The papers analyzes the statistical characteristics of Non-Volcanic Tremor sequences that took place in the Mexican Subduction Zone. Its originality lies in the subject selection for analysis, the inclusion of all possible cases and the relevant results presented for the first time for the study area. It is very contributable work and worth publishing.

The text is perfectly written and clear in all aspects. It is difficult to find any point that needs further clarification.

I could comment the linear fit of larger magnitude range when the b – value is estimated. By fitting 3 points for example in Sequence 3, it rather affects the estimations. In this case I would prefer a larger magnitude cutoff for fitting more points and in particular the larger magnitude earthquakes that play more significant role in the local seismicity. This would of course lead to large b – value (steeper slope), which in this case already large. If the authors tried to avoid that latter, it would be better to look again at their data sample.

Better representation quality for Figure 4 – is there any reason to start the magnitude axis from number where there is not any observation?

Before final acceptance, however, the paper could be improved regarding the presentation of the work and the outcomes, for the reader’s ease. What I mean is that the calculations of the different data samples (i.e., for each sequence) along with for each statistical parameter and tool are continuously and consequently given, and the reader needs to go back and forth to see the similarities, the differences or the possible peculiarities in each case (and subcase). I encourage the authors to examine any possibility to make their manuscript more easily following, perhaps by putting all number given, compared and discussed inside the text, in corresponding tables (more than the tables already shown).

In this paper, the authors apply different statistical methodologies (the Gutenberg–Richter relation, non-extensive statistics, and multifractal detrended moving average analysis) to characterize the behavior of the magnitude and interevent-time distributions of non-volcanic tremor along the Mexican subduction zone.

I found this to be an interesting work in which the authors successfully apply these techniques to different sequences, providing a robust analysis of the nonlinear properties of the analyzed data.

I recommend acceptance of this work after minor revisions.

1. In the abstract, the authors mention that multifractality may be associated with three different properties: long-term correlations, the probability distribution of the data, and the presence of nonlinearities. However, in the conclusions it is not clear which of these properties are responsible for the multifractal behavior of the sequences. I suggest clearly stating in the conclusions the possible cause(s) of the multifractality found in the analyzed sequences.

2. Define the acronym NVT in the abstract before using it again.

3. At the beginning of the Data subsection, I suggest adding a clear explanation of how the NVT sequences were extracted from the database.

4. Page 5, line 7: Why are the magnitudes not reported for sequence 6?

5. Page 5, line 10: Please add a reference or provide more details about the temporal seismic networks.

6. From Figure 3, how did the authors compute Mc? Please add the methodology used to estimate it.

7. Section 3.2.3: I suggest adding references to other papers in which MDFA has been applied, such as:

   • Telesca, L., & Lapenna, V. (2006). Measuring multifractality in seismic sequences. Tectonophysics, 423(1–4), 115–123.

   • Monterrubio-Velasco, M., Lana, X., Martínez, M. D., Zúñiga, F. R., & Puente, J. D. L. (2020). Evolution of the multifractal parameters along different steps of seismic activity: The example of Canterbury 2000–2018 (New Zealand). AIP Advances, 10(11).

   • Alam, A., Nikolopoulos, D., Cantzos, D., Tahir, M., Iqbal, T., Petraki, E., & Rafique, M. (2023). Regional multifractal variability of overall seismic activity in Pakistan from 1820 to 2020 via the application of MDFA on earthquake catalogs. Fractal and Fractional, 7(12), 857.

8. Page 7, line 13: Please modify the parameter M(t) to avoid confusion with the magnitude parameter.

9. Page 8, lines 1–5: Please rewrite this paragraph to improve clarity. It seems that a symbol in Equations (6) and (7), as well as in the corresponding paragraphs, is missing in the printed version.

10. Page 8, line 18: The term “q-th order parameter” may be confused with the non-extensive parameter q. Please clarify this distinction.

11. Page 9, line 17: Why did the authors use the input parameters N = 30, θ = 0, and q ∈ [−5, 5]? Were other values tested? How might the selection of these parameters affect the results? From a statistical point of view, is N = 30 sufficient?

12. Page 10, line 22: Which singularities are being referred to?

13. Page 11, line 15: Please add references for the shuffling and surrogate data procedures.

14. In the Conclusions section (page 18), is there any relationship between the b-values and the q-values obtained in the results?