Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; April 2002; v. 92; no. 3; p. 913-922; DOI: 10.1785/0120000069
© 2002 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stock, C.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, E. G. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Article

Comparison of Seismicity Models Generated by Different Kernel Estimations

Christian Stock and Euan G. C. Smith

School of Earth Sciences
P.O. Box 600
Victoria University of Wellington
Wellington, New Zealand

Manuscript received 31 May 2000.

Different forms of kernel estimation have been used for the construction of spatially continuous earthquake occurrence representations. A method has been developed to quantify the difference between such representations. The method compares seismicity models generated by kernel estimation for an earlier and a later time period to measure the ability of the models to forecast the locations of future earthquakes. Further, the (earlier) models are compared to the distribution of the original earthquake catalog to measure the closeness of representation and data. The method has been applied to historical earthquake catalogs of New Zealand and Australia. We found that kernel estimations with spatially varying bandwidths performed better than kernel estimations with spatially constant bandwidths. The use of a temporal sequence filter improved the match between the earlier and later models. The Gaussian kernel provided better results than the inverse-biquadratic kernel, due to the longer tails of the inverse-biquadratic kernel, which did not describe the distribution of earthquakes in space accurately. A bandwidth of about 1.0 (in area units) for the Gaussian kernel provided the best results, whereas a bandwidth of about 0.4 provided the best results for the inverse-biquadratic kernel.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
Adaptive Kernel Estimation and Continuous Probability Representation of Historical Earthquake Catalogs
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 2002; 92(3): 904 - 912.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the Seismological Society of America.