Aftershocks in stress shadows are inconsistent with modeled static Coulomb stress changes
Aftershock triggering is commonly attributed to increases in static Coulomb stress. In some areas, termed "stress shadows", a decrease in Coulomb stress is predicted to suppress earthquake occurrence. However, aftershocks are often observed in the modeled stress shadows. We examine several hypotheses that attempt to reconcile these shadow aftershocks with the static Coulomb stress change model: (1) they appear to be in shadows because of inaccuracy in the stress change calculations, (2) they occur on faults of unusual orientation which actually experienced increased Coulomb stress, (3) they occur on faults with different frictional properties, not modeled well by Coulomb stress, and (4) they are secondary aftershocks triggered by prior aftershocks or afterslip. When tested on the 2016 Mw7.0 Kumamoto, Japan, and 2019 Mw7.1 Ridgecrest, California, aftershock sequences, none of these hypotheses can explain the majority of the shadow aftershocks, and taken together these hypotheses can explain only about half of these aftershocks. This implies that Coulomb stress modeling that lacks small-scale fault zone heterogeneity might be inadequate to fully capture the true static stress changes and/or that other physical triggering models are needed, for example transient processes such as delayed triggering by dynamic stress changes from the passing seismic waves.