Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/7294
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorallWoessner, J.; ETH, Zurichen
dc.contributor.authorallHainzl, S.; GFZ, Potsdamen
dc.contributor.authorallMarzocchi, W.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italiaen
dc.contributor.authorallWerner, M. J.; ETH, Zurichen
dc.contributor.authorallLombardi, A. M.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italiaen
dc.contributor.authorallCatalli, F.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italiaen
dc.contributor.authorallEnescu, B.; GFZ, Potsdamen
dc.contributor.authorallCocco, M.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italiaen
dc.contributor.authorallGerstenberger, M.; GNS, New Zealanden
dc.contributor.authorallWiemer, S.; ETH, Zurichen
dc.date.accessioned2012-01-05T09:12:02Zen
dc.date.available2012-01-05T09:12:02Zen
dc.date.issued2011en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2122/7294en
dc.description.abstractWe perform a retrospective forecast experiment on the 1992 Landers sequence comparing the predictive power of commonly used model frameworks for short‐term earthquake forecasting. We compare a modified short‐term earthquake probability (STEP) model, six realizations of the epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model, and four models that combine Coulomb stress changes calculations and rate‐and‐state theory to generate seismicity rates (CRS models). We perform the experiment under the premise of a controlled environment with predefined conditions for the testing region and data for all modelers. We evaluate the forecasts with likelihood tests to analyze spatial consistency and the total amount of forecasted events versus observed data. We find that (1) 9 of the 11 models perform superior compared to a simple reference model, (2) ETAS models forecast the spatial evolution of seismicity best and perform best in the entire test suite, (3) the modified STEP model matches best the total number of events, (4) CRS models can only compete with empirical statistical models by introducing stochasticity in these models considering uncertainties in the finite‐fault source model, and (5) resolving Coulomb stress changes on 3‐D optimally oriented planes is more adequate for forecasting purposes than using the specified receiver fault concept. We conclude that statistical models perform generally better than the tested physics‐based models and parameter value updates using the occurrence of aftershocks generally improve the predictive power in particular for the purely statistical models in space and time.en
dc.language.isoEnglishen
dc.publisher.nameAmerican Geophysical Unionen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Geophysical Researchen
dc.relation.ispartofseries/116 (2011)en
dc.subjectearthquake forecasten
dc.titleA retrospective comparative forecast test on the 1992 Landers sequenceen
dc.typearticleen
dc.description.statusPublisheden
dc.type.QualityControlPeer-revieweden
dc.description.pagenumberB05305en
dc.subject.INGV04. Solid Earth::04.06. Seismology::04.06.02. Earthquake interactions and probabilityen
dc.identifier.doi10.1029/2010JB007846en
dc.description.obiettivoSpecifico4.2. TTC - Modelli per la stima della pericolosità sismica a scala nazionaleen
dc.description.journalTypeJCR Journalen
dc.description.fulltextreserveden
dc.contributor.authorWoessner, J.en
dc.contributor.authorHainzl, S.en
dc.contributor.authorMarzocchi, W.en
dc.contributor.authorWerner, M. J.en
dc.contributor.authorLombardi, A. M.en
dc.contributor.authorCatalli, F.en
dc.contributor.authorEnescu, B.en
dc.contributor.authorCocco, M.en
dc.contributor.authorGerstenberger, M.en
dc.contributor.authorWiemer, S.en
dc.contributor.departmentETH, Zurichen
dc.contributor.departmentGFZ, Potsdamen
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italiaen
dc.contributor.departmentETH, Zurichen
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italiaen
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italiaen
dc.contributor.departmentGFZ, Potsdamen
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italiaen
dc.contributor.departmentGNS, New Zealanden
dc.contributor.departmentETH, Zurichen
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextrestricted-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptETH, Zurich,Switzerland-
crisitem.author.deptDeutschelGeoForschungsZentrum-
crisitem.author.deptETH, Zurich-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia-
crisitem.author.deptGFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia-
crisitem.author.deptGNS-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-2875-0933-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-9114-1516-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-8326-7135-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-6798-4225-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.classification.parent04. Solid Earth-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
Appears in Collections:Article published / in press
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat Existing users please Login
JGR_woessner_etal_11.pdf7.05 MBAdobe PDF
Show simple item record

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations 20

59
checked on Feb 10, 2021

Page view(s) 50

178
checked on Mar 27, 2024

Download(s)

16
checked on Mar 27, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric