2013
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggt208
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimation of completeness magnitude considering daily variation in earthquake detection capability

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2. We can see that the biggest missing events are no less than magnitude 3.0 immediately after the first and the third major shocks, much higher than the completeness level of the usual detection ability of the network in this area, which goes down to about 0.5 for shallow events (up to 30 km deep) and about 1.0 for slightly deeper events (30-60 km) (Nanjo et al 2010;Iwata 2013).…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2. We can see that the biggest missing events are no less than magnitude 3.0 immediately after the first and the third major shocks, much higher than the completeness level of the usual detection ability of the network in this area, which goes down to about 0.5 for shallow events (up to 30 km deep) and about 1.0 for slightly deeper events (30-60 km) (Nanjo et al 2010;Iwata 2013).…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 73%
“…and Iwata 2008Iwata , 2013Iwata , 2014 and developed methods of making probabilistic earthquake forecasting with missing earthquakes taken into account (e.g., Ogata 2006;Omi et al 2013Omi et al , 2014Omi et al , 2015. A non-Bayesian procedure that corrects such temporally varying incomplete detection of earthquakes can be found in Marsan and Enescu (2012), where they assumed that the b-value is constant and that the occurrence rate of earthquakes follows the Omori-Utsu formula or the ETAS model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, μ corresponds to the magnitude at which the detection probability is equal to 50%. Examples of how well this density function fits an observed magnitude distribution are shown in Ogata & Katsura (, ) and Iwata (, , , b).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Of the three parameters ( μ , β , and σ ) contained in this probability density function, μ plays the most important role in the quantitative evaluation of the detection capability. This is because μ is a location parameter of the probability density function f ( M | μ , β , σ ) (see also figure 1 of Iwata ); thus the value of μ dominantly affects the quality of the detection capability. A higher value of μ corresponds to lower detection capability and vice versa.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method maximises the statistical measure called the 'marginal likelihood' and is known in geophysics as Akaike's Bayesian Information Criterion (ABIC) (Akaike, 1980). Since Akaike (1980), inversion methods based on empirical Bayes have been applied to many geophysical problems (Ogata et al, 1991;Koketsu and Higashi, 1992;Sekiguchi et al, 2000;Cho et al, 2006;Fukahata and Wright, 2008;Iwata, 2013Iwata, , 2014 and this approach therefore appears to be well established (Matsu'ura et al, 2007;Fukahata, 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%