## 1 Introduction  
The advancement of performance-based seismic design necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between ground motion inputs and the dynamic responses of underground structures. This has led to the growing utilization of incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) as a potent tool for evaluating the seismic performance of various underground constructions such as subway stations [1; 2; 3; 4; 5], tunnels [6; 7], and underground cavern groups [8]. IDA offers the advantage of accounting for the randomness of seismic ground motion and the structural response characteristics under significant seismic events. Nevertheless, the accurate implementation of IDA relies heavily on the selection of appropriate ground motion intensity measures (IMs) and structural damage measures (DMs).  
Prior research has made considerable strides in establishing criteria for the optimal selection of IMs and DMs when conducting IDA for underground structures. For example, [PERSON] et al. [9] explored the relationship between IMs and DMs in the context of mountain tunnels, revealing that IMs vary for different ground motion scenarios. Likewise, [PERSON] et al. [10] undertook an IDA on underground steel pipelines, assessing 23 distinct IMs based on parameters like efficiency, sufficiency, and scaling robustness. From this evaluation, they identified energy density and a composite measure of velocity and spectral velocity types as the most effective IMs. Further contributions have come from [PERSON] et al. [11], who assessed 22 IMs and four DMs with regard to the Daikai subway station in Japan in terms of efficiency, practicality, and proficiency, identifying acceleration-type IMs and maximum inter-story drift ratio as particularly relevant for seismic performance evaluations of this station. [PERSON] et al. [3] investigated how different IMs affect the seismic fragility curves of the same station from efficiency, practicality, proficiency, and relativity, finding that peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak relative lateral displacement are especially useful in this context. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [7], [PERSON] et al. [12], [PERSON] et al. [13], and [PERSON] et al. [14] have provided valuable insights into the applicability of various IMs and DMs for circular tunnels, pipe galleries, and underground frame structures with different cross-sectional types, respectively. In summary, the study on optimal selection of IMs and DMs during IDA for underground structures has already made some progress; however, the types of IMs and DMs considered and the purpose as well as significance of different properties of the comprehensive evaluation approach during measure optimization must be clarified and improved further.  
To fill this gap, the current study focuses on the Daikai subway station as a case study representative of shallow-buried underground structures. We evaluated 32 IMs--both scalar and vector types--and seven DMs, which include metrics related to displacement, energy, and two-parameter types. These measures were assessed based on seven essential criteria: efficiency, practicality, proficiency, scaling robustness, relativity, hazard computability, and sufficiency. The results were then systematically organized and hierarchically classified, laying the groundwork for developing a robust measuring system for future seismic evaluations of underground constructions.