提高余震预报模型的空间可检验性

IF 4.2 2区 地球科学 Q1 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Pub Date : 2023-07-31 DOI:10.5194/nhess-23-2683-2023
Asim M. Khawaja, Behnam Maleki Asayesh, S. Hainzl, D. Schorlemmer
{"title":"提高余震预报模型的空间可检验性","authors":"Asim M. Khawaja, Behnam Maleki Asayesh, S. Hainzl, D. Schorlemmer","doi":"10.5194/nhess-23-2683-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Aftershock forecast models are usually provided on a uniform spatial grid, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is often employed for evaluation, drawing a binary comparison of earthquake occurrences or non-occurrence for each grid cell. However, synthetic tests show flaws in using the ROC for aftershock forecast ranking. We suggest a twofold improvement in the testing strategy. First, we propose to replace ROC with the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) and the F1 curve. We also suggest using a multi-resolution test grid adapted to the earthquake density. We conduct a synthetic experiment where we analyse aftershock distributions stemming from a Coulomb failure (ΔCFS) model, including stress activation and shadow regions. Using these aftershock distributions, we test the true ΔCFS model as well as a simple distance-based forecast (R), only predicting activation. The standard test cannot clearly distinguish between both forecasts, particularly in the case of some outliers. However, using both MCC-F1 instead of ROC curves and a simple radial multi-resolution grid improves the test capabilities significantly. The novel findings of this study suggest that we should have at least 8 % and 5 % cells with observed earthquakes to differentiate between a near-perfect forecast model and an informationless forecast using ROC and MCC-F1, respectively. While we cannot change the observed data, we can adjust the spatial grid using a data-driven approach to reduce the disparity between the number of earthquakes and the total number of cells. Using the recently introduced Quadtree approach to generate multi-resolution grids, we test real aftershock forecast models for Chi-Chi and Landers aftershocks following the suggested guideline. Despite the improved tests, we find that the simple R model still outperforms the ΔCFS model in both cases, indicating that the latter should not be applied without further model adjustments.\n","PeriodicalId":18922,"journal":{"name":"Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards improving the spatial testability of aftershock forecast models\",\"authors\":\"Asim M. Khawaja, Behnam Maleki Asayesh, S. Hainzl, D. Schorlemmer\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/nhess-23-2683-2023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. Aftershock forecast models are usually provided on a uniform spatial grid, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is often employed for evaluation, drawing a binary comparison of earthquake occurrences or non-occurrence for each grid cell. However, synthetic tests show flaws in using the ROC for aftershock forecast ranking. We suggest a twofold improvement in the testing strategy. First, we propose to replace ROC with the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) and the F1 curve. We also suggest using a multi-resolution test grid adapted to the earthquake density. We conduct a synthetic experiment where we analyse aftershock distributions stemming from a Coulomb failure (ΔCFS) model, including stress activation and shadow regions. Using these aftershock distributions, we test the true ΔCFS model as well as a simple distance-based forecast (R), only predicting activation. The standard test cannot clearly distinguish between both forecasts, particularly in the case of some outliers. However, using both MCC-F1 instead of ROC curves and a simple radial multi-resolution grid improves the test capabilities significantly. The novel findings of this study suggest that we should have at least 8 % and 5 % cells with observed earthquakes to differentiate between a near-perfect forecast model and an informationless forecast using ROC and MCC-F1, respectively. While we cannot change the observed data, we can adjust the spatial grid using a data-driven approach to reduce the disparity between the number of earthquakes and the total number of cells. Using the recently introduced Quadtree approach to generate multi-resolution grids, we test real aftershock forecast models for Chi-Chi and Landers aftershocks following the suggested guideline. Despite the improved tests, we find that the simple R model still outperforms the ΔCFS model in both cases, indicating that the latter should not be applied without further model adjustments.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":18922,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2683-2023\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2683-2023","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要余震预报模型通常在一个均匀的空间网格上提供,通常采用接收者工作特征(ROC)曲线进行评估,在每个网格单元中绘制地震发生或不发生的二元比较。然而,综合检验显示,使用ROC进行余震预测排序存在缺陷。我们建议对测试策略进行双重改进。首先,我们建议用马修斯相关系数(MCC)和F1曲线代替ROC。我们还建议采用与地震密度相适应的多分辨率测试网格。我们进行了一个综合实验,分析了库仑失效(ΔCFS)模型产生的余震分布,包括应力激活和阴影区域。使用这些余震分布,我们测试了真实的ΔCFS模型以及一个简单的基于距离的预测(R),仅预测激活。标准检验不能明确区分这两种预测,特别是在一些异常值的情况下。然而,使用MCC-F1代替ROC曲线和简单的径向多分辨率网格可以显著提高测试能力。本研究的新发现表明,我们应该至少有8%和5%的细胞观测到地震,以区分使用ROC和MCC-F1的近乎完美的预测模型和无信息的预测。虽然我们不能改变观测数据,但我们可以使用数据驱动的方法调整空间网格,以减少地震次数与单元总数之间的差异。使用最近引入的四叉树方法生成多分辨率网格,我们按照建议的准则测试了Chi-Chi和Landers余震的真实余震预测模型。尽管进行了改进的测试,但我们发现在这两种情况下,简单R模型仍然优于ΔCFS模型,这表明如果不进一步调整模型,则不应采用ΔCFS模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Towards improving the spatial testability of aftershock forecast models
Abstract. Aftershock forecast models are usually provided on a uniform spatial grid, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is often employed for evaluation, drawing a binary comparison of earthquake occurrences or non-occurrence for each grid cell. However, synthetic tests show flaws in using the ROC for aftershock forecast ranking. We suggest a twofold improvement in the testing strategy. First, we propose to replace ROC with the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) and the F1 curve. We also suggest using a multi-resolution test grid adapted to the earthquake density. We conduct a synthetic experiment where we analyse aftershock distributions stemming from a Coulomb failure (ΔCFS) model, including stress activation and shadow regions. Using these aftershock distributions, we test the true ΔCFS model as well as a simple distance-based forecast (R), only predicting activation. The standard test cannot clearly distinguish between both forecasts, particularly in the case of some outliers. However, using both MCC-F1 instead of ROC curves and a simple radial multi-resolution grid improves the test capabilities significantly. The novel findings of this study suggest that we should have at least 8 % and 5 % cells with observed earthquakes to differentiate between a near-perfect forecast model and an informationless forecast using ROC and MCC-F1, respectively. While we cannot change the observed data, we can adjust the spatial grid using a data-driven approach to reduce the disparity between the number of earthquakes and the total number of cells. Using the recently introduced Quadtree approach to generate multi-resolution grids, we test real aftershock forecast models for Chi-Chi and Landers aftershocks following the suggested guideline. Despite the improved tests, we find that the simple R model still outperforms the ΔCFS model in both cases, indicating that the latter should not be applied without further model adjustments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.50%
发文量
192
审稿时长
3.8 months
期刊介绍: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) is an interdisciplinary and international journal dedicated to the public discussion and open-access publication of high-quality studies and original research on natural hazards and their consequences. Embracing a holistic Earth system science approach, NHESS serves a wide and diverse community of research scientists, practitioners, and decision makers concerned with detection of natural hazards, monitoring and modelling, vulnerability and risk assessment, and the design and implementation of mitigation and adaptation strategies, including economical, societal, and educational aspects.
期刊最新文献
Slope Unit Maker (SUMak): an efficient and parameter-free algorithm for delineating slope units to improve landslide modeling Total water levels along the South Atlantic Bight during three along-shelf propagating tropical cyclones: relative contributions of storm surge and wave runup Wind as a natural hazard in Poland The role of response efficacy and self-efficacy in disaster preparedness actions for vulnerable households Climatological occurrences of hail and tornadoes associated with mesoscale convective systems in the United States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1