ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Scaling Analysis of Seismic Ground Motion Signals.
Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Earthquakes exhibit well-documented statistical regularities at the catalogue level, such as the Gutenberg-Richter magnitude-frequency relation and the Omori-Utsu aftershock decay, often interpreted as signatures of seismicity as a driven, dissipative system far from thermodynamic equilibrium. However, whether comparable signatures, such as scale invariance and anomalous diffusion, can be detected directly within individual ground motion recordings remains an open question. This work investigates whether acceleration, velocity, and displacement signals recorded during the 2009 Mw 6.1 L'Aquila earthquake display statistical properties consistent with non-equilibrium complex systems, and whether different seismic phases carry distinct, reproducible statistical signatures. P- and S-wave onset times are estimated using AR-AIC, with adaptive search windows centred on theoretical arrivals from the CRUST1.0 velocity model. Coda onset is determined using three complementary criteria combined into a median ensemble, enabling the segmentation of each recording into up to five temporal windows. Displacement moment scaling is analysed for each window and signal type, within the framework of strong anomalous diffusion, yielding the scaling exponents ζ(q). Robustness is systematically assessed against the choice of coda onset method, the empirical thresholds defining coda onset and end, the sub-interval of τ used in the moment scaling fit, and the filter band applied to the ground motion signals. Evidence for anomalous diffusion is nuanced: both its sign and magnitude depend on the seismic phase, with only a subset of configurations remaining stable across all segmentation schemes tested. These results indicate that anomalous scaling signatures, when present, are not universal, and that systematic robustness analyses are essential to distinguish genuine physical effects from segmentation artefacts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.