The 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP14) present the time-independent component of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3), which provides authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and time-averaged frequency of potentially damaging earthquakes in California. The primary achievements have been to relax fault segmentation and include multifault ruptures, both limitations of UCERF2. The rates of all earthquakes are solved for simultaneously and from a broader range of data, using a system-level inversion that is both conceptually simple and extensible. The inverse problem is large and underdetermined, so a range of models is sampled using an efficient simulated annealing algorithm. The approach is more derivative than prescriptive (e.g., magnitude-frequency distributions are no longer assumed), so new analysis tools were developed for exploring solutions. Epistemic uncertainties were also accounted for using 1440 alternative logic-tree branches, necessitating access to supercomputers. The most influential uncertainties include alternative deformation models (fault slip rates), a new smoothed seismicity algorithm, alternative values for the total rate of M w ≥ 5 events, and different scaling relationships, virtually all of which are new. As a notable first, three deformation models are based on kinematically consistent inversions of geodetic and geologic data, also providing slip-rate constraints on faults previously excluded due to lack of geologic data. The grand inversion constitutes a system-level framework for testing hypotheses and balancing the influence of different experts. For example, we demonstrate serious challenges with the Gutenberg-Richter hypothesis for individual faults. UCERF3 is still an approximation of the system, however, and the range of models is limited (e.g., constrained to stay close to UCERF2). Nevertheless, UCERF3 removes the apparent UCERF2 overprediction of M 6.5-7 earthquake rates and also includes types of multifault ruptures seen in nature. Although UCERF3 fits the data better than UCERF2 overall, there may be areas that warrant further site-specific investigation. Supporting products may be of general interest, and we list key assumptions and avenues for future model improvements. Manuscript OrganizationBecause of manuscript length and model complexity, we begin with an outline of this report to help readers navigate the various sections:

The majority of earthquakes are aftershocks, yet aftershock physics is not well understood. Many studies suggest that static stress changes trigger aftershocks, but recent work suggests that shaking (dynamic stresses) may also play a role. Here we measure the decay of aftershocks as a function of distance from magnitude 2-6 mainshocks in order to clarify the aftershock triggering process. We find that for short times after the mainshock, when low background seismicity rates allow for good aftershock detection, the decay is well fitted by a single inverse power law over distances of 0.2-50 km. The consistency of the trend indicates that the same triggering mechanism is working over the entire range. As static stress changes at the more distant aftershocks are negligible, this suggests that dynamic stresses may be triggering all of these aftershocks. We infer that the observed aftershock density is consistent with the probability of triggering aftershocks being nearly proportional to seismic wave amplitude. The data are not fitted well by models that combine static stress change with the evolution of frictionally locked faults.

No abstract

[1] There is strong observational evidence that the 1999 M W 7.1 Hector Mine earthquake in the Mojave Desert, California, was triggered by the nearby 1992 M W 7.3 Landers earthquake. Many authors have proposed that the Landers earthquake directly stressed the Hector Mine fault. Our model of the Landers aftershock sequence, however, suggests there is an 85% chance that the Hector Mine hypocenter was actually triggered by a chain of smaller earthquakes that was initiated by the Landers main shock. We perform our model simulations using the Monte Carlo method based on the Gutenberg-Richter relationship, Omori's law, Båth's law, and assumptions that all earthquakes, including aftershocks, are capable of producing aftershocks and that aftershocks produce their own aftershocks at the same rate that other earthquakes do. In general, our simulations show that if it has been more than several days since an M ! 7 main shock, most new aftershocks will be the result of secondary triggering. These secondary aftershocks are not physically constrained to occur where the original main shock increased stress. This may explain the significant fraction of aftershocks that have been found to occur in main shock stress shadows in static Coulomb stress triggering studies.