@article{BoeckmannWandingerAnsmannetal.2004,
  author    = {B{\"o}ckmann, Christine and Wandinger, Ulla and Ansmann, Albert and B{\"o}senberg, Jens and Amiridis, Vassilis and Boselli, Antonella and Delaval, Arnaud and De Tomasi, Ferdinando de and Frioud, Max and Grigorov, Ivan Videnov and Hagard, Arne and Horvat, Matej and Iarlori, Marco and Komguem, Leonce and Kreipl, Stephan and Larchevque, Gilles and Matthias, Volker and Papayannis, Alexandros and Pappalardo, GGelsomina and Rocadenbosch, Francesc and Rodrigues, Jose Ant{\´o}nio and Schneider, Johannes and Shcherbakov, Valery and Wiegner, Matthias},
  title     = {Aerosol lidar intercomparison in the framework of the EARLINET project : 2. Aerosol backscatter algorithms},
  issn      = {0003-6935},
  year      = {2004},
  abstract  = {An intercomparison of aerosol backscatter lidar algorithms was performed in 2001 within the framework of the European Aerosol Research Lidar Network to Establish an Aerosol Climatology (EARLINET). The objective of this research was to test the correctness of the algorithms and the influence of the lidar ratio used by the various lidar teams involved in the EARLINET for calculation of backscatter-coefficient profiles from the lidar signals. The exercise consisted of processing synthetic lidar signals of various degrees of difficulty. One of these profiles contained height- dependent lidar ratios to test the vertical influence of those profiles on the various retrieval algorithms. Furthermore, a realistic incomplete overlap of laser beam and receiver field of view was introduced to remind the teams to take great care in the nearest range to the lidar. The intercomparison was performed in three stages with increasing knowledge on the input parameters. First, only the lidar signals were distributed; this is the most realistic stage. Afterward the lidar ratio profiles and the reference values at calibration height were provided. The unknown height- dependent lidar ratio had the largest influence on the retrieval, whereas the unknown reference value was of minor importance. These results show the necessity of making additional independent measurements, which can provide us with a suitable approximation of the lidar ratio. The final stage proves in general, that the data evaluation schemes of the different groups of lidar systems work well. (C) 2004 Optical Society of America},
  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}
}
@article{GebserKaufmannKaminskietal.2011,
  author    = {Gebser, Martin and Kaufmann, Benjamin and Kaminski, Roland and Ostrowski, Max and Schaub, Torsten H. and Schneider, Marius},
  title     = {Potassco the Potsdam answer set solving collection},
  series = {AI communications : AICOM ; the European journal on artificial intelligence},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {AI communications : AICOM ; the European journal on artificial intelligence},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {IOS Press},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0921-7126},
  doi       = {10.3233/AIC-2011-0491},
  pages     = {107 -- 124},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {This paper gives an overview of the open source project Potassco, the Potsdam Answer Set Solving Collection, bundling tools for Answer Set Programming developed at the University of Potsdam.},
  language  = {en}
}