<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/nlm-dtd/publishing/3.0/journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">NHESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">NHESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1684-9981</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/nhess-26-3597-2026</article-id><title-group><article-title>Basin-scale geometric focusing: a probabilistic-geometric framework for global tsunami exposure assessment and the 2025 Kamchatka Peninsula tsunami</article-title><alt-title>Basin-scale geometric focusing for tsunami exposure</alt-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Abdolali</surname><given-names>Ali</given-names></name>
          <email>ali.abdolali@usace.army.mil</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Lam</surname><given-names>Michael-Angelo Y.-H.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5052-0114</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Kadri</surname><given-names>Usama</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5441-1812</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Malej</surname><given-names>Matt</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9389-460X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Filimonov</surname><given-names>Maxim</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Shi</surname><given-names>Fengyan</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>USACE Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>School of Mathematics, Cardiff University, CF24 4AG, Cardiff, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>School of Computer Science and Informatics, Cardiff University, CF24 4AG, Cardiff, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Center for Applied Coastal Research, Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Ali Abdolali (ali.abdolali@usace.army.mil)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>4</day><month>August</month><year>2026</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>26</volume>
      <issue>8</issue>
      <fpage>3597</fpage><lpage>3616</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>4</day><month>December</month><year>2025</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>3</day><month>February</month><year>2026</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>24</day><month>July</month><year>2026</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2026 Ali Abdolali et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026.html">This article is available from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d2e147">We present a hybrid probabilistic-geometric framework that integrates probabilistic earthquake statistics with large-scale ray-tracing simulations to efficiently map global coastal tsunami exposure. Utilizing a catalog of historical tsunamigenic events and the Gutenberg–Richter relation, we derive probabilistic weights for 9000 rays released across potential fault zones. The simulated ray pathways reveal persisting bathymetry-driven energy convergence patterns that govern far-field coastal focusing and shadowing. The geometric framework's predictive power is demonstrated using the 2025 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.8 Kamchatka Peninsula earthquake and the 2011 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> 9.0 Tohoku-oki event. Validation against these events utilizes phase-corrected FUNWAVE-TVD simulations and in-situ DART observations. The resulting ray-based coastal focusing patterns display strong qualitative and quantitative spatial agreement (e.g., Spearman's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.66 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.63, respectively) with the transoceanic maximum wave amplitudes from the high-fidelity FUNWAVE-TVD model. This agreement confirms the hybrid probabilistic-geometric approach as a scalable and computationally efficient tool for rapidly identifying transoceanic focusing potential and prioritizing coastal regions for high-resolution exposure assessment, mapping relative geometric convergence.</p>
  </abstract>
    
<funding-group>
<award-group id="gs1">
<funding-source>U.S. Army Corps of Engineers</funding-source>
<award-id>0601102 A [Project AB2]</award-id>
</award-group>
</funding-group>
</article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d2e204">Transoceanic tsunamis, typically generated by large-magnitude megathrust earthquakes in subduction zones, represent one of the most far-reaching and destructive natural hazards to coastal populations worldwide. As these long-wavelength waves traverse entire ocean basins, their energy does not disperse uniformly. Instead, the complex three-dimensional structure of ocean bathymetry, comprising mid-ocean ridges, fracture zones, seamount chains, continental shelves, and deep-ocean trenches, acts as an intricate system of refractive lenses. This bathymetry-driven refraction can channel, redirect, and sometimes trap tsunami rays, producing regions of pronounced geometric focusing. The resulting distribution of tsunami energy at landfall is highly heterogeneous: some coastlines, even thousands of kilometers from the source, experience severe and often unexpected wave amplification, while other areas may remain largely unaffected, forming classical shadow zones. This basin-scale sensitivity to bathymetric structure highlights the need for reliable tools capable of resolving the principal ray pathways that govern far-field tsunami exposure, especially given that these spatially variable pathways originate from the heterogeneous source distribution shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1"/>a. While tsunamis can be triggered by non-seismic sources such as submarine landslides or volcanic eruptions, the vast majority of basin-wide events are generated by submarine earthquakes, which account for approximately 80 % of all recorded damaging tsunamis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9 bib1.bibx7" id="paren.1"/>. Non-seismic tsunamis, although potentially devastating in the near-field, typically involve more localized sources that produce shorter-wavelength waves. These waves are more susceptible to frequency dispersion, causing their energy to decay more rapidly with distance and limiting their far-field significance <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15 bib1.bibx22" id="paren.2"/>. For this reason, the present study focuses exclusively on the far-field propagation of seismically generated tsunamis. To specifically isolate the influence of ocean basin geometry, rays are intentionally released in the oceanward direction. Shoreward-directed waves are purposely excluded, as their propagation is predominantly governed by local near-source complexities rather than basin-scale topography. This directional constraint not only isolates the transoceanic focusing mechanics but also allows for the use of a coarser computational mesh optimized for deep water. Therefore, this framework is designed to guide decision-making for rapid, basin-scale transoceanic exposure assessment and to prioritize distant coastlines for computationally intensive nearshore modeling (run-up and inundation). Conversely, the method is explicitly not suitable for assessing non-seismic events due to their dispersive nature, leaving site-specific inundation mapping and local evacuation planning to specialized near-field hydrodynamic tools.</p>

      <fig id="F1" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d2e217"><bold>(a)</bold> Historical tsunamigenic earthquakes based on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1600 events from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 BCE to 2025. The colormap indicates event magnitude (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>); <bold>(b)</bold> spatial density plot (heatmap) showing earthquake clustering, calculated with a 400 km radius of influence; <bold>(c)</bold> histogram of historical events per decade since 1500, with bars color-coded by event magnitude. The vertical red line at 1965 marks the start of modern event records used in this study; <bold>(d)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-value estimate, showing the Gutenberg–Richter model fit (red line) to historical data since 1965 for events of magnitude <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.4. Basemap created with Natural Earth data.</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d2e277">Given the strong influence of bathymetric refraction on transoceanic tsunami propagation, evaluating basin-scale convergence traditionally relies on full numerical models, which become computationally prohibitive for large scenario ensembles. Alternatively, geometrical-optics methods (ray-tracing) capture dominant bathymetric refraction at a fraction of the computational cost. Foundational studies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="paren.3"/> demonstrated that tsunami rays accurately reconstruct principal pathways. More recently, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="text.4"/> benchmarked ray-tracing against high-resolution dispersive models (FUNWAVE-TVD), finding strong spatial correlation between ray convergence and maximum surface elevations. Since seismically generated tsunamis are dominated by the non-dispersive shallow-water approximation over transoceanic distances, the ray-tracing method serves as a robust proxy for rapid scenario screening and global-scale seismic tsunami exposure assessment.</p>
      <p id="d2e287">However, identifying the pathways of geometric focusing represents only one component of the broader exposure assessment problem. A realistic global exposure assessment must also reflect the inhomogeneous recurrence rates of tsunamigenic earthquakes across subduction systems. Early ray-based studies were inherently deterministic, typically initiated from a single, hypothetical earthquake source. Such simplified treatments do not capture the full range of seismic variability across global subduction systems and therefore cannot produce a comprehensive or realistic depiction of global tsunami exposure. Modern hazard assessments must confront two key challenges: (1) the probabilistic nature of earthquake occurrence across distributed and heterogeneous source zones, and (2) the computational scalability required to evaluate tens of thousands of plausible rupture scenarios. This latter requirement motivates the use of Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment (PTHA), a framework that quantifies risk by estimating the exceedance probabilities (or return periods) of tsunami intensities at specific locations. PTHA couples statistical models of earthquake recurrence, often based on the Gutenberg–Richter relation, with numerical or analytical models of tsunami generation and propagation. Comprehensive reviews such as <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="text.5"/> and global assessments like <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9" id="text.6"/> outline how PTHA can be applied at regional to global-scales by integrating multiple source zones to construct hazard curves and probability maps.</p>
      <p id="d2e296">To address this methodological gap, we introduce a hybrid probabilistic geometric modeling framework that couples classical ray-tracing with earthquake probability statistics to produce a fast, scalable, and scientifically robust global exposure mapping tool. Our approach integrates Gutenberg–Richter-based frequency–magnitude relationships with large-ensemble ray-tracing simulations, enabling efficient evaluation of far-field tsunami exposure while retaining the essential bathymetric controls. In our implementation, 9000 rays are released from candidate fault segments worldwide, each ray assigned a probabilistic weight (representing the annual rate, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) derived from local and regional seismicity rates. It is important to clarify that in this framework, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> serves strictly as a source weighting factor to modulate the relative density of the ray field; it does not represent a direct probability of coastal amplitude exceedance. This approach allows us to rapidly quantify coastal energy convergence and identify global tsunami hotspots most  susceptible to long-range focusing, while providing a probabilistic  interpretation of exposure consistent with modern hazard assessment standards.</p>
      <p id="d2e313">This paper is organized as follows. Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/> presents the Probabilistic Tsunami Exposure Assessment methodology. Historical seismological data are analyzed to map the spatial distribution of  tsunamigenic sources and to estimate their return periods for earthquakes exceeding magnitude 7.4. Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3"/> introduces the wave ray-tracing method, based on the principles of geometrical optics. This approach simulates tsunami propagation paths from the identified source regions, with the resulting ray patterns revealing how ocean basin geometry and bathymetric  refraction generate zones of energy focusing and shadowing. These patterns provide a first-order assessment of regional tsunami exposure. Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/> presents a validation case study of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.8 Kamchatka Peninsula earthquake. It begins with a high-fidelity Boussinesq-type simulation using the FUNWAVE-TVD model, hereafter referred to as FUNWAVE, to compute tsunami wave amplitudes. Next, the ray-tracing model is applied to predict tsunami energy convergence zones (focal points) for the same event. The resulting numerical simulations are compared against in-situ observations to assess both the accuracy of the ray-tracing predictions of focal zones and the wave heights simulated by FUNWAVE. Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5"/> extends this verification framework by applying the combined ray-tracing and hydrodynamic models to the 2011 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> 9.0 Tohoku-oki tsunami as a secondary validation case. Finally, Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S6"/> summarizes the findings and provides concluding remarks.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Probabilistic Tsunami Exposure Assessment</title>
      <p id="d2e349">To create a spatially variable weighting scheme for tsunami sources, a simplified recurrence-weighted exposure screening was conducted <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.7"/>. The process is based on deriving earthquake recurrence parameters from a historical catalog <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="text.8"/> of tsunamigenic events and applying these parameters to a set of discrete source points along known and potential earthquake zones. The final output is the mean annual rate of occurrence for earthquakes, which serves as a quantitative weight for the subsequent ray-tracing model.</p>
      <p id="d2e358">The historical catalog comprises approximately 1600 global events. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1"/>a illustrates the spatial distribution of these events, where color indicates the magnitude of tsunamigenic earthquakes recorded from 500 BC to 2025. Panel (b) shows the occurrence rate, while panel (c) presents the decadal histogram color-coded by magnitude. The establishment of the World-Wide Standardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN) in 1965 is marked by a vertical red line.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Gutenberg–Richter Recurrence Relationship</title>
      <p id="d2e370">The frequency-magnitude distribution of earthquakes is modeled by the Gutenberg–Richter (G-R) law:

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M16" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the cumulative number of earthquakes with a magnitude greater than or equal to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> describes the relative proportion of small to large earthquakes, while the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-value represents the overall seismic productivity of a region.</p>
      <p id="d2e428">To determine a stable <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value, the catalog was filtered to include only the modern instrumental period (1965 onward), corresponding to the establishment of the World-Wide Standardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN). The Magnitude of Completeness (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was initially assessed using the Maximum Curvature (MAXC) method <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.9"/>, which defines the completeness threshold by identifying the maximum value of the first derivative of the frequency–magnitude curve. For this dataset, the raw MAXC peak occurs at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.05. However, because raw MAXC estimates frequently fall within the catalog's detection roll-over region and can therefore underestimate true completeness, we adopted a conservative operational threshold of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.4. We emphasize that this threshold represents a modeling choice to ensure absolute catalog completeness rather than an exact, immutable catalog property. To ensure robustness, we evaluated the stability of the estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value over nearby completeness thresholds (e.g., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.3 to 7.5), confirming that the principal basin-scale recurrence patterns are not materially altered. Based on the resulting complete subset of 212 events, a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 1.05 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.07 was calculated using the Aki–Utsu maximum likelihood estimator (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1"/>d), where the standard error is given by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5 bib1.bibx30" id="paren.10"/>.</p>
      <p id="d2e565">A Magnitude of Completeness (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of 7.4 was mathematically determined using the Maximum Curvature (MAXC) method, identifying the point of maximum first derivative in the frequency-magnitude curve. Based on the resulting subset of 212 events, a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 1.05 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.07 was calculated using the Aki–Utsu maximum likelihood estimator (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1"/>d) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5 bib1.bibx30" id="paren.11"/>. This value is consistent with the global average (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1), indicating a robust fit <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="paren.12"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Spatial Seismicity Rate Estimation</title>
      <p id="d2e624">For the sake of applicability, a polygonal curve <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>(Lat, Long) was first defined to pass through the historical epicenters, representing both known and potential earthquake zones. The curve <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was constructed by interpolating through the historical epicenters and aligning with major subduction interfaces and fault boundaries identified from global tectonic maps.</p>
      <p id="d2e641">The continuous curve <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was constructed by tracing the major tsunamigenic fault systems and subduction interfaces globally, discretizing this path into 10 km intervals. To account for the spatial scatter of historical earthquakes, epicenters located within a [400] km search radius were orthogonally projected onto the nearest segment of this curve before applying the 1D Gaussian smoothing.</p>
      <p id="d2e651">To account for spatial variability in historical seismic occurrence (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1"/>b), a spatially varying <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value was derived using one-dimensional Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) along the along-trench coordinate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. This approach mitigates data sparsity by smoothing the influence of historical events over their surrounding segments. A Gaussian kernel <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was applied at the projected 1D location (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of each event:

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M47" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle scriptlevel="+1"><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          While near-field inundation modeling requires resolving complex 3D fault geometries, basin-scale transoceanic exposure screening is predominantly governed by macro-scale, along-trench variations in seismic productivity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="paren.13"/>. Therefore, this dimensional reduction to a 1D longitudinal projection is an established methodology for macro-scale hazard analysis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="paren.14"/>. A smoothing bandwidth of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 km was selected to satisfy established empirical scaling laws for subduction interface earthquakes. Because great megathrust events (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.5) are restricted by down-dip width saturation at approximately 200 km, their ruptures are forced to propagate longitudinally <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.15"/>. Established length-scaling relations indicate that the characteristic along-strike rupture length for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.8–9.0 earthquakes spans roughly 440–588 km <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8 bib1.bibx6" id="paren.16"/>. The 500 km KDE bandwidth therefore physically scales the probability density to match realistic rupture extents, eliminating the severe epicentral over-fitting that occurs with narrower bandwidths. A quantitative statistical evaluation (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="FA1"/>) confirmed that spatial variance stabilizes at this 500 km threshold, while the macro-scale spatial clustering remains stable and independent of the selected bandwidth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.95). This curve was subsequently normalized to match the total observed annual rate of events above <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the modern catalog, so that local variations do not inflate regional seismic productivity, producing an absolute annual rate density for each source point.</p>
      <p id="d2e847">The final weight assigned to each source point <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is its total annual rate of significant tsunamigenic earthquakes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.4), calculated by applying the spatially determined <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the KDE to the Gutenberg–Richter relationship and integrating over the relevant magnitude bins. This yields a single representative annual rate, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, which serves as the input likelihood for the tsunami ray-tracing models. The corresponding exposure map, showing the average return period <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, is presented in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2"/>.</p>

      <fig id="F2" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d2e924">Return period of tsunamigenic earthquakes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.4) along the potential faults, based on historical data analysis, with a spatial resolution of 25 km. Basemap created with Natural Earth data.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e947">The resulting exposure map reveals significant spatial heterogeneity in earthquake recurrence. The Kuril–Kamchatka and Japan Trenches in the northwest Pacific, alongside the Peru–Chile Trench in the southeast, emerge as the most seismically active source zones, exhibiting return periods between 100 and 1000 years (red to orange segments). This creates a dominant “exposure dipole” across the Pacific Basin. Additionally, the Aleutian Trench and the Sumatra–Andaman subduction zone show high recurrence rates, highlighting them as critical sources for transoceanic tsunami generation. In contrast, mid-ocean ridges and transform boundaries generally exhibit longer return periods (blue segments), reflecting their lower potential for generating large tsunamigenic displacements.</p>
      <p id="d2e950">In this study we adopt a recurrence-based weighting, though we also examined whether magnitude-energy formulation would alter the resulting coastal exposure patterns. Using the same magnitude bins between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.5 and 9.5, we computed an annualized energy metric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for each segment <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> by multiplying each bin's rate by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>∝</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and summing across bins. However, since the PTHA implementation employs a single regional <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value and the same magnitude range for all source segments, the Gutenberg–Richter distribution has an identical shape everywhere. Under these assumptions <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reduces to a constant multiple of the recurrence rate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and thus energy-weighted ray-density field would be indistinguishable from the recurrence-weighted field up to a uniform rescaling. For this reason we present the recurrence-based maps, explicitly.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Ray-tracing Methodology</title>
      <p id="d2e1068">To simulate global tsunami propagation and identify regions of energy focusing or shadow zones, we use a numerical wave ray-tracing model based on the geometrical optics approximation. This approach tracks the trajectory of wave energy packets (rays) by solving a set of coupled ordinary differential equations (ODEs) over time. The theoretical framework follows standard formulations for surface gravity waves propagating over variable bathymetry and currents <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="paren.17"/>.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Governing Equations</title>
      <p id="d2e1081">The model employs a kinematic ray-tracing approach. Rather than solving the dynamic transport equation for wave amplitude, which is prone to caustic  singularities over complex deep-ocean bathymetry, we strictly solve the kinematic equations to track the trajectories of discrete wave energy packets. The state of a wave ray is defined by its position vector, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and wave number vector, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Their evolution in time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is governed by:

                <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M83" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>3</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">g</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">U</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>4</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">U</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          Here, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ambient current velocity vector, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the intrinsic group velocity vector, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the intrinsic angular frequency of the wave. For far-field tsunami applications, ambient currents are negligible compared to the wave speed, so we set <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 in Eqs. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>)–(<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E4"/>). The angular frequency <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is related to the wave number magnitude <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>|</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mml:mi><mml:mo>|</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and local water depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> through the linear dispersion relation:

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M96" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>tanh⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d2e1391">Wave refraction is governed by the term <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E4"/>) (where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0). For the  characteristic period spectrum evaluated in this study, the waves strictly satisfy the shallow-water limit even in the deepest oceanic trenches. Because the phase speed remains overwhelmingly depth-dependent, the bathymetric refraction gradients that dictate the ray trajectories are fundamentally unaffected by frequency dispersion. Since <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> depends on both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, its horizontal gradient is primarily driven by bathymetric variations:

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M103" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          and because no diffraction term is included here, rays cannot reproduce energy leakage around obstacles. This shows that changes in the wave number vector, and thus the propagation direction, are directly proportional to the local sea-floor gradient, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is the main mechanism for tsunami refraction across ocean basins.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Numerical Implementation</title>
      <p id="d2e1502">The system of ODEs (Eqs. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/> and <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E4"/>) is solved numerically to trace each ray's trajectory using a fourth-order Runge–Kutta scheme. Rays propagate over a global, unstructured triangular mesh comprising 1 726 063 nodes and 3 452 122 elements, with spatial resolution varying from 10.77 to 28.35 km (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="FA2"/>). The variable-resolution unstructured mesh is generated based on the shallow-water wave, ensuring that tsunami wavelengths are adequately resolved. During the mesh generation process, bathymetric gradients and all relevant geometric features that affect the wave refraction under study are explicitly taken into account. This feature-tracking preserves the steep bathymetric gradients necessary for accurate refraction, forcing finer nodal placement (down to 10.77 km) along critical structures like seamount peaks and trench fracture lines, while allowing coarser resolutions (up to 28.35 km) in relatively flat abyssal plains, without requiring a uniform, ultra-high resolution domain.</p>
      <p id="d2e1511">Bathymetric data are sourced from 2025 General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans dataset <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="paren.18"/> with 15 arcsec resolution. Using a time step of 180 s and Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy CFL <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1, the depth-dependent resolution is set as the product of the time step and local group velocity, ensuring that no ray travels more than one element per time step. At each time step, environmental parameters are evaluated dynamically, as rays can lie anywhere within a mesh element. Water depth at a ray's latitude–longitude location is computed using barycentric interpolation from the nodal values of the containing element. The bathymetric gradient, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which drives wave refraction, is precomputed for all elements to improve computational efficiency.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Numerical Simulations</title>
      <p id="d2e1545">Rays are initialized along potential tsunami-generating fault lines, shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2"/>, at 25 km intervals. To ensure comprehensive coverage of potential refractive pathways, rays are initialized across a discrete  spectrum of characteristic tsunami periods spanning the typical empirical range of 15 min to 3 h at each source location. By aggregating this discrete period spectrum globally, the kinematic model effectively bounds the frequency-dependent variations in transoceanic energy focusing to construct the final exposure footprint. While real near-field radiation directivity depends on detailed 3D rupture kinematics – such as variable slip distribution, rake, and dip, the dominant macro-scale energy flux of large subduction megathrust earthquakes radiates predominantly orthogonal to the fault strike. Therefore, the initial  propagation direction for all rays is set perpendicular to the local fault segment. This simplification natively encodes the primary radiation lobes required for transoceanic far-field propagation without necessitating complex 3D volumetric initializations. Furthermore, rays are oriented exclusively oceanward; shoreward-directed waves are excluded because their propagation is governed by local near-source complexities and non-linear shoaling, which fall outside the scope of basin-scale transoceanic exposure screening.</p>
      <p id="d2e1550">A ray is terminated if it reaches land (where water depth becomes zero or negative) or enters a user-defined shallow coastal zone (500 m depth). This cutoff is imposed to exclude the complex nearshore region where nonlinear shoaling dominates and where strong refraction often leads to ray crossing (caustics), rendering the standard geometrical optics approximation insufficient. Furthermore, as waves enter these shallower depths, their decreasing group velocities and shorter wavelengths would require a proportionally higher-resolution mesh. Implementing such fine resolution along global coastlines would impose prohibitive computational costs, directly defeating the primary utility of this framework as a rapid transoceanic exposure screening tool. In total, 9000 rays were released, and the simulation was run for 24 h, sufficient for all rays to reach a termination criterion. Upon termination, the spatial density of ray impacts along the coastline is calculated. By utilizing a ray-density proxy rather than a classical ray-tube energy flux calculation, the model natively bypasses the mathematical singularities associated with deep-water caustics  (ray crossings). In this kinematic framework, caustics simply and stably register as localized zones of high ray concentration. This normalized ray termination count (ranging from 0 to 1) serves as a proxy for the relative probability of exposure (focusing potential), rather than a measure of dynamic wave amplitude or absolute energy flux, effectively mapping regions of energy convergence (focusing) and divergence (shadowing). This framework allows efficient and accurate simulation of tsunami propagation across complex global bathymetry, illustrating how basin geometry controls wave energy distribution. The simulations were performed on a 32-core Mac Studio with 512 GB of unified memory.  The code is parallelized, and since each ray is treated independently, the 24-hour simulation completed in approximately 12 h. This ray-tracing approach captures tsunami exposure primarily for transoceanic propagation from the source across the basin to distant locations. Hazards in the immediate vicinity of the earthquake are not considered in this study, as our focus is on the effects of ocean-basin geometry on tsunami travel; near-source tsunamis may indeed be more catastrophic, but they fall outside the scope of this work.</p>
      <p id="d2e1553">To systematically examine how source geometry, recurrence intervals, and bathymetric refraction shape global tsunami exposure, we designed four targeted numerical experiments. Each scenario isolates a fundamental driver of tsunami propagation: (i) fault geometry, which controls the initial azimuth and directional bias of energy release; (ii) variable bathymetry, which refracts and redirects wave trajectories across the basin; and (iii) probabilistic weighting, which modulates exposure intensity based on earthquake return periods. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3"/> summarizes the outcomes, where basin-scale ray density is shown using a white-to-blue scale, and coastal focusing is highlighted by a green–yellow–red scale. All results are normalized by the global maximum to enable direct comparison across experiments.</p>

      <fig id="F3" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d2e1561">Basin-wide ray density and coastal tsunami exposure for 9000 tsunami rays released along potential fault zones (shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2"/>). Panels <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold> represent constant-depth cases, highlighting the effects of fault location and orientation, while panels <bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold> incorporate variable bathymetry to show the combined influence of seafloor geometry and fault configuration. The top row shows uniformly released rays, and the bottom row applies probabilistic weighting (using the annual rate parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/>) based on return period derived from the Gutenberg–Richter relation. The ocean-floor heatmap (white to blue) illustrates ray convergence and geometric focusing, and coastline colors (green–yellow–red) indicate relative coastal exposure using a normalized ray-count proxy (0–1), with redder areas denoting higher exposure. Basemap created with Natural Earth data.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e1594">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3"/>a–b adopt a constant-depth approximation, forcing rays to follow great circle paths (GC) and, by design, removing any effect of bathymetric refraction. This configuration exposes the sole influence of fault geometry and position, effectively reducing the ocean basin to a two-dimensional line-of-sight system. Under these conditions, a highly energetic corridor extends across the Pacific Basin, originating from the Kuril–Kamchatka and Japan trenches. This direct projection leads to a broad signature of exposure, producing normalized coastal exposure indices between 0.8 and 1.0 along the northeast coast of Australia, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands, as well as along South America. Panel (a), using uniform ray release, overemphasizes the role of smaller fault systems; panel (b) incorporates the probabilistic weights (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) from Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/>, refining the magnitude but retaining the linear propagation patterns inherent to the constant-depth assumption, keeping exposure indices artificially high (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.8–1.0) along these direct line-of-sight coastlines.</p>
      <p id="d2e1615">In Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3"/>c–d, where realistic bathymetry is introduced, refraction and scattering fundamentally reorganize the tsunami wave-field. For example, the exposure corridor toward Northeast Australia is reduced by approximately 80 % (dropping from an exposure index of 0.8–1.0 down to 0.1–0.2) as rays encounter the complex topography of the Southwest Pacific – namely the Melanesian Arc and the Solomon Rise. In contrast, topographic structures in the North Pacific, such as the Emperor Seamount Chain and the Mendocino Fracture Zone, act as waveguides, channeling energy toward North America, increasing normalized coastal focusing in the Pacific Northwest by over 50 % (elevating the index from diffuse values of 0.4–0.6 up to highly localized peaks of 0.9–1.0) relative to the uniform depth case.</p>
      <p id="d2e1620">Panel (d) represents the most complete exposure characterization, combining realistic bathymetry with the probabilistic source weighting (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). By modulating the intensity of each ray based on its source's annual occurrence rate, this configuration filters out low-probability contributions seen in panel (c). Notably, it reveals a reciprocal focusing pathway between South America and East Asia: the Kuril–Kamchatka system preferentially feeds energy toward Chile (index <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.8), and the Peru–Chile trench returns a concentrated ray field toward Japan and the Philippines. Additionally, the model identifies a pronounced shadow zone in the Southeast Pacific – west of the East Pacific Rise – where ambient basin ray densities of 0.3–0.4 (seen in panel b) are reduced to near zero (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05). Finally, the probabilistic approach intensifies the signal over the Bay of Bengal and the Indonesian archipelago, elevating the normalized exposure index from background levels (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3–0.5 in panel c) to peak values exceeding 0.8, where high recurrence rates of tsunamigenic earthquakes lead to elevated exposure levels.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title><inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.8 Kamchatka Peninsula event</title>
      <p id="d2e1668">On 29 July 2025, at 23:24 UTC, a moment magnitude (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) 8.8 earthquake struck off the eastern coast of Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula. The epicenter was located at 52.51° N, 160.32° E, approximately 136 km east-southeast of Petropavlovsk–Kamchatsky, at a depth of 35 km, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The earthquake resulted from thrust faulting along the Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone, where the Pacific plate subducts beneath the North American (Okhotsk) plate. This event ranks among the largest earthquakes globally since 2011 and is one of the six largest recorded in the modern instrumental era. The earthquake generated a trans-Pacific tsunami, with maximum run-up heights of about 3 m in Severo-Kurilsk, Russia, and up to 1.2 m in Hawaii <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12 bib1.bibx19" id="paren.19"/>. While initial warnings indicated potentially higher impacts, the remote location and rapid alert  system limited casualties and damage. One indirect fatality was reported in Japan, and several injuries occurred. In Kamchatka Krai, moderate damage was observed, including power outages and structural impacts in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12 bib1.bibx20 bib1.bibx29" id="paren.20"/>. This event underscores the potential of large subduction zone earthquakes in the North Pacific to generate widespread trans-oceanic tsunami hazards and highlights the importance of early warning systems for coastal risk mitigation.</p>
      <p id="d2e1688">The initial condition for the tsunami propagation model FUNWAVE is the residual vertical seafloor displacement field generated using the elastic half-space model of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="text.21"/>. For the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.8 Kamchatka Peninsula event, this study utilizes two distinct source models, hereinafter referred to as the NOAA and USGS scenarios. The NOAA scenario is not derived from direct seismic measurements, but from an inversion of tsunami observations recorded at DART buoys. This approach uses the Method of Splitting Tsunami (MOST) model, which involves matching real-time observations to a linear combination of pre-computed tsunami waveforms from unit sources <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.22"/>. The resulting source model for this event consists of nine sub-faults, with characteristics shown in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1"/>. In contrast, the USGS scenario is based on seismological inversion using ground motion data and finite-fault analysis, resulting in a more complex source defined by 345 sub-faults <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="paren.23"/>. The NOAA solution commonly performs better for tsunami propagation because it assimilates offshore DART waveforms. The vertical coseismic displacement fields for both scenarios are illustrated in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4"/>.</p>

<table-wrap id="T1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d2e1715">Fault parameters for NOAA scenario, with length 100 km, width 50 km, and rake 90°.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Long</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Lat</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Depth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Strike (°)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Dip</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Slip</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(°)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(°)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(km)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(°)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(°)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(m)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">160.2771</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">52.2889</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">38.2502</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">218</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.9036</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">158.8796</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">51.8229</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">62.4902</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">218</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8.3453</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">158.5230</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">50.8438</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">38.2502</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">214</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">11.4335</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">159.0456</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">50.6201</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15.5655</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">214</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.0997</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">158.0060</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">51.0634</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">62.4902</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">214</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.1837</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">157.7104</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">50.1261</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">40.5760</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">218</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.2835</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">158.1906</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">49.8844</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">16.3498</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">218</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.8474</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">157.2360</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">50.3631</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">66.3260</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">218</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.9568</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">156.8407</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">49.4333</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">40.5760</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">220</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.7094</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <fig id="F4" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d2e1988">Residual vertical component of bed deformation for two scenarios based on inversion performed by <bold>(a)</bold> NOAA with 9 sub-faults with 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 km dimension and <bold>(b)</bold> USGS with 345 sub-faults with 15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 km dimension.</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d2e2017">To quantitatively compare these sources and estimate key tsunami parameters, a standardized method is applied to each deformation field. First, the primary generation area is identified by a polygon enclosing all points where the absolute displacement exceeds a 10 % threshold of the maximum deformation. An oriented bounding box is then fitted to this polygon, yielding the source's effective length (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), effective width (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and average strike. Subsequently, a single characteristic length (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is derived as the hypotenuse of the effective dimensions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:math></inline-formula>). This geometric proxy serves as a robust estimate for the dominant initial wavelength, explicitly linking the spatial extent of the seafloor uplift to the frequency content of the generated wave. This characteristic length, combined with the average ocean depth across the source region, is then applied to the linear dispersion relation to calculate the tsunami's characteristic wave period <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.24"/>. Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2"/> summarizes these effective fault and tsunami parameters for both scenarios. For validation, these model-derived periods are later compared against the wave period determined from an analysis of the observed DART buoy recordings for this event.</p>

<table-wrap id="T2"><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d2e2103">Comparison of NOAA and USGS fault scenarios.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">NOAA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">USGS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">No. of sub-faults</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">345</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">sub-faults dimensions (km)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fault effective length (km)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">520</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">450</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fault effective width (km)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">140</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">123</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Characteristic length (km)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">540</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">465</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean depth (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2880</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2960</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Average strike (°)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">217</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">218</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wave period (s)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2700</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>High fidelity modeling (FUNWAVE)</title>
      <p id="d2e2253">For the simulation of tsunami wave propagation, we use the Boussinesq-type wave model, FUNWAVE, in spherical coordinates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="paren.25"/>. The model has been validated against a large set of analytical, laboratory, and field benchmarks as part of the development of tsunami hazard maps for the US East Coast <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="paren.26"/>. An optimized MPI parallel implementation of FUNWAVE was developed, which has highly scalable algorithms, with a typical parallel scaling efficiency of more than 90 % of the number of cores in a typical medium-sized computer cluster. This makes it possible to run the model over large ocean basin-scale grids with a sufficiently fine resolution. The grid used in FUNWAVE simulations was developed from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.27"/>, which was downscaled from a resolution of 15 arcsec to 4 arcmin and cropped to focus on the Pacific Ocean, resulting in a final rectilinear grid comprising over 5 million points. Simulations were executed on an AMD EPYC 7H12 processor with a 2.6 GHz 64-core (128-thread) architecture, requiring approximately 50 min of real time to simulate 32 h of tsunami propagation.</p>
      <p id="d2e2265">To mitigate wetting and drying numerical artifacts along the coastline while preserving the steep bathymetric gradients of the Kuril–Kamchatka subduction zone essential for accurate wave generation, a spatially selective smoothing approach was adopted. A ramp function (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F5"/>) was constructed around the 10 m depth contour to linearly transition from the original  bathymetry in the deep ocean to a Gaussian-smoothed grid in shallow coastal  waters. This approach effectively ensures numerical stability in the nearshore region without compromising the bathymetric fidelity at the earthquake epicenter. Additionally, sensitivity simulations conducted on lower resolution 8 and 16 arcmin grids yielded negligible differences in results, confirming that the chosen 4 arcmin resolution is adequate for resolving the initial seafloor displacement and modeling transoceanic tsunami propagation.</p>

      <fig id="F5" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d2e2272"><bold>(a)</bold> Ramp function used to smooth transition the original grid to the Gaussian smooth grid. <bold>(b)</bold> Enlarged view of the ramp function along the United State's West Coast. Blue contour line denotes the 10 meter depth contour in both panels.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e2287">For both cases, NOAA and USGS, FUNWAVE simulations were performed using the bed deformation as the initial free surface water height. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F6"/> depicts the time history of generation and propagation of tsunami waves in the computational domain for the NOAA case with zero initial velocities. Simulations initialized with velocities from the elastic half-space model  overestimate wave heights at DART stations for both the NOAA and USGS cases. In contrast, simulations with zero initial velocities provide more accurate predictions of wave heights at the DART locations (disregarding the phase lag), exhibiting minimal over-prediction or under-prediction of wave heights. This result indicates that within the framework of Boussinesq-type models like FUNWAVE, the initial bed-deformation is sufficient for effectively modeling tsunami wave propagation accurately.</p>

      <fig id="F6" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d2e2294">Free surface height (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) from FUNWAVE simulation initialized with bed deformation from NOAA scenario. Simulation results are shown at 1 h intervals across the panels.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Phase lag correction</title>
      <p id="d2e2315">Standard Boussinesq models assume an incompressible ocean over a rigid bed, causing theoretical phase speed overestimations and earlier arrivals, with the effect amplified at distant stations. To correct this bias, we quantified and applied a kinematic time-shift to the model outputs, without adjusting the hydrodynamic wave amplitudes. We utilize the formulation by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="text.28"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3" id="text.29"/>, which incorporates water compressibility, Earth elasticity, and background density to calculate accurate phase speeds. These values were incorporated into a shortest-path framework <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="paren.30"/> to compute precise arrival times. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F7"/> illustrates this correction, displaying the travel times and the calculated time lag between the standard and compressible-ocean formulations. These differences (listed in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F8"/>c) at the DART sites were used to shift the FUNWAVE outputs, aligning modeled arrivals with observations (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F8"/>a).</p>

      <fig id="F7" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d2e2336"><bold>(a)</bold> Phase speed from the classic dispersion relation for an incompressible ocean over a rigid bottom (black) and for a compressible ocean with an elastic bottom and background density (blue); <bold>(b)</bold> surface gravity wave travel time derived from the blue curve in panel <bold>(a)</bold>; black contours show travel time at 1 h intervals; <bold>(c)</bold> percentage reduction in phase speed between the black and blue curves in panel <bold>(a)</bold>; black contours show the difference in travel time between the two dispersion relations at 1 min intervals.</p></caption>
            <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f07.png"/>

          </fig>

      <fig id="F8" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d2e2361"><bold>(a)</bold> Time series at DART observatories (black), with FUNWAVE simulations forced by the NOAA fault scenario (red) and the USGS scenario (blue). Stations are ordered by distance from the epicenter (magenta star in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F7"/>). The locations of the DART buoys are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F7"/>. The vertical dashed line marks the earthquake origin time. <bold>(b)</bold> Estimated range of tsunami wave periods at all stations. The vertical dashed blue line indicates the overall mean period (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60 min), used in the phase speed calculation. <bold>(c)</bold> Time lag between computed arrivals based on the standard dispersion relation and those incorporating ocean compressibility, Earth elasticity, and background density. The FUNWAVE results in panel <bold>(a)</bold> are shifted according to the values in panel <bold>(c)</bold>.</p></caption>
            <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d2e2397">Statistical analysis of phase-lag-corrected FUNWAVE outputs at DART stations demonstrates that the model effectively captures the tsunami signals generated by both source scenarios, with superior performance achieved using the NOAA fault configuration. The NOAA-forced simulation yields a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.057, approximately 35 % lower than the USGS RMSE of 0.088, indicating a substantially smaller overall prediction error. Furthermore, the NOAA solution exhibits higher model fidelity, characterized by a Skill Factor of 0.955 and a low Scatter Index (SI) of 0.151, compared to the USGS scenario, which produced a Skill Factor of 0.915 and a significantly larger SI of 0.380.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Spatial Exposure Assessment</title>
      <p id="d2e2409">With the hydrodynamic model successfully validated against DART observations, we now evaluate the spatial distribution of tsunami energy across the Pacific basin. This step bridges the probabilistic and geometric frameworks outlined in Sects. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/> and <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3"/> with the deterministic, high-fidelity simulation of the 2025 Kamchatka Peninsula event.</p>
      <p id="d2e2416">To evaluate the predictive capability of the ray-tracing framework, the model was initialized using the fault parameters of the Kamchatka event (NOAA scenario) listed in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2"/>. A total of 270 rays were emitted perpendicular to the 540 km fault line (strike 217°) with a 3200 s (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 53 min) characteristic period, enabling a realistic representation of the initial radiation pattern, and were then tracked across the Pacific basin to identify convergence zones.</p>
      <p id="d2e2428">The resulting normalized ray termination counts are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F9"/>a. Note that ray-based shadow zones appear sharper because diffractive spreading is absent in geometric optics. The simulation reveals clear corridors of energy focusing. In the near-field, high ray densities emerge along the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, primarily governed by the fault orientation and source proximity. In the far-field, bathymetric refraction organizes tsunami propagation into a dominant southeastward beam that first targets the Hawaiian Islands and then continues into the Southeast Pacific, ultimately forming a coherent refractive corridor that extends southward toward the coast of Chile. A second beam projects eastward toward the North American coast, notably targeting Washington, Oregon, and Northern California.</p>

      <fig id="F9" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d2e2436"><bold>(a)</bold> Basin-wide ray density and coastal tsunami exposure derived from the ray-tracing model, where the coastline metric is a  normalized ray-count proxy (0–1); <bold>(b)</bold> maximum free-surface elevations from FUNWAVE simulations for the 2025 Kamchatka Peninsula event, with the basin-wide field shown using the white–blue colormap and coastline segments using the green–yellow–red colormap. Basemap created with Natural Earth data.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e2450">These geometric patterns are strongly supported by the full hydrodynamic simulation. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F9"/>b shows the maximum wave amplitude envelope computed by FUNWAVE. The spatial distribution closely aligns with the convergence zones identified in panel (a), while also capturing additional physical processes absent in the ray-tracing model. First, the ray-based simulation produces sharp shadow zones behind island chains (e.g., southeast of Hawaii), an expected consequence of its geometrical optics approximation. In contrast, FUNWAVE shows softer gradients, where diffraction allows partial energy penetration into these shadow regions. Second, the hydrodynamic  solution reveals faint concentric ripples radiating from the continental margins-reflected energy that is naturally captured in FUNWAVE but purposely omitted in the ray-tracing model, where rays terminate upon coastal impact.</p>
      <p id="d2e2455">While a strong qualitative agreement is visually evident in the spatial alignment of energy corridors shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F9"/>, we further evaluated the model's performance statistically. To evaluate far-field predictive performance against the fully coupled FUNWAVE hydrodynamic simulations, a Spearman rank correlation was calculated for spatially co-located coastal amplitude distributions. To isolate far-field refractive propagation from localized static coseismic deformation, 161 coastal observation points were retained after explicitly excluding all points within a 1000 km radius of the epicenter, yielding a baseline correlation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.65.</p>
      <p id="d2e2474">Because standard significance testing ignores the spatial autocorrelation of coastal tsunami amplitudes, a spatial block-bootstrap resampling scheme was implemented to estimate unbiased confidence bounds. The remaining coastline was partitioned into contiguous 500 km segments along the coastal  trajectory, which were randomly sampled with replacement over 10 000  iterations to preserve local spatial dependence. This methodology yielded an unbiased 95 % confidence interval of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.35</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.83</mml:mn><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Because the confidence bounds remain strictly positive, the correlation is statistically significant (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01). Sensitivity analyses across 300 to 800 km block sizes confirmed that while confidence interval widths scale inversely with effective degrees of freedom, the lower bounds remain confidently above zero, confirming that the correlation is robust and independent of the selected bin size. Ultimately, despite underpredicting amplitudes in diffraction-dependent coastal shadow zones, the spatially adjusted analysis confirms a highly significant, physical monotonic relationship between the rapid screening predictions and high-resolution hydrodynamic benchmarks in the far-field.</p>
      <p id="d2e2507">Finally, these modeled hotspots are corroborated by in-situ observations. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F10"/> presents the maximum water levels recorded at NOAA tide gauge stations. The observational record exhibits strong agreement with both the ray-tracing and hydrodynamic models. The highest amplitudes (red and orange markers) occur precisely where both frameworks predicted energy focusing – along the Hawaiian Islands and the U.S. West Coast. Importantly, the secondary southern beam identified in both the ray-tracing solution (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F9"/>a) and the hydrodynamic envelope (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F9"/>b) is confirmed by an elevated water level at a gauge in the Southeast Pacific (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F10"/>), demonstrating the model's ability to resolve narrow, refractive transoceanic pathways over great distances.</p>

      <fig id="F10" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d2e2521">Maximum observed water levels at NOAA tide gauge stations along the coastline. Basemap created with Natural Earth data.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e2530">Collectively, these results show that when informed by accurate source mechanics, the ray-tracing framework serves as a robust and computationally efficient proxy for identifying far-field coastal exposure and quantifying basin-scale tsunami exposure.</p>

      <fig id="F11" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d2e2535">Spatiotemporal snapshots of the free surface height (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) simulated in FUNWAVE at 1 h intervals, illustrating the highly directional far-field energy beaming across the Pacific Ocean <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="paren.31"/>.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>2011 Tohoku-oki Tsunami</title>
      <p id="d2e2563">As a second case study, we apply the proposed ray-tracing framework to the 11 March 2011, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 9.0 Tohoku-oki megathrust earthquake to  evaluate its performance under a different fault rupture geometry and source configuration. This event generated one of the largest trans-Pacific tsunamis ever recorded, characterized by highly directional energy radiation and pronounced far-field energy beaming across the Pacific Ocean <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18 bib1.bibx2" id="paren.32"/>. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F11"/> shows snapshots of the simulated free-surface elevation during the first 16 h of propagation, illustrating the strong directivity of the tsunami wave field as it traverses the Pacific basin.</p>
      <p id="d2e2582">Time series analyses of deep-ocean observations indicate a dominant mean wave period of approximately 35 min across the Pacific DART buoy network <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="paren.33"/>. Using the phase-lag correction procedure described in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSSx1"/>, this dominant wave period was used to correct the high-fidelity FUNWAVE simulations. The phase correction successfully aligned the modeled tsunami arrivals with the real-time de-tided observations recorded at DART stations throughout the Pacific (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F12"/>).</p>

      <fig id="F12" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d2e2594">Validation of phase-lag-corrected FUNWAVE hydrodynamic simulations (red) against de-tided observations (black) recorded at deep-ocean Pacific DART stations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="paren.34"/>.</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f12.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d2e2607">We next evaluate the spatial exposure using the geometric ray-density metric described in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS2"/>. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F13"/> compares the normalized ray-count distribution with the maximum free-surface elevation obtained from the baseline FUNWAVE simulation. The ray-tracing framework successfully reproduces the primary regions of tsunami energy concentration and coastal exposure associated with this event. The spatial block-bootstrap analysis resulted in a correlation coefficient of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.631 (95 % CI: 0.36–0.77, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01), demonstrating statistically significant agreement between the rapid geometric proxy and the full  hydrodynamic solution. These results further confirm that the proposed unstructured ray-tracing approach provides a computationally efficient and robust framework for rapid tsunami exposure assessment across different fault geometries and ocean-basin scales.</p>

      <fig id="F13" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d2e2645">Comparison of the 2011 Tohoku-oki event showing <bold>(a)</bold> normalized ray-count proxy (0–1) and <bold>(b)</bold> the baseline FUNWAVE maximum wave envelope (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Basemap created with Natural Earth data.</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f13.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>6</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d2e2679">This study introduced a hybrid probabilistic–geometric framework, intended for rapid far-field exposure screening rather than local inundation modeling, that bridges the gap between statistical seismic exposure assessment and physically grounded tsunami propagation modeling. By integrating earthquake recurrence statistics derived from the Gutenberg–Richter relation with basin-scale ray-tracing, the method efficiently maps global patterns of energy convergence and identifies  coastlines most susceptible to transoceanic tsunami exposure. This approach provides a rapid, computationally scalable alternative to full hydrodynamic ensemble modeling, making it suitable for global screening and early-stage exposure prioritization.</p>
      <p id="d2e2682">The framework was rigorously validated using the 2025 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.8 Kamchatka Peninsula earthquake as a benchmark case. Phase-corrected FUNWAVE simulations showed strong agreement with in-situ DART and tide-gauge observations, confirming that the hydrodynamic model, when corrected for compressibility, earth elasticity and background density, reproduced the key timing and amplitude characteristics of the event. Building on this foundation, the ray-tracing model, initialized with the optimized NOAA source parameters, successfully resolved the dominant transoceanic energy trajectories. Both the ray-tracing and hydrodynamic models identified the primary focusing pathway toward Hawaii and the U.S. West Coast, as well as the refraction-driven beam directed toward Chile.</p>
      <p id="d2e2692">The comparative analysis highlighted both the utility and the physical limitations of the geometric approach. While the ray-tracing model accurately predicted the location of far-field hotspots, it produced sharp shadow zones that neglected the diffraction effects captured by the weakly dispersive hydrodynamic model. Despite this approximation, the spatial alignment of maximum energy envelopes across observations, FUNWAVE simulations, and ray clusters, quantified by a Spearman correlation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.66, demonstrates that bathymetric refraction is the primary mechanism governing basin-scale tsunami intensity distribution.</p>
      <p id="d2e2709">Ray-tracing, weighted by recurrence-based probability, directly addresses the need for scalable exposure assessment. By filtering theoretical energy exposure through the lens of recurrence likelihood, the model provides a prioritized map of coastal regions where tsunami impacts are both physically focused and statistically probable. This combination offers a robust practical utility for coastal resilience, as consistently identified along high-energy refraction pathways can be flagged for focused vulnerability assessment and the allocation of high-fidelity modeling resources.</p>
      <p id="d2e2713">To date, many new construction initiatives along the coastlines require design analysis against both the extreme weather hazards and  seismic-generated wave flooding events. Frameworks like those described in this manuscript can give rise to improved operational utility and creation of a single pane of glass, or a system of systems for hazard mitigation. In summary, this work demonstrates that a probabilistic–geometric approach serves as a defensible and efficient proxy for global tsunami exposure assessment, guiding decision-makers toward the communities facing the highest likelihood of future transoceanic impact.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>

<app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <label>Appendix A</label><title>Supplementary figures</title>

      <fig id="FA1"><label>Figure A1</label><caption><p id="d2e2729">Parametric sensitivity of the 1D Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) smoothing bandwidth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). The red curve (right axis) shows spatial variance; values stabilize at the 500 km baseline, consistent with characteristic rupture lengths of great (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.8–9.0) megathrust events. The blue curve (left axis) shows the Pearson correlation coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.95) relative to the 500 km baseline, demonstrating geographic stability across the bandwidth spectrum.</p></caption>
        
        <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f14.png"/>

      </fig>

      <fig id="FA2"><label>Figure A2</label><caption><p id="d2e2774">Spatial distribution and statistical properties of the variable-resolution unstructured ray-tracing mesh. (Left) Global map of the element sizes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in km) demonstrating the feature-tracking nodal generation. Finer resolutions (red/yellow, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10.8–15 km) are explicitly forced along high-gradient bathymetric features such as seamount chains, mid-ocean ridges, and subduction trenches to preserve critical refractive boundaries. Coarser resolutions (blue, up to 28.35 km) are restricted to relatively flat abyssal plains. (Right) Probability density distribution of the element sizes, detailing the specific mesh geometry of 1 726 063 nodes and 3 452 122 elements with a mean resolution of 16.82 km.</p></caption>
        
        <graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/26/3597/2026/nhess-26-3597-2026-f15.png"/>

      </fig>


</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d2e2808">The <monospace>FUNWAVE-TVD</monospace> model code used in this study is publicly available on GitHub at <uri>https://github.com/fengyanshi/FUNWAVE-TVD</uri>. The current version of Okeanos-Ray, including the code and input files to produce the results shown in this paper, can be accessed from the Zenodo archive (<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21461088" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.21461088</ext-link>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx1" id="altparen.35"/>) under  GNU GPL v3.0 Licensing.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d2e2826">AA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software (Ray-tracing model development), Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Supervision, Visualization, and Writing – original draft. ML: Investigation, FUNWAVE simulation, Visualization, and Writing – review and editing. UK: Methodology, Investigation and Writing – review and editing. MM: Investigation, FUNWAVE simulation and Writing – review and editing. MF: Investigation, Software (Tsunami Travel Time/GREAT) and Writing – review and editing. FS: Investigation, Software (FUNWAVE model development) and Writing – review and editing.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d2e2832">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d2e2838">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. The authors bear the ultimate responsibility for providing appropriate place names. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d2e2845">Ali Abdolali, Michael-Angelo Y.-H. Lam and Matt Malej gratefully acknowledges the support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), USA.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d2e2850">Funding for the contributions of the USACE-affiliated authors (AA, ML, MM) was provided by the USACE Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) through the Geospatial Research and Engineering (GRE) Research and Development Area (RDA), led by the Geospatial Research Laboratory (GRL) under Program Element 0601102 A [Project AB2], titled “Adaptive Protection, Maneuver, Geospatial, and Natural Sciences Research”, Task 1: “Mapping, Remote Sensing, Signature Physics and Terrain State Research”, Effort: “Role of ocean compressibility, earth elasticity and background density on infra-gravity, storm surge and tidal waves”.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d2e2856">This paper was edited by Mauricio Gonzalez and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Abdolali(2026)</label><mixed-citation>Abdolali, A.: Okeanos ray, Zenodo [code], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21461088" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.21461088</ext-link>, 2026.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Abdolali and Kirby(2017)</label><mixed-citation>Abdolali, A. and Kirby, J. T.: Role of Compressibility on Tsunami Propagation, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 122, 9780–9794,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013054" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017JC013054</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Abdolali and Kadri(2026)</label><mixed-citation> Abdolali, A. and Kadri, U.: Phase Speed Modification Across Infragravity to Tidal Bands in a Compressible Ocean over Stratified Elastic Earth with Gravitational Terms, J. Fluid Mech., in review, 2026.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Abdolali et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>Abdolali, A., Kadri, U., and Kirby, J. T.: Effect of Water Compressibility,  Sea-floor Elasticity, and Field Gravitational Potential on Tsunami Phase  Speed, Scientific reports, 9, 16874, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52475-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41598-019-52475-0</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Aki(1965)</label><mixed-citation>Aki, K.: Maximum likelihood estimate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in the formula <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  and its confidence limits, Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute,  University of Tokyo, 43, 237–239,  <uri>https://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/record/33631/files/ji0432001.pdf</uri> (last access: 3 December 2025), 1965.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Allen and Hayes(2017)</label><mixed-citation>Allen, T. I. and Hayes, G. P.: Alternative Rupture‐Scaling Relationships for  Subduction Interface and Other Offshore Environments, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 107, 1240–1253, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160255" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1785/0120160255</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Behrens et al.(2021)</label><mixed-citation>Behrens, J., Løvholt, F., Jalayer, F., et al.: Probabilistic tsunami hazard and risk analysis: A review of  research gaps, Frontiers in Earth Science, 9, 628772, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.628772" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2021.628772</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Blaser et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>Blaser, L., Krüger, F., Ohrnberger, M., and Scherbaum, F.: Scaling Relations  of Earthquake Source Parameter Estimates with Special Focus on Subduction  Environment, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 100, 2914–2926, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100111" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1785/0120100111</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Davies et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>Davies, G., Griffin, J., Løvholt, F., Glimsdal, S., Harbitz, C., Thio,  H. K., Lorito, S., Basili, R., Selva, J., Geist, E., and Baptista, M. A.: A global probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment from earthquake sources,  Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 456, 219–244, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1144/SP456.5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1144/SP456.5</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Frohlich and Davis(1993)</label><mixed-citation>Frohlich, C. and Davis, S. D.: Teleseismic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values; Or, much ado about 1.0, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 98, 631–644, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/92JB01891" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/92JB01891</ext-link>, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>GEBCO Bathymetric Compilation Group 2025(2025)</label><mixed-citation>GEBCO Bathymetric Compilation Group 2025: The GEBCO_2025 Grid: a continuous terrain model for oceans and land at 15 arc-second intervals, NERC EDS British Oceanographic Data Centre NOC [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5285/37c52e96-24ea-67ce-e063-7086abc05f29" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5285/37c52e96-24ea-67ce-e063-7086abc05f29</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Geophysical Data Center/World Data Service(NGDC/WDS)(2024)</label><mixed-citation>Geophysical Data Center/World Data Service (NGDC/WDS): NCEI/WDS Global Significant Earthquake Database, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.7289/V5TD9V7K" ext-link-type="DOI">10.7289/V5TD9V7K</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Grezio et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>Grezio, A., Babeyko, A., Baptista, M. A., Behrens, J., Costa, A., Davies, G.,  Geist, E. L., Glimsdal, S., González, F. I., Griffin, J., Harbitz, C. B.,  LeVeque, R. J., Lorito, S., Løvholt, F., Omira, R., Mueller, C., Paris, R.,  Parsons, T., Polet, J., Power, W., Selva, J., Sørensen, M. B., and Thio,  H. K.: Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis: Multiple Sources and Global  Applications, Rev. Geophys., 55, 1158–1198, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000579" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017RG000579</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Halsne et al.(2023)</label><mixed-citation>Halsne, T., Christensen, K. H., Hope, G., and Breivik, Ø.: Ocean wave tracing v.1: a numerical solver of the wave ray equations for ocean waves on variable currents at arbitrary depths, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6515–6530, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6515-2023" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-16-6515-2023</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Harbitz et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Harbitz, C. B., Løvholt, F., and Bungum, H.: Submarine landslide tsunamis: how extreme and how likely?, Nat. Hazards, 72, 1341–1374, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0681-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11069-013-0681-3</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Hayes(2017)</label><mixed-citation>Hayes, G. P.: The finite, kinematic rupture properties of great-sized  earthquakes since 1990, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 468, 94–100, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2017.04.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.epsl.2017.04.003</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Kadri et al.(2025)</label><mixed-citation>Kadri, U., Abdolali, A., and Filimonov, M.: GREAT v1.0: Global Real-time Early Assessment of Tsunamis, Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3487–3507, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3487-2025" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-18-3487-2025</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Kirby et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>Kirby, J. T., Shi, F., Tehranirad, B., Harris, J. C., and Grilli, S. T.:  Dispersive tsunami waves in the ocean: Model equations and sensitivity to  dispersion and Coriolis effects, Ocean Model., 62, 39–55, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2012.11.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2012.11.009</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>NOAA(2025a)</label><mixed-citation>NOAA: Tsunami Historical Series: Kamchatka, Russia – 2025, <uri>https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/datasets/tsunami-historical-series-kamchatka-russia-2025/</uri> (last access: 3 December 2025),  2025a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>NOAA(2025b)</label><mixed-citation>NOAA: 29 July 2025, Mw 8.8, Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia Tsunami, <uri>https://www.weather.gov/itic-car/29july2025_kamtchatka_tsunami</uri> (last access: 3 December 2025), 2025b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Okada(1985)</label><mixed-citation> Okada, Y.: Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 75, 1135–1154, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Sannikova et al.(2021)</label><mixed-citation>Sannikova, N. K., Segur, H., and Arcas, D.: Influence of Tsunami Aspect Ratio on Near and Far-Field Tsunami Amplitude, Geosciences, 11, 178, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11040178" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/geosciences11040178</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>Satake(1988)</label><mixed-citation>Satake, K.: Effects of bathymetry on tsunami propagation: Application of ray  tracing to tsunamis, Pure Appl. Geophys., 126, 27–36, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00876912" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF00876912</ext-link>, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Satake(2005)</label><mixed-citation>Satake, K. (Ed.): Tsunamis: Case studies and recent developments, Springer, Dordrecht, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3331-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/1-4020-3331-1</ext-link>, 2005. </mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Scourse et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>Scourse, E. M., Chapman, N. A., Tappin, D. R., and Wallis, S. R. (Eds.):  Tsunamis: Geology, Hazards and Risks, in: Geological Society, London, Special Publications, Geological Society of London, London, UK, 456  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1144/SP456" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1144/SP456</ext-link>, ISBN 9781786203182, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Tehranirad et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation> Tehranirad, B., Shi, F., Kirby, J. T., Harris, J. C., and Grilli, S.: Tsunami  benchmark results for fully nonlinear Boussinesq wave model FUNWAVE-TVD,  Version 1.0, Center for Applied Coastal Research, University of Delaware,  Tech. Rep, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Tehranirad et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>Tehranirad, B., Harris, J. C., Grilli, A. R., Grilli, S. T., Abadie, S., Kirby, J. T., and Shi, F.: Far-Field Tsunami Impact in the North Atlantic Basin from Large Scale Flank Collapses of the Cumbre Vieja Volcano, La Palma, Pure Appl. Geophys., 172, 3589–3616, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1135-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00024-015-1135-5</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Titov et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>Titov, V. V., González, F. I., Bernard, E. N., Eble, M. C., Mofjeld, H. O., Newman, J. C., and Venturato, A. J.: A new tool for real-time tsunami  forecasting, Nat Hazards, 35, 35–41, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-004-2403-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11069-004-2403-3</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>USGS(2025)</label><mixed-citation>USGS: M 8.8 – 2025 Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia Earthquake, <uri>https://web.archive.org/web/20250730010514/https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000qw60/executive</uri> (last access: 30 July 2025), 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>Utsu(1965)</label><mixed-citation>Utsu, T.: A method for determining the value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in a formula <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> showing the magnitude-frequency relation for earthquakes, Geophysical  Bulletin of Hokkaido University, 13, 99–103, <uri>https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110006611099</uri> (last access: 3 December 2025), 1965.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>Woessner(2005)</label><mixed-citation>Woessner, J. and Wiemer, S.: Assessing the Quality of Earthquake Catalogues: Estimating the Magnitude of Completeness and Its Uncertainty, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95, 684–698, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1785/0120040007</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Basin-scale geometric focusing: a probabilistic-geometric framework for global tsunami exposure assessment and the 2025 Kamchatka Peninsula tsunami</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Abdolali(2026)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Abdolali, A.: Okeanos ray, Zenodo [code], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21461088" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21461088</a>, 2026.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Abdolali and Kirby(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Abdolali, A. and Kirby, J. T.: Role of Compressibility on Tsunami Propagation, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 122, 9780–9794,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013054" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013054</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Abdolali and Kadri(2026)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Abdolali, A. and Kadri, U.: Phase Speed Modification Across Infragravity to Tidal Bands in a Compressible Ocean over Stratified Elastic Earth with Gravitational Terms, J. Fluid Mech., in review, 2026.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Abdolali et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Abdolali, A., Kadri, U., and Kirby, J. T.: Effect of Water Compressibility,  Sea-floor Elasticity, and Field Gravitational Potential on Tsunami Phase  Speed, Scientific reports, 9, 16874, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52475-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52475-0</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Aki(1965)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Aki, K.: Maximum likelihood estimate of <i>b</i> in the formula <i>log</i><i>N</i> = <i>a</i> − <i>b</i><i>M</i>  and its confidence limits, Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute,  University of Tokyo, 43, 237–239,  <a href="https://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/record/33631/files/ji0432001.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 3 December 2025),
1965.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Allen and Hayes(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Allen, T. I. and Hayes, G. P.: Alternative Rupture‐Scaling Relationships for  Subduction Interface and Other Offshore Environments, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 107, 1240–1253, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160255" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160255</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>Behrens et al.(2021)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Behrens, J., Løvholt, F., Jalayer, F., et al.: Probabilistic tsunami hazard and risk analysis: A review of  research gaps, Frontiers in Earth Science, 9, 628772, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.628772" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.628772</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>Blaser et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Blaser, L., Krüger, F., Ohrnberger, M., and Scherbaum, F.: Scaling Relations  of Earthquake Source Parameter Estimates with Special Focus on Subduction  Environment, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 100, 2914–2926, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100111" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100111</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>Davies et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Davies, G., Griffin, J., Løvholt, F., Glimsdal, S., Harbitz, C., Thio,  H. K., Lorito, S., Basili, R., Selva, J., Geist, E., and Baptista, M. A.: A global probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment from earthquake sources,  Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 456, 219–244, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1144/SP456.5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1144/SP456.5</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Frohlich and Davis(1993)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Frohlich, C. and Davis, S. D.: Teleseismic <i>b</i> values; Or, much ado about 1.0, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 98, 631–644, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/92JB01891" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/92JB01891</a>, 1993.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>GEBCO Bathymetric Compilation Group 2025(2025)</label><mixed-citation>
      
GEBCO Bathymetric Compilation Group 2025: The GEBCO_2025 Grid: a continuous terrain model for oceans and land at
15 arc-second intervals, NERC EDS British Oceanographic Data Centre NOC [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5285/37c52e96-24ea-67ce-e063-7086abc05f29" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5285/37c52e96-24ea-67ce-e063-7086abc05f29</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Geophysical Data Center/World Data Service(NGDC/WDS)(2024)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Geophysical Data Center/World Data Service (NGDC/WDS): NCEI/WDS Global Significant Earthquake Database, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, <a href="https://doi.org/10.7289/V5TD9V7K" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.7289/V5TD9V7K</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>Grezio et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Grezio, A., Babeyko, A., Baptista, M. A., Behrens, J., Costa, A., Davies, G.,  Geist, E. L., Glimsdal, S., González, F. I., Griffin, J., Harbitz, C. B.,  LeVeque, R. J., Lorito, S., Løvholt, F., Omira, R., Mueller, C., Paris, R.,  Parsons, T., Polet, J., Power, W., Selva, J., Sørensen, M. B., and Thio,  H. K.: Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis: Multiple Sources and Global  Applications, Rev. Geophys., 55, 1158–1198, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000579" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000579</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Halsne et al.(2023)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Halsne, T., Christensen, K. H., Hope, G., and Breivik, Ø.: Ocean wave tracing v.1: a numerical solver of the wave ray equations for ocean waves on variable currents at arbitrary depths, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6515–6530, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6515-2023" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6515-2023</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Harbitz et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Harbitz, C. B., Løvholt, F., and Bungum, H.: Submarine landslide tsunamis: how extreme and how likely?, Nat. Hazards, 72, 1341–1374, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0681-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0681-3</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Hayes(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hayes, G. P.: The finite, kinematic rupture properties of great-sized  earthquakes since 1990, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 468, 94–100, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2017.04.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2017.04.003</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Kadri et al.(2025)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kadri, U., Abdolali, A., and Filimonov, M.: GREAT v1.0: Global Real-time Early Assessment of Tsunamis, Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3487–3507, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3487-2025" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3487-2025</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Kirby et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kirby, J. T., Shi, F., Tehranirad, B., Harris, J. C., and Grilli, S. T.:  Dispersive tsunami waves in the ocean: Model equations and sensitivity to  dispersion and Coriolis effects, Ocean Model., 62, 39–55, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2012.11.009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2012.11.009</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>NOAA(2025a)</label><mixed-citation>
      
NOAA: Tsunami Historical Series: Kamchatka, Russia – 2025, <a href="https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/datasets/tsunami-historical-series-kamchatka-russia-2025/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 3 December 2025),  2025a.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>NOAA(2025b)</label><mixed-citation>
      
NOAA: 29 July 2025, Mw 8.8, Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia Tsunami, <a href="https://www.weather.gov/itic-car/29july2025_kamtchatka_tsunami" target="_blank"/> (last access: 3 December 2025), 2025b.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Okada(1985)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Okada, Y.: Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 75, 1135–1154, 1985.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Sannikova et al.(2021)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Sannikova, N. K., Segur, H., and Arcas, D.: Influence of Tsunami Aspect Ratio on Near and Far-Field Tsunami Amplitude, Geosciences, 11, 178, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11040178" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11040178</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Satake(1988)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Satake, K.: Effects of bathymetry on tsunami propagation: Application of ray  tracing to tsunamis, Pure Appl. Geophys., 126, 27–36, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00876912" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00876912</a>, 1988.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Satake(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Satake, K. (Ed.): Tsunamis: Case studies and recent developments, Springer, Dordrecht, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3331-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3331-1</a>, 2005.


    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Scourse et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Scourse, E. M., Chapman, N. A., Tappin, D. R., and Wallis, S. R. (Eds.):  Tsunamis: Geology, Hazards and Risks, in: Geological Society, London, Special Publications, Geological Society of London, London, UK, 456  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1144/SP456" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1144/SP456</a>, ISBN&thinsp;9781786203182, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>Tehranirad et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Tehranirad, B., Shi, F., Kirby, J. T., Harris, J. C., and Grilli, S.: Tsunami  benchmark results for fully nonlinear Boussinesq wave model FUNWAVE-TVD,  Version 1.0, Center for Applied Coastal Research, University of Delaware,  Tech. Rep, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Tehranirad et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Tehranirad, B., Harris, J. C., Grilli, A. R., Grilli, S. T., Abadie, S., Kirby, J. T., and Shi, F.: Far-Field Tsunami Impact in the North Atlantic Basin from Large Scale Flank Collapses of the Cumbre Vieja Volcano, La Palma, Pure Appl. Geophys., 172, 3589–3616, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1135-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1135-5</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Titov et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Titov, V. V., González, F. I., Bernard, E. N., Eble, M. C., Mofjeld, H. O., Newman, J. C., and Venturato, A. J.: A new tool for real-time tsunami  forecasting, Nat Hazards, 35, 35–41, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-004-2403-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-004-2403-3</a>, 2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>USGS(2025)</label><mixed-citation>
      
USGS: M 8.8 – 2025 Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia Earthquake,
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250730010514/https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000qw60/executive" target="_blank"/> (last access: 30 July 2025), 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>Utsu(1965)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Utsu, T.: A method for determining the value of <i>b</i> in a formula <i>log</i><i>n</i> = <i>a</i> − <i>b</i><i>M</i> showing the magnitude-frequency relation for earthquakes, Geophysical  Bulletin of Hokkaido University, 13, 99–103,
<a href="https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110006611099" target="_blank"/> (last access: 3 December 2025), 1965.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>Woessner(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
      
Woessner, J. and Wiemer, S.: Assessing the Quality of Earthquake Catalogues: Estimating the Magnitude of Completeness and Its Uncertainty, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95, 684–698, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040007</a>, 2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
