@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{BayonaViverosvonSpechtStraderetal.2019,
  author    = {Bayona Viveros, Jose Antonio and von Specht, Sebastian and Strader, Anne and Hainzl, Sebastian and Cotton, Fabrice Pierre and Schorlemmer, Danijel},
  title     = {A Regionalized Seismicity Model for Subduction Zones Based on Geodetic Strain Rates, Geomechanical Parameters, and Earthquake-Catalog Data},
  series = {Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America},
  volume    = {109},
  journal   = {Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {Seismological Society of America},
  address   = {Albany},
  issn      = {0037-1106},
  doi       = {10.1785/0120190034},
  pages     = {2036 -- 2049},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {The Seismic Hazard Inferred from Tectonics based on the Global Strain Rate Map (SHIFT_GSRM) earthquake forecast was designed to provide high-resolution estimates of global shallow seismicity to be used in seismic hazard assessment. This model combines geodetic strain rates with global earthquake parameters to characterize long-term rates of seismic moment and earthquake activity. Although SHIFT_GSRM properly computes seismicity rates in seismically active continental regions, it underestimates earthquake rates in subduction zones by an average factor of approximately 3. We present a complementary method to SHIFT_GSRM to more accurately forecast earthquake rates in 37 subduction segments, based on the conservation of moment principle and the use of regional interface seismicity parameters, such as subduction dip angles, corner magnitudes, and coupled seismogenic thicknesses. In seven progressive steps, we find that SHIFT_GSRM earthquake-rate underpredictions are mainly due to the utilization of a global probability function of seismic moment release that poorly captures the great variability among subduction megathrust interfaces. Retrospective test results show that the forecast is consistent with the observations during the 1 January 1977 to 31 December 2014 period. Moreover, successful pseudoprospective evaluations for the 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2018 period demonstrate the power of the regionalized earthquake model to properly estimate subduction-zone seismicity.},
  language  = {en}
}