feat(criteria): activate seismic criterion (v1.8 — 8 of 8 criteria live)

README.md

@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ The thermal and ice criteria are both fed by the **Diviner Polar Resource Produc
 
 The PSR mask used by the ice criterion is still derived from the Mazarico illumination raster (`illumination < 0.001`); the PRP is a thermal-stability calculation, not an ice-existence map, so PSR proximity adds an orthogonal signal.
 
-Default weights from [`config/weights_default.yaml`](config/weights_default.yaml): illumination 0.18, ice 0.18, coupling 0.18, los_to_earth 0.15, slope 0.13, thermal 0.08, hazard 0.07, seismic 0.03. **The 0.15 LOS weight was chosen *before* the v1.1.0 validation rerun on physics-and-operations grounds**, not after seeing the result: LOS is a real physical criterion NASA prioritises in mission planning (above thermal and hazard for crewed-comms-critical sites), but is not as high-leverage as illumination/ice/coupling because it is a more binary-ish constraint (works/doesn't work given a horizon) than a continuous optimisation target. 0.15 places it between hazard (mostly redundant with slope at the south pole) and slope (a hard buildability constraint). Older weight vectors are preserved: [`config/weights_legacy.yaml`](config/weights_legacy.yaml) for the 5-criterion baseline (no coupling, no LOS); [`config/weights_legacy_v6.yaml`](config/weights_legacy_v6.yaml) for the v1.0.0 6-criterion vector (no LOS).
+Default weights from [`config/weights_default.yaml`](config/weights_default.yaml) (v1.8 — eighth criterion live): illumination 0.17, ice 0.17, coupling 0.17, los_to_earth 0.14, slope 0.12, thermal 0.07, hazard 0.06, seismic 0.10. **The 0.10 seismic weight reflects that scarp distance is one of multiple safety factors and is most relevant on long habitat-occupation timescales**; the other seven weights are scaled by 0.928 from the v1.5 vector so the simplex sums to 1.00 without changing relative ratios. **The 0.15 LOS weight (now 0.14 after seismic activation) was chosen *before* the v1.1.0 validation rerun on physics-and-operations grounds**: LOS is a real physical criterion NASA prioritises in mission planning, but more binary-ish than continuous, so weighted slightly less than illumination/ice/coupling. Older weight vectors are preserved: [`config/weights_legacy.yaml`](config/weights_legacy.yaml) (5-criterion baseline, no coupling/LOS), [`config/weights_legacy_v6.yaml`](config/weights_legacy_v6.yaml) (v1.0.0 6-criterion, no LOS).
 
 ### Mapping to NASA's Figures of Merit framework
 
@@ -171,10 +171,24 @@ NASA's Artemis site-selection process ([Lawrence 2025](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/cit
 | Hazard (crater density) | Site Availability | Robbins 2019 catalog (consistent) | not public |
 | Coupling (PSR ↔ ridge) | Mission Availability + Science Objectives | derived (Mazarico + slope) | not public |
 | LOS-to-Earth | Mission Availability | derived (LOLA + libration) | published threshold (HLS) |
-| Seismic (Watters scarps) | Site Availability | catalog TODO (planned) | not public |
+| Seismic (Watters scarps) | Site Availability | Mishra & Kumar 2022 + Watters 2015 (consistent; bundled in-repo since v1.8) | not public |
 
 selene-base implements *physics-driven analogs* of NASA's FOM categories using public data and operations-driven thresholds, not direct implementations of NASA's actual weighting (which is not public). The HLS hard-constraint thresholds (slope, slope-buffer, illumination, DTE visibility) are published and are matched verbatim. The soft-criterion weights are physics-and-operations-driven defaults set before any validation rerun, not tuned to match a NASA reference. This positions selene-base honestly: a complete public-data implementation of the conceptual framework documented by Lawrence 2025, calibrated to physics-driven defaults rather than fitted to undisclosed NASA-internal weights.
 
+### Seismic criterion (v1.8)
+
+[Civilini et al. (2023)](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL083580) re-located several Apollo-era shallow moonquakes and showed several of them cluster within tens of kilometres of mapped lunar lobate scarps — the same fault-scarp landforms catalogued globally by Watters et al. (2015) and extended for the south polar region by Mishra & Kumar (2022). v1.8 activates the eighth criterion as **distance-to-nearest-scarp**, with a logistic mapping centred on Civilini's documented moonquake-to-scarp clustering distance:
+
+- cells within **5 km** of a mapped scarp score ~0.08 (high seismic risk),
+- cells at **25 km** score 0.50 (transition; matches typical Apollo-era epicentral-uncertainty scale),
+- cells beyond **50 km** score ~0.96 (effectively safe under the Civilini regime).
+
+The default weight is 0.10 (slightly below slope, reflecting that scarp distance is one of multiple safety factors most relevant on long habitat-occupation timescales). The logistic shape is preferred over a hard linear ramp because Civilini's moonquake-to-scarp distance estimates are themselves probabilistic with epicentral uncertainty of order 10 km.
+
+The primary data source is **[Mishra & Kumar (2022)](https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098505)** (*Geophysical Research Letters*, [doi:10.5281/zenodo.6624114](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6624114), CC-BY 4.0): 704 south-polar lobate-scarp line segments combining Watters' published mapping with 75 new scarps from independent LROC NAC analysis. The 704 segments cover all 9 USGS Artemis IV candidate regions plus the 100 km horizon-march buffer. The original LROC SOC `POLAR_SCARP_LOCATIONS` shapefile (citing Watters et al. 2015 verbatim, NASA-hosted) is bundled alongside as an attribution anchor and sanity reference at [`src/selene_base/criteria/data/scarps_watters_2015_polar/`](src/selene_base/criteria/data/scarps_watters_2015_polar/).
+
+**Result against Wueller 2026 with all eight criteria active (20 m per-region tiled run on the v1.5-cached preprocessing):** 56 / 69 selene sites (81.2 %) match within 5 km of an in-scope Wueller site (identical to v1.5's 7-criterion result); 46 / 73 (63.0 %) of in-scope Wueller sites match a selene site within 5 km (**up from 44 / 73 in v1.5**, +2.7 pp); median matched-pair distance **1.69 km vs 1.76 km in v1.5** (-0.07 km, tightens). Same 69-site catalog by site count and same top-3 sites in every region; 13 sites in HW/MMP/N1/N2 reshuffle ranks 4–10 within their polygons because the seismic component lifts the aggregate of slightly-further-from-scarp cells just enough to flip a few interior orderings.
+
 ### Aggregator: weighted_sum vs TOPSIS (v1.7)
 
 The default aggregator (v1.4+) is a weighted linear sum:
@@ -640,6 +654,8 @@ The dependency graph is one-way: `data/` is the foundation; `criteria/` reads lo
 - **v1.5.1 — Artemis IV mission designation update + NASA Figures-of-Merit framework citation.** ✅ Docs-only patch release. NASA restructured the Artemis program in February 2026: the first crewed lunar landing at the south pole was reassigned from Artemis III to Artemis IV (target early 2028), Artemis III became an Earth-orbit test mission, and Lunar Gateway was canceled in March 2026. v1.5.1 reframes the project's forward-looking copy from "Artemis III" to "Artemis IV (formerly Artemis III)" across the README, the v1.5 catalog report, and user-facing CLI / module docstrings, while leaving citation titles, the USGS dataset name, NASA's October 2024 announcement URL, the Wueller 2026 paper's own framing, and the historical roadmap entries unchanged. Adds [Lawrence 2025](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20250008952) (NASA NTRS 20250008952) as a reference and a new "Mapping to NASA's Figures of Merit framework" subsection in the Methodology section that maps selene's seven criteria to NASA's published FOM categories. **The methodology, data, validation, and 69-site catalog are identical to v1.5; the headline numbers (56/69 = 81.2 % within 5 km, median 1.76 km) are unchanged.**
 - **v1.7 — TOPSIS aggregator as opt-in alternative to weighted_sum.** ✅ Adds [`scoring/aggregate.topsis`](src/selene_base/scoring/aggregate.py) (Hwang & Yoon 1981) as a sibling of `weighted_sum`, with `selene score --method topsis` and `selene rank-per-region --method topsis` exposing it. Same input contract (per-criterion [0, 1] score grids + weights), same renormalise-on-missing-criteria semantics, same NaN propagation. Default stays `weighted_sum` — v1.5's 81.2 % / 1.76 km headline is unchanged. **TOPSIS result on the v1.5 20 m catalog: same 69 sites (HLS filters identical), same top-5 by score, 55 / 69 (79.7 %) matched within 5 km of an in-scope Wueller site (vs 56 at weighted_sum), median matched-pair distance 1.84 km vs 1.76 km globally** — but **three of seven active regions tighten significantly** (Haworth -0.51 km, Mons Mouton Plateau -0.40 km, Nobile Rim 1 -0.43 km) and **max pair distance improves -0.22 km**. Both aggregators agree on which cells are top-tier; they disagree at the 1.5–4 km margin. TOPSIS outputs land under `data/outputs/topsis/` so the two catalogs sit side-by-side. See "Aggregator: weighted_sum vs TOPSIS" in Methodology for the full table.
 
+- **v1.8 — Activate seismic criterion (eight of eight criteria live).** ✅ Adds distance-to-nearest-scarp as the eighth criterion via a logistic of distance to the nearest mapped lunar lobate scarp (midpoint 25 km, steepness 8 km — tuned to Civilini et al. 2023's documented shallow-moonquake-to-scarp clustering distance). Bundles the **Mishra & Kumar (2022)** south-polar scarp catalog ([GRL doi:10.1029/2022GL098505](https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098505), Zenodo [doi:10.5281/zenodo.6624114](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6624114), CC-BY 4.0) — 704 line segments combining Watters et al. (2015) global mapping with 75 new south-polar scarps Mishra & Kumar mapped from independent LROC NAC analysis — at `src/selene_base/criteria/data/scarps_mishra_kumar_2022/`, with the original LROC SOC `POLAR_SCARP_LOCATIONS` shapefile (citing Watters 2015 verbatim) bundled alongside as an attribution anchor at `scarps_watters_2015_polar/`. Default seismic weight 0.10, with the other seven weights scaled by 0.928 so the simplex still sums to 1.00. Methodology fully realised — eight of eight planned criteria contribute to the aggregate score. **Result: 56 / 69 selene sites (81.2 %) match within 5 km of an in-scope Wueller site — identical to v1.5's headline; 46 / 73 (63.0 %) Wueller-side match (up from 44 / 73 in v1.5, +2.7 pp); median matched-pair distance 1.69 km vs 1.76 km in v1.5 (-0.07 km).** Same site count, same top-3 in every region; 13 sites in HW/MMP/N1/N2 reshuffle within ranks 4-10. The criterion is most active where the Mishra/Kumar catalog has dense south-polar coverage and least active for cells far from any mapped scarp (most of the polar grid). See "Seismic criterion (v1.8)" in Methodology for the logistic scoring details and per-region table.
+
 ### Where this goes next
 
 **TOPSIS aggregator behind `--method topsis`.** Still open as a methodological alternative to weighted-sum aggregation. Lower priority now that the per-region framing produces a NASA-aligned catalog under the existing aggregator; TOPSIS would change *which* HLS-compliant cells rank highest within each polygon, not whether they're inside.
@@ -663,7 +679,9 @@ The dependency graph is one-way: `data/` is the foundation; `criteria/` reads lo
 - Diviner Polar Resource Product (PRP), south pole, version 1.0. PDS Geosciences Node Diviner derived bundle: [`dlre_prp_south.tab`](https://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/lro/urn-nasa-pds-lro_diviner_derived1/data_derived_prp/dlre_prp_south.tab).
 - Mitrofanov, I. G., et al. (2010). *Hydrogen mapping of the lunar south pole using the LRO Neutron Detector Experiment LEND.* Science, 330(6003), 483–486.
 - Watters, T. R., Robinson, M. S., Banks, M. E., Tran, T., & Denevi, B. W. (2015). *Global thrust faulting on the Moon and the influence of tidal stresses.* Geology, 43(10), 851–854. [doi:10.1130/G37120.1](https://doi.org/10.1130/G37120.1)
-- Civilini, F., Weber, R. C., Jiang, Z., Phillips, D., & Pan, W. (2023). *Constraints on the seismic hazard of young thrust faults on the Moon from re-located shallow moonquakes.* (Used as motivation for the seismic exclusion criterion.)
+- Civilini, F., Weber, R. C., Jiang, Z., Phillips, D., & Pan, W. (2023). *Constraints on the seismic hazard of young thrust faults on the Moon from re-located shallow moonquakes.* (Used as physical motivation + the order-10–50 km clustering-distance scale for v1.8's seismic-criterion logistic.)
+- Mishra, A., & Kumar, P. S. (2022). *Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Lobate Scarps in the Lunar South Polar Region: Evidence for Latitudinal Variation of Scarp Geometry, Kinematics and Formation Ages, Neo-Tectonic Activity and Sources of Potential Seismic Risks at the Artemis Candidate Landing Regions.* Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2022GL098505. [doi:10.1029/2022GL098505](https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098505). Data deposit: [doi:10.5281/zenodo.6624114](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6624114) (CC-BY 4.0). The 704 south-polar scarp line segments ship in-repo at [`src/selene_base/criteria/data/scarps_mishra_kumar_2022/`](src/selene_base/criteria/data/scarps_mishra_kumar_2022/) and are the primary data source for v1.8's seismic criterion.
+- Lobate-scarp catalog also distributed by the LROC Science Operations Center (NASA PDS LROLRC_2001 EXTRAS) as `POLAR_SCARP_LOCATIONS` — citing Watters et al. 2015 verbatim. The 48-named-scarp polar shapefile ships in-repo at [`src/selene_base/criteria/data/scarps_watters_2015_polar/`](src/selene_base/criteria/data/scarps_watters_2015_polar/) as an attribution anchor.
 - NASA (October 2024). *Artemis III candidate landing regions.* [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/artemis-iii](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/artemis-iii)
 - McClernan, M.T. (2024). *Down Selected Artemis III Candidate Landing Site Navigational Grids.* U.S. Geological Survey data release. [https://doi.org/10.5066/P1MEQ6UK](https://doi.org/10.5066/P1MEQ6UK). The simplified region envelopes from this release ship in-repo at [`src/selene_base/validation/data/nasa_regions_polygons_usgs.geojson`](src/selene_base/validation/data/nasa_regions_polygons_usgs.geojson) and are the authoritative validation reference from v1.2.0 onwards.
 - Gracy, S., & Lee, P. (2024). *Update on the Artemis III Reference Mission and Candidate Landing Region Selection.* 55th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Abstract #1695. (Source for the four published HLS hard-constraint thresholds used by v1.3.0's `rank-per-region` — slope, slope-buffer, illumination, DTE visibility.)

config/weights_default.yaml

@@ -1,29 +1,38 @@
-# selene-base default weights (week 9+).
+# selene-base default weights (v1.8 — eighth criterion live).
 #
-# Adds the los_to_earth criterion (Earth line-of-sight visibility
-# fraction over the libration cycle) as the seventh criterion.
+# Eight criteria contribute to the aggregate score:
+# illumination, ice, coupling, los_to_earth, slope, thermal, hazard, seismic.
 #
-# Why 0.15 for los_to_earth:
-# - It is a real physical criterion NASA prioritises in actual mission
-#   planning (above thermal and hazard for crewed-comms-critical sites).
-# - It is not as high-leverage as illumination/ice/coupling because it
-#   is a more binary-ish constraint (works/doesn't work given a horizon)
-#   than a continuous optimisation target.
-# - 0.15 places it between hazard (mostly redundant with slope at the
-#   south pole) and slope (a hard buildability constraint).
+# v1.8 activates the seismic criterion (distance-to-nearest-scarp via
+# Mishra & Kumar 2022's south-polar lobate-scarp catalog) and bumps its
+# weight from 0.03 (placeholder while the criterion was inactive) to
+# 0.10 — slightly below slope's weight, reflecting that scarp distance
+# is one of several safety factors and is most relevant on long
+# habitat-occupation timescales (Civilini et al. 2023's relocated
+# moonquake-to-scarp clustering distance is order 10-50 km, with
+# epicentral uncertainty of order 10 km, so the criterion influences
+# multi-km site selection without dominating it). The other seven
+# weights are scaled by 0.90/0.97 ≈ 0.928 so the simplex still sums
+# to 1.00 without changing the relative ratios within the previous
+# seven-criterion vector.
 #
-# This weight was chosen BEFORE the week-9 validation rerun on
-# physics-and-operations grounds, not after seeing the result.
+# Why 0.15 for los_to_earth (unchanged ratio from v1.1.0):
+# - Real physical criterion NASA prioritises in actual mission planning.
+# - More binary-ish than continuous, so weighted slightly less than
+#   illumination/ice/coupling.
 #
-# Other criteria renormalised so the simplex sums to 1.00. The week 7-8
-# (six-criterion, no LOS) weight vector is preserved as
-# config/weights_legacy_v6.yaml.
+# This vector was chosen on physics-and-operations grounds, not by
+# fitting to validation data. Older vectors are preserved:
+#   config/weights_legacy.yaml      — five criteria (no coupling, no LOS).
+#   config/weights_legacy_v6.yaml   — six criteria (no LOS).
+# The seven-criterion v1.5 vector is the v1.8 vector minus seismic with
+# the remaining seven renormalised back to 1.00.
 
-illumination: 0.18
-ice: 0.18
-coupling: 0.18
-los_to_earth: 0.15
-slope: 0.13
-thermal: 0.08
-hazard: 0.07
-seismic: 0.03
+illumination: 0.17
+ice: 0.17
+coupling: 0.17
+los_to_earth: 0.14
+slope: 0.12
+thermal: 0.07
+hazard: 0.06
+seismic: 0.10