Paper detail

Embracing Data Incompleteness for Better Earthquake Forecasting

We propose two methods to calibrate the parameters of the epidemic-type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model based on expectation maximization (EM) while accounting for temporal variation of catalog completeness. The first method allows for model calibration on long-term earthquake catalogs with temporal variation of the completeness magnitude, $m_c$. This calibration technique is beneficial for long-term probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA), which is often based on a mixture of instrumental and historical catalogs. The second method generalizes the concept of $m_c$, considering rate- and magnitude-dependent detection probability, and allows for self-consistent estimation of ETAS parameters and high-frequency detection incompleteness. With this approach, we aim to address the potential biases in parameter calibration due to short-term aftershock incompleteness, embracing incompleteness instead of avoiding it. Using synthetic tests, we show that both methods can accurately invert the parameters of simulated catalogs. We then use them to estimate ETAS parameters for California using the earthquake catalog since 1932. To explore how model calibration, inclusion of small events, and accounting for short-term incompleteness affect earthquakes' predictability, we systematically compare variants of ETAS models based on the second approach in pseudo-prospective forecasting experiments for California. Our proposed model significantly outperforms the ETAS null model, with decreasing information gain for increasing target magnitude threshold. We find that the ability to include small earthquakes for simulation of future scenarios is the primary driver of the improvement and that accounting for incompleteness is necessary. Our results have significant implications for our understanding of earthquake interaction mechanisms and the future of seismicity forecasting.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.