# Expanding Moment Magnitude Pools for Earthquake Magnitude Homogenization
## 3 Results
### South Korea
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & & \\ \hline
**Agency** & **M\({}_{\rm W}\)1** & **M\({}_{\rm S}\)** & **m\({}_{\rm b}\)** & **M\({}_{\rm L}\)** & **M\({}_{\rm D}\)** & **M** \\ \hline GCMT & 15 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ HRVD & 3 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ ISC & 0 & 46 & 100 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ ISC-GEM & 17 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ JMA & 7 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 479 \\ KMA & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1053 & 0 & 0 \\ NEIC & 8 & 12 2 & 71 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\ NIED & 135 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Includes all recorded moment magnitude types. 2 includes M\({}_{\rm SZ}\) and M\({}_{\rm S20}\) magnitude types.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Number of earthquakes by seismological agency and magnitude type for South Korea. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Agency**} & **Number of** & **Slope,** & **Intercept,** & **Standard** & **t-Statistic** & _p-Value_ & **Significantly** \\  & **Data Pairs** & \(\beta_{1}\) & \(\beta_{0}\) & **Deviation, \(\sigma\)** & \(\beta_{1}\)/\(\beta_{0}\) & \(\beta_{1}\)/\(\beta_{0}\) & **Different?** \\ \hline HRVD & 3 & 1.019 & \(-\)0.144 & 0.056 & 0.27/0.35 & 0.83/0.79 & No \\ JMA & 5 & 1.000 & 0.000 & 0.071 & 0.00/0.00 & 1.00/1.00 & No \\ NEIC M\({}_{\rm W}\) & 3 & 1.354 & \(-\)2.065 & 0.015 & 14.05/14.23 & 0.05/0.04 & Yes \\ NEIC M\({}_{\rm WW}\) & 3 & 1.053 & \(-\)0.240 & 0.053 & 0.43/0.38 & 0.74/0.77 & No \\ NEIC M\({}_{\rm WB}\) & 1 & N/A & N/A & N/A & N/A/N/A & N/A/N/A & N/A \\ NEIC M\({}_{\rm WR}\) & 4 & 0.846 & 0.792 & 0.122 & 0.83/0.74 & 0.49/0.54 & No \\ NEIC M\({}_{\rm W,all}\) & 7 & 1.039 & \(-\)0.182 & 0.148 & 0.34/0.30 & 0.75/0.78 & No \\ NIED & 5 & 0.938 & 0.371 & 0.036 & 2.88/3.25 & 0.02/0.01 & Yes \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* N/A = not applicable.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Hypothesis testing results against a M\({}_{\rm W}\) pool from GCMT and ISC-GEM for the South Korean catalog. Significance level \(\alpha\) = 0.05. Hypothesis testing on the regression parameters from each moment magnitude pool using M\({}_{\text{S,ISC}}\) data resulted in no significant differences, suggesting the resultant regression parameters are similar. Hypothesis testing was not conducted on regression parameters for M\({}_{\text{S,NEC}}\), M\({}_{\text{S20,NEC}}\), and M\({}_{\text{S,NEC}}\) as their moment magnitude pools were identical. Figure 12a,b show M\({}_{\text{W,GCMT-related}}\) against M\({}_{\text{S,ISC}}\) and M\({}_{\text{S,NEC}}\), respectively, while Figure 12c shows M\({}_{\text{W,GCMT-hypothesis}}\) against M\({}_{\text{S,ISC}}\). Additionally shown in the figures are the data from M\({}_{\text{W,GCMT}}\) for comparison. Regressions for M\({}_{\text{S20,NEC}}\) and M\({}_{\text{S,NEC}}\) are not shown as there is not enough data to conduct regressions. As suggested from the aforementioned regressions results, there are very few differences between the datasets. Figure 12: Resultant magnitude homogenization regressions for M\({}_{\text{W,GCMT-related}}\) against (**a**) M\({}_{\text{S,ISC}}\), (**b**) M\({}_{\text{S,NEC}}\), and M\({}_{\text{W,GCMT-hypothesis}}\) against (**c**) M\({}_{\text{S,ISC}}\). Data from M\({}_{\text{W,GCMT}}\) are also shown. Black line is the regression against M\({}_{\text{W,GCMT-related}}\) or M\({}_{\text{W,GCMT-hypothesis}}\) while the dashed red line is the regression against M\({}_{\text{W,GCMT}}\).