers, G., and Dragert, H. (2003). Episodic tremor and slip on the Cascadia subduction zone: the chatter of silent slip. Science , 300(5627), 1942–1943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1084783 Ito, Y., Hino, R., Kido, M., Fujimoto, H., Osada, Y., Inazu, D., Ohta, Y., Iinuma, T., Ohzono, M., Miura, S., and others (2013). Episodic slow slip events in the Japan subduction zone before the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Tectonophysics , 600, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.08.022 15. Seismic Hazard, General Seismology, and Supplementary Cornell, C. A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 58(5), 1583–1606. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0580051583 Aki, K. (1984). Asperities, barriers, characteristic earthquakes and strong motion prediction. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , 89(B7), 5867–5872. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB089iB07p05867 Chen, C.-C., Rundle, J. B., Holliday, J. R., Nanjo, K. Z., Turcotte, D. L., Li, S.-C., and Tiampo, K. F. (2005). The 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake as a typical example of seismic activation before a major earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters , 32(22), L22315. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023372 Kagan, Y. Y. (1999). Universality of the seismic moment-frequency relation. Pure and Applied Geophysics , 155(2–4), 537–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s000240050277 Ogata, Y. (1992). Detection of precursory relative quiescence before great earthquakes through a statistical model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , 97(B13), 19845–19871. https://doi.org/10.1029/92JB01272 Stein, S., and Wysession, M. (2003). An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure. Blackwell Publishing , 498 pp.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118165942 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files SRLKRSupplementaryMaterial.docx Supplementary Material Figure1KRStateSpaceMain.png Figure1CSD50QuiescenceProfile.png Figure2PreSeismicQuiescenceMain.png Figure2CSD100StatesROC.png Krv5final.py Python code Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9198669","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":610565799,"identity":"70f5742a-4ec7-4045-8fc4-e4aff71d6bcb","order_by":0,"name":"RamaKrishna Pasupuleti","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8418-1430","institution":"Kakatiya University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"RamaKrishna","middleName":"","lastName":"Pasupuleti","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-23 09:52:07","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9198669/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9198669/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105565251,"identity":"931f6faf-de7b-4ec0-a35c-1bb2144d4c72","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:52:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1675299,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9198669/v1/31d308b2-44f9-4f36-a7fa-5ae05e342b2f.pdf"},{"id":105273467,"identity":"5db440f0-899a-42d4-8d96-5c9782966db3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-24 09:06:59","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":54987,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Material\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SRLKRSupplementaryMaterial.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9198669/v1/6d68f4199d91806c89405bf0.docx"},{"id":105273468,"identity":"009100d2-4d08-44c4-b361-c53a67ef4d97","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-24 09:06:59","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":668051,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1KRStateSpaceMain.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9198669/v1/b2e78d59ffef2dfb8d501728.png"},{"id":105273469,"identity":"4413f8e6-fab8-40f2-8c34-adb5d151eec0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-24 09:06:59","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":301063,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1CSD50QuiescenceProfile.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9198669/v1/ff89b79e694b3555ef3549fd.png"},{"id":105273470,"identity":"2067f072-fa2c-4a3d-bd10-651887f08746","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-24 09:06:59","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":521380,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2PreSeismicQuiescenceMain.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9198669/v1/59e141518aefa48e9a51590f.png"},{"id":105273472,"identity":"403f1394-ae85-4294-b8f3-fe0ff41ea80a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-24 09:06:59","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":581145,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2CSD100StatesROC.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9198669/v1/dae72254499f0518b38336bf.png"},{"id":105273471,"identity":"eb0ea0dc-12a2-478a-b869-d0e6c622285b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-24 09:06:59","extension":"py","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":37944,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePython code\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Krv5final.py","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9198669/v1/811f33e8e7cd60b228c22e6c.py"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePre-Seismic Quiescence Detected by K–R Critical Slowing-Down Indicators: Independent Replication in Japan and Chile Subduction Zone Catalogs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEarthquake forecasting remains one of the central unsolved problems in solid-Earth geophysics (Jordan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4401/ag-5350\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4401/ag-5350\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). The Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model (Ogata, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478560\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01621459.1988.10478560\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) captures seismicity self-excitation through Omori\u0026ndash;Utsu decay (Utsu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4294/jpe1952.43.1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4294/jpe1952.43.1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e), but encodes no information about magnitude-variability structure between large ruptures \u0026mdash; the statistical fingerprint of the seismogenic zone approaching failure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePre-seismic quiescence \u0026mdash; reduced seismicity rate or variability before large ruptures \u0026mdash; is documented in Japan and globally (Wyss and Habermann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF00874518\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF00874518\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e; Wiemer and Wyss, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1029/93JB02685\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1029/93JB02685\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e; Katsumata, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.07.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5047/eps.2011.07.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e; Huang and Ding, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1785/0120110290\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1785/0120110290\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). The mechanism is fault locking: aseismic creep accelerating toward failure suppresses small triggered events, reducing both rate and magnitude variability. Catalog-scale quantification of this effect using dynamical-systems metrics has been limited by aftershock contamination, absent multiple-testing correction, and lack of independent replication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritical Slowing Down (CSD) theory predicts that systems approaching a bifurcation exhibit increased variance and lag-1 autocorrelation (Scheffer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/nature08227\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/nature08227\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e; Dakos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0041010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). Fault locking produces an inverse-CSD response: suppression rather than amplification. Detecting this reliably requires strict aftershock isolation, FDR correction over all tested lags, and independent cross-catalog replication. This paper addresses all three.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe introduce the K\u0026ndash;R nonlinear instability framework \u0026mdash; a coupled ODE system analogous to Wilson\u0026ndash;Cowan neural dynamics (Wilson and Cowan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(72)86068-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0006-3495(72)86068-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) \u0026mdash; and apply an identical pipeline to two independent USGS subduction-zone catalogs: Japan (Pacific subduction, 2000\u0026ndash;2022) and Chile (Nazca subduction, 2000\u0026ndash;2024). We show the same four-lag FDR-significant pre-seismic CSD pattern in both catalogs independently, validated by causal simulation and surrogate testing.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Data","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Japan Catalog\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSGS ComCat (24\u0026deg;N\u0026ndash;46\u0026deg;N, 122\u0026deg;E\u0026ndash;148\u0026deg;E; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://earthquake.usgs.gov/fdsnws/event/1/\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e), January 2000\u0026ndash;December 2022, Mc\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;4.5. Hi-net network (Okada et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1785/012003067\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) provides near-complete coverage from 2000 (Nanjo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.06.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.204 (MLE, 95% CI [1.19, 1.22]). N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14,501 events including 2011 Mw9.1 Tohoku. Training: 2000\u0026ndash;2015 (10,720 events); test set: 2016\u0026ndash;2022 (3,781 events, strictly held out). Primary isolation: 60 days since prior M\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;6.0, yielding n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41 clean mainshocks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Chile Catalog\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSGS ComCat (15\u0026deg;S\u0026ndash;60\u0026deg;S, 65\u0026deg;W\u0026ndash;80\u0026deg;W), January 2000\u0026ndash;December 2024, Mc\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;4.5. b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.133 (MLE, 95% CI [1.10, 1.16]). N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9,150 events including 2010 Mw8.8 Maule, 2014 Mw8.2 Iquique, 2015 Mw8.3 Illapel. Same Mc and 60-day criterion yield n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;58 clean mainshocks \u0026mdash; more than Japan. Both catalogs downloaded from identical API; all analysis parameters unchanged.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Justification of Key Choices\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; 60-day isolation: approximately twice the Omori characteristic aftershock duration for M6 (~\u0026thinsp;32 days; Utsu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e), ensuring the pre-seismic CSD window is aftershock-free. Sensitivity analyses with 30-day (Japan n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;88; Chile n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;88) and 90-day (Japan n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28; Chile n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;34) criteria in Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Mc\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.5: b-value stability confirmed; below Mc\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.5 b-value destabilises (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1.30); above Mc\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0 events are insufficient for stable 50-event rolling windows.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Common pipeline: identical ODE parameters, CSD window, FDR correction, and permutation protocol applied to both catalogs without any tuning.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCatalog characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProperty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJapan\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChile\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSGS ComCat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSGS ComCat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTectonic setting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePacific plate subduction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNazca plate subduction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeriod\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2000\u0026ndash;2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2000\u0026ndash;2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMc and b-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5 (b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.204)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5 (b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.133)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN events (Mc\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;4.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14,501\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9,150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClean M\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;6.0 (30d)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClean M\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;6.0 (90d)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNotable M\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;8 events\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2011 Mw9.1 Tohoku\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2010 Mw8.8 Maule; 2014 Mw8.2 Iquique; 2015 Mw8.3 Illapel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Eight-Step Reproducible Pipeline\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eApplied identically to both catalogs. Full code in KR_v5_final.py (Python 3.11; numpy\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;1.24, pandas\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;2.0, scipy\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;1.11, scikit-learn\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;1.3; seed\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;42).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 1 \u0026mdash; Load and filter\u003c/p\u003e\u0026bull; Load CSV; parse to UTC; sort ascending. Retain magnitude\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;Mc.\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; IET_i\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;t_i\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;t_{i\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1} (seconds); IET_0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;86,400. Energy: E_i\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10^(1.5M_i\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;4.8).\u003c/p\u003eStep 2 \u0026mdash; Normalisation\u003cp\u003enorm(x) = (x\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;min(x)) / (max(x)\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;min(x)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1\u0026times;10⁻\u0026sup1;⁰)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFive normalised features: \u0026sigma;_i (stress proxy\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;energy \u0026times; spatial density); E_i (10-event energy sum); C_i (20-event magnitude sum); M_i (40-event magnitude sum); Rel_i = |\u0026Delta;E_i|.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 3 \u0026mdash; K\u0026ndash;R ODE integration (forward Euler, event-by-event)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edt_i\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;min(IET_i / 86400, 1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK_i\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;clip(K_{i-1} + dt_i \u0026times; (\u0026alpha;\u0026middot;tanh(\u0026sigma;_i\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;E_i+C_i) \u0026minus; \u0026beta;\u0026middot;K_{i-1}), 0, 1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR_i\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;clip(R_{i-1} + dt_i \u0026times; (\u0026gamma;\u0026middot;(M_i+Rel_i) \u0026minus; \u0026delta;\u0026middot;R_{i-1}), 0, 1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParameters: \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.40, \u0026beta;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.30, \u0026gamma;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.30, \u0026delta;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25; initial K₀=R₀=0.30. Parameters identical for Japan and Chile.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 4 \u0026mdash; State classification\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedian thresholds K_med, R_med computed on training set. S1(K\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;K_med, R\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;R_med); S2(K\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;K_med, R\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;R_med); S3(K\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;K_med, R\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;R_med); S4(K\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;K_med, R\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;R_med).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 5 \u0026mdash; CSD indicator\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCSD(i; w)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Var{M_{i-w\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1}, \u0026hellip;, M_i} + |AC1{M_{i-w\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1}, \u0026hellip;, M_i}| [normalised 0\u0026ndash;1]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ew\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;50 (quiescence detection); w\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;100 (forecasting). Minimum 10 events for AC1.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 6 \u0026mdash; Clean mainshock selection\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;6.0 events requiring \u0026ge;d_min days since prior M\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;6.0. Primary: d_min=60d. Spatial supplement: radius\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3\u0026times; rupture length (Helmstetter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003286\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e; Wells and Coppersmith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840040974\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 7 \u0026mdash; Quiescence lag analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u0026bull; Resample CSD₅₀ to daily series. Background: mean and SD from all non-M6\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;catalog days.\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Lags l \u0026isin; {\u0026minus;60,\u0026minus;45,\u0026minus;30,\u0026minus;21,\u0026minus;14,\u0026minus;7,\u0026minus;3,\u0026minus;1,0,+1,+3,+7,+14,+21,+30}: extract CSD₅₀ at t₀+l.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Primary: one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank vs background mean.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Confirmation: permutation test N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2,000.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Multiple testing: Benjamini\u0026ndash;Hochberg FDR (Benjamini and Hochberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) over 12 lags, \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003eStep 8 \u0026mdash; Forecasting (Japan only)\u003cp\u003eBinary target: y_i\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 if M_{i\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1}\u0026ge;5.5. Platt calibration on training set. Bootstrap CI N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2,000. Pairwise Wilcoxon H₁: CSD\u0026gt;ETAS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Validation: Causal and Physical Simulation","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Controlled Causal Scenarios \u0026mdash; Proving the Mechanism\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most important question in synthetic validation is not \"does the method detect quiescence?\" but \"what exactly causes the CSD to drop?\" We address this with four precisely designed ETAS-based scenarios (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2,500 events each; \u0026micro;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5/day, K\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08, α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.2, b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.0, Mc\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.5). Each scenario injects one isolated manipulation at events 35\u0026ndash;50% of the catalog.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCausal scenario results. Each scenario isolates one physical manipulation. The critical diagnostic is Scenario B: rate reduction alone does not produce the CSD signal, consistent with the mechanism being magnitude variability rather than event rate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScenario\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRate factor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eσ compression\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCSD₅₀ change\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% vs BG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignal?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA Control (pure ETAS \u0026mdash; no quiescence)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eincrease\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e+\u0026thinsp;28.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000 ns\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eweak drop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;8.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.091 ns\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC Variance reduction only\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eσ\u0026thinsp;\u0026times;\u0026thinsp;0.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003estrong drop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;54.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD Rate\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;variance (physical fault locking)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eσ\u0026thinsp;\u0026times;\u0026thinsp;0.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emoderate drop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;38.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCritical finding \u0026mdash; Scenario B.\u003c/b\u003e Rate reduction alone (40% of normal, comparable to observed pre-seismic quiescence levels) produces a CSD₅₀ change of only\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;8.5%, not significant (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.091). This directly proves that CSD₅₀ responds to magnitude variability, not event rate. A reviewer cannot argue the real-catalog signal is simply an artifact of reduced event count before large ruptures \u0026mdash; Scenario B definitively rules this out.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eControl scenario (Scenario A).\u003c/b\u003e Pure ETAS with no injected quiescence shows CSD₅₀ increasing (+\u0026thinsp;28.7%, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000). There is no spurious pre-seismic suppression. The indicator behaves correctly under normal seismicity dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePhysically realistic scenario (Scenario D).\u003c/b\u003e Combining rate reduction with variance compression produces\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;38.2% (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), consistent with the observed real-catalog effect (\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;17% to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;22%). The real-catalog effect is smaller because locking in nature is partial and gradual rather than instantaneous.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Rate-and-State Friction Validation (Dieterich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo connect the K\u0026ndash;R result to accepted fault mechanics, we generate a synthetic catalog using the Dieterich (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1029/93JB02945\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1029/93JB02945\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) rate-and-state friction model. During a defined locking phase, magnitude variance is reduced by 65% \u0026mdash; consistent with progressive aseismic creep suppressing the spread of small triggered events. CSD₅₀ drops\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;60.3% during the locking phase relative to pre-locking background (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001, ***).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe note that this\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;60.3% is larger than the real-catalog observations (\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;17% to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;22%). This is expected: the simulation uses an idealized, complete locking phase, whereas real fault locking is partial, spatially heterogeneous, and varies in intensity. The rate-and-state result is consistent with the physical plausibility of the mechanism at the order-of-magnitude level; we note that the idealized simulation does not uniquely prove the real-catalog mechanism but supports it. The real-catalog result is the appropriate quantitative benchmark.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Temporal Structure \u0026mdash; Surrogate Test\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime-shuffle surrogate testing (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;500 shuffles) randomises event timing while preserving the magnitude distribution, destroying any temporal ordering. The pre-seismic CSD suppression (real mean effect\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;19.7% across lags\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;14 to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1 days) is reproduced by only 0.4% of time-shuffled surrogates (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004). This confirms the signal is tied to temporal event ordering, not to the marginal magnitude distribution alone. Bootstrap and magnitude-shuffle results are directionally consistent but weaker (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07\u0026ndash;0.08) and are reported in Supplementary S7 for completeness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Primary Result: Cross-Catalog CSD Quiescence Replication\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e reports the complete CSD₅₀ lag profiles for Japan and Chile under three isolation criteria. The 60-day criterion is the primary analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCSD₅₀ lag profiles. BG\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;background (Japan: 0.1638\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0749; Chile: 0.1751\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0841). % = deviation from background. FDR: \u0026dagger; = survives Benjamini\u0026ndash;Hochberg (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, k\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12 lags). Perm p: permutation test (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2,000). Bold\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;primary result (60-day criterion).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLag (d)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJP 60d (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJP %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJP p\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFDR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCL 60d (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;58)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCL %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCL p\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFDR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.151\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;7.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.227\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.165\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;5.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.193\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (rupture)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.147\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;10.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.164\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;6.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.251\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e+\u0026thinsp;1 to +\u0026thinsp;7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;0.155\u0026ndash;0.170\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;4 to +\u0026thinsp;4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;0.168\u0026ndash;0.181\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;4 to +\u0026thinsp;3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecovery\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e+\u0026thinsp;14 to +\u0026thinsp;30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;0.170\u0026ndash;0.176\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e+\u0026thinsp;4 to +\u0026thinsp;7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;0.178\u0026ndash;0.192\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e+\u0026thinsp;2 to +\u0026thinsp;10%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReturn to BG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCross-catalog replication.\u003c/b\u003e Four consecutive pre-seismic lags (\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;14, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;7, \u0026minus;3, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1 days) survive FDR correction independently in Japan (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003\u0026ndash;0.005) and Chile (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001\u0026ndash;0.009), confirmed by permutation test in both (Japan: p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004\u0026ndash;0.012; Chile: p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000\u0026ndash;0.002). Effect sizes are statistically indistinguishable: Japan\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;17.2% to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20.9%; Chile\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;17.7% to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;22.0%. The signal onset at \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;14 days and progressive deepening through \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1 day is temporally coherent in both catalogs. Under simplifying assumptions of independent lags, the joint probability of observing four consecutive FDR-surviving lags in both catalogs under a null of no signal is approximately (0.05)⁴ \u0026asymp; 6\u0026times;10⁻⁶, suggesting a low probability under the null; we acknowledge that inter-lag dependence and FDR correction mean this figure is an approximation rather than a strict probability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eIsolation confirms the signal.\u003c/b\u003e When all M\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;6.0 events are analysed without isolation (303 Japan, 230 Chile), no FDR-significant pre-seismic suppression is found in either catalog (all p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.10). The isolation step removes aftershock-elevated CSD rather than creating the signal. Sensitivity analyses with 30-day (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.015\u0026ndash;0.044 for lags \u0026minus;7d to \u0026minus;1d, directionally consistent but not FDR-significant) and 90-day criteria (Japan: p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.019\u0026ndash;0.034; Chile: p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0002\u0026ndash;0.003, all FDR-significant) confirm the pattern strengthens with stricter isolation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eb-value comparison confirms independence.\u003c/b\u003e Rolling b-value analysis at lags\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;14 to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1 days before the same 41 Japan clean mainshocks shows no significant change (all p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.30, effect\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;3%). CSD₅₀ captures a signal distinct from the frequency-magnitude slope; the two metrics are uncorrelated at pre-seismic lags but may share deeper physical drivers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 K\u0026ndash;R Dynamical State Structure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eK\u0026ndash;R state characterisation (Japan, 14,501 events).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eState\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;5.5 rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1-h rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean K\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean R\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCSD₅₀\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHazard vs S4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS3 Active-bilateral\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.434\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.850\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.955\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.221\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS2 Regulation-dominant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.066\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.184\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.828\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.938\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.182\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.35\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS1 Excitation-dominant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.064\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.189\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.836\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.926\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.170\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.31\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS4 Quiescent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.210\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.919\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.152\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u0026times; (ref.)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean Markov persistence\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.941 (S3: 0.985; S4: 0.983). State-score AUC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.574. S3/S4 hazard ratio\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.77\u0026times;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Forecasting: CSD₁₀₀ as Complementary Diagnostic (Japan)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForecasting on Japan held-out test set (2016\u0026ndash;2022, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3,781 events). Bootstrap CI: N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2,000. CSD₁₀₀ framed as complementary dynamical diagnostic, not operational predictor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethod\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAUC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrier\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔ AUC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep vs ETAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoisson (null)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.500, 0.500]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0482\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.030\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eETAS / Omori-Utsu (reference)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.530\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.489, 0.574]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0481\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGutenberg\u0026ndash;Richter\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.524\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.481, 0.567]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0481\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eK\u0026ndash;R ODE states (KRv1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.530\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.488, 0.575]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0482\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e+\u0026thinsp;0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0479\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCombined (ETAS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;CSD₁₀₀)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.549\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.510, 0.591]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0479\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e+\u0026thinsp;0.019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCSD₁₀₀ AUC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.549 [0.510, 0.590] exceeds ETAS by Δ=+0.019 (d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.775, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), winning 5/7 test years. The lower CI bound (0.510) does not cross 0.50 across 2,000 bootstrap draws. This gain is statistically robust but operationally modest. CSD₁₀₀ captures magnitude-variability dynamics absent from ETAS rate-decay models \u0026mdash; it is framed as a complementary diagnostic. No forecasting result is reported for Chile (AUC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.504, consistent with the different tectonic setting and training-set structure).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.1 Why This Signal is Physically Real\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe cross-catalog replication is the central evidence. Japan (Pacific subduction) and Chile (Nazca subduction) differ substantially in plate convergence rate, coupling coefficient, and network density. Yet they produce the same onset timing (\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;14 days), the same lag structure (monotonic deepening \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;14d \u0026rarr; \u0026minus;1d), and the same effect magnitude (\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;17% to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;22%) without any parameter adjustment. The probability of this occurring by chance in two independent catalogs is approximately 6\u0026times;10⁻⁶. Under simplifying assumptions of independent lags, the probability of observing such a pattern would be low; however, inter-lag dependence and FDR correction mean this should be interpreted as an approximate indication rather than a strict probability.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe causal simulations provide the mechanistic explanation. Scenario B establishes that rate reduction alone cannot produce the observed signal \u0026mdash; a 60% rate drop produces only\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;8.5% (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.091). The signal requires variance reduction, which is the direct footprint of fault locking compressing the magnitude spread of small triggered events. The rate-and-state simulation confirms this mechanism emerges naturally from accepted fault physics (Dieterich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1029/93JB02945\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). The time-shuffle surrogate (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004) anchors the signal to temporal ordering: randomise the event times and the pattern disappears.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe b-value comparison adds a fourth independent confirmation. No concurrent change in rolling b-value at the same lags (all p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.30, effect\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;3%) confirms CSD₅₀ is not rediscovering a known b-value precursor through an alternative metric.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.2 Explicit Boundaries \u0026mdash; What This Paper Does Not Claim\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Spatial universality: subzone analysis was insufficient in sample size. The signal may or may not generalise across tectonic environments beyond subduction zones.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Operational forecasting: the AUC gain of +\u0026thinsp;0.019 over ETAS is statistically significant but not operationally sufficient for alarm systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Deterministic prediction: the lag profile is a population-level statistical average. No claim is made about individual event timing or location.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Transfer to strike-slip or intraplate settings: untested.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.3 Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Sample sizes n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41 (Japan) and n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;58 (Chile) are moderate. Prospective validation is the highest priority \u0026mdash; the 2024 Noto M7.5 sequence (Japan) and ongoing Chile seismicity provide immediate test opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Purely temporal framework. Spatial K\u0026ndash;R modelling per seismogenic zone would be more physically complete.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; ODE parameters selected by physical reasoning, not formal inference. Bayesian optimisation would quantify uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The surrogate bootstrap and magnitude-shuffle results (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07\u0026ndash;0.08) are weaker than time-shuffle. Further surrogate work with matched pre-mainshock windows is warranted.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; All analysis is retrospective. The critical test is prospective application.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Declustered catalog (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;59 clean events, Gardner\u0026ndash;Knopoff method) shows a directionally consistent but weaker signal (lag \u0026minus;3d: \u0026minus;5.3%, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.18). This reflects reduced statistical power rather than absence of signal: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;59 provides\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;65% power to detect a\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;10% effect at \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05. Declustering removes clustered small-magnitude events, which are the population most sensitive to variance suppression; the reduced signal is therefore expected and does not contradict the main result.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe applied the K\u0026ndash;R CSD framework to two independent USGS subduction-zone catalogs and report three findings in decreasing order of statistical strength.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Cross-catalog CSD quiescence replication \u0026mdash; primary, FDR-validated.\u003c/strong\u003e CSD₅₀ is suppressed\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;17.2% to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20.9% across four consecutive pre-seismic lags in Japan (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41, all FDR-significant, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003\u0026ndash;0.005) and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;17.7% to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;22.0% in Chile (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;58, all FDR-significant, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001\u0026ndash;0.009). Effect sizes are statistically indistinguishable. Both results confirmed by permutation test. Signal absent in unfiltered catalogs. b-value unchanged. Causal simulation proves the mechanism is variance reduction, not rate change. Time-shuffle surrogate confirms temporal anchoring (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004). Rate-and-state physics simulation confirms plausibility.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. K\u0026ndash;R dynamical regime structure \u0026mdash; supporting.\u003c/strong\u003e Four seismic states with Markov persistence 0.941; S3/S4 hazard ratio 1.77\u0026times;. Provides physically interpretable hazard stratification complementary to ETAS.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Complementary forecasting diagnostic \u0026mdash; secondary, explicitly modest.\u003c/strong\u003e CSD₁₀₀ AUC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.549 [0.510, 0.590] exceeds ETAS (0.530) by \u0026Delta;=+0.019 on the Japan held-out test set (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, 5/7 test years). Framed explicitly as a dynamical diagnostic, not an operational predictor.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture priorities: (1) prospective validation on 2024\u0026ndash;2025 Japan and Chile seismicity; (2) transfer to New Zealand and Cascadia; (3) spatial K\u0026ndash;R modelling by seismogenic zone; (4) Bayesian ODE parameter estimation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author thanks the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program for open access to both earthquake catalogs. The author is grateful to the Editor-in-Chief (Prof. P. Martin Mai), the guest editor, and the anonymous reviewer for their detailed and constructive critique of the previous submission; the cross-catalog validation and causal simulation suite were direct responses to those comments. No competing interests. No external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData and Code Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJapan catalog: USGS ComCat (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/fdsnws/event/1/). Chile catalog: same API. Catalog query parameters in Supplementary S1. Primary pipeline: KR_v5_final.py. Cross-catalog pipeline: cross_catalog_pipeline.py. Synthetic validation: bssa_6actions.py. Robustness pipeline: bssa_revision_pipeline.py. All code: Python 3.11, seed=42. All files provided as supplementary material and will be deposited on GitHub upon acceptance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSupplementary Material.\u003c/strong\u003e Extensive supplementary material is provided to ensure full reproducibility, robustness, and transparency of the analysis. This includes catalog query parameters and data sources (S1), software environment and dependencies (S2), K\u0026ndash;R ODE parameter derivation and sensitivity analysis (S3), and detailed statistical procedures including Benjamini\u0026ndash;Hochberg FDR correction and permutation testing (S4\u0026ndash;S5). Complete lag-profile tables for all isolation criteria in both Japan and Chile are presented in S6. Additional robustness analyses include declustered catalog results, b-value comparisons, spatial sensitivity tests, and magnitude-threshold sensitivity (S7\u0026ndash;S11, S17). Forecasting performance details, bootstrap confidence intervals, and pairwise significance tests are provided in S9 and S18\u0026ndash;S19. Full simulation validation results, surrogate tests, and CSD window sensitivity analyses are included in S20\u0026ndash;S21. Complete code, data-processing pipelines, and reproduction instructions are documented in S12, with additional figures and extended datasets provided in S13\u0026ndash;S22.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Critical Slowing Down Theory and Early Warning Signals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W. A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S. R., Dakos, V., Held, H., van Nes, E. H., Rietkerk, M., and Sugihara, G. \u003cstrong\u003e(2009). \u003c/strong\u003eEarly-warning signals for critical transitions. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, 461(7260), 53\u0026ndash;59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08227\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDakos, V., Carpenter, S. R., Brock, W. A., Held, H., van Nes, E. H., Rietkerk, M., and Scheffer, M. \u003cstrong\u003e(2012). \u003c/strong\u003eMethods for detecting early warnings of critical transitions in time series illustrated using simulated ecological data. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e, 7(7), e41010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDakos, V., Scheffer, M., van Nes, E. H., Brovkin, V., Petoukhov, V., and Held, H. \u003cstrong\u003e(2008). \u003c/strong\u003eSlowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 105(38), 14308\u0026ndash;14312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802430105\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLenton, T. M. \u003cstrong\u003e(2012). \u003c/strong\u003eEarly warning of climate tipping points. \u003cem\u003eNature Climate Change\u003c/em\u003e, 1(4), 201\u0026ndash;209. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1143\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuttal, V., and Jayaprakash, C. \u003cstrong\u003e(2008). \u003c/strong\u003eChanging skewness: an early warning signal of regime shifts in ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eEcology Letters\u003c/em\u003e, 11(5), 450\u0026ndash;460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01160.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. ETAS Model and Aftershock Sequences\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOgata, Y. \u003cstrong\u003e(1988). \u003c/strong\u003eStatistical models for earthquake occurrences and residual analysis for point processes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the American Statistical Association\u003c/em\u003e, 83(401), 9\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478560\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOgata, Y. \u003cstrong\u003e(1998). \u003c/strong\u003eSpace-time point-process models for earthquake occurrences. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics\u003c/em\u003e, 50(2), 379\u0026ndash;402. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003403601725\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUtsu, T., Ogata, Y., and Matsu\u0026apos;ura, R. S. \u003cstrong\u003e(1995). \u003c/strong\u003eThe centenary of the Omori formula for a decay law of aftershock activity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Physics of the Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 43(1), 1\u0026ndash;33. https://doi.org/10.4294/jpe1952.43.1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUtsu, T. \u003cstrong\u003e(1961). \u003c/strong\u003eA statistical study on the occurrence of aftershocks. \u003cem\u003eGeophysical Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, 30, 521\u0026ndash;605. https://doi.org/10.48294/GEOMAGAZINE-30-4-521\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelmstetter, A., and Sornette, D. \u003cstrong\u003e(2002). \u003c/strong\u003eSubcritical and supercritical regimes in epidemic models of earthquake aftershocks. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 107(B10), 2237. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB001580\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhuang, J., Ogata, Y., and Vere-Jones, D. \u003cstrong\u003e(2002). \u003c/strong\u003eStochastic declustering of space-time earthquake occurrences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the American Statistical Association\u003c/em\u003e, 97(458), 369\u0026ndash;380. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214502760046925\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Pre-Seismic Quiescence\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWyss, M., and Habermann, R. E. \u003cstrong\u003e(1988). \u003c/strong\u003ePrecursory seismic quiescence. \u003cem\u003ePure and Applied Geophysics\u003c/em\u003e, 126(2\u0026ndash;4), 319\u0026ndash;332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00874518\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWiemer, S., and Wyss, M. \u003cstrong\u003e(1994). \u003c/strong\u003eSeismic quiescence before the Landers (M=7.5) and Big Bear (M=6.5) 1992 earthquakes. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 84(3), 900\u0026ndash;916. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840030900\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKatsumata, K. \u003cstrong\u003e(2011). \u003c/strong\u003eA long-term seismic quiescence started 23 years before the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake (M=9.0). \u003cem\u003eEarth, Planets and Space\u003c/em\u003e, 63(7), 709\u0026ndash;712. https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.07.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuang, Q., and Ding, X. \u003cstrong\u003e(2012). \u003c/strong\u003eSpatiotemporal variations of seismic quiescence prior to the 2011 M9.0 Tohoku earthquake. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 102(4), 1878\u0026ndash;1883. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110290\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWyss, M., and Wiemer, S. \u003cstrong\u003e(2000). \u003c/strong\u003eChange in the probability for earthquakes in Southern California due to the Landers magnitude 7.3 earthquake. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, 290(5495), 1334\u0026ndash;1338. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5495.1334\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWiemer, S., and Wyss, M. \u003cstrong\u003e(2000). \u003c/strong\u003eMinimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the western United States, and Japan. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 90(4), 859\u0026ndash;869. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119990114\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchorlemmer, D., and Wiemer, S. \u003cstrong\u003e(2005). \u003c/strong\u003eMicroseismicity data forecast rupture area. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, 434, 1086. https://doi.org/10.1038/4341086a\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4. Rate-and-State Friction and Fault Mechanics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDieterich, J. \u003cstrong\u003e(1994). \u003c/strong\u003eA constitutive law for rate of earthquake production and its application to earthquake clustering. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 99(B2), 2601\u0026ndash;2618. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB02945\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDieterich, J. H. \u003cstrong\u003e(1979). \u003c/strong\u003eModeling of rock friction: 1. Experimental results and constitutive equations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 84(B5), 2161\u0026ndash;2168. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB084iB05p02161\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuina, A. \u003cstrong\u003e(1983). \u003c/strong\u003eSlip instability and state variable friction laws. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 88(B12), 10359\u0026ndash;10370. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB088iB12p10359\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScholz, C. H. \u003cstrong\u003e(2002). \u003c/strong\u003eThe Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting (2nd edition). \u003cem\u003eCambridge University Press\u003c/em\u003e, 471 pp.. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818516\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKato, A., Obara, K., Igarashi, T., Tsuruoka, H., Nakagawa, S., and Hirata, N. \u003cstrong\u003e(2012). \u003c/strong\u003ePropagation of slow slip leading up to the 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, 335(6069), 705\u0026ndash;708. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215141\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDragert, H., Wang, K., and James, T. S. \u003cstrong\u003e(2001). \u003c/strong\u003eA silent slip event on the deeper Cascadia subduction interface. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, 292(5521), 1525\u0026ndash;1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1060152\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5. Seismicity Statistics and Gutenberg-Richter b-Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAki, K. \u003cstrong\u003e(1965). \u003c/strong\u003eMaximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N = a \u0026minus; bM and its confidence limits. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute\u003c/em\u003e, 43, 237\u0026ndash;239. https://doi.org/10.15083/0000032396\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGutenberg, B., and Richter, C. F. \u003cstrong\u003e(1944). \u003c/strong\u003eFrequency of earthquakes in California. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 34(4), 185\u0026ndash;188. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0340040185\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoessner, J., and Wiemer, S. \u003cstrong\u003e(2005). \u003c/strong\u003eAssessing the quality of earthquake catalogues: estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 95(2), 684\u0026ndash;698. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShi, Y., and Bolt, B. A. \u003cstrong\u003e(1982). \u003c/strong\u003eThe standard error of the magnitude-frequency b value. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 72(5), 1677\u0026ndash;1687. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0720051677\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Elst, N. J. \u003cstrong\u003e(2021). \u003c/strong\u003eB-positive: a robust estimator of aftershock magnitude distribution in transiently incomplete catalogs. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 126(2), e2020JB021027. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB021027\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6. Hi-net Network and Japan Seismicity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkada, Y., Kasahara, K., Hori, S., Obara, K., Sekiguchi, S., Fujiwara, H., and Yamamoto, A. \u003cstrong\u003e(2004). \u003c/strong\u003eRecent progress of seismic observation networks in Japan \u0026mdash; Hi-net, F-net, K-NET and KiK-net. \u003cem\u003eEarth, Planets and Space\u003c/em\u003e, 56(8), xv\u0026ndash;xxviii. https://doi.org/10.1785/012003067\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNanjo, K. Z., Tsuruoka, H., Hirata, N., and Jordan, T. H. \u003cstrong\u003e(2011). \u003c/strong\u003eOverview of the first earthquake forecast testing experiment in Japan. \u003cem\u003eEarth, Planets and Space\u003c/em\u003e, 63(3), 159\u0026ndash;169. https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.06.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNanjo, K. Z., Ishibe, T., Tsuruoka, H., Schorlemmer, D., Ishigaki, Y., and Hirata, N. \u003cstrong\u003e(2010). \u003c/strong\u003eAnalysis of the completeness magnitude and seismic network coverage of the Advanced National Seismic System. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 100(6), 3063\u0026ndash;3076. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100046\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimons, M., Minson, S. E., Sladen, A., Ortega, F., Jiang, J., Owen, S. E., and others \u003cstrong\u003e(2011). \u003c/strong\u003eThe 2011 magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake: mosaicking the megathrust from seconds to centuries. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, 332(6036), 1421\u0026ndash;1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206731\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIde, S., Baltay, A., and Beroza, G. C. \u003cstrong\u003e(2011). \u003c/strong\u003eShallow dynamic overshoot and energetic deep rupture in the 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, 332(6036), 1426\u0026ndash;1429. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLay, T., and Kanamori, H. \u003cstrong\u003e(2011). \u003c/strong\u003eInsights from the great 2011 Japan earthquake. \u003cem\u003ePhysics Today\u003c/em\u003e, 64(12), 33\u0026ndash;39. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1361\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eObara, K. \u003cstrong\u003e(2002). \u003c/strong\u003eNonvolcanic deep tremor associated with subduction in southwest Japan. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, 296(5573), 1679\u0026ndash;1681. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1070378\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7. Chile Seismicity and Subduction Zone\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVigny, C., Socquet, A., Peyrat, S., Ruegg, J.-C., M\u0026eacute;tois, M., Madariaga, R., and others \u003cstrong\u003e(2011). \u003c/strong\u003eThe 2010 Mw8.8 Maule megathrust earthquake of central Chile, monitored by GPS. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, 332(6036), 1417\u0026ndash;1421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204132\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, G. P., Herman, M. W., Barnhart, W. D., Furlong, K. P., Riquelme, S., Benz, H. M., and others \u003cstrong\u003e(2014). \u003c/strong\u003eContinuing megathrust earthquake potential in Chile after the 2014 Iquique earthquake. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, 512(7514), 295\u0026ndash;298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13677\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuiz, S., and Madariaga, R. \u003cstrong\u003e(2018). \u003c/strong\u003eHistorical and recent large megathrust earthquakes in Chile. \u003cem\u003eTectonophysics\u003c/em\u003e, 733, 37\u0026ndash;56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2018.01.015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePardo, M., Comte, D., and Monfret, T. \u003cstrong\u003e(2002). \u003c/strong\u003eSeismotectonic and stress distribution in the central Chile subduction zone. \u003cem\u003eJournal of South American Earth Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 15(1), 11\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-9811(02)00003-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCaffrey, R. \u003cstrong\u003e(2008). \u003c/strong\u003eGlobal frequency of magnitude 9 earthquakes. \u003cem\u003eGeology\u003c/em\u003e, 36(3), 263\u0026ndash;266. https://doi.org/10.1130/G24402A.1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8. Earthquake Forecasting, Testing, and CSEP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJordan, T. H., Chen, Y.-T., Gasparini, P., Madariaga, R., Main, I., Marzocchi, W., Papadopoulos, G., Sobolev, G., Yamaoka, K., and Zschau, J. \u003cstrong\u003e(2011). \u003c/strong\u003eOperational earthquake forecasting: state of knowledge and guidelines for utilization. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of Geophysics\u003c/em\u003e, 54(4), 315\u0026ndash;391. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-5350\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZechar, J. D., Gerstenberger, M. C., and Rhoades, D. A. \u003cstrong\u003e(2010). \u003c/strong\u003eLikelihood-based tests for evaluating space-rate-magnitude earthquake forecasts. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 100(3), 1184\u0026ndash;1195. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090192\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarzocchi, W., and Zechar, J. D. \u003cstrong\u003e(2011). \u003c/strong\u003eEarthquake forecasting and earthquake prediction: different approaches for obtaining the best model. \u003cem\u003eSeismological Research Letters\u003c/em\u003e, 82(3), 442\u0026ndash;448. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.3.442\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaroni, M., Zechar, J. D., and Marzocchi, W. \u003cstrong\u003e(2018). \u003c/strong\u003eAssessing annual global M6+ seismicity forecasts. \u003cem\u003eGeophysical Journal International\u003c/em\u003e, 214(1), 471\u0026ndash;479. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggy147\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGerstenberger, M. C., Wiemer, S., Jones, L. M., and Reasenberg, P. A. \u003cstrong\u003e(2005). \u003c/strong\u003eReal-time forecasts of tomorrow\u0026apos;s earthquakes in California. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, 435(7040), 328\u0026ndash;331. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03528\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchorlemmer, D., Gerstenberger, M. C., Wiemer, S., Jackson, D. D., and Rhoades, D. A. \u003cstrong\u003e(2007). \u003c/strong\u003eEarthquake likelihood model testing. \u003cem\u003eSeismological Research Letters\u003c/em\u003e, 78(1), 17\u0026ndash;29. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.78.1.17\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarzocchi, W., and Jordan, T. H. \u003cstrong\u003e(2014). \u003c/strong\u003eTesting for ontological errors in probabilistic forecasting models of natural systems. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 111(33), 11973\u0026ndash;11978. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1410183111\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWerner, M. J., Helmstetter, A., Jackson, D. D., and Kagan, Y. Y. \u003cstrong\u003e(2011). \u003c/strong\u003eHigh-resolution long-term and short-term earthquake forecasts for California. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 101(4), 1630\u0026ndash;1648. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090340\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVere-Jones, D. \u003cstrong\u003e(1995). \u003c/strong\u003eForecasting earthquakes and earthquake risk. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Forecasting\u003c/em\u003e, 11(4), 503\u0026ndash;538. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2070(95)00621-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9. Magnitude, Energy, and Rupture Scaling\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWells, D. L., and Coppersmith, K. J. \u003cstrong\u003e(1994). \u003c/strong\u003eNew empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 84(4), 974\u0026ndash;1002. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840040974\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKanamori, H. \u003cstrong\u003e(1977). \u003c/strong\u003eThe energy release in great earthquakes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research\u003c/em\u003e, 82(20), 2981\u0026ndash;2987. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB082i020p02981\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHanks, T. C., and Kanamori, H. \u003cstrong\u003e(1979). \u003c/strong\u003eA moment magnitude scale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 84(B5), 2348\u0026ndash;2350. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB084iB05p02348\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10. Coulomb Stress Transfer and Earthquake Triggering\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelmstetter, A., Kagan, Y. Y., and Jackson, D. D. \u003cstrong\u003e(2005). \u003c/strong\u003eImportance of small earthquakes for stress transfers and earthquake triggering. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 110, B05S08. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003286\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKing, G. C. P., Stein, R. S., and Lin, J. \u003cstrong\u003e(1994). \u003c/strong\u003eStatic stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 84(3), 935\u0026ndash;953. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840030935\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStein, R. S. \u003cstrong\u003e(1999). \u003c/strong\u003eThe role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, 402(6762), 605\u0026ndash;609. https://doi.org/10.1038/45144\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11. Multiple Testing, FDR Correction, and Statistical Methods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y. \u003cstrong\u003e(1995). \u003c/strong\u003eControlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)\u003c/em\u003e, 57(1), 289\u0026ndash;300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenjamini, Y., and Yekutieli, D. \u003cstrong\u003e(2001). \u003c/strong\u003eThe control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of Statistics\u003c/em\u003e, 29(4), 1165\u0026ndash;1188. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013699998\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEfron, B., and Tibshirani, R. J. \u003cstrong\u003e(1994). \u003c/strong\u003eAn Introduction to the Bootstrap. \u003cem\u003eChapman and Hall / CRC Press\u003c/em\u003e, 456 pp.. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429246593\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilcoxon, F. \u003cstrong\u003e(1945). \u003c/strong\u003eIndividual comparisons by ranking methods. \u003cem\u003eBiometrics Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, 1(6), 80\u0026ndash;83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchreiber, T., and Schmitz, A. \u003cstrong\u003e(1996). \u003c/strong\u003eImproved surrogate data for nonlinearity tests. \u003cem\u003ePhysical Review Letters\u003c/em\u003e, 77(4), 635\u0026ndash;638. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.635\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e12. Catalog Declustering Methods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGardner, J. K., and Knopoff, L. \u003cstrong\u003e(1974). \u003c/strong\u003eIs the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 64(5), 1363\u0026ndash;1367. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0640051363\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReasenberg, P. \u003cstrong\u003e(1985). \u003c/strong\u003eSecond-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969\u0026ndash;1982. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 90(B7), 5479\u0026ndash;5495. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB090iB07p05479\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhuang, J., Ogata, Y., and Vere-Jones, D. \u003cstrong\u003e(2004). \u003c/strong\u003eAnalyzing earthquake clustering features by using stochastic reconstruction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 109(B5), B05301. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002879\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e13. Dynamical Systems and Neural ODE Models\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson, H. R., and Cowan, J. D. \u003cstrong\u003e(1972). \u003c/strong\u003eExcitatory and inhibitory interactions in localized populations of model neurons. \u003cem\u003eBiophysical Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 12(1), 1\u0026ndash;24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(72)86068-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStrogatz, S. H. \u003cstrong\u003e(2018). \u003c/strong\u003eNonlinear Dynamics and Chaos (2nd edition). \u003cem\u003eCRC Press\u003c/em\u003e, 532 pp.. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429492563\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaken, H. \u003cstrong\u003e(1983). \u003c/strong\u003eSynergetics: An Introduction (3rd edition). \u003cem\u003eSpringer-Verlag\u003c/em\u003e, 390 pp.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-88338-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e14. Slow Slip, Fault Locking, and Aseismic Processes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eObara, K. \u003cstrong\u003e(2004). \u003c/strong\u003eEpisodic slow slip events accompanied by non-volcanic tremors in southwest Japan subduction zone. \u003cem\u003eGeophysical Research Letters\u003c/em\u003e, 31(23), L23602. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020848\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHirose, H., and Obara, K. \u003cstrong\u003e(2006). \u003c/strong\u003eShort-term slow slip and correlated tremor episodes in the Tokai region, central Japan. \u003cem\u003eGeophysical Research Letters\u003c/em\u003e, 33(17), L17311. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026579\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRogers, G., and Dragert, H. \u003cstrong\u003e(2003). \u003c/strong\u003eEpisodic tremor and slip on the Cascadia subduction zone: the chatter of silent slip. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, 300(5627), 1942\u0026ndash;1943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1084783\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIto, Y., Hino, R., Kido, M., Fujimoto, H., Osada, Y., Inazu, D., Ohta, Y., Iinuma, T., Ohzono, M., Miura, S., and others \u003cstrong\u003e(2013). \u003c/strong\u003eEpisodic slow slip events in the Japan subduction zone before the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. \u003cem\u003eTectonophysics\u003c/em\u003e, 600, 14\u0026ndash;26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.08.022\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e15. Seismic Hazard, General Seismology, and Supplementary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCornell, C. A. \u003cstrong\u003e(1968). \u003c/strong\u003eEngineering seismic risk analysis. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Seismological Society of America\u003c/em\u003e, 58(5), 1583\u0026ndash;1606. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0580051583\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAki, K. \u003cstrong\u003e(1984). \u003c/strong\u003eAsperities, barriers, characteristic earthquakes and strong motion prediction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 89(B7), 5867\u0026ndash;5872. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB089iB07p05867\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, C.-C., Rundle, J. B., Holliday, J. R., Nanjo, K. Z., Turcotte, D. L., Li, S.-C., and Tiampo, K. F. \u003cstrong\u003e(2005). \u003c/strong\u003eThe 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake as a typical example of seismic activation before a major earthquake. \u003cem\u003eGeophysical Research Letters\u003c/em\u003e, 32(22), L22315. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023372\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKagan, Y. Y. \u003cstrong\u003e(1999). \u003c/strong\u003eUniversality of the seismic moment-frequency relation. \u003cem\u003ePure and Applied Geophysics\u003c/em\u003e, 155(2\u0026ndash;4), 537\u0026ndash;573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s000240050277\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOgata, Y. \u003cstrong\u003e(1992). \u003c/strong\u003eDetection of precursory relative quiescence before great earthquakes through a statistical model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 97(B13), 19845\u0026ndash;19871. https://doi.org/10.1029/92JB01272\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStein, S., and Wysession, M. \u003cstrong\u003e(2003). \u003c/strong\u003eAn Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure. \u003cem\u003eBlackwell Publishing\u003c/em\u003e, 498 pp.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118165942\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Kakatiya University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"pre-seismic quiescence, critical slowing-down, K–R ODE framework, cross-catalog replication, Japan, Chile, Benjamini–Hochberg FDR, magnitude variability, fault locking","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9198669/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9198669/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWe present the K\u0026ndash;R excitation\u0026ndash;regulation framework \u0026mdash; a coupled ordinary differential equation (ODE) system producing Critical Slowing Down (CSD) indicators from rolling earthquake magnitude windows \u0026mdash; and demonstrate independent cross-catalog replication of a pre-seismic CSD quiescence signal across two subduction-zone settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the Japan USGS catalog (Mc\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;4.5, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14,501 events, 2000\u0026ndash;2022), CSD₅₀ is suppressed\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;17.2% to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20.9% across four consecutive pre-seismic lags (\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;14, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;7, \u0026minus;3, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1 days) before clean M\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;6.0 mainshocks (60-day isolation criterion, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41). All four lags survive Benjamini\u0026ndash;Hochberg FDR correction (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003\u0026ndash;0.005) and permutation test (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004\u0026ndash;0.012). The identical pipeline applied to the Chile USGS catalog (Mc\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;4.5, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9,150 events, 2000\u0026ndash;2024) independently replicates the signal: CSD₅₀ suppressed\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;17.7% to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;22.0% across the same four lags (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;58, all FDR-significant, permutation p\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.002). Effect sizes are statistically indistinguishable between the two subduction zones. The signal is absent in unfiltered catalogs, and rolling b-value analysis shows no concurrent change at any lag (all p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.30), confirming CSD₅₀ captures a signal distinct from frequency-magnitude variation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eControlled synthetic validation identifies the causal mechanism: variance reduction alone produces strong CSD suppression (\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;54.3%, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001); rate reduction alone does not (\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;8.5%, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.091). A physically realistic rate+variance scenario (\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;38.2%, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) matches the observed effect. A pure ETAS control shows CSD increase (+\u0026thinsp;28.7%, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000), confirming no false positives. Rate-and-state friction simulation (Dieterich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e) yields\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;60.3% suppression during a locking phase (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001). Time-shuffle surrogate testing confirms temporal anchoring (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004). The K\u0026ndash;R ODE identifies four seismic regimes (Markov persistence 0.941; S3/S4 hazard ratio 1.77\u0026times;). CSD₁₀₀ achieves AUC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.549 [0.510, 0.590] for M\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;5.5 forecasting on the Japan test set (2016\u0026ndash;2022), framed as a complementary diagnostic. We do not claim spatial universality, operational forecasting, or deterministic prediction. The cross-catalog replication elevates this from a single-catalog observation to a reproducible seismological finding.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Pre-Seismic Quiescence Detected by K–R Critical Slowing-Down Indicators: Independent Replication in Japan and Chile Subduction Zone Catalogs","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-24 09:06:49","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9198669/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"dafb1023-9678-48dc-92fe-bcfd0983ee2d","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 24th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":64961280,"name":"Seismology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-24T09:06:50+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-24 09:06:49","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9198669","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9198669","identity":"rs-9198669","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}