Variability in interseismic strain accumulation rate and style along the Altyn Tagh Fault

Domain: earth_science
Published: 2024-08-11
Editorial outcome: minor_revision

Abstract
Major strike-slip faults that develop between strong and weaker regions are thought to focus along narrow shear zones at the rheological boundary. Here we present the InSAR-derived velocity field spanning almost the entire length of one such fault, the 1600 km-long Altyn Tagh Fault (ATF), and analyse the strain distribution. We find that localisation of strain is actually variable, in contrast to other major strike-slip faults that show little variation, with strain concentrated at the fault for some sections and distributed over broad (>100 km) shear zones for others. Slip rate along the ATF is also variable, decreasing along the fault from 11.6 ± 1.6 mm/yr in the west to 7.2 ± 1.4 mm/yr in the central portion, before increasing again to 11.7 ± 0.9 mm/yr over the eastern portion. We show that the variable shear zone width may be linked to geological variability and the influence of heat flow, and the results imply that sub-parallel faults play an important role in the overall deformation field. This demonstrates the significance of accurately characterising strain rates over a broad region when assessing seismic hazard.

Introduction
Major intra-continental strike-slip faults that have developed adjacent to strong regions are usually considered to absorb large fractions of relative plate movement between lithospheric plates and deforming regions, marking discontinuities in the long-term velocity field1. The North Anatolian fault in Türkiye, near the relatively strong oceanic lithosphere of the Black Sea, is such a case, where strain rate across the fault varies little along the entire length2. Similarly, the strain rate along the San Andreas fault system in California is concentrated along a single trace where it goes around the Central Valley3.

The 1600 km-long Altyn Tagh Fault (ATF) is a major intra-continental strike-slip fault in the Northern Tibetan Plateau (Fig. 1). Tectonic processes in this region are not fully understood, and the debate about how continental deformation accommodates the Indo-Asian plate collision still continues4. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) earthquake records, a pair of earthquakes occurred along the western portion of the ATF in 1924, with magnitudes of Mw 7.0 and Mw 7.2, respectively. In 1932, a Mw 7.6 earthquake occurred along the Changma fault, near the easternmost part of the ATF. Following the 1932 earthquake, no major earthquake (M > 7.0) has been recorded along the ATF5.

Bounding to the rigid Tarim Basin, the ATF was thought to have localised strain in a narrow zone in previous studies [e.g., refs. 6, 7], marking discontinuities in strength moving from the relatively strong Tarim Basin in the north to the deforming Tibetan Plateau to the south. However, in contrast to previous studies on other major intra-continental strike-slip faults, such as the North Anatolian Fault, which shows a focussed strain along its entire length [e.g., refs. 2, 8], it is unclear how much of the total strain across the ATF is concentrated at the fault itself and how much is more broadly distributed. Recent slip rate estimates along the ATF are generally determined by three methods over different timescales: (i) long-term geological measurements through the identification of offset (displaced) piercing points across the fault [e.g., ref. 9]; (ii) Quaternary estimates based on stream, terrace offsets, cosmogenic or 14C dated offsets [e.g., ref. 10]; (iii) Geodetic modelling using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) measurements [e.g., refs. 11–13]. Although these studies have provided valuable insights into the interseismic deformation along the ATF, they have only focussed on specific portions and do not provide an overall picture of the variation of localised strain accumulation along the fault. Additionally, published geodetic measurements along the ATF suggest 0–10 mm/year of slip rate over the western portion from 78°E to 80°E [e.g., refs. 14, 15], 5–15 mm/year for the central portion from 84°E to 90°E [e.g., refs. 16–19] and 4–10 mm/year over the eastern portion [e.g., ref. 15, 20], which are not always in agreement with those derived from long-term geological measurements nor Quaternary rates. For instance, slip rates inferred from geodetic data are generally a factor of 2 to 3 lower than those inferred from geologic data [e.g., ref. 21]. The discrepancy could be caused by the uncertainties of the measurements22, or may indicate a secular change in fault slip rates over distinct time scales23. Mohadjer et al.22 applied least squares regression to the pairs of published GNSS and geological slip rates along the ATF and suggested that disagreements between the GNSS and Quaternary rates can mainly be ascribed to the incorrect geomorphic reconstructions of offset landforms used for estimating Quaternary slip rates. Thatcher24 also suggested that those high geological estimates are controversial. As very small differences in the data can translate into significant intrablock deformation and slip on the fault, the precision of slip rate constraints for the ATF is crucial to explain how continents deform there.

Here we present a new InSAR-derived interseismic velocity field spanning almost the entire length of the ATF from Sentinel-1 interferograms over five years, between late 2014 and 2019, which is the first time a large-scale analysis covering almost the entire length of the fault has been carried out with a resolution sufficient to identify areas of strain localisation. To derive a consistent velocity field over an extensive length scale, we develop a novel method to stitch InSAR velocity fields estimated from different satellite tracks. We apply two distinct models, a modified deep-fault model, and a distributed shear zone model, to investigate the variability in both the rate and style of interseismic strain accumulation along the ATF. We also assess the earthquake potential in the region by consolidating the insights obtained from the modelling.

Results
Large-scale InSAR-derived velocity field
We estimate an InSAR-derived velocity field over ~1500 km of the ATF, between 80°E to 95°E (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2, Equation (1)). To derive a consistent velocity field over the extensive spatial scale, we develop a new method for mosaicking InSAR line-of-sight (LOS) velocities over adjacent satellite tracks with a diverse range of viewing geometry (Equation (2), (3)). We resample the merged InSAR LOS velocities onto a 1 km by 1 km grid using a nearest neighbour resampling algorithm. We compare the velocities before and after resampling along short fault-parallel velocity profiles with a length of 10 km on either side of the ATF. To avoid any further resampling in the comparison, we show the velocity of points located within a spatial distance of 5 metres before and after resampling, individually. The results indicate a negligible difference in both ascending and descending directions (Supplementary Fig. 3). We then decompose the velocity field into an east-west and a sub-vertical component, which is mostly sensitive to vertical movement but is also somewhat sensitive to north-south movement (Equation (2)). This approach enables us to resolve the east-west velocities unambiguously. The derived east-west velocity map shows a clear gradient across the ATF resulting from the eastward motion of the Tibetan Plateau with respect to the Tarim Basin (Fig. 2a). Over the south-western strand of the ATF, west of 83°E, the map shows that the strain accumulation transfers to the structurally linked ENE-striking left-lateral strike-slip Longmu-Gozha Co Fault (LGCF), through the Ashikule step-over zone. Regions of uplift or northward motion observed to the north of ATF from 87°E to 89°E in the sub-vertical component (Fig. 2b), can potentially be ascribed to the south dipping Altyn Shan thrusts along the southern border of the Tarim Basin25. In the region north of the ATF from 81.5°E to 82.5°E, the observed sub-vertical motion could be associated with southward movement resulting from left-lateral strike-slip of the fault. The sub-vertical component also shows a signal over the eastern edge of the Tarim Basin that does not appear tectonic. We interpret this as being associated with the hydrological processes or effects of the sand dunes there.

Variable slip rates along the ATF
Considering the variable strike along the ATF, we derive 1-D fault-parallel velocity profiles at intervals of 0.5°, directly decomposed from the InSAR LOS velocities, based on a varying local strike perpendicular to the high-resolution fault trace. The derived fault-parallel velocity profiles, projected using data within a 50 km perpendicular distance, show visible strain accumulation on the ATF (Supplementary Fig. 4). The asymmetric pattern of interseismic velocities shown in the profiles suggests a decrease in rigidity from the Tarim Basin into the Tibetan Plateau12, 26, 27. The profiles also reveal that additional strain localisations are distributed over southern strands near the western portion of the ATF from 84°E to 85.5°E and the eastern portion from 91°E to 92°E. We also project previous modelling of GNSS measurements15, 28 into the fault-perpendicular profiles, and the results show that they are in good agreement (Supplementary Fig. 4).

We derive the slip rate and locking depth from the fault-parallel velocity profiles using a modified deep-fault model (Equation (4)). To explain the asymmetry in the interseismic velocities on each side of the fault, we solve for a rigidity ratio as an asymmetry coefficient in the model to characterise the differing rigidity between the Plateau and the Tarim Basin. As previous studies show the proximity to the Euler pole of the rotation can lead to additional velocity variation in the fault-parallel velocity [e.g., ref. 29], we estimate a rotation rate for each profile south of the fault in the model to account for this. We fit a linear trend through the resolved fault-parallel far-field GNSS velocities south of the fault and the estimated mean rotation rate is 0.0122 mm/yr/km. Therefore, we constrain the rotation rate between 0 and 0.03 mm/yr/km in the modelling (Equation (4)). We also solve for additional slip rate, locking depth and buried dislocation shift on secondary faults (Equation (5)) for the profiles from 84°E to 85.5°E and from 91°E to 92°E.

The interseismic modelling results reveal a systemic apparent decrease in fault slip rate along the ATF (Fig. 3b, Supplementary Fig. 5), from 11.6 ± 1.6 mm/yr along the western portion (from 80°E to 84°E) to 7.2 ± 1.4 mm/yr along the central portion (from 84°E to 88°E) of the fault, whereas it increases to 11.7 ± 0.9 mm/yr over the eastern portion (from 88°E to 93°E).

The posterior probability distributions (Supplementary Fig. 6) for the locking depth are generally less than 20 km when the fault is shown as a single strand from 80°E to 87.5°E (Fig. 3c), which support the small thickness of the seismogenic layer in the lithosphere (not exceeding ~20 km) suggested by previous depth distribution of earthquakes in this region30. We interpret the higher estimates of locking depth from 87.5°E eastward as a wider zone in which the interseismic strain is accommodated due to splitting of the fault into three strands. The estimated buried dislocation for the main strand of the ATF is located south of the fault from 81.5°E to 83°E. It shifts slightly to the north of the fault along the central segment, then interweaves with the fault trace over the eastern portion. Additional buried dislocations are required for the profiles from 84°E to 85.5°E, located ~50 km to 150 km south of the ATF (Fig. 3a), where other sinistral faults are mapped31. For the profiles over the eastern portion from 91°E to 92°E, the buried dislocation shifts ~120 km southward to a region that features other multiple fault strands. The multimodal marginals shown in the posterior probability distributions suggest that the strain could be distributed along multiple strands of the ATF (e.g., at 82°E, 90°E, 90.5°E and 91°E) or may be influenced by relatively noisy data (e.g., at 89.5°E). The modelling results indicate that no significant creep occurs along most portions of the ATF, except for higher creep rates of over 2 mm/yr on the westernmost end of the fault and the region from 89°E to 89.5°E (Fig. 3d), at depths shallower than 20 km (Fig. 3e). Although shallow creep is not observed in the modelling results from the GNSS measurements between 88°E and 91°E18, this could be due to the use of a wider profile (~300 km), which may be too smoothed to detect small-scale shallow creep. The estimated creep rate is not highly correlated with the estimated locking depth, as the locking depth of areas with higher estimates of creep rate varies from 7 km to 40 km (Supplementary Fig. 7), demonstrating that the model adequately captures the strain required to fit the observation.

As expected, we observe a reduction in rigidity from the Tarim Basin to the Tibetan Plateau, with an average rigidity ratio of 0.60 (Supplementary Fig. 8). This agrees with the understanding that the Tarim Basin was relatively stable during the Cenozoic32. Moreover, we identify a higher rigidity ratio of up to 0.99 in the west-central segment from 83°E to 86°E, indicating a significant contrast in rigidity across this region.

High strain localisation over the south-west portion
Based on the strain rate estimation (Equation (6)), we find a consistent peak strain rate at the surface along most of the fault (Fig. 3f), with an average value of 0.08 μstrain/yr. However, we find a high strain rate greater than 0.2 μstrain/yr is accumulating at the surface along the south-western strand of the ATF, a region that is hardly covered by previous studies. Our results show that the clear strain accumulation is structurally linked to the LGCF in the west through the Ashikule step-over zone, rather than transferring to the Karakax Fault. This step-over region has been highly active recently: four major earthquakes (M > 6.3) have occurred in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2020, including the 2008 Mw 7.2 Yutian normal faulting earthquake33, which is the largest normal faulting event ever recorded in northern Tibet, the 2012 Mw 6.3 normal faulting earthquake and the 2014 Mw 6.9 Yutian strike-slip earthquake. The estimated slip rate of ~12 mm/yr along the south-western segment of the ATF is much higher than previous estimates of the rate of the LGCF fault, which were on the order of 4 mm/yr, although made further south-west14, 34.

Our results suggest that the generation of the SN-trending normal faulting events in the region is ascribed to the EW-trending extensional stress at a step-over between the two left-lateral faults35, where the North-South shortening occurs. These large earthquakes have significantly increased the stress over the region. Bie et al.36 calculated the combined stress loading effect of the 2008, 2012 and 2014 earthquakes on the ATF and found that both the 2008 and 2012 normal faulting earthquake exert positive Coulomb stress changes to the 2014 strike-slip earthquake rupture. Li et al.37 found that the 2014 Yutian strike-slip earthquake has further increased the Coulomb failure stress on the south-western segment of the ATF. Therefore, the high strain rate estimated over the south-western portion might be ascribed to the stress loading effects of the recent seismic activities.

To investigate the impact of postseismic deformation following the February 2014 Mw 6.9 Yutian strike-slip earthquake, which occurred nine months before the InSAR observations of this study, we calculate the time series of relative LOS displacement between two sites located around 30 km apart, either side of the south-western segment (Supplementary Fig. 9). We calculate the average LOS displacement of points within 2 km distance to each site from the tropospheric-corrected single primary interferograms, to form a time series of relative LOS displacement between the two sites, to which we fit a linear trend. We find a generally consistent rate in the ascending track. For the descending track, the displacement in the early time series (673 days before the earthquake occurred) has a systematic bias, indicating a higher rate before November 2015 compared to the later time series. We also fit a logarithmic decay trend (Equation (7)) to the time series. While other equations are available to model time-dependent deformation [e.g., ref. 38], we find that the simple one we choose performs well. Compared to the linear model, there is no significant improvement when fitting the data with the logarithmic model. This suggests that the postseismic deformation is hard to distinguish from the long-term interseismic deformation. Consequently, while the presence of the high strain rate on the south-western segment of the ATF raises the possibility of a relatively greater seismic risk in this region, it remains challenging to assess the impact of the postseismic deformation following the 2014 Yutian earthquake.

Along-strike changes in shear zone width
As the results from the modified deep-fault model suggest that the strain along some portions of the ATF is likely widely distributed, we fit the fault-parallel velocity profiles with a distributed shear zone model (Equation (8)) to investigate the distributed shear strain in a broader shear zone. We fix the locking depth at 15 km to allow for the modelling of broadly distributed deformation across the shear zone. The modelling results reveal three sections with a broad shear zone along the ATF: ~127 km between 83.5°E to 85.5°E, ~110 km between 87.5°E to 88.5°E and ~136 km between 90°E to 91.5°E (Fig. 4a, b). In each of these sections, we find localised strain primarily on the main strand of the ATF but also distributed within a wider region. Each broad shear zone intersects with a series of other mapped sinistral faults and significant tectonic features, such as the Altyn Shan in the central broad shear zone and the Qaidam Basin in the eastern broad shear zone (Fig. 4c). Additionally, the estimated buried dislocation in each broad shear zone region corresponds to the presence of nearby sub-parallel faults or other mapped geological structures. The two broad shear zones identified between 83.5°E to 85.5°E and between 90°E to 91.5°E align with the region where we infer additional strain localisations from the fault-parallel velocity profiles. According to the USGS earthquake catalogue, strands in these areas have been active recently, recording four earthquakes (M > 5.0) in the year of 1960, 2000, 2007 and 2016, respectively (Fig. 4a). The broad shear zone between 87.5°E to 88.5°E is situated where the ATF breaks into three parallel strands. The wider shear zones explain the high estimates for the locking depth solved from the modified deep-fault model in these areas. However, the estimated shear zone width is ~0.2 km at 89°E and ~3.1 km at 89.5°E, which is much narrower than the two neighbouring sections with a broader shear zone width. The narrow shear zone width in this area is likely a result of the relatively noisy data, which cannot distinguish between a possible shallow creep using the deep-fault model or a localised single fault using the distributed shear zone model.

Based on the fault-parallel velocity profiles, smoothed by a median filter with a window size of 80 km, we estimate the strain rate for each profile and find multi-peak strain rates over the three broad shear zones (Fig. 4b). The results suggest that the strain over the wide shear zones could be distributed along multiple strands of the ATF or across other fault strands that are away from the ATF, where similar split strands can be observed in other fault systems such as the northern Alpine Fault39 and the southern San Andreas Fault40. In most cases, the main strand of the ATF coincides with the highest peak in strain rate.

To quantify the continuation of the main strand of the ATF, we estimate slip rates for short fault-parallel velocity profiles with a length of 50 km on either side of the main strand, using the modified deep-fault model, and compare with the overall deformation estimated from the distributed shear zone model. While the ATF bounds the rigid Tarim Basin, we find that the localisation of strain varies along its length (Fig. 5). Our results indicate that strain is distributed over 53% of the fault’s length, which is larger than the proportion of the length where strain is concentrated at fault. This suggests that a significant portion of the relative plate movement is absorbed by sub-parallel faults near the ATF, indicating their important role in the overall deformation field.

Methods
InSAR data and processing
We process 12 overlapping tracks (6 ascending and 6 descending) using the first 5 years of Sentinel-1 SAR data, spanning the period between late 2014 and 2019 (Supplementary Fig. 1). The original InSAR data includes 21 frames (250 km by 250 km) defined by the Sentinel-1 processing system LiCSAR53 and we process the equivalent of 1–2 frames along each track (250–500 km-long). To avoid possible inconsistent phases in the overlapping region of the same track during the construction, we merge frames within the same track to form a long track before generating interferograms using LiCSAR (Supplementary Fig. 11).

We generate short temporal baseline interferograms forming a small baseline network with sufficient redundancy, which has 200 interferometric pairs on average (Supplementary Fig. 12). We use the Stanford Method for Persistent Scatterers (StaMPS) software54 to select highly coherent slowly-decorrelating filter phase scatterers from the interferograms, before downsampling and unwrapping the interferometric phase of the stable scatterers. As the ATF is located at the border between the lower Tarim Basin and the high Tibetan Plateau, the expected long-wavelength deformation signal is strongly masked by tropospheric delay variation across the 6 km of topographic relief. To improve the retrieval of small tectonic signals, we apply a spatially varying scaling method based on weather models55 to reduce the tropospheric effects. After removing the estimated tropospheric delays from the interferograms, the InSAR phase no longer has strong correlations with the topography, implying significant reductions in tropospheric signals (Supplementary Fig. 13a–l). The average root mean square for all tracks drops by 37% after corrections (Supplementary Fig. 13m). Compared to descending tracks, the improvement on the ascending tracks, which have greater noise, is more significant after the correction is applied.

We use the short temporal baseline interferograms to invert for interferograms with respect to a single primary image. As the accumulated displacement is an aggregation of short temporal data, it provides both short-term and long-term signals (Supplementary Fig. 14). We then derive the InSAR LOS velocity fields for each pixel from the tropospheric-corrected interferograms using the function

DLOS = a sin(2π/365.25)t + b cos(2π/365.25)t + vt + c (1)

where DLOS is the InSAR accumulated LOS displacement, the sinusoidal term a sin(2π/365.25)t and the cosinusoidal b cos(2π/365.25)t term model signals subject to the annual seasonal freezing and thawing of the upper layer of the permafrost in Tibetan Plateau, v is the annual LOS velocity, t is the time from the primary date of interferograms of each track and c is a constant. While we are not interested in the seasonal signal in itself, including it in the estimation allows for a more accurate estimation of the velocity. We invert the solution using the best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE) [e.g., ref. 56]. We calculate phase variances for each epoch from the variances of the tropospheric-corrected short temporal interferograms by least squares inversion. We then use these variances as the elements on the principal diagonal of the variance-covariance matrix in the BLUE inversion. Off-diagonal elements are set to zeros since the noise of each epoch is treated as independent. We calculate standard deviations of the velocity for each pixel using the percentile bootstrap method [e.g., ref. 57], which indicates the threshold for measuring tectonic signals.

InSAR velocity mosaicking over adjacent tracks
InSAR velocity fields estimated from different satellite tracks can lead to velocity inconsistencies in the overlapping regions, which is non-negligible in large-scale studies. To obtain a consistent velocity field across the region, we developed a new method, first presented by Shen58, to estimate long wavelength trends from the InSAR velocity fields using GNSS observations within the region15, 28 and meanwhile minimising the differences between the adjacent tracks of the InSAR LOS velocity fields. We remove the long wavelength trends from the InSAR LOS velocity fields and decompose the velocities into an east-west component and a sub-vertical component, which we define below.

We incorporate three kinds of InSAR points in the inversion for long wavelength trends: (i) points within the overlapping regions across tracks that have both ascending and descending measurements, to minimise the velocities differences between adjacent tracks; (ii) points that have both ascending and descending measurements and are also co-located (within a 1 km distance) with GNSS observations of horizontal (only) velocities; (iii) points which are co-located (within a 1 km distance) with GNSS observations of both the horizontal and vertical components. Constraints from the latter two kinds of points reference the InSAR velocity field to the GNSS reference frame. Each horizontal GNSS point can provide one extra constraint in the inversion, and each GNSS point with the vertical component can provide two extra constraints.

To remove the velocities resulting from continental rotation, we first transform the GNSS horizontal velocities from a Eurasia-fixed reference frame to a Tarim reference, by minimising the velocities of the GNSS stations located in the Tarim Basin (Supplementary Fig. 15). The GNSS horizontal velocities referenced to the Tarim Basin indicate clear left-lateral strike-slip motion along the ATF. As we only have two observational InSAR inputs in the form of ascending and descending, it is not possible to incorporate the full 3-D velocity field into the inversion. Previous studies along the ATF from InSAR measurements often ignore the north-south component due to the lack of evidence of fault shortening over this region [e.g., ref. 17]. Alternatively, some studies use the interpolated north-south GNSS velocities as the constraint [e.g., ref. 8], although the accuracy is highly dependent on the density and spatial distribution of the GNSS sites. In this study, we consider an east-west striking plane, tilted to the south, representing the average plane defined by all LOS vectors. We estimate two components of the crustal velocity in this plane: the east-west direction and the “sub-vertical” direction, perpendicular to the east-west direction as

VLOS = (sinθ cosϕ, ((sinθ sinϕ)^2 + (cosθ)^2)^0.5) * (Ve, Vsubv)^T (2)

where Vsubv = (sinθ Δ sinϕ * Vn + cosθ * Vu) / Δ
Δ = ((sinθ sinϕ)^2 + (cosθ)^2)^0.5

where Ve is the east-west component, Vsubv is the sub-vertical component, Vn and Vu are the northern and vertical motion, respectively, θ is the radar incidence angle, and ϕ is the azimuth direction of the satellite positive clockwise from the north.

By inverting all the GNSS and sampled InSAR velocities, we can estimate the long wavelength trends in the InSAR velocities for each track by solving

(V^ei, V^ni, V^vi, V^subvi)^T = (sinθ_i cosϕ_i, sinθ_i sinϕ_i, cosθ_i, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

Peer review rounds
[{"round": 1, "reviewer_comments": {"reviewer_1": "The Altyn Tagh Fault (ATF) is an important fault in Asia and serves as the northern boundary of the\nQinghai-Tibet Plateau. As early as 2000, Bendick et al. initiated geodetic surveys in this location.\nSubsequently, Shen et al.2001; Zhang et al.2007; He et al. 2013, and others conducted GNSS\nobservations with enhanced precision. However, due to the harsh natural conditions, there has\nbeen a lack of observations on the deformation along the entire fault zone. The authors addressed\nthis gap by utilizing InSAR technology. They presented the first InSAR-derived velocity field covering\nalmost the entire length of the 1600 km-long Altyn Tagh Fault and analyzed the strain distribution.\nHowever, when compared to the extensive geodetic research conducted in the region, this study\nlacks sufficient novelty. Additionally, there are several significant issues within this paper that\nrequire revision.\nThere are three issues regarding the data processing. Firstly, as far as I know, LiCSAR processes\nInSAR data on each frame individually, which may result in the fault trace coinciding with the edge\nof a particular frame, making it challenging to remove the trend component. The authors mention\nthat they merge frames within the same track to form a long track before generating interferograms\nusing LiCSAR, to avoid possible inconsistent phase in the overlapping region. However, I did not\nobserve this step in Supplementary Figure 7.\nSecondly, concerning the baseline selection, the authors chose short temporal and spatial\nbaselines for the time-series InSAR processing. However, for the Altyn Tagh Fault, which\nexperiences displacements of several millimeters per year, using such short temporal baselines\nwould result in displacement signals on each interferogram being less than a millimeter. On the\nother hand, noise phases like atmospheric delay phases could be in the range of several to tens of\nmillimeters, significantly affecting the displacement-to-noise ratio of the data. Have the authors\nconsidered that the spatial baselines of Sentinel data are already short, and there is no need to\nrestrict them, primarily focusing on the temporal baselines? For the northern boundary of the\nQinghai-Tibet Plateau, which has a dry climate and almost no vegetation, selecting longer-term\nbaselines, such as one or two years, can still yield well-coherent interferograms. The advantage of\nthis approach is that it can significantly improve the displacement-to-noise ratio of the data by\ntenfold or more. Therefore, I believe that for the Altyn Tagh Fault, especially in the case of long-term\ntectonic deformation, longer temporal baselines hold more advantages over shorter ones.\nThirdly, during the InSAR processing, two of the most challenging aspects are atmospheric effects\nand orbital errors. The authors previously performed atmospheric correction for a section of the\nAltyn Tagh Fault (Shen et al.2019). However, in this study, they mentioned using their previous\nmethod for removing atmospheric delay phases and showcased the RMS comparisons of\ninterferograms in Supplementary Figure 9. It would be helpful to include the results of atmospheric\ncorrection for each track, before and after the correction, in the manuscript, to provide a more\nvisual demonstration of the effectiveness of this atmospheric correction method. Additionally, the\nauthors mentioned applying linear corrections to the InSAR deformation field using GPS. However,\nin Figure 1(b), there are indications of subsidence (represented as negative values in blue) at both\nends of the Altyn Tagh Fault. The authors attributed this to the south dipping Altyn Shan thrusts\nalong the southern border of the Tarim Basin and hydrological processes or effects from the sand\ndunes. However, this explanation appears unsubstantiated.\nRegarding the inversion of fault slip rates, the model proposed by Savage and Burford (1973) has\nbeen repeatedly used for the Altyn Tagh Fault, demonstrating its applicability in the region.\nHowever, for the segment of the Altyn Tagh Fault from 86° E to 90° E, due to the uplift of the\nAltyn Shan range, deformation becomes complex in this area, with displacement occurring not\nonly along the Altyn Tagh Fault but also along the northern boundary faults of the Altyn Shan\nrange and within the intermountain basins. Therefore, employing this simple inversion model may not be\nsuitable for this particular segment, leading to unreliable inversion results.\nOther minor issues include:\nL31-34: Please include the published GNSS results, such as Shen Z K, Wang M, Li Y, et al. 2001; He\nJ, Chéry J. 2008; Ge W P, Shen Z K, Molnar P, et al. 2022; Li Y, Nocquet J M, Shan X. 2022.\nL189-191: The statement \"The ATF intersects different terranes as well as distinctive geological\nstructures such as sedimentary basins [37]\" is too general. Have the authors taken into\nconsideration that different segments of the Altyn Tagh Fault (ATF) may have formed under varying\ntectonic backgrounds? Providing more specific information would enhance the clarity of the\nstatement.\nL200-201: Please include this step for merging frames in Supplementary Fig. 7.\nL217-223: Why did the author use the a·sin(2π/365.25)t and b·cos(2π/365.25)t to fit the annual\nseasonal freezing and thawing of the upper layer of permafrost in the Tibetan Plateau? Why not\nutilize the new map of permafrost distribution on the Tibetan Plateau provided by\nhttps://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-2527-2017-supplement?\nL252-254: Is the \"anomalous\" subsidence at the eastern and western ends of the Altyn Tagh\nFault (ATF) in Figure 1(b) related to your transformation of GPS velocities from a Eurasia-fixed reference\nframe to a Tarim reference?", "reviewer_2": "This manuscript presents analysis of interseismic deformation due to the Altyn Tagh Fault (ATF) at\nthe northern margin of the Tibetan Plateau. The authors use SAR data from the Sentinel-1 mission to\nmeasure interseismic velocities along most of the ATF, and estimate its \"geodetic\" slip rate. They\nfind slip rates slightly in excess of 10 mm/yr, much lower than the previously suggested \"geologic\"\nslip rates (~30 mm/yr), but comparable to slip rates previously reported based on the GNSS\ndata. A relatively low slip rate of the ATF indicates that the Tibetan Plateau is undergoing significant internal\ndeformation. Results in the manuscript represent a substantial amount of work, and should be of\ninterest to a broad community, even though they mostly confirm the previously published GNSS\ndata. The data analysis is sound, and conclusions are supported by the presented evidence. I have\nseveral technical comments, as detailed below.\n1) lines 2-3. \"Major intracontinental strike-slip faults that have developed adjacent to strong regions\nare usually considered as boundaries that mark discontinuities in the velocity field\" - it's not clear\nwhat velocity field is meant here. The interseismic velocity field is not discontinuous (except in case\nof creeping faults). Also, not all major strike-slip faults occur at the boundaries of \"strong regions\".\nPlease clarify.\n2) lines 11-14. \"Major earthquakes\" are those with magnitude greater than 7. What is the\nsignificance of M7.6? The ATF may or may not be capable of producing supershear ruptures, but it's\nunclear how the supershear ruptures are related to the absence of earthquakes on the AFT in the\nlast 120+ years. Please explain, or remove.\n3) lines 26-27. Replace \"from\" with \"based on\" or \"using\". I.e., \"... modelling based on/using ...\nmeasurements\".\n4) lines 62-64. Why using the \"east-west\" velocity component, as opposed to e.g. the fault-parallel\nvelocity? The latter would avoid unnatural assumptions about the \"north-south\" component, as\nwell as potential trade offs with the vertical component, e.g., Lindsey et al., Localized and\ndistributed creep along the southern San Andreas Fault, J. Geophys. Res., 119, 7909-7922, 2014.\nThe fault trike may not be exactly constant, but using an average strike is likely to introduce smaller\nerrors compared to neglecting the \"north-south\" component.\n5) line 81. Please cite evidence for a decreased rigidity on the Tibet side (if there is any).\n6) line 97. \"a wider zone of strain localisation\" sounds a bit odd. Consider: \"a wider zone in which\nthe interseismic strain is accommodated due to splitting of the fault into three strands\".\n7) lines 141, 328-220. Equation (7) is sometimes used to fit an early postseismic transient, but in\ngeneral it's non-physical, as it has no \"fully relaxed\" limit. Note that the pre-multiplying factor a in\neq. 7 is NOT the amplitude of the transient. Also, the relaxation time T should not be referred to as\nthe Maxwell relaxation time, as the latter is specific to linear viscoelastic solids. For an \"afterslip\"\ntime function, see e.g. eq. (17) in Barbot et al., Postseismic deformation due to the Mw6.0 2004\nParkfield earthquake: Stress-driven creep on a fault with spatially variable rate-and-state friction\nparameters, J. Geophys Res., 114, B07405, 2009.\n8) In the Discussion section, the authors mention variations in lithology and temperature as\npotential controls on the effective width of shear zones. Presumably they mean the degree of\nstrain localization below the brittle-ductile transition. A broader zone of interseismic deformation (as\nobserved at the Earth's surface) can be interpreted in different ways, including variations in the\ndegree of strain localization below the brittle-ductile transition, viscoelastic effects, and multiple\nsub-parallel fault strands. Is there any evidence that the observed variations in the width of the\nobserved deformation zone along the ATF correlate with either local geology, or geotherm? If so,\nplease mention. Note that in case of multiple fault strands, each fault can still have highly localized\n\"roots\" at depth, as suggested for some major faults in the Tibet interior, see e.g. Jin et al., Transient\ndeformation excited by the 2021 M7.4 Maduo (China) earthquake: Evidence of a deep shear zone,\nJ. Geophys. Res., e2023JB026643, 2023. A reader would benefit from a more substantive discussion\non possible causes of variations in the effective width of the interseismic deformation zone along\nthe ATF, which is one of the main points of this manuscript.\n9) line 323. The authors are not inverting for the strain rate; consider \"Strain rate estimation\" instead\nof \"inversion\".", "reviewer_3": "Shen et al 2023 Nat Comms\nIn this article, Shen et al propose a map of surface deformation rates over one of the longest\ntectonic fault in Tibet, the Altyn Tagh Fault (ATF). The discussion about the history of the\nconstruction of the Tibetan plateau and its rheology is still not closed and the ATF is one of the main\nelements subject to debate. In particular, one of the main question is whether deformation focuses\nnear large lithospheric faults or rather distributes broadly, with repercussions on the general\nrheology of the crust in this region. The authors propose a large map of surface deformation rates\nover the ATF in order to evaluate the distribution of strain and address the question of strain\nfocusing. They explore two different models, one that focuses strain on the fault trace and another\nthat includes a broad, distributed deformation zone. Their conclusion, which is quite new in my\nopinion, is that the signature of the mechanical processes acting at depth vary along strike with\nfault sections where deformation extends over broad, 100-km-wide zone, while strain focuses right\non the fault trace along other sections.\nAlthough I think this piece of data is a very important element in the discussion, I find the paper not\nvery clear and could benefit from some important adjustments in order to better illustrate the\nconclusions of the authors. In particular, it is quite difficult to see what features in the data are\njustifying one model or the other, hence the final conclusions. Furthermore, the organisation of the\npaper is not completely clear as some elements should be passed from the methods section to the\nmain text to improve the flow of the paper. Finally, I would say that the main conclusion (“the role of\nthe ATF as a main controlling fault … is smaller than previously thought…”) is too vague and should\nbe precised.\nI conclusion, I think the main conclusion of the paper (i.e. variable style of deformation focusing\nalong the ATF) is supported by the data although the figures and discussion could be improved and I\nbelieve this conclusion is an important contribution to the debate. Some elements should be\nclarified and figures improved but I think that, in overall, this paper only requires minor to moderate\nrevisions.\nMain comments:\n- Although I personally haven’t taken a side in the ongoing discussions about the rheology of Tibet, I\nhave the impression that a lot of the disagreements stem from vague, incomplete and sometimes\ntoo rough statements that are not necessarily useful (forgive me the bluntness of this assertion).\nThe main conclusion here is that the style of deformation along the ATF changes along strike. The\ncorollary about the “role” of the ATF in the main text is actually quite vague and should either be\nclarified or simply removed.\n- Furthermore, the discussion paragraph should be put to a better use. Currently, it reads as a list of\npotential deformation mechanisms that may explain shear zone width in general, but there is no\nmention of scales involved (can you explain 100 km-wide shear zones by varying the content\nphyllosilicates? That sounds unlikely) and there is no direct link with the current matter, i.e. the ATF.\nDo we see any potential geological variability along strike that would match with the variations in\nshear zone width? Is there a geographical link with the different suture zones? Could the broad\nregion to the south west be related to the fact that several earthquakes in the area could have\nimpacted strain rates locally through some long lasting post-seismic effect even if no relaxation is\nvisible in the time series? Could the rheology of the Qaidam explain the broad region to the north\neast? Could the presence of the Altyn Shan explain the central broad deformation zone?\nRefactoring this discussion paragraph would allow to be a bit more precise in the discussion about\nthe interactions between faults and diffuse deformation in the history of the Tibetan plateau.\n- My main concern is about the presentation of the data and the model vs data fits. All the figures\nshowing profiles are extremely small and readers cannot assess the validity of the models. I\nwould suggest to have a few, large profiles with the corresponding fits, comparing the diffuse\ndeformation to the dislocation models in the main text so that readers can build their own\nopinion. It would also be good to have a sense of density of points in the profiles. Currently, each\npoint has the same “visual weight” in the plots and it look like the scatter is very large, while\nthey must cluster around a more interpretable trend. Furthermore, since one of the objectives is\nto figure out whether deformation is distributed or not, you should also evaluate the possibility\nthat it distributes over multiple faults (see Fialko 2006 or Dalaison et al 2023 for instance). Given\nthe size of the figures, it is not possible to assess whether some additional gradients could be\nfound in these broad deformation regions.\n- Modeling assumptions should be better introduced in the main text, not only in the methods\nsection, otherwise readers might be lost. Please describe simply the models in the main text,\nreferring to equations but describing the role of the main parameters (slip rate, rigidity ratio,\nlocking depth, …) and how do they translate in the data space.\n- Some clarification is required in the data used for the modeling. The Altyn Tagh fault is not\npurely East-West and it reads as if you are using the EW velocities to fit the data in both\nmodeling cases. If so, this is incorrect given the equations presented in the methods section (for\ninstance, eq. 4 is for fault parallel velocities and should not be used on EW velocities). I would\nencourage you to actually use the LOS data directly in order to correctly propagate errors.\n- The modeling exploration is about comparing two end-member types of model. The answer, as\nmost of the time, lies in between the two since some large features of the strain rate cannot be\nexplained by the shear zone model alone and vice versa. Therefore, why not trying a model in which\nyou impose some of the faults (ATF, Altyn Shan thrust, …) on top of a diffuse shear zone to see how\nthese families of models tradeoff? This would allow to avoid unrealistic locking depths of more than\n40 km or very large misfits for the strain rates related to the ATF (see strain rate excursions in Fig4).\nAdditional comments:\n- Line 16: Some earlier attempts were made with InSAR (Jolivet et al 2008) but also GNSS data (He\net al 2013)\n- Line 48 starting from “which is the first time…”: The end of the sentence is not really relevant and\nprobably wrong (see Lemrabet et al 2023 for instance).\n- Line 61: Resampling on a 1x1 km is convenient but probably overrides all the details related to\nshallow aseismic slip and other potential strain focusing. How much does this downsampling\naffect the results?\n- Line 63: Why east-west and not fault parallel?\n- Line 76 and 78: Unclear which data is modeled? Fault parallel or east-west?\n- Line 81: Add reference 47 as well.\n- Fig 3: Caption is incomplete. The additional strain corresponds to other faults but how are they\njustified? Do these correspond to anything in the geology? What is the depth of creep rate? Since\ncreep rate seems high in the region where locking depth is unrealistically large, isn’t creep used to\nbalance the fact that the model does not focus strain enough to fit the data? Therefore, is the main\nconclusion still supported?\n- Line 106: There is no strain rate inversion in the paper. You describe surface strain rate as\nderiving directly from the locking depth and loading rate, not coming from an inversion. How do\nyou include the effect of surface creep in that strain rate estimate (strain rate should be infinite\nat the fault if creep reaches the surface).\n- Fig 4: At longitude 89, shear zone width is relatively small (how small?). However, the inferred\nlocking depth is of ~40 km at the same location, which should look like a wide shear zone. There\nis a contradiction here. Please enlarge at least one of the profiles to show the details and illustrate\nwhether you might prefer one model or the other, or both.\n- Line 173-175: That’s the vague statement I was referring to. There is an equivalent one in the\nabstract\n- Line 192: Some conclusion would be helpful for readers\n- Line 311: Which PDF are you sampling? What proposal are you using? Is that an adaptive MCMC?\nAre uncertainties on the InSAR used somewhere? A bit more details about the implementation is\nrequired.\n- Line 341: “To better allow” (remove the s)\n- Figure S4 and figure 4 of the paper: In a larger plot, it would be nice to see multiple realizations of\nthe prediction instead of simply the MAP (or mean).\n- Figure S5: Insets should be much larger. Currently, labels overlap each other. In addition, I can see\nmultimodal marginals in the Horizontal shift parameter. Could this mean that several faults could\nbe detected in the profiles? What do these various locations correspond to in the data? In such\ncase, which value do you take (the MAP, the mean or one of the modes)?\nLooking forward to read an improved version of this interesting manuscript. While I consider my\nreview, I realize that I hereby provide a lot of comments. I believe these suggested improvements\ncorrespond to moderate revisions of the manuscript and the idea that strain focusing along active\nfaults varies along strike is an interesting one, which deserves to be published in Nat Comms, in my\nhumble opinion.\nCheers,\nRomain Jolivet, PhD\nÉcole normale supérieure"}, "author_response": "REVIEWER COMMENTS\nReviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):\nThe Altyn Tagh Fault (ATF) is an important fault in Asia and serves as the northern boundary of\nthe Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. As early as 2000, Bendick et al. initiated geodetic surveys in this\nlocation. Subsequently, Shen et al.2001; Zhang et al.2007; He et al. 2013, and others conducted\nGNSS observations with enhanced precision. However, due to the harsh natural conditions,\nthere has been a lack of observations on the deformation along the entire fault zone. The authors\naddressed this gap by utilizing InSAR technology. They presented the first InSAR-derived\nvelocity field covering almost the entire length of the 1600 km-long Altyn Tagh Fault and\nanalyzed the strain distribution. However, when compared to the extensive geodetic research\nconducted in the region, this study lacks sufficient novelty. Additionally, there are several\nsignificant issues within this paper that require revision.\nThere are three issues regarding the data processing. Firstly, as far as I know, LiCSAR\nprocesses InSAR data on each frame individually, which may result in the fault trace coinciding\nwith the edge of a particular frame, making it challenging to remove the trend component. The\nauthors mention that they merge frames within the same track to form a long track before\ngenerating interferograms using LiCSAR, to avoid possible inconsistent phase in the overlapping\nregion. However, I did not observe this step in Supplementary Figure 7.\nResponse: We confirm that in our analysis frames are merged before generating interferograms.\nWe revised Supplementary Figure 10 (formerly Supplementary Figure 7) to include the step of\nmerging along-track frames. We also revised Supplementary Figure 1 to show the merged data\ncoverage of each track.\nSecondly, concerning the baseline selection, the authors chose short temporal and spatial\nbaselines for the time-series InSAR processing. However, for the Altyn Tagh Fault, which\nexperiences displacements of several millimeters per year, using such short temporal baselines\nwould result in displacement signals on each interferogram being less than a millimeter. On the\nother hand, noise phases like atmospheric delay phases could be in the range of several to tens\nof millimeters, significantly affecting the displacement-to-noise ratio of the data. Have the\nauthors considered that the spatial baselines of Sentinel data are already short, and there is no\nneed to restrict them, primarily focusing on the temporal baselines? For the northern boundary\nof the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, which has a dry climate and almost no vegetation, selecting\nlonger-term baselines, such as one or two years, can still yield well-coherent interferograms.\nThe advantage of this approach is that it can significantly improve the displacement-to-noise\nratio of the data by tenfold or more. Therefore, I believe that for the Altyn Tagh Fault, especially\nin the case of long-term tectonic deformation, longer temporal baselines hold more advantages\nover shorter ones.\nResponse: The inversion approach using short temporal baseline interferogram does actually\ngenerate interferograms with long temporal baselines. As the accumulated displacement is an\naggregation of short temporal data, it provides both short-term and long-term signals. We have\nincluded Supplementary Figure 13 to illustrate an example of the derived accumulated\ndisplacement of descending track 92, which contains both short-term and long-term accumulated\ndeformation signals. We have described these points in lines 338 to 341.\nThirdly, during the InSAR processing, two of the most challenging aspects are atmospheric\neffects and orbital errors. The authors previously performed atmospheric correction for a\nsection of the Altyn Tagh Fault (Shen et al.2019). However, in this study, they mentioned using\ntheir previous method for removing atmospheric delay phases and showcased the RMS\ncomparisons of interferograms in Supplementary Figure 9. It would be helpful to include the\nresults of atmospheric correction for each track, before and after the correction, in the\nmanuscript, to provide a more visual demonstration of the effectiveness of this atmospheric\ncorrection method.\nResponse: We have added plots in Supplementary Figure 12 to demonstrate the effect of\natmospheric correction on individual epochs of each track, which are strongly influenced by\ntropospheric delays. The InSAR phase delay of these epochs is highly correlated with the\ntopography before correction, indicating the presence of strong tropospheric delays. However,\nafter removing the estimated tropospheric delay from the InSAR data, the phase no longer has\nstrong correlations with the topography. We have described these points in lines 330 to 333.\nAdditionally, the authors mentioned applying linear corrections to the InSAR deformation field\nusing GPS. However, in Figure 1(b), there are indications of subsidence (represented as\nnegative values in blue) at both ends of the Altyn Tagh Fault. The authors attributed this to the\nsouth dipping Altyn Shan thrusts along the southern border of the Tarim Basin and hydrological\nprocesses or effects from the sand dunes. However, this explanation appears unsubstantiated.\nResponse: The reviewer may be referring to Figure 2b. Figure 2b shows the \"sub-vertical\"\nvelocities that include contributions from both north-south and vertical movements. Negative\nvalues indicate either southward motion or subsidence. In the region north of the Altyn Tagh\nFault from 81.5°E to 82.5°E, the observed sub-vertical motion could potentially be attributed to\nsouthward movement resulting from left-lateral strike-slip of the fault. The sub-vertical\ncomponent observed over the eastern edge of the Altyn Tagh Fault does not appear to be\ntectonic. We interpret this as being associated with hydrological processes or effects from the\nsand dunes there. We have clarified these points in lines 86 to 91.\nRegarding the inversion of fault slip rates, the model proposed by Savage and Burford (1973)\nhas been repeatedly used for the Altyn Tagh Fault, demonstrating its applicability in the region.\nHowever, for the segment of the Altyn Tagh Fault from 86° E to 90° E, due to the uplift of the\nAltyn Shan range, deformation becomes complex in this area, with displacement occurring not\nonly along the Altyn Tagh Fault but also along the northern boundary faults of the Altyn Shan\nrange and within the intermountain basins. Therefore, employing this simple inversion model\nmay not be suitable for this particular segment, leading to unreliable inversion results.\nResponse: We thank the reviewer for this comment. It is indeed necessary to consider the\nvariable characteristics of the Altyn Tagh Fault in the modelling. The fault-parallel velocity\nprofiles derived in Supplementary Figure 4 reveal additional strain localisations distributed over\nsouthern strands near the western portion of the ATF from 84°E to 85.5°E and the eastern\nportion from 91°E to 92°E. Therefore, we applied the modified elastic half-space model\n(Equation 5) to these profiles, capable of solving for additional slip rate, locking depth, and\nburied dislocation shift on secondary faults. We have included these points in lines 103 to 106\nand lines 119 to 121.\nFrom 86°E to 90°E along the fault, we observe higher estimates of locking depth derived from\nthe elastic half-space model, indicating a wider zone where interseismic strain is accommodated\ndue to the splitting of the fault into three strands. Therefore, we applied a shear zone model\n(Equation 8) to capture the broader distributed deformation at depth. The modelling results\nreveal a wider shear zone of approximately 108 km between 87.5°E to 88.5°E in the location\nwhere the fault breaks into three parallel strands, and the wider shear zones explain the high\nestimates of the locking depth solved from the elastic half-space model in the region. We have\nclarified these points in line 203 and lines 215 to 218.\nOther minor issues include:\nL31-34: Please include the published GNSS results, such as Shen Z K, Wang M, Li Y, et al.\n2001; He J, Chéry J. 2008; Ge W P, Shen Z K, Molnar P, et al. 2022; Li Y, Nocquet J M, Shan X.\n2022.\nResponse: We have included these references in line 40.\nL189-191: The statement \"The ATF intersects different terranes as well as distinctive geological\nstructures such as sedimentary basins [37]\" is too general. Have the authors taken into\nconsideration that different segments of the Altyn Tagh Fault (ATF) may have formed under\nvarying tectonic backgrounds? Providing more specific information would enhance the clarity of\nthe statement.\nResponse: We have added more details in the discussion section (lines 268 to 277) regarding the\neffects of geological variation on the shear zone behavior observed along different segments of\nthe ATF.\nL200-201: Please include this step for merging frames in Supplementary Fig. 7.\nResponse: We have included the step of merging along-track frames in the revised\nSupplementary Figure 10 (formerly Supplementary Figure 7).\nL217-223: Why did the author use the a·sin(2π/365.25)t and b·cos(2π/365.25)t to fit the annual\nseasonal freezing and thawing of the upper layer of permafrost in the Tibetan Plateau? Why not\nutilize the new map of permafrost distribution on the Tibetan Plateau provided\nby https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-2527-2017-supplement?\nResponse: While the map would tell us where the permafrost is, the inclusion of the sinusoidal\nand cosinusoidal functions allows us to model the displacement caused by the freeze-thaw cycle\nand therefore better estimate the annual ground velocity. We have clarified this in lines 348 to\n349.\nL252-254: Is the \"anomalous\" subsidence at the eastern and western ends of the Altyn Tagh\nFault (ATF) in Figure 1(b) related to your transformation of GPS velocities from a Eurasia-fixed\nreference frame to a Tarim reference?\nResponse: The transformation of GNSS measurement velocities from a Eurasia-fixed reference\nframe to a Tarim reference is applied to horizontal components. After the transformation, the\nGNSS horizontal estimates show clear left-lateral strike-slip motion along the eastern and\nwestern ends of the Altyn Tagh Fault (refer to Supplementary Figure 14). We have included\nthese points in lines 377 to 381.\nFigure 2b shows sub-vertical velocities that include contributions from both north-south and\nvertical movements. Negative values indicate either southward motion or subsidence. Therefore,\nthe observed sub-vertical motion at the western end of the Altyn Tagh Fault could potentially be\nattributed to southward movement resulting from left-lateral strike-slip of the fault. The sub-\nvertical component observed over the eastern edge of the Altyn Tagh Fault does not appear to be\ntectonic. We interpret this as being associated with hydrological processes or effects from the\nsand dunes. We have clarified these points in lines 86 to 91.\nReviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):\nThis manuscript presents analysis of interseismic deformation due to the Altyn Tagh Fault (ATF)\nat the northern margin of the Tibetan Plateau. The authors use SAR data from the Sentinel-1\nmission to measure interseismic velocities along most of the ATF, and estimate its \"geodetic\"\nslip rate. They find slip rates slightly in excess of 10 mm/yr, much lower than the previously\nsuggested \"geologic\" slip rates (~30 mm/yr), but comparable to slip rates previously reported\nbased on the GNSS data. A relatively low slip rate of the ATF indicates that the Tibetan Plateau\nis undergoing significant internal deformation. Results in the manuscript represent a substantial\namount of work, and should be of interest to a broad community, even though they mostly\nconfirm the previously published GNSS data. The data analysis is sound, and conclusions are\nsupported by the presented evidence. I have several technical comments, as detailed below.\n1) lines 2-3. \"Major intracontinental strike-slip faults that have developed adjacent to strong\nregions are usually considered as boundaries that mark discontinuities in the velocity field\" - it's\nnot clear what velocity field is meant here. The interseismic velocity field is not discontinuous\n(except in case of creeping faults). Also, not all major strike-slip faults occur at the boundaries\nof \"strong regions\". Please clarify.\nResponse: The major intracontinental strike-slip faults discussed here are those lying adjacent to\nrelatively strong regions. The term \"velocity field\" refers to the distribution of long-term\nvelocities between tectonic plates or blocks, with strike-slip faults playing a significant role in\nthese interactions. We have clarified these points in lines 2 to 5.\n2) lines 11-14. \"Major earthquakes\" are those with magnitude greater than 7. What is the\nsignificance of M7.6? The ATF may or may not be capable of producing supershear ruptures,\nbut it's unclear how the supershear ruptures are related to the absence of earthquakes on the\nAFT in the last 120+ years. Please explain, or remove.\nResponse: According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) earthquake records, a pair\nof earthquakes occurred along the western portion of the ATF in 1924, with magnitudes of Mw\n7.0 and Mw 7.2, respectively. In 1932, a Mw 7.6 earthquake occurred along the Changma fault,\nnear the easternmost part of the ATF. Following the 1932 earthquake, no major earthquake\n(Mw > 7.0) has been recorded along the ATF. We have revised these points in lines 16 to 21. We\nhave removed the section about \"supershear”.\n3) lines 26-27. Replace \"from\" with \"based on\" or \"using\". I.e., \"... modelling based on/using ...\nmeasurements\".\nResponse: We have changed the text as suggested.\n4) lines 62-64. Why using the \"east-west\" velocity component, as opposed to e.g. the fault-\nparallel velocity? The latter would avoid unnatural assumptions about the \"north-south\"\ncomponent, as well as potential trade offs with the vertical component, e.g., Lindsey et al.,\nLocalized and distributed creep along the southern San Andreas Fault, J. Geophys. Res., 119,\n7909-7922, 2014. The fault strike may not be exactly constant, but using an average strike is\nlikely to introduce smaller errors compared to neglecting the \"north-south\" component.\nResponse: We use the plane defined by east-west and sub-vertical components to mosaic the\ntracks, allowing us to resolve the east-west velocities unambiguously. We have described this\npoint in lines 75 to 79. We then assume that the east-west velocities are solely the result of fault-\nparallel motion. Based on this assumption, we estimate 1-D fault-parallel velocities profiles\nusing a varying local strike perpendicular to the high-resolution fault trace of the ATF shown in\nFigure 1, derived from the estimated east-west velocity field. We choose to estimate fault-parallel\nvelocities from only the east-west velocities because InSAR has low sensitivity to north-south\nmotion, and with sparse GNSS we cannot unambiguously separate north-south velocities from\nvertical velocities. We have included these points in lines 93 to 99.\n5) line 81. Please cite evidence for a decreased rigidity on the Tibet side (if there is any).\nResponse: We have referenced a study (Kao et al., 2001) in line 103, indicating that the Tarim\nBasin appears to have remained a rigid block, experiencing little or no shortening in comparison\nto the Tibet side. We have also included a reference (Jolivet et al., 2008) in line 103, which\nprovides evidence of a rigidity decrease from the Tarim Basin north of the Altyn Tagh Fault to\nthe Tibetan Plateau.\n6) line 97. \"a wider zone of strain localisation\" sounds a bit odd. Consider: \"a wider zone in\nwhich the interseismic strain is accommodated due to splitting of the fault into three strands\".\nResponse: We have changed the text as suggested.\n7) lines 141, 328-220. Equation (7) is sometimes used to fit an early postseismic transient, but in\ngeneral it's non-physical, as it has no \"fully relaxed\" limit. Note that the pre-multiplying factor a\nin eq. 7 is NOT the amplitude of the transient. Also, the relaxation time T should not be referred\nto as the Maxwell relaxation time, as the latter is specific to linear viscoelastic solids. For an\n\"afterslip\" time function, see e.g. eq. (17) in Barbot et al., Postseismic deformation due to the\nMw6.0 2004 Parkfield earthquake: Stress-driven creep on a fault with spatially variable rate-\nand-state friction parameters, J. Geophys Res., 114, B07405, 2009.\nResponse: We thank the reviewer for these comments. We agree that 'a' and 'T' in Equation 7\nrepresent two characteristic constants for each time series. We have revised these points in lines\n470 to 471. While other equations are available to model time-dependent deformation, we find\nthat the simple one we choose performs well. We have clarified this point in lines 189 to 191.\n8) In the Discussion section, the authors mention variations in lithology and temperature as\npotential controls on the effective width of shear zones. Presumably they mean the degree of\nstrain localization below the brittle-ductile transition. A broader zone of interseismic\ndeformation (as observed at the Earth's surface) can be interpreted in different ways, including\nvariations in the degree of strain localization below the brittle-ductile transition, viscoelastic\neffects, and multiple sub-parallel fault strands. Is there any evidence that the observed variations\nin the width of the observed deformation zone along the ATF correlate with either local geology,\nor geotherm? If so, please mention. Note that in case of multiple fault strands, each fault can still\nhave highly localized \"roots\" at depth, as suggested for some major faults in the Tibet interior,\nsee e.g. Jin et al., Transient deformation excited by the 2021 M7.4 Maduo (China) earthquake:\nEvidence of a deep shear zone, J. Geophys. Res., e2023JB026643, 2023. A reader would benefit\nfrom a more substantive discussion on possible causes of variations in the effective width of the\ninterseismic deformation zone along the ATF, which is one of the main points of this manuscript.\nResponse: We have added more details in the discussion section regarding the effects of\ngeological (lines 254 to 277) and geothermal variations (lines 278 to 285) on the shear zone\nbehavior observed along the ATF.\n9) line 323. The authors are not inverting for the strain rate; consider \"Strain rate estimation\"\ninstead of \"inversion\".\nResponse: We have changed the text to “Strain rate estimation” as suggested.\nReviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):\nShen et al 2023 Nat Comms\nIn this article, Shen et al propose a map of surface deformation rates over one of the longest\ntectonic fault in Tibet, the Altyn Tagh Fault (ATF). The discussion about the history of the\nconstruction of the Tibetan plateau and its rheology is still not closed and the ATF is one of the\nmain elements subject to debate. In particular, one of the main question is whether deformation\nfocuses near large lithospheric faults or rather distributes broadly, with repercussions on the\ngeneral rheology of the crust in this region. The authors propose a large map of surface\ndeformation rates over the ATF in order to evaluate the distribution of strain and address the\nquestion of strain focusing. They explore two different models, one that focuses strain on the\nfault trace and another that includes a broad, distributed deformation zone. Their conclusion,\nwhich is quite new in my opinion, is that the signature of the mechanical processes acting at\ndepth vary along strike with fault sections where deformation extends over broad, 100-km-wide\nzone, while strain focuses right on the fault trace along other sections.\nAlthough I think this piece of data is a very important element in the discussion, I find the paper\nnot very clear and could benefit from some important adjustments in order to better illustrate the\nconclusions of the authors. In particular, it is quite difficult to see what features in the data are\njustifying one model or the other, hence the final conclusions. Furthermore, the organisation of\nthe paper is not completely clear as some elements should be passed from the methods section to\nthe main text to improve the flow of the paper. Finally, I would say that the main conclusion\n(“the role of the ATF as a main controlling fault … is smaller than previously thought…”) is too\nvague and should be precised.\nIn conclusion, I think the main conclusion of the paper (i.e. variable style of deformation\nfocusing along the ATF) is supported by the data although the figures and discussion could be\nimproved and I believe this conclusion is an important contribution to the debate. Some elements\nshould be clarified and figures improved but I think that, in overall, this paper only requires\nminor to moderate revisions.\nMain comments:\n- Although I personally haven’t taken a side in the ongoing discussions about the rheology of\nTibet, I have the impression that a lot of the disagreements stem from vague, incomplete and\nsometimes too rough statements that are not necessarily useful (forgive me the bluntness of this\nassertion). The main conclusion here is that the style of deformation along the ATF changes\nalong strike. The corollary about the “role” of the ATF in the main text is actually quite vague\nand should either be clarified or simply removed.\nResponse: We have removed this statement from the main text and abstract. Instead, we have\nadded sentences quantifying the proportion of the length of the ATF that the shear zone width\nindicates accommodates all of the strain (lines 237 to 239). This highlights the important role of\nsub-parallel faults near the ATF in the overall deformation field (lines 240 to 244).\n- Furthermore, the discussion paragraph should be put to a better use. Currently, it reads as a\nlist of potential deformation mechanisms that may explain shear zone width in general, but there\nis no mention of scales involved (can you explain 100 km-wide shear zones by varying the\ncontent phyllosilicates? That sounds unlikely) and there is no direct link with the current matter,\ni.e. the ATF. Do we see any potential geological variability along strike that would match with\nthe variations in shear zone width? Is there a geographical link with the different suture zones?\nCould the broad region to the south west be related to the fact that several earthquakes in the\narea could have impacted strain rates locally through some long lasting post-seismic effect even\nif no relaxation is visible in the time series? Could the rheology of the Qaidam explain the broad\nregion to the north east? Could the presence of the Altyn Shan explain the central broad\ndeformation zone? Refactoring this discussion paragraph would allow to be a bit more precise in\nthe discussion about the interactions between faults and diffuse deformation in the history of the\nTibetan plateau.\nResponse: We have restructured the discussion section to address each of the questions\nsuggested by the reviewer. Specifically, we discussed the effects of geological variability on the\nshear zone behaviour observed along the ATF (lines 254 to 260). We discussed how distinctive\ngeological structures intersecting with the ATF can lead to rheological variations that influence\nfault localisation, including the presence of Altyn Shan (lines 268 to 274) and the rheology of the\nQaidam Basin (lines 274 to 277). Additionally, we discussed the influence of higher heat flow on\nthe wide shear zone behaviour (lines 278 to 285), such as its impact on the western part of the\nQaidam Basin (lines 283 to 285). Furthermore, we explored the effect of past earthquake events\non the fault and shear zone behaviour (lines 286 to 290). We have removed the discussion about\nphyllosilicates.\n- My main concern is about the presentation of the data and the model vs data fits. All the figures\nshowing profiles are extremely small and readers cannot assess the validity of the models. I\nwould suggest to have a few, large profiles with the corresponding fits, comparing the diffuse\ndeformation to the dislocation models in the main text so that readers can build their own\nopinion. It would also be good to have a sense of density of points in the profiles. Currently, each\npoint has the same “visual weight” in the plots and it look like the scatter is very large, while\nthey must cluster around a more interpretable trend. Furthermore, since one of the objectives is\nto figure out whether deformation is distributed or not, you should also evaluate the possibility\nthat it distributes over multiple faults (see Fialko 2006 or Dalaison et al 2023 for instance).\nGiven the size of the figures, it is not possible to assess whether some additional gradients could\nbe found in these broad deformation regions.\nResponse:We have added plots in Figure 4 and Supplementary Figure 5 showing three enlarged\nprofiles for each broad shear zone, at 84°E, 87.5°E and 91°E, respectively. In these enlarged\nprofiles, we now show the mean value and the 95% confidence range of the data profile to\nprovide a sense of density of data points. Additionally, we have included the position of mapped\ngeological structures intersecting with the profile, as well as the estimated buried dislocation of\nthe ATF to allow assessment of whether strain concentrates on other nearby sub-parallel faults.\nWe have included these points in lines 204 to 211.\n- Modeling assumptions should be better introduced in the main text, not only in the methods\nsection, otherwise readers might be lost. Please describe simply the models in the main text,\nreferring to equations but describing the role of the main parameters (slip rate, rigidity ratio,\nlocking depth, …) and how do they translate in the data space.\nResponse: We have included descriptions about the models in the main text at lines 111 to 121.\n- Some clarification is required in the data used for the modeling. The Altyn Tagh fault is not\npurely East-West and it reads as if you are using the EW velocities to fit the data in both\nmodeling cases. If so, this is incorrect given the equations presented in the methods section (for\ninstance, eq. 4 is for fault parallel velocities and should not be used on EW velocities). I would\nencourage you to actually use the LOS data directly in order to correctly propagate errors.\nResponse: We used the fault-parallel velocities converted from the east-west velocity field in\nboth modelling cases, which we have clarified in lines 93 to 96 and lines 199 to 201. We choose\nto estimate fault-parallel velocities from only the east-west velocities because InSAR has low\nsensitivity to north-south motion, and with sparse GNSS we cannot unambiguously separate\nnorth-south velocities from vertical velocities. It is a good idea to use the LOS data directly, and\nwe will include it into our future modelling work.\n- The modeling exploration is about comparing two end-member types of model. The answer, as\nmost of the time, lies in between the two since some large features of the strain rate cannot be\nexplained by the shear zone model alone and vice versa. Therefore, why not trying a model in\nwhich you impose some of the faults (ATF, Altyn Shan thrust, …) on top of a diffuse shear zone\nto see how these families of models tradeoff? This would allow to avoid unrealistic locking\ndepths of more than 40 km or very large misfits for the strain rates related to the ATF (see strain\nrate excursions in Fig4).\nResponse: Thank you. The current estimated strain rates for each profile shown in Figure 4b\nhave indicated multi-peak strain rates over the three broad shear zones (lines 226 to 228),\nsuggesting that the estimation can capture both the peak strain on the main strand of the ATF and\nwide, diffused strain over the broad shear zone. Therefore, we consider it a good direction for\nfuture work to impose some of the faults on top of a diffuse shear zone in the modelling.\nAdditional comments:\n- Line 16: Some earlier attempts were made with InSAR (Jolivet et al 2008) but also GNSS data\n(He et al 2013)\nResponse: We have added these references (line 35).\n- Line 48 starting from “which is the first time…”: The end of the sentence is not really relevant\nand probably wrong (see Lemrabet et al 2023 for instance).\nResponse: The published InSAR research over the Altyn Tagh Fault usually addresses only a\nportion of the fault rather than its entire length. However, we have changed the wording to focus\non the resolution provided by InSAR. We have now state (lines 56 to 58), \"which is the first time\na large-scale analysis covering almost the entire length of the fault has been carried out with a\nresolution sufficient to identify areas of strain localisation.\"\n- Line 61: Resampling on a 1x1 km is convenient but probably overrides all the details related to\nshallow aseismic slip and other potential strain focusing. How much does this downsampling\naffect the results?\nResponse: We have added Supplementary Figure 3 to show a comparison of LOS velocities\nbefore and after resampling in ascending and descending directions, respectively. We calculated\nvelocity differences along short fault-parallel velocity profiles with a length of 10 km on either\nside of the ATF, and the results indicate a negligible difference after resampling. We have added\nthis point in lines 72 to 75.\n- Line 63: Why east-west and not fault parallel?\nResponse: Please see response to Reviewer #2 Point 4.\n- Line 76 and 78: Unclear which data is modeled? Fault parallel or east-west?\nResponse: We modelled the fault-parallel velocities, which we have clarified in lines 109 to 111\nand lines 199 to 201.\n- Line 81: Add reference 47 as well.\nResponse: We have included the reference as suggested at line 103.\n- Fig 3: Caption is incomplete. The additional strain corresponds to other faults but how are\nthey justified? Do these correspond to anything in the geology? What is the depth of creep rate?\nSince creep rate seems high in the region where locking depth is unrealistically large, isn’t creep\nused to balance the fact that the model does not focus strain enough to fit the data? Therefore,\nis the main conclusion still supported?\nResponse: The estimated additional buried dislocations for the profiles from 84°E to 85.5°E are\nlocated ~50 km to 150 km south of the ATF, where other sinistral faults are mapped (Taylor et\nal., 2009). For the profiles over the eastern portion from 91°E to 92°E, the buried dislocation\nshifts ~130 km southward to a region that features other multiple fault strands. We have clarified\nthese points in the caption of Figure 3 and in lines 136 to 140.\nWe have included the estimated creep depth in Figure 3.\nWe have added a Supplementary Figure 7 indicates that the estimated creep rate is not highly\ncorrelated with the estimated locking depth, as the locking depth of areas with higher estimates\nof creep rate varies from 15 km to 40 km. We have also included this point in lines 146 to 150.\n- Line 106: There is no strain rate inversion in the paper. You describe surface strain rate as\nderiving directly from the locking depth and loading rate, not coming from an inversion. How do\nyou include the effect of surface creep in that strain rate estimate (strain rate should be infinite\nat the fault if creep reaches the surface).\nResponse: Our estimate of strain rate is the rate expected from slip rate alone, ignoring any\ncreep. We have clarified this in the text (line 468).\n- Fig 4: At longitude 89, shear zone width is relatively small (how small?). However, the inferred\nlocking depth is of ~40 km at the same location, which should look like a wide shear zone. There\nis a contradiction here. Please enlarge at least one of the profiles to show the details and\nillustrate whether you might prefer one model or the other, or both.\nResponse: The estimated shear zone width is ~0.6 km at 89°E and ~4.2 km at 89.5°E, which is\nmuch narrower than the two neighbouring sections with a broader shear zone width. The\nestimated narrow shear zone width is likely a result of the relatively noisy data in that area,\nwhich cannot distinguish between a possible shallow creep using the elastic half-space model or\na localised single fault using the shear zone model. We have clarified these points in lines 219 to\n225.\nWe have added plots in Figure 4 and Supplementary Figure 5 showing three enlarged profiles for\neach broad shear zone, located at 84°E, 87.5°E, and 91°E, respectively.\n- Line 173-175: That’s the vague statement I was referring to. There is an equivalent one in the\nabstract\nResponse: Please see our response to reviewer’s first comment.\n- Line 192: Some conclusion would be helpful for readers\nResponse: We have added a conclusion section in lines 291 to 309 to summarise our work as\nsuggested.\n- Line 311: Which PDF are you sampling? What proposal are you using? Is that an adaptive\nMCMC? Are uncertainties on the InSAR used somewhere? A bit more details about the\nimplementation is required.\nResponse: We have now added these details in lines 437 to 462.\n- Line 341: “To better allow” (remove the s)\nResponse: Done.\n- Figure S4 and figure 4 of the paper: In a larger plot, it would be nice to see multiple\nrealizations of the prediction instead of simply the MAP (or mean).\nResponse: We have included the 95% model confidence range into the plots of enlarged profiles\n(Figure 4 and Supplementary Figure 5), providing multiple realizations of the prediction.\n- Figure S5: Insets should be much larger. Currently, labels overlap each other. In addition, I\ncan see multimodal marginals in the Horizontal shift parameter. Could this mean that several\nfaults could be detected in the profiles? What do these various locations correspond to in the\ndata? In such case, which value do you take (the MAP, the mean or one of the modes)?\nResponse: We have corrected the overlapping labels in Supplementary Figure 6 (formerly\nSupplementary Figure 5). The horizontal shift estimated for the main strand of the ATF\nrepresents the distance between the fault trace and buried dislocation. The estimated multimodal\nmarginals shown in the posterior probability distributions suggest that the strain could be\ndistributed along multiple strands of the ATF (e.g., at 85.5°E and 91°E) or may be influenced by\nrelatively noisy data where there are no mapped multiple strands (e.g., at 81.5°E and 89°E). We\nhave included these points in lines 140 to 143.\nThe estimated buried dislocation is located south of the fault from 81.5°E to 83°E. It then\ninterweaves with the fault trace along its central portion before shifting to the north of the fault\nfrom 91.5°E eastward. We have included these points in lines 133 to 136.\nIn our modeling, we computed the Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) solution to characterise the\nlocalised strain of the fault. We have clarified this in lines 461 to 462.\nLooking forward to read an improved version of this interesting manuscript. While I consider my\nreview, I realize that I hereby provide a lot of comments. I believe these suggested improvements\ncorrespond to moderate revisions of the manuscript and the idea that strain focusing along\nactive faults varies along strike is an interesting one, which deserves to be published in Nat\nComms, in my humble opinion.\nCheers,\nRomain Jolivet, PhD\nÉcole normale supérieure\nResponse: Many thanks for this helpful review.\nREVIEWERS' COMMENTS\nReviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):\nThe author has addressed the majority of my previous concerns, and the overall argumentation in\nthe manuscript has been strengthened. However, there are a few remaining minor issues that I\nhope the author can address:\n1. Abstract: Regarding the sentence \"This contrasts to the North Anatolian and central San Andreas\nfaults, where strain rate varies little along the entire length.\", I think that this sentence may not be\nessential to the core focus of the paper. The author could consider removing it to make the abstract\nmore concise and focused.\n2.The author has compared the GNSS results and the InSAR results in the text (as shown in\nSupplementary Figure 4). I suggest that the author should include the locations of the GNSS\nstations used in the analysis in either Supplementary Figure 4 or Figure 1. This additional spatial\ninformation would greatly facilitate the reader's understanding of the spatial context of the data\ncomparison.\n3.L145-146: \"Except for the 2 mm/yr creep rate observed at the westernmost end of the fault and\nin the region from 88.5°E to 90.5°E\", I recommend the author provide a brief discussion to address the\nfollowing two points, as this phenomenon is likely to be of significant interest to many readers:\na. Confirm whether the 2 mm/yr creep rate at the westernmost end of the fault is related to the\npost-seismic deformation following the February 2014 Mw 6.9 Yutian earthquake.\nb. Explain the reason for the observed creep in the region from 88.5°E to 90.5°E, as the GNSS\nresults reported by Ge et al. (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JB024216) do not show such a\ncreep phenomenon.\nReviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):\nThe authors have done a good job with their revision. I have a few comments on the revised\nmanuscript that should be fairly easy to address.\n1) Lines 43-44. \"For instance, the geodetic measurements are generally 2–3 times less\nthan some of the Quaternary measurements\". Here, the comparison is between slip rates, not\n\"measurements\" (which are not directly comparable). Consider: \"For instance, slip rates inferred\nfrom geodetic data are generally a factor of 2 to 3 lower than those inferred from geologic data\".\n2) Lines 111-113. \"To explain the asymmetry in the interseismic velocities on each side of the fault,\nwe incorporate an asymmetry coefficient in the model to characterise the different rigidity between\nthe Plateau and the Tarim Basin.\" It's not clear from the text whether the \"asymmetry coefficient\" is\nsolved for, or assumed based on some available data (e.g., seismic velocities). If it's solved for\n(which I think is the case), please provide the estimated values of the rigidity ratio, and discuss how\nrealistic they are.\n3) Lines 216-218. \"The wider shear zones explain the high estimates for the locking depth solved\nfrom the elastic half-space model in these areas\" - it's not clear what shear zone model the authors\nare referring to here - several discrete faults (Line 421), or a \"distributed\" shear zone (Line 473).\nPartly, the confusion is due to terminology. The two models used by the authors are called \"A\nmodified elastic half-space model\", and \"a shear zone\". In fact, both are models of a shear zone,\nand both assume elastic half-space. The main difference between these models is the degree of\nstrain localization below the locking depth. To avoid confusion, the authors may wish to refer to\nthese models as to discrete vs distributed shear zones. I suppose the rationale for using a\ndistributed shear zone is that a discrete shear zone with several faults (based on geologically\nmapped fault traces) still produces locking depths that are too high? Please clarify.\n4) Lines 228-230. \"The results suggest that the strain over the wide shear zones could be distributed\nalong multiple strands of the ATF or across other fault strands that are away from the ATF\" - here,\nit would be instructive to mention examples of other fault systems that split into multiple strands,\nsuch as the northern Alpine or southern San Andreas, to point out that the ATF is not unique in this\nregard. E.g., at the end of the sentence: \"... that are away from the ATF, similar to ...\".\nReviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):\nIn general, the authors have nicely addressed my comments and I believe this article is almost\nready for publication. I find the use of a shear zone model over broad regions instead of the classic\nscrew dislocation model quite nice and I would be very happy to see whether a 3D version of such\nmodel could be derived later (some kind of augmented block model with shear zones). However,\ntwo points remain incorrect in my opinion. These do not require much work but must be corrected,\nin my opinion.\nThe effect of the downsampling on the estimation of the shallow behavior of the fault is not clearly\nexplained. In particular, I don’t understand the test on resampling (Fig S7). How can one compute a\nvelocity difference between non downsampled and downsampled without resampling? Since there\nis probably some resampling involved, the test just shows that the final velocity field is equivalent\nto the original one when they are both resampled. Maybe I did not understand what was done, but if\nthis is the case, I don’t get it.\nThe source of the data used for the modeling is, in my opinion, incorrect. InSAR is not “insensitive”\nto north-south motion. It is less sensitive but the actual zero plan strikes 13 to 15° to the east or\nwest, depending on the LOS. Furthermore, the fault strikes at about 30° E so part of the signal, is\naffecting the LOS measurements. One must therefore use the LOS measurement as data input for\nthe modeling part rather than the fault-parallel-derive-from-the-east-west field. This easy fix, which\ninvolves a simple projection, will not change the shape of the shear zones but will affect slightly the\nslip rates. In particular, one can see that there is systematic differences between the fault parallel\nGNSS-derived displacements and the InSAR one (around 86° for instance, Fig S4) and I suspect this\ndiscrepancy comes from the assumption. Finally, asserting that NS motion cannot be measured\nwith InSAR is wrong as it is possible to measure quite low slip rates on faults that show a relatively\npoor orientation when done carefully (check the papers on the Chaman fault, for instance, by\nFattahi, Barnhart or Dalaison over the years with different constellations).\nSincerely,\nRomain Jolivet\nÉcole normale supérieure\nREVIEWERS' COMMENTS\nReviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):\nThe author has addressed the majority of my previous concerns, and the overall argumentation\nin the manuscript has been strengthened. However, there are a few remaining minor issues that I\nhope the author can address:\n1. Abstract: Regarding the sentence \"This contrasts to the North Anatolian and central San\nAndreas faults, where strain rate varies little along the entire length.\", I think that this sentence\nmay not be essential to the core focus of the paper. The author could consider removing it to\nmake the abstract more concise and focused.\nResponse: We have removed mention of the NAF and SAF and revised the text to: \"We find that\nlocalisation of strain is actually variable, in contrast to other major strike-slip faults that show\nlittle variation, with strain concentrated at the fault for some sections and distributed over broad\n(>100 km) shear zones for others.\", which makes the abstract more concise and focused.\n2.The author has compared the GNSS results and the InSAR results in the text (as shown in\nSupplementary Figure 4). I suggest that the author should include the locations of the GNSS\nstations used in the analysis in either Supplementary Figure 4 or Figure 1. This additional\nspatial information would greatly facilitate the reader's understanding of the spatial context of\nthe data comparison.\nResponse: We have added a plot of GNSS stations in Supplementary Figure 4 as suggested.\n3.L145-146: \"Except for the 2 mm/yr creep rate observed at the westernmost end of the fault and\nin the region from 88.5°E to 90.5°E\", I recommend the author provide a brief discussion to\naddress the following two points, as this phenomenon is likely to be of significant interest to\nmany readers:\na. Confirm whether the 2 mm/yr creep rate at the westernmost end of the fault is related to the\npost-seismic deformation following the February 2014 Mw 6.9 Yutian earthquake.\nResponse: To investigate the impact of postseismic deformation following the February 2014\nMw 6.9 Yutian strike-slip earthquake, which occurred nine months before the InSAR\nobservations of this study, we calculate the time series of relative LOS displacement between\ntwo sites located around 30 km apart, either side of the south-western segment. We calculate the\naverage LOS displacement of points within 2 km distance to each site from the tropospheric\ncorrected single primary interferograms, to form a time series of relative LOS displacement\nbetween the two sites, to which we fit a linear trend. Shown as the Supplementary Figure 9, we\nfind a generally consistent rate in the ascending track. For the descending track, the displacement\nin the early time series, 673 days before the earthquake occurred, has a systematic bias,\nindicating a higher rate before November 2015 compared to the later time series. We also fit a\nlogarithmic decay trend to the time series. Compared to the linear model, however, there is no\nsignificant improvement when fitting the data with the logarithmic model. This suggests that the\npostseismic deformation is hard to distinguish from the long term interseismic deformation.\nMoreover, the estimated creep rate at the near-field region of 82°E is much lower, at 0.8 mm/yr.\nTherefore, the higher creep rate estimated at the westernmost end of 81.5°E is not likely caused\nby the impact of the postseismic deformation. We have included these points in lines 181 to 200.\nb. Explain the reason for the observed creep in the region from 88.5°E to 90.5°E, as the GNSS\nresults reported by Ge et al. (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JB024216) do not show such a\ncreep phenomenon.\nResponse: Although shallow creep is not observed in the modelling results from the GNSS\nmeasurements between 88°E and 91°E, this could be due to the use of a wider profile (~300 km),\nwhich may be too smoothed to detect small-scale shallow creep. We have described these points\nin lines 142 to 145.\nReviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):\nThe authors have done a good job with their revision. I have a few comments on the revised\nmanuscript that should be fairly easy to address.\n1) Lines 43-44. \"For instance, the geodetic measurements are generally 2–3 times less\nthan some of the Quaternary measurements\". Here, the comparison is between slip rates, not\n\"measurements\" (which are not directly comparable). Consider: \"For instance, slip rates\ninferred from geodetic data are generally a factor of 2 to 3 lower than those inferred from\ngeologic data\".\nResponse: We have revised the text to: \"For instance, slip rates inferred from geodetic data are\ngenerally a factor of 2 to 3 lower than those inferred from geologic data,\" as suggested.\n2) Lines 111-113. \"To explain the asymmetry in the interseismic velocities on each side of the\nfault, we incorporate an asymmetry coefficient in the model to characterise the different rigidity\nbetween the Plateau and the Tarim Basin.\" It's not clear from the text whether the \"asymmetry\ncoefficient\" is solved for, or assumed based on some available data (e.g., seismic velocities). If\nit's solved for (which I think is the case), please provide the estimated values of the rigidity ratio,\nand discuss how realistic they are.\nResponse: We confirm that we solve for the asymmetry coefficient in the model. To clarify, we\nhave revised the text to “To explain the asymmetry in interseismic velocities on each side of the\nfault, we solve for a rigidity ratio as an asymmetry coefficient in the model to characterise the\ndiffering rigidity between the Plateau and the Tarim Basin.”\nWe have included Supplementary Figure 8, showing the estimated values of the rigidity ratio\nalong the Altyn Tagh Fault. As expected, we observe a reduction in rigidity from the Tarim Basin\nto the Tibetan Plateau, with an average rigidity ratio of 0.60. This agrees with the understanding\nthat the Tarim Basin was relatively stable during the Cenozoic [34]. Moreover, we identify a\nhigher rigidity ratio of up to 0.99 in the west-central segment from 83°E to 86°E, indicating a\nsignificant contrast in rigidity across this region. We have added these points in lines 149 to 154.\n3) Lines 216-218. \"The wider shear zones explain the high estimates for the locking depth solved\nfrom the elastic half-space model in these areas\" - it's not clear what shear zone model the\nauthors are referring to here - several discrete faults (Line 421), or a \"distributed\" shear zone\n(Line 473). Partly, the confusion is due to terminology. The two models used by the authors are\ncalled \"A modified elastic half-space model\", and \"a shear zone\". In fact, both are models of a\nshear zone, and both assume elastic half-space. The main difference between these models is the\ndegree of strain localization below the locking depth. To avoid confusion, the authors may wish\nto refer to these models as to discrete vs distributed shear zones. I suppose the rationale for\nusing a distributed shear zone is that a discrete shear zone with several faults (based on\ngeologically mapped fault traces) still produces locking depths that are too high? Please clarify.\nResponse: The “modified elastic half-space model” describes a fault extending through the\nentire lithosphere as a discrete plane, with slip occurring continuously in the narrow zone, similar\nto that caused by an infinitely long screw dislocation in an elastic half-space at depth.\nThe “shear zone model” has deformation localised onto the discrete fault surface in the upper\ncrust but distributed in wide shear zones at depth beneath the locked elastic lid. Therefore, the\nlong-term motion of the upper crust is identical to that in the “modified elastic half-space\nmodel”, whereas the lower layer deforms in a ductile manner, resulting in the total deformation\nbeing distributed linearly.\nTo distinguish between them, we use the term “modified deep-fault model” to refer to the\n“modified elastic half-space model,” and the term “distributed shear zone model” to refer to the\n“shear zone model.”\nThe rationale for incorporating a distributed shear zone model is to investigate the distributed\nshear strain in a broader shear zone, as the results from the modified deep-fault model suggest\nthat the strain along some portions of the ATF is likely widely distributed.\nWe have described these points in lines 202 to 205, lines 422 to 424, and lines 467 to 471 to\nexplain them explicitly.\n4) Lines 228-230. \"The results suggest that the strain over the wide shear zones could be\ndistributed along multiple strands of the ATF or across other fault strands that are away from the\nATF\" - here, it would be instructive to mention examples of other fault systems that split into\nmultiple strands, such as the northern Alpine or southern San Andreas, to point out that the ATF\nis not unique in this regard. E.g., at the end of the sentence: \"... that are away from the ATF,\nsimilar to ...\".\nResponse: We have revised the text to “The results suggest that strain over wide shear zones\ncould be distributed along multiple strands of the ATF or across other fault strands away from the\nATF, where similar split strands can be observed in other fault systems such as the northern\nAlpine Fault [41] and the southern San Andreas Fault [42].”, as suggested.\nReviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):\nIn general, the authors have nicely addressed my comments and I believe this article is almost\nready for publication. I find the use of a shear zone model over broad regions instead of the\nclassic screw dislocation model quite nice and I would be very happy to see whether a 3D\nversion of such model could be derived later (some kind of augmented block model with shear\nzones). However, two points remain incorrect in my opinion. These do not require much work but\nmust be corrected, in my opinion.\nThe effect of the downsampling on the estimation of the shallow behavior of the fault is not\nclearly explained. In particular, I don’t understand the test on resampling (Fig S7). How can one\ncompute a velocity difference between non downsampled and downsampled without resampling?\nSince there is probably some resampling involved, the test just shows that the final velocity field\nis equivalent to the original one when they are both resampled. Maybe I did not understand what\nwas done, but if this is the case, I don’t get it.\nResponse: We compare the velocities before and after resampling along short fault-parallel\nvelocity profiles with a length of 10 km on either side of the fault. To avoid any further\nresampling in the comparison, we show the velocity of points located within a spatial distance of\n5 metres before and after resampling, individually, instead of the differences, in the new\nSupplementary Figure 3. The results also indicate a negligible difference in both ascending and\ndescending directions before and after resampling. We have revised the text in lines 69 to 75 to\nclarify these points.\nThe source of the data used for the modeling is, in my opinion, incorrect. InSAR is not\n“insensitive” to north-south motion. It is less sensitive but the actual zero plan strikes 13 to 15°\nto the east or west, depending on the LOS. Furthermore, the fault strikes at about 30° E so part\nof the signal, is affecting the LOS measurements. One must therefore use the LOS measurement\nas data input for the modeling part rather than the fault-parallel-derive-from-the-east-west field.\nThis easy fix, which involves a simple projection, will not change the shape of the shear zones\nbut will affect slightly the slip rates. In particular, one can see that there is systematic differences\nbetween the fault parallel GNSS-derived displacements and the InSAR one (around 86° for\ninstance, Fig S4) and I suspect this discrepancy comes from the assumption. Finally, asserting\nthat NS motion cannot be measured with InSAR is wrong as it is possible to measure quite low\nslip rates on faults that show a relatively poor orientation when done carefully (check the papers\non the Chaman fault, for instance, by Fattahi, Barnhart or Dalaison over the years with different\nconstellations).\nResponse: We have followed the reviewer's suggestion to perform the modelling using the fault-\nparallel velocities directly derived from the LOS measurements and revised the manuscript\naccordingly. As expected, the new results show consistent variation in slip rate and shear zone\nwidth with slightly higher slip rates. The RMSE of differences between the GNSS-derived fault-\nparallel velocities and the InSAR-derived fault-parallel velocities slightly decreased from 2.0\nmm/yr to 1.9 mm/yr at 86°E, indicating a small impact of the previous assumption.\nWe have clarified that we use the InSAR LOS measurements as the source of modelling in lines\n93 to 95. To avoid confusion, we removed the section about “InSAR having low sensitivity to\nnorth-south motion” in the main text.\nSincerely,\nRomain Jolivet\nÉcole normale supérieure\nResponse: We thank all reviewers for the very constructive and helpful reviews."}]

Decision letter