Erratum: Prospective and retrospective evaluation of five-year earthquake forecast models for California

Erratum: Prospective and retrospective evaluation of five-year earthquake forecast models for... Geophysical Journal International Geophys. J. Int. (2018) 212, 1314–1314 doi: 10.1093/gji/ggx496 Erratum: Prospective and retrospective evaluation of five-year earthquake forecast models for California 1 2,3 1,4 by Anne Strader, Max Schneider and Danijel Schorlemmer Section 2.6: Seismic Hazard and Stress Field, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, D-14467 Potsdam, Germany. E-mail: strader@gfz-potsdam.de Institute of Mathematics, University of Potsdam, D-14476 Potsdam, Germany Department of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195,USA Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740,USA Erratum of the paper ‘Prospective and retrospective evaluation of five-year earthquake forecast models for California’, by Anne Strader, Max Schneider and Danijel Schorlemmer, published in Geophys. J. Int. (2017) 211(1), 239–251, doi:10.1093/gji/ggx268. In the Result section, the Fig. 3 is not displaying properly due to technical reasons. The error has now been corrected online. The publisher apologise for this error. Figure 3. S-test results for the USGS and RELM forecasts. The differences between the simulated log-likelihoods and the observed log-likelihood are labelled on the horizontal axes, with scaling adjustments for the 40YEAR.RETRO experiment. The horizontal lines represent the confidence intervals, within the 0.05 significance level, for each forecast and experiment. If this range contains a log-likelihood difference of zero, the forecasted log-likelihoods are consistent with the observed, and the forecast passes the S-test (denoted by thin lines). If the minimum difference within this range does not contain zero, the forecast fails the S-test for that particular experiment, denoted by thick lines. Colours distinguish between experiments (see Table 2 for explanation of experiment durations). Due to anomalously large likelihood differences, S-test results for WIEMER-SCHORLEMMER.ALM during the 10YEAR.RETRO and 40YEAR.RETRO experiments are not displayed. The range of log-likelihoods for the HOLLIDAY-ET-AL.PI forecast is lower than for the other forecasts due to relatively homogeneous forecasted seismicity rates and use of a small fraction of the RELM testing region. 1314 The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/212/2/1314/4732654 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 March 2018 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Geophysical Journal International Oxford University Press

Erratum: Prospective and retrospective evaluation of five-year earthquake forecast models for California

Free
1 page

Loading next page...
1 Page
 
/lp/ou_press/erratum-prospective-and-retrospective-evaluation-of-five-year-EIl6i3AIov
Publisher
The Royal Astronomical Society
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society.
ISSN
0956-540X
eISSN
1365-246X
D.O.I.
10.1093/gji/ggx496
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Geophysical Journal International Geophys. J. Int. (2018) 212, 1314–1314 doi: 10.1093/gji/ggx496 Erratum: Prospective and retrospective evaluation of five-year earthquake forecast models for California 1 2,3 1,4 by Anne Strader, Max Schneider and Danijel Schorlemmer Section 2.6: Seismic Hazard and Stress Field, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, D-14467 Potsdam, Germany. E-mail: strader@gfz-potsdam.de Institute of Mathematics, University of Potsdam, D-14476 Potsdam, Germany Department of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195,USA Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740,USA Erratum of the paper ‘Prospective and retrospective evaluation of five-year earthquake forecast models for California’, by Anne Strader, Max Schneider and Danijel Schorlemmer, published in Geophys. J. Int. (2017) 211(1), 239–251, doi:10.1093/gji/ggx268. In the Result section, the Fig. 3 is not displaying properly due to technical reasons. The error has now been corrected online. The publisher apologise for this error. Figure 3. S-test results for the USGS and RELM forecasts. The differences between the simulated log-likelihoods and the observed log-likelihood are labelled on the horizontal axes, with scaling adjustments for the 40YEAR.RETRO experiment. The horizontal lines represent the confidence intervals, within the 0.05 significance level, for each forecast and experiment. If this range contains a log-likelihood difference of zero, the forecasted log-likelihoods are consistent with the observed, and the forecast passes the S-test (denoted by thin lines). If the minimum difference within this range does not contain zero, the forecast fails the S-test for that particular experiment, denoted by thick lines. Colours distinguish between experiments (see Table 2 for explanation of experiment durations). Due to anomalously large likelihood differences, S-test results for WIEMER-SCHORLEMMER.ALM during the 10YEAR.RETRO and 40YEAR.RETRO experiments are not displayed. The range of log-likelihoods for the HOLLIDAY-ET-AL.PI forecast is lower than for the other forecasts due to relatively homogeneous forecasted seismicity rates and use of a small fraction of the RELM testing region. 1314 The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/212/2/1314/4732654 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 March 2018

Journal

Geophysical Journal InternationalOxford University Press

Published: Feb 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial