Multiplicity of solutions to geophysical inversion reflected by rupture slip distribution of the 2015 Nepal earthquake

The equivalence of geophysical fields, the finiteness of measurements and the measurement errors make the result of geophysical inversion non-unique. For example, the measurements and inversion method used, the priori rupture model determined and the slip distribution smoothing factor selected will have significant influences on the earthquake rupture slip distribution. Using different data and methods, different authors have given different rupture slip distribution models of the 2015 Mw7.9 Nepal earthquake, with the maximum slip ranging from 3.0 m to 6.8 m. In this paper, geometry parameters of the single rectangular fault model in elastic half-space were inferred constraining with the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) coseismic deformations and bounding the slip with approximate average value; and then, the single rectangular fault was divided into multiple sub-faults, and the final slip smoothing factor, the final slip distribution and the maximum slip were determined with the misfit–roughness tradeoff curve, the cross-validation sum of squares (CVSS) and the third-party observation data or indexes being comprehensively taken into account. The results show that, the rupture of the Nepal earthquake extended by over 100 km east by south. The maximum slip of the earthquake was about 6.5–6.7 m, and most of the slip is confined at depths of 8–20 km, consistent with the depth distribution of aftershocks. The method for reducing the multiplicity of solutions to rupture slip distribution in this paper was ever used in inversion of rupture slip distribution for the 2008 Wenchuan and 2013 Lushan earthquakes, and the third-party measurement – surface dislocation has very large effect on reducing the multiplicity of solutions to inversion of the Wenchuan earthquake. Other priori information or indicators, such as fault strike, dip, earthquake magnitude, seismic activity, Coulomb stress, and seismic period, can be used for beneficial validation of and comparison with inversion results