CSEP Minutes 10-24-2018
From SCECpedia
Revision as of 20:25, 24 October 2018 by Wsavran (talk | contribs) (Created page with "CSEP Working Group Home Page<br><br> ''Participants'': William Savran, Andy Michael, David Rhoades, Jacqui Gilchrist, Warner Marzocchi, Max Werner, Ann...")
Participants: William Savran, Andy Michael, David Rhoades, Jacqui Gilchrist, Warner Marzocchi, Max Werner, Anne Strader, Dave Jackson, Phil Maechling
Contents
Minutes
Simulations
* Verify with Ned: Does no faults ETAS include characteristic earthquake behavior? If a large earthquake does not rupture on a known fault does that produce an isotropic aftershock distribution.
- Characteristic EQ Behavior: the larger earthquakes in a segment are overrepresented wrt to their extrapolation in a GR plots.
- The aftershocks still follow GR (in ETAS), so the larger proportion of large earthquakes causes more aftershocks and can lead to runaway sequences.
- David Rhoades simulation-based model can produce stochastic event sets. With little modifications.
- How long will it take until we know whether or not faults make the difference in the simulations?
- Can deal with fault-finiteness by pulling from the ComCat or looking at earthquake aftershocks
Evaluations
- Warner and David supplied a document outlining the new possible tests for CSEP2 simulation- based tests.
- Tests typically follow CSEP1 consistency testing ideas with some emphasis on formulating likelihood based tests.
- Need to put some more effort into understanding likelihood (comparative) based-testing.
- Paper on proper scoring: https://www.stat.washington.edu/raftery/Research/PDF/Gneiting2007jasa.pdf
