# Expanding Moment Magnitude Pools for Earthquake Magnitude Homogenization
## 3 Results
### Indonesia
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Magnitude** & **Pool** & **Slope, \(\beta_{1}\)** & **Intercept, \(\beta_{0}\)** & **Correlation, R2** & **Standard** & **Number of** \\
**Type** & & & & & **Deviation, \(\sigma\)** & **Data Pairs** \\ \hline m\({}_{\text{b,ISC}}\) & M\({}_{W,\text{GCMT}}\) & 1.066 & \(-\)0.203 & 0.735 & 0.259 & 3915 \\  & M\({}_{W,\text{GCMT-related}}\) & 1.072 & \(-\)0.231 & 0.736 & 0.262 & 3963 \\  & M\({}_{W,\text{GCMT-hypothesis}}\) & 1.078 & \(-\)0.263 & 0.738 & 0.263 & 3970 \\ \hline m\({}_{\text{b,NEIC}}\) & M\({}_{W,\text{GCMT}}\) & 1.127 & \(-\)0.589 & 0.753 & 0.251 & 3909 \\  & M\({}_{W,\text{GCMT-related}}\) & 1.132 & \(-\)0.610 & 0.754 & 0.253 & 3954 \\  & M\({}_{W,\text{GCMT-hypothesis}}\) & 1.141 & \(-\)0.657 & 0.746 & 0.254 & 3963 \\ \hline m\({}_{\text{b,DJA}}\) & M\({}_{W,\text{GCMT}}\) & 0.968 & 0.036 & 0.682 & 0.268 & 1711 \\  & M\({}_{W,\text{GCMT-related}}\) & 0.968 & 0.035 & 0.681 & 0.268 & 1712 \\  & M\({}_{W,\text{GCMT-hypothesis}}\) & 0.970 & 0.024 & 0.683 & 0.268 & 1717 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Magnitude homogenization regression results from all moment magnitude pools for body wave magnitude types. Figure 4: Resultant magnitude homogenization regressions for \(\text{M}_{W,\text{GCMT-related}}\) against (**a**) \(\text{M}_{\text{S,ISC}}\), (**b**) \(\text{M}_{\text{S,N}\text{E}\text{C}}\), (**c**) \(\text{M}_{\text{S2,N}\text{E}\text{C}}\), (**d**) \(\text{M}_{\text{S2,N}\text{E}\text{C}}\). Data from \(\text{M}_{W,\text{GCMT}}\) are also shown. Black line is the regression against \(\text{M}_{W,\text{GCMT-related}}\) while the dashed red line is the regression against \(\text{M}_{W,\text{GCMT}}\). Figure 5: Resultant magnitude homogenization regressions for \(\text{M}_{W,\text{GCMT-hypothesis}}\) against (**a**) \(\text{M}_{\text{S,ISC}}\), (**b**) \(\text{M}_{\text{S,N}\text{E}\text{C}}\), and (**c**) \(\text{M}_{\text{S2,N}\text{E}\text{C}}\). Data from \(\text{M}_{W,\text{GCMT}}\) are also shown. Black line is the regression against \(\text{M}_{W,\text{GCMT-hypothesis}}\) while the dashed red line is the regression against \(\text{M}_{W,\text{GCMT}}\). Hypothesis testing was also conducted on regression parameters across moment magnitude pools. For \(\text{m}_{\text{b,ISC}}\) and \(\text{m}_{\text{b,DJA}}\) regression parameters, hypothesis testing found no significant differences across moment magnitude pools. However, for \(\text{m}_{\text{b,NEC}}\) regression parameters, all three moment magnitude pools resulted in significantly different parameters. Results from \(\text{M}_{\text{W,GCMT}}\) differed from \(\text{M}_{\text{W,GCMT-related}}\) and \(\text{M}_{\text{W,GCMT-hypothesis}}\) in the intercept with \(t\)(7859,0.05) = 1.960, \(p\) = 0.02 and \(t\)(7868,0.05) = 1.960, \(p\) = 0.00, respectively. Results from \(\text{M}_{\text{W,GCMT-related}}\) significantly differed from \(\text{M}_{\text{W,GCMT-hypothesis}}\) with \(t\)(7913,0.05) = 1.960, \(p\) = 0.00. The resultant magnitude homogenization regressions for \(\text{M}_{\text{W,GCMT-related}}\) against \(\text{m}_{\text{b,ISC}}\), \(\text{m}_{\text{b,NEC}}\), and \(\text{m}_{\text{b,DJA}}\) are shown in Figure 6a-c, respectively. Additionally shown in the figures are the data from \(\text{M}_{\text{W,GCMT}}\) for comparison. There is considerable scatter, as evident with the relatively high \(\upsigma\)s. Even though there appear to be differences in regression results for each magnitude type, the differences appear negligible when plotted. Conversely, regressions against \(\text{M}_{\text{W,GCMT-hypothesis}}\) for against \(\text{m}_{\text{b,ISC}}\), \(\text{m}_{\text{b,NEC}}\), and \(\text{m}_{\text{b,DJA}}\) are shown in Figure 7a-c, respectively, as well as the data from \(\text{M}_{\text{W,GCMT}}\) for comparison. Again, similar to the results from \(\text{M}_{\text{W,GCMT-related}}\), the regression models appear virtually identical with considerable scatter in the data across magnitudes.