Erratum: Interstation phase speed and amplitude measurements of surface waves with nonlinear waveform fitting: application to USArray

Erratum: Interstation phase speed and amplitude measurements of surface waves with nonlinear... Erratum of the paper ‘Interstation phase speed and amplitude measurements of surface waves with nonlinear waveform fitting: application to USArray’, by K. Hamada and K. Yoshizawa, published in Geophys. J. Int. (2015) 202, 1463–1482. We have recently found an error in our original model derived from joint inversions of phase and amplitude data, due to an incorrect evaluation of relative data misfit between phase and amplitude in an original numerical code, resulting in the underestimation of amplitude effects on phase speed models and station correction terms. Here we present corrected figures of phase speed maps and station correction terms for Figs 13–15. In the reconstruction of these models with a corrected program, we have to reevaluate the variance reductions (Fig. 14b), and redetermine the weighting factor (p = 0.5 is chosen as our preferred weighting factor for the corrected joint inversion). This modification causes rather minor influence on the phase speed models and spatial patterns of station correction terms, but the scale of station correction terms (Fig. 14c) has been modified to be proper values (larger than the original plot). Discussion and conclusions of our original paper are unaffected by this correction, but some numerical values described in fifth to seventh paragraphs in section 4.2 of the original paper have to be slightly modified accordingly. We summarize the corrected sentences below: (fifth paragraph of section 4.2, page 49 of the original paper) Figure 13. View largeDownload slide Checkerboard resolution tests with the joint inversion of phase and amplitude data for Rayleigh waves at 80 s, for a varying weight factor p on phase data. Figure 13. View largeDownload slide Checkerboard resolution tests with the joint inversion of phase and amplitude data for Rayleigh waves at 80 s, for a varying weight factor p on phase data. ‘The average strengths of retrieved phase speed perturbations with respect to the input model, calculated in the area encompassed by the black line in Fig. 13, are 63 per cent for phase data only (p = 1.0), 68 per cent (p = 0.5), 71 per cent (p = 0.3), and 84 per cent for amplitude data only (p = 0.0).’ (sixth paragraph of section 4.2, page 49 of the original paper) ‘In this study, we choose the map for p = 0.5 (giving equal weight to both phase and amplitude data) as the best compromised model derived from our phase and amplitude data.’ (seventh paragraph of section 4.2, page 49 of the original paper) ‘The correlations between the two models are 0.82–0.90 for Rayleigh waves.’ Figure 14. View largeDownload slide (a) Phase speed maps from the joint inversions of Rayleigh-wave phase and amplitude data at 60 s with a different data weight factor p which varies from 0 to 1. (b) Variance reductions of amplitude (blue) and phase (red) as a function of the data weight factor p. (c) Spatial distributions of the station-correction term. Figure 14. View largeDownload slide (a) Phase speed maps from the joint inversions of Rayleigh-wave phase and amplitude data at 60 s with a different data weight factor p which varies from 0 to 1. (b) Variance reductions of amplitude (blue) and phase (red) as a function of the data weight factor p. (c) Spatial distributions of the station-correction term. Figure 15. View largeDownload slide Comparisons between the phase speed models derived from (left) this study and (right) an earlier work by Foster et al. (2014) for (a) Rayleigh waves at 60 s (joint inversion of phase and amplitude data) and (b) Love waves at 40 s (phase data only). Figure 15. View largeDownload slide Comparisons between the phase speed models derived from (left) this study and (right) an earlier work by Foster et al. (2014) for (a) Rayleigh waves at 60 s (joint inversion of phase and amplitude data) and (b) Love waves at 40 s (phase data only). REFERENCE Foster A., Ekstrom G., Nettles M., 2014. Surface wave phase velocities of the Western United States from a two-station method, Geophys. J. Int. , 196( 2), 1189– 1206. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Geophysical Journal International Oxford University Press

Erratum: Interstation phase speed and amplitude measurements of surface waves with nonlinear waveform fitting: application to USArray

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/erratum-interstation-phase-speed-and-amplitude-measurements-of-surface-EaCoIdplDQ
Publisher
The Royal Astronomical Society
Copyright
© The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society.
ISSN
0956-540X
eISSN
1365-246X
D.O.I.
10.1093/gji/ggx440
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Erratum of the paper ‘Interstation phase speed and amplitude measurements of surface waves with nonlinear waveform fitting: application to USArray’, by K. Hamada and K. Yoshizawa, published in Geophys. J. Int. (2015) 202, 1463–1482. We have recently found an error in our original model derived from joint inversions of phase and amplitude data, due to an incorrect evaluation of relative data misfit between phase and amplitude in an original numerical code, resulting in the underestimation of amplitude effects on phase speed models and station correction terms. Here we present corrected figures of phase speed maps and station correction terms for Figs 13–15. In the reconstruction of these models with a corrected program, we have to reevaluate the variance reductions (Fig. 14b), and redetermine the weighting factor (p = 0.5 is chosen as our preferred weighting factor for the corrected joint inversion). This modification causes rather minor influence on the phase speed models and spatial patterns of station correction terms, but the scale of station correction terms (Fig. 14c) has been modified to be proper values (larger than the original plot). Discussion and conclusions of our original paper are unaffected by this correction, but some numerical values described in fifth to seventh paragraphs in section 4.2 of the original paper have to be slightly modified accordingly. We summarize the corrected sentences below: (fifth paragraph of section 4.2, page 49 of the original paper) Figure 13. View largeDownload slide Checkerboard resolution tests with the joint inversion of phase and amplitude data for Rayleigh waves at 80 s, for a varying weight factor p on phase data. Figure 13. View largeDownload slide Checkerboard resolution tests with the joint inversion of phase and amplitude data for Rayleigh waves at 80 s, for a varying weight factor p on phase data. ‘The average strengths of retrieved phase speed perturbations with respect to the input model, calculated in the area encompassed by the black line in Fig. 13, are 63 per cent for phase data only (p = 1.0), 68 per cent (p = 0.5), 71 per cent (p = 0.3), and 84 per cent for amplitude data only (p = 0.0).’ (sixth paragraph of section 4.2, page 49 of the original paper) ‘In this study, we choose the map for p = 0.5 (giving equal weight to both phase and amplitude data) as the best compromised model derived from our phase and amplitude data.’ (seventh paragraph of section 4.2, page 49 of the original paper) ‘The correlations between the two models are 0.82–0.90 for Rayleigh waves.’ Figure 14. View largeDownload slide (a) Phase speed maps from the joint inversions of Rayleigh-wave phase and amplitude data at 60 s with a different data weight factor p which varies from 0 to 1. (b) Variance reductions of amplitude (blue) and phase (red) as a function of the data weight factor p. (c) Spatial distributions of the station-correction term. Figure 14. View largeDownload slide (a) Phase speed maps from the joint inversions of Rayleigh-wave phase and amplitude data at 60 s with a different data weight factor p which varies from 0 to 1. (b) Variance reductions of amplitude (blue) and phase (red) as a function of the data weight factor p. (c) Spatial distributions of the station-correction term. Figure 15. View largeDownload slide Comparisons between the phase speed models derived from (left) this study and (right) an earlier work by Foster et al. (2014) for (a) Rayleigh waves at 60 s (joint inversion of phase and amplitude data) and (b) Love waves at 40 s (phase data only). Figure 15. View largeDownload slide Comparisons between the phase speed models derived from (left) this study and (right) an earlier work by Foster et al. (2014) for (a) Rayleigh waves at 60 s (joint inversion of phase and amplitude data) and (b) Love waves at 40 s (phase data only). REFERENCE Foster A., Ekstrom G., Nettles M., 2014. Surface wave phase velocities of the Western United States from a two-station method, Geophys. J. Int. , 196( 2), 1189– 1206. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society.

Journal

Geophysical Journal InternationalOxford University Press

Published: Feb 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial