## 4 Experimental Design
The ENSN dataset has a slightly lower standard deviation in latitude and longitude, which reflects a more concentrated area for data collection. This is supported by the geographical distribution of the seismic stations employed in both networks. Daily temporal distribution is consistent in both datasets, although ENSN has a marginally higher mean hour of 12.17, compared to SNSN's 11.67. Depth and magnitude reveal further distinctions; the depth of seismic events in ENSN tends to be deeper on average (15.42 km) with a higher variance (7.52) compared to SNSN (13.57 km, std: 8.24). ENSN's records penetrate deeper into the Earth's crust, with a maximum depth of 75.19 km, and also display more intense seismic events, peaking at a magnitude of 5.7. In contrast, SNSN's data primarily encompass events of moderate depth and magnitude, with averages of 13.57 km and 1.61, respectively. Figure 2: (**a**) Spatial configuration of seismic stations operated by the Saudi Geological Survey (SGS) [50]. (**b**) Spatial distribution of collected earthquake events captured by the Saudi National Seismic Network (SNSN). (**c**) Network topology of seismic stations in the Egyptian National Seismic Network (ENSN) [51]. (**d**) Geospatial variability in earthquake events recorded and collected by the Egyptian National Seismic Network (ENSN). Following data collection, each seismic event was carefully categorized based on parameters including annual frequency, magnitude range, and depth variations. These consolidated data were then integrated into a unified GIS database. In the process of consolidating the ENSN and SNSN catalogs, a multifaceted approach was employed to ensure data integrity and compatibility. Initially, both catalogs were subjected to a rigorous investigating to remove non-tectonic seismic events, specifically focusing on the exclusion of quarry blasts utilizing the ZMAP software version 7 [52]. Subsequently, statistical outlier detection methods, such as the Modified \(Z\)-score [53], were applied to remove anomalous events with aberrant magnitudes or locations or depths. To tackle the issue of disparate local magnitude (\(M_{l}\)) scales, a unifying transformation was executed to convert all reported magnitudes to moment magnitude (\(M_{w}\)). To standardize magnitude measurements across datasets, all values were normalized to the moment magnitude scale (\(M_{w}\)). This was facilitated by a series of empirically derived conversion equations, each tailored to the specific seismological characteristics of the corresponding network. This standardization relied on the \(M_{w}\) scale's proven reliability and employed conversion relations delineated by [PERSON] et al. [35] for ENSN data and by [PERSON] et al. [54] for SNSN data. Finally, the homogenized datasets were merged, thereby producing a comprehensive, unified seismic catalog with uniform magnitude reporting. Figure 3 depicts the spatial distribution of selected seismic events. Meanwhile, Table 2 provides descriptive statistics for each of the dataset's parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Statistic** & **Year** & **Month** & **Day** & **Hour** & **Minute** & **Second** & **Latitude** & **Longitude** & **Depth** & **Magnitude** \\ \hline count & 37,730 & 37,730 & 37,730 & 37,730 & 37,730 & 37,730 & 37,730 & 37,730 & 37,730 & 37,730 & 37,730 \\ mean & 2006 & 6.34 & 15.89 & 12.04 & 29.27 & 29.82 & 27.15 & 34.88 & 15.04 & 1.66 \\ std & 3.93 & 3.45 & 8.77 & 7.48 & 17.17 & 17.38 & 1.67 & 0.79 & 6.85 & 0.51 \\ min & 1997 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 22.03 & 32.32 & 1.00 & 1.00 \\
25\% & 2003 & 3.00 & 8.00 & 5.00 & 14.00 & 14.70 & 25.48 & 34.49 & 10.00 & 1.20 \\
50\% & 2005 & 6.00 & 16.00 & 13.00 & 29.00 & 30.00 & 27.61 & 34.73 & 14.60 & 1.64 \\
75\% & 2009 & 9.00 & 23.00 & 19.00 & 44.00 & 45.00 & 28.51 & 34.90 & 19.50 & 2.00 \\ max & 2020 & 12.00 & 31.00 & 23.00 & 59.00 & 59.99 & 29.91 & 37.96 & 34.21 & 3.20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}