Integration of geological and seismological data in earthquakes occurrence models for Italy: towards a unified model for different forecast perspectives

The operational earthquake forecasting (OEF) is a procedure aimed at informing communities on how seismic hazard changes with time. This can help them live with seismicity and mitigate risk of destructive earthquakes. A successful short-term prediction scheme is not yet produced, but the search for it should not be abandoned. This requires more research on seismogenetic processes and, specifically, inclusion of any information about earthquakes in models, to improve forecast of future events, at any spatio-temporal-magnitude scale.
The short- and long-term forecast perspectives of earthquake occurrence followed, up to now, separate paths, involving different data and peculiar models. But actually they are not so different and have common features, being parts of the same physical process. Research on earthquake predictability can help to search for a common path in different forecast perspectives.
This study aims to improve the modelling of long-term features of seismicity inside the epidemic type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model, largely used for short-term forecast and OEF procedures. Specifically, a more comprehensive estimation of background seismicity rate inside the ETAS model is attempted, by merging different types of data (seismological instrumental, historical, geological), such that information on faults and on long-term seismicity integrates instrumental data, on which the ETAS models are generally set up. The main finding is that long-term historical seismicity and geological fault data improve the pseudo-prospective forecasts of independent seismicity.
The study is divided in three parts. The first consists in models formulation and parameter estimation on recent seismicity of Italy. Specifically, two versions of ETAS model are compared: a ‘standard’, previously published, formulation, only based on instrumental seismicity, and a new version, integrating different types of data for background seismicity estimation. Secondly, a pseudo-prospective test is performed on independent seismicity, both to test the reliability of formulated models and to compare them, in order to identify the best version. Finally, a prospective forecast is made, to point out differences and similarities in predicting future seismicity between two models.
This study must be considered in the context of its limitations; anyway, it proves, beyond argument, the usefulness of a more sophisticated estimation of background rate, inside short-term modelling of earthquakes.