Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by ERICSSON, U. A. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Event identification for test ban control

RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, STOCKHOLM, Sweden

Abstract

This paper describes a method to determine the usefulness of seismological event identification criteria for underground test ban control with or without on-site inspection. The method rests upon the notion that such control should be deterrent, by confronting a prospective violator with a certain disclosure probability at a politically determined level. Simple decision theory is then applied to the statistical properties of identification measures, to find the required compromise between a sufficient probability to disclose explosions and a not too high incidence of false alarms about earthquakes. A clean separation between the political requirements and the seismological capabilities is obtained. The latter are expressed by identification curves similar to the receiver operating characteristics curves employed in telecommunications analysis. The political requirements appear as geometrical conditions on the identification curves, expressing the required deterrence, the number of yearly explosions and earthquakes to be considered and the permitted number and quality of inspections, in the case of control with inspection. In the case of control without inspection, the acceptable rate of false alarms is included. The method also shows how identification criteria are most efficiently exploited.

Application to some published observations shows identification by short-period body-wave magnitudes and long-period surface-wave magnitudes to be most efficient. It remains, however, to extend the analysis to weak events and low signal-to-noise ratios. For applications the acquisition of proper statistics is essential.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. J. Hannon and W. J. Hannon Seismic Verification of a Comprehensive Test Ban Science, January 18, 1985; 227(4684): 251 - 257. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. R. BLANDFORD Seismic event discrimination Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1982; 72(6B): S69 - S87. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. BERG Rayleigh waves from high-gain long-period stations: Signal extraction, amplitude determination, and separation of overlapping wave trains Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1975; 65(6): 1761 - 1778. [Abstract] [PDF]

				O. DAHLMAN, H. ISRAELSON, A. AUSTEGARD, and G. HORNSTROM Definition and identification of seismic events in the USSR in 1971 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 1974; 64(3-1): 607 - 636. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. H. WEICHERT and P. W. BASHAM Deterrence and false alarms in seismic discrimination Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 1973; 63(3): 1119 - 1132. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. M. ANGLIN and H. ISRAELSON Seismological discrimination of earthquakes and explosions using multistation short-period data Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1973; 63(1): 321 - 323. [PDF]