Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthquakes trigger subsequent earthquakes. They form clusters and swarms in space and in time. This is a direct manifestation of the non-Poisson behavior in the occurrence of earthquakes, where earthquake magnitudes and time intervals between successive events are not independent and are influenced by past seismicity. As a result, the distribution of the number of earthquakes is no longer strictly Poisson and the statistics of the largest events deviate from the GEV distribution. In statistical seismology, the occurrence of earthquakes is typically approximated by a stochastic marked point process. Among different models, the ETAS model is the most successful in reproducing several key aspects of seismicity. Recent analysis suggests that the ETAS model generates sequences of events which are not Poisson. This becomes important when the ETAS based models are used for earthquake forecasting (Shcherbakov et al., Nature Comms., 2019). In this work, I consider the Bayesian framework combined with the ETAS model to constrain the magnitudes of the largest expected aftershocks during a future forecasting time interval. This includes the MCMC sampling of the posterior distribution of the ETAS parameters and computation of the Bayesian predictive distribution for the magnitudes of the largest expected events. To validate the forecasts, the statistical tests developed by the CSEP are reformulated for the Bayesian framework. In addition, I define and compute the Bayesian p-value to evaluate the consistency of the forecasted extreme earthquakes during each forecasting time interval. The Bayesian p-value gives the probability that the largest forecasted earthquake can be more extreme than the observed one. The suggested approach is applied to the recent 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence to forecast retrospectively the occurrence of the largest aftershocks (Shcherbakov, JGR, 2021). The results indicate that the Bayesian approach combined with the ETAS model outperformed the approach based on the Poisson assumption, which uses the extreme value distribution and the Omori law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".