@article{HolschneiderNarteauShebalinetal.2012,
  author    = {Holschneider, Matthias and Narteau, C. and Shebalin, P. and Peng, Z. and Schorlemmer, Danijel},
  title     = {Bayesian analysis of the modified Omori law},
  series = {Journal of geophysical research : Solid earth},
  volume    = {117},
  journal   = {Journal of geophysical research : Solid earth},
  number    = {6089},
  publisher = {American Geophysical Union},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {2169-9313},
  doi       = {10.1029/2011JB009054},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {In order to examine variations in aftershock decay rate, we propose a Bayesian framework to estimate the {K, c, p}-values of the modified Omori law (MOL), lambda(t) = K(c + t)(-p). The Bayesian setting allows not only to produce a point estimator of these three parameters but also to assess their uncertainties and posterior dependencies with respect to the observed aftershock sequences. Using a new parametrization of the MOL, we identify the trade-off between the c and p-value estimates and discuss its dependence on the number of aftershocks. Then, we analyze the influence of the catalog completeness interval [t(start), t(stop)] on the various estimates. To test this Bayesian approach on natural aftershock sequences, we use two independent and non-overlapping aftershock catalogs of the same earthquakes in Japan. Taking into account the posterior uncertainties, we show that both the handpicked (short times) and the instrumental (long times) catalogs predict the same ranges of parameter values. We therefore conclude that the same MOL may be valid over short and long times.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HolschneiderZoellerClementsetal.2014,
  author    = {Holschneider, Matthias and Z{\"o}ller, Gert and Clements, R. and Schorlemmer, Danijel},
  title     = {Can we test for the maximum possible earthquake magnitude?},
  series = {Journal of geophysical research : Solid earth},
  volume    = {119},
  journal   = {Journal of geophysical research : Solid earth},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {American Geophysical Union},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {2169-9313},
  doi       = {10.1002/2013JB010319},
  pages     = {2019 -- 2028},
  year      = {2014},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{StraderSchneiderSchorlemmer2017,
  author    = {Strader, Anne and Schneider, Max and Schorlemmer, Danijel},
  title     = {Prospective and retrospective evaluation of five-year earthquake forecast models for California},
  series = {Geophysical journal international},
  volume    = {211},
  journal   = {Geophysical journal international},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0956-540X},
  doi       = {10.1093/gji/ggx268},
  pages     = {239 -- 251},
  year      = {2017},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{StraderSchneiderSchorlemmer2017,
  author    = {Strader, Anne and Schneider, Max and Schorlemmer, Danijel},
  title     = {Erratum zu: Strader, Anne; Schneider, Max; Schorlemmer, Danijel: Prospective and retrospective evaluation of five-year earthquake forecast models for California (Geophysical Journal International, 211 (2017) 1, S. 239 - 251, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx268)},
  series = {Geophysical journal international},
  volume    = {212},
  journal   = {Geophysical journal international},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0956-540X},
  doi       = {10.1093/gji/ggx496},
  pages     = {1314 -- 1314},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {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.},
  language  = {en}
}