Abstract
In this paper, we address the problem of verifying earthquake simulators with observed data. Earthquake simulators are a class of computational simulations which attempt to mirror the topological complexity of fault systems on which earthquakes occur. In addition, the physics of friction and elastic interactions between fault elements are included in these simulations. Simulation parameters are adjusted so that natural earthquake sequences are matched in their scaling properties. Physically based earthquake simulators can generate many thousands of years of simulated seismicity, allowing for a robust capture of the statistical properties of large, damaging earthquakes that have long recurrence time scales. Verification of simulations against current observed earthquake seismicity is necessary, and following past simulator and forecast model verification methods, we approach the challenges in spatial forecast verification to simulators; namely, that simulator outputs are confined to the modeled faults, while observed earthquake epicenters often occur off of known faults. We present two methods for addressing this discrepancy: a simplistic approach whereby observed earthquakes are shifted to the nearest fault element and a smoothing method based on the power laws of the epidemic-type aftershock (ETAS) model, which distributes the seismicity of each simulated earthquake over the entire test region at a decaying rate with epicentral distance. To test these methods, a receiver operating characteristic plot was produced by comparing the rate maps to observed \(m>6.0\) earthquakes in California since 1980. We found that the nearest-neighbor mapping produced poor forecasts, while the ETAS power-law method produced rate maps that agreed reasonably well with observations.
References
Anagnos, T., & Kiremidjian, A. S. (1988). A review of earthquake occurrence models for seismic hazard analysis. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 3(1), 3–11.
Båth, M. (1965). Lateral inhomogeneities of the upper mantle. Tectonophysics, 2(6), 483–514.
Chernick, M. R. (2011). Bootstrap methods: A guide for practitioners and researchers (vol. 619). Hoboken, New jersey: Wiley.
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. (1997). Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge: Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics.
Felzer, K. R., & Brodsky, E. E. (2006). Decay of aftershock density with distance indicates triggering by dynamic stress. Nature, 441(7094), 735–738.
Field, E. H. (2007a). Overview of the working group for the development of regional earthquake likelihood models (relm). Seismological Research Letters, 78(1), 7–16.
Field, E. H. (2007b). A summary of previous working groups on california earthquake probabilities. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(4), 1033–1053.
Field, E. H., Arrowsmith, R. J., Biasi, G. P., Bird, P., Dawson, T. E., Felzer, K. R., et al. (2014). Uniform california earthquake rupture forecast, version 3 (ucerf3)the time-independent model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(3), 1122–1180.
Field, E. H., Dawson, T. E., Felzer, K. R., Frankel, A. D., Gupta, V., Jordan, T. H., et al. (2009). Uniform california earthquake rupture forecast, version 2 (ucerf 2). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 99(4), 2053–2107.
Glasscoe, M., Rosinski, A., Vaughan, D., & Morentz, J. (2014). Disaster response and decision support in partnership with the california earthquake clearinghouse. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts (vol. 1, p. 07).
Gutenberg, B. & Richter, C. (1954). Seismicity of the earth and associated phenomena. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Jolliffe, I. (2014). Principal Component Analysis. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online.
Jolliffe, I. T., & Stephenson, D. B. (2003). Forecast verification: a practitioner’s guide in atmospheric science. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley
Kagan, Y. Y. (2002). Aftershock zone scaling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(2), 641–655.
Kajitani, Y., Chang, S. E., & Tatano, H. (2013). Economic impacts of the 2011 tohoku-oki earthquake and tsunami. Earthquake Spectra, 29(s1), S457–S478.
Lee, T.-T., Turcotte, D. L., Holliday, J. R., Sachs, M. K., Rundle, J. B., Chen, C.-C., et al. (2011). Results of the regional earthquake likelihood (relm) test of earthquake forecasts in california. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(40), 16533–16538.
Molchan, G. M. (1997). Earthquake prediction as a decision-making problem. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 149(1), 233–247.
Nanjo, K., Holliday, J., Chen, C.-C., Rundle, J., & Turcotte, D. (2006). Application of a modified pattern informatics method to forecasting the locations of future large earthquakes in the central japan. Tectonophysics, 424(3), 351–366.
Nanjo, K. Z. (2010). Earthquake forecast models for italy based on the ri algorithm. Annals of Geophysics, 53(3), 117–127.
Ogata, Y. (1989). Statistical model for standard seismicity and detection of anomalies by residual analysis. Tectonophysics, 169(1), 159–174.
Ogata, Y., & Zhuang, J. (2006). Space-time etas models and an improved extension. Tectonophysics, 413(1), 13–23.
Parsons, T. (2008). Appendix c: Monte carlo method for determining earthquake recurrence parameters from short paleoseismic catalogs: Example calculations for california. US Geological Survey Open File Report, 1437-C, 32.
Petersen, M. D., Moschetti, M. P., Powers, P. M., Mueller, C. S., Haller, K. M., Frankel, A. D., et al. (2014). Documentation for the 2014 update of the united states national seismic hazard maps. Technical report, US Geological Survey.
Pollitz, F. F. (2012). Viscosim earthquake simulator. Seismological Research Letters, 83(6), 979–982.
Richards-Dinger, K., & Dieterich, J. H. (2012). Rsqsim earthquake simulator. Seismological Research Letters, 83(6), 983–990.
Rundle, J. B., Holliday, J. R., Yoder, M., Sachs, M. K., Donnellan, A., Turcotte, D. L., et al. (2011). Earthquake precursors: activation or quiescence? Geophysical Journal International, 187(1), 225–236.
Rundle, J. B., Turcotte D. L., Shcherbakov R., Klein W., & Sammis C. (2003). Statistical physics approach to understanding the multiscale dynamics of earthquake fault systems. Reviews of Geophysics, 41, 1019. doi:10.1029/2003RG000135.
Sachs, M., Turcotte, D. L., Holliday, J. R., & Rundle, J. (2012a). Forecasting earthquakes: The relm test. Computing in Science & Engineering, 14(5), 43–48.
Sachs, M., Yoder, M., Turcotte, D., Rundle, J., & Malamud, B. (2012b). Black swans, power laws, and dragon-kings: Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, wildfires, floods, and soc models. The European Physical Journal-Special Topics, 205(1), 167–182.
Sachs, M. K., Heien, E. M., Turcotte, D. L., Yikilmaz, M. B., Rundle, J. B., & Kellogg, L. H. (2012c). Virtual california earthquake simulator. Seismological Research Letters, 83(6), 973–978.
Schorlemmer, D., Gerstenberger, M., Wiemer, S., Jackson, D., & Rhoades, D. (2007). Earthquake likelihood model testing. Seismological Research Letters, 78(1), 17–29.
Schorlemmer, D., & Gerstenberger, M. C. (2007). Relm testing center. Seismological Research Letters, 78(1), 30–36.
Schultz, K. W., Sachs, M. K., Heien, E. M., Yoder, M. R., Rundle, J. B., Turcotte, D. L., & Donnellan, A. (2015). Virtual quake: Statistics, co-seismic deformations and gravity changes for driven earthquake fault systems. In International Association of Geodesy Symposia (pp. 1–9). doi:10.1007/1345_2015_134.
Shcherbakov, R., & Turcotte, D. L. (2004). A modified form of båth’s law. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(5), 1968–1975.
Shcherbakov, R., Turcotte D. L., & Rundle J. B. (2004). A generalized Omori’s law for earthquake aftershock decay. Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L11613. doi:10.1029/2004GL019808.
Shcherbakov, R., Turcotte, D. L., & Rundle, J. B. (2006). Scaling properties of the parkfield aftershock sequence. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96(4B), S376–S384.
Tullis, T. E., Richards-Dinger, K., Barall, M., Dieterich, J. H., Field, E. H., Heien, E. M., et al. (2012). A comparison among observations and earthquake simulator results for the allcal2 california fault model. Seismological Research Letters, 83(6), 994–1006.
Turcotte, D. L., Holliday J. R., & Rundle J. B. (2007). BASS, an alternative to ETAS. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L12303. doi:10.1029/2007GL029696.
Ward, S. N. (2012). Allcal earthquake simulator. Seismological Research Letters, 83(6), 964–972.
Ward, S. N., & Goes, S. D. (1993). How regularly do earthquakes recur? a synthetic seismicity model for the san andreas fault. Geophysical Research Letters, 20(19), 2131–2134.
Yoder, M. R., Rundle, J. B., & Glasscoe, M. T. (2015a). Near-field ETAS constraints and applications to seismic hazard assessment. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 172(8), 2277–2293.
Yoder, M. R., Schultz, K. W., Heien, E. M., Rundle, J. B., Turcotte, D. L., Parker, J. W., & Donnellan, A. (2015b). The Virtual Quake earthquake simulator: a simulation-based forecast of the El Mayor-Cucapah region and evidence of predictability in simulated earthquake sequences. Geophysical Journal International, 203(3), 1587–1604.
Yoder, M. R., Turcotte, D. L., & Rundle, J. (2011). Record-breaking earthquake precursors. PhD thesis.
Zechar, J. D., Schorlemmer, D., Liukis, M., Yu, J., Euchner, F., Maechling, P. J., et al. (2010). The collaboratory for the study of earthquake predictability perspective on computational earthquake science. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 22(12), 1836–1847.
Acknowledgments
JMW and JBR would like to acknowledge support for this research from NASA Grant NNX12A22G and SCEC/USC Grant USC32774854-NSF FFT.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilson, J.M., Yoder, M.R., Rundle, J.B. et al. Spatial Evaluation and Verification of Earthquake Simulators. Pure Appl. Geophys. 174, 2279–2293 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-016-1385-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-016-1385-x