EGU24-14304, updated on 09 Mar 2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-14304
EGU General Assembly 2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Comparative Analysis of Seismic Clustering: Deterministic Techniques vs. Probabilistic ETAS Model

Giuseppe Falcone1, Ilaria Spassiani1, Stefania Gentili2, Rodolfo Console1,3, Maura Murru1, and Matteo Taroni1
Giuseppe Falcone et al.
  • 1Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Rome, Italy
  • 2Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale - Centro Ricerche Sismologiche, Udine, Italy
  • 3Center of Integrated Geomorphology for the Mediterranean Area, Potenza, Italy

Short-term seismic clustering, a crucial aspect of seismicity, has been extensively studied in literature. Existing techniques for cluster identification are predominantly deterministic, relying on specific constitutive equations to define spatiotemporal extents. Conversely, probabilistic models, such as the Epidemic Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model, dominate short-term earthquake forecasting. The ETAS model, known for its stochastic nature, has been employed to decluster earthquake catalogs probabilistically. However, the challenge arises when selecting a probability threshold for cluster identification, potentially distorting the model's underlying hypothesis.
This study aims to assess the consistency between seismic clusters identified by deterministic window-based techniques specifically, Gardner-Knopoff and Uhrhammer-Lolli-Gasperini and the associated probabilities predicted by the ETAS model for events within these clusters. Both deterministic techniques are implemented in the NESTOREv1.0 package and applied to the Italian earthquake catalog spanning from 2005 to 2021.
The comparison involves evaluating, for each event within an identified cluster, both the probability of independence and the expected number of triggered events according to the ETAS model. Results demonstrate overall agreement between the two cluster identification methods, with identified clusters exhibiting consistency with corresponding ETAS probabilities. Any minor discrepancies observed can be attributed to the fundamentally different nature of the deterministic and probabilistic approaches.
This research is supported by a grant from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

How to cite: Falcone, G., Spassiani, I., Gentili, S., Console, R., Murru, M., and Taroni, M.: Comparative Analysis of Seismic Clustering: Deterministic Techniques vs. Probabilistic ETAS Model, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-14304, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-14304, 2024.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material file

Comments on the supplementary material

AC: Author Comment | CC: Community Comment | Report abuse

supplementary materials version 1 – uploaded on 17 Apr 2024, no comments