Abstract
The problem of evaluation of the maximum possible regional earthquake magnitude (Mmax) is reviewed and analyzed. Two aspects of this topic are specified: statistical, and historical and paleoseismic. The frequentist and the fiducial approaches used in the problem are analyzed and compared. General features of the Bayesian approach are discussed within the framework of the Mmax problem. A useful connection between quantiles of a single event and maximum event in a future time interval T is derived. Various estimators of Mmax used in seismological practice are considered and classified. Different methods of estimation are compared: the statistical moment method, the Bayesian method, the estimators based on the extreme value theory (EVT), the estimators using order statistics. A comparison of several well-known estimators of Mmax in the framework of the truncated Gutenberg–Richer law is made. As a more adequate and stable alternative to Mmax the quantiles Qq(T) of maximum earthquake considered in future time horizon T are proposed and analyzed. These quantiles permit us to select a time horizon T and quantile level q for a reliable estimation of maximum possible magnitudes. The instability of Mmax-estimates compared to Qq(T)-estimates is demonstrated. The main steps of the Qq(T)-quantile estimation procedure are highlighted. The historical and paleoseismic data are used, and an additional evidence of low robustness of Mmax-parameter is found. The evidence of possibility of earthquake magnitudes well exceeding the Mmax-value obtained for the truncated Gutenberg–Richter law is found also. The present situation in the domain of the Mmax-evaluation is discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References.
Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K, Sayed SR, Moustafa NSN, Al-Arifi (2015) Maximum magnitude estimation considering the regional rupture character. J Seismol 19:695–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-015-9488-x
Anderson JG, Wesnousky SG, Stirling MW (1996) Earthquake size as a function of fault slip rate. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(3):683–690
Bakun WH et al (2005) Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake. Nat 437:969–974
Bassi, F., P. Embrechts, M. Kafetzaki (1998) Risk management and quantile estimation, In R.Adler, R.Feldman, M.Taqqu, Berlin, Birkhause (eds) A Practical Guide to Heavy Tails, pp. 111–130.
Beirlant J, Fraga Alves I, Reynkens T (2017) Fitting tails affected by truncation. Electron J Stat 11:2026–2065
Beirlant J, Kijko A, Reynkens T, Einmahl J (2019) Estimating the maximum possible earthquake magnitude using extreme value methodology: the Groningen case. Nat Hazards 98:1091–1113
Bolshev L., N. Smirnov (1983) Tables of Mathematical Statistics, Moscow, Nauka, 416 p. (in Russian).
Bommer JJ, van Elk J (2017) Comment on “The maximum possible and the maximum expected earthquake magnitude for production-induced earthquakes at the gas field in Groningen, The Netherlands” by Gert Zoller and Matthias Holschneider. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(3):1564–1567
Burroughs SM, Tebbens SF (2001) Upper-truncated power laws in natural systems. Pure Appl Geophys 158(4):741–757
Coles S, Dixon M (1999) Likelihood-based Inference for extreme value models. Extremes 2(1):5–23
Cooke P (1979) Statistical inference for bounds of random variables. Biometrika 66(2):367–374
Cosentino P, Ficara V, Luzio D (1977) Truncated exponential frequency-magnitude relationship in the earthquake statistics. Bull Seism Soc Am 67:1615–1623
Cramer H (1946) Mathematical methods of statistics. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Dargahi-Noubary GR (1983) A procedure for estimation of the upper bound for earthquake magnitudes. Phys Earth Planet Inter 33:91–93
Dargahi-Noubary GR (2000) Statistical methods for earthquake hazard assessment and risk analysis. Nova Science Publishers, Huntington, NY
De Haan L (2006) Extreme value theory, An Introduction. Springer, NY
Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Statist 7(1):1–26
Ellsworth W.L. (1995) Characteristic earthquakes and long-term earthquake forecasts: Implications of central California seismicity. Urb Disaster Mitig: Role Eng Technol, 1–14.
Embrechts P, Kluppelberg C, Mikosch T (1997) Modelling extremal events. Springer, Berlin
Feller W (1957) Introduction to probability theory and its applications, vol 1. Wiley, New York
Field DH, Jackson DD, Dolan JF (1999) A mutually consistent seismic-hazard source model for Southern California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89:559–578
Gasperini, P., Camassi, R., Mirto, C., Stucchi, M. (2004) Catalogo Parametrico dei Terremoti Italiani, versione 2004 (CPTI04). INGV, Bologna. http://emidius.mi.ingv.it/CPTI04
Godano C (2015) A new expression for the earthquake interevent time distribution. Geophys J Int 202:219–223
Goldfinger C, Morey AE, Nelson CH, Gutierrez-Pastor J, Johnson JE, Karabanov E, Chaytor J, Ericsson A (2007) Rupture lengths and temporal history of significant earthquakes on the offshore and north coast segments of the northern San Andreas fault based on turbidite stratigraphy, Earth Planet. Sci Lett 254:9–27
Goldfinger, C., C. H. Nelson, A. E. Morey, J. E. Johnson, J. R. Patton, E. Karabanov, J. Gutiérrez-Pastor, A. T. Eriksson, E. Gràcia, G. Dunhill, R. J. Enkin, A. Dallimore, and T. Vallier (2012). Turbidite event history—Methods and implications for Holocene paleoseismicity of the Cascadia subduction zone, U.S. Geol. Surv. Profess. Pap. 1661-F, 170 pp.
Gorshkov A, Gaudemer Y (2019) Seismogenic modes defined with pattern recognition in the French Massiv Central. J Iber Geol 45(1):63–72
Grünthal G, Wahlström R (2012) The European-Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue (EMEC) for the last millennium. J Seismolog. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-012-9302-y
Gumbel EJ (1958) Statistics of extremes. Columbia University Press, New York
Gutenberg B, Richter C (1954) Seismicity of the earth, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Gutenberg B, Richter C (1956) Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy, and acceleration, part II. Bull Seism Soc Am 46:105–145
Holschneider M, Zoller G, Hainzl S (2011) Estimation of the maximum possible magnitude in the framework of the doubly truncated Gutenberg-Richter model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(4):1649–1659
Ibragimov I.A. , Hasminskii R.Z. (1976) Statistical estimation: Asymptotic Theory, “Nauka”, Moscow, 527 p. (in Russian). English translation: Statistical estimation: Asymptotic Theory, Springer-Verlag, 1981, NY.
Ismail-Zadeh A, Müller B, Schilling F, Gorshkov A, Soloviev A, Adamia S, Chabukiani A, Chelidze T, Kiria J, Mumladze T, Sadradze N, Cloetingh S, Floyd M, Gvishiani A, Ismail-Zadeh T, Kadirov F, Kangarli T, Safarov R, Kaban MK, Karapetyan J et al (2020) Geodynamics, seismicity, and seismic hazard of the Caucasus. Earth-Sci Rev 207:103222
Jackson, D. D., and Y. Y. Kagan (2011). Characteristic earthquakes and seismic gaps, In: Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics, Gupta, H. K. (Ed.), Springer, pp. 37–40, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8702-7
Jeffreys H (1961) Theory of probability, 3rd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford, London
Jin A, Aki K (1988) Spatial and Temporal Correlation between Coda Q and Seismicity in China. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78:741–769
Kagan YY (1993) Statistics of characteristic earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83(1):7–24
Kagan YY (1997a) Seismic moment-frequency relation for shallow earthquakes: Regional comparison. J Geophys Res 102:2835–2852
Kagan YY (1997b) Earthquake size distribution and earthquake insurance. Commun Statist Stachastic Models 13(4):775–797
Kagan YY (1999) Universality of the seismic moment-frequency relation. Pure Appl Geophys 155:537–573
Kagan YY (2002a) Seismic moment distribution revisited: I Statistical results. Geophys J Int 148:520–541
Kagan YY (2002b) Seismic moment distribution revisited: II Moment conservation principle. Geophys J Int 149:731–754
Kagan YY, Jackson DD (2013) Tohoku earthquakes: a surprise? Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(B2):1181–1194
Kagan YY, Schoenberg F (2001) Estimation of the upper cutoff parameter for the tapered Pareto distribution. J Appl Probab 38(A):158–175
Kagan YY, Jackson D, Geller RJ (2012) Characteristic earthquake model, 1884–2011, RIP. Seismol Res Lett 83(6):951–953. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220120107
Keilis-Borok VI (1990) The lithosphere of the Earth as a nonlinear system with implications for earthquake prediction. Rev Geophys 28:19–34. https://doi.org/10.1029/RG028i001p00019
Kendall M, Stuart A (1961) The advanced theory of statistics, vol 2. Griffin, London
Kijko A (2004) Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude Mmax. Pure Appl Geophys 161(8):1655–1681
Kijko A (2012) On Bayesian procedure for maximum earthquake magnitude estimation. Res Geophys 2(1):46–51
Kijko A, Graham G (1998) Parametric-historic procedure for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis part I: Estimation of maximum regional magnitude Mmax. Pure Appl Geophys 152(3):413–442
Kijko A., M.A.Sellevoll (1989) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part I. Utilization of extreme and complete catalogs with different threshold magnitudes. Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer. V.79. 645–654. Part II. Incorporation of magnitude heterogeneity. Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer. V.82. 120–134.
Kijko A., M.A.Sellevoll (1992) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part I. Utilization of extreme and complete catalogs with different threshold magnitudes. Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer. V.79. 645–654. Part II. Incorporation of magnitude heterogeneity. Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer. V.82. 120–134.
Kijko A, Singh M (2011) Statistical tools for maximum possible earthquake estimation. Acta Geophys 59(4):674–700
Kolmogorov AN (1933) Grundberiffe der Warscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Springer, Berlin
Kullback S (1958) Information theory and statistics. Chapman & Hall, New York
Lasocki S, Urban P (2011) Bias, variance and computational properties of Kijko’s estimators of the upper limit of magnitude distribution. Mmax Acta Geophys 59(4):659–673
Lee WHK, Wu FT, Jacobse C (1976) A catalog of historical earthquakes in China compiled from recent Chinese publications. Bull Seismol Soc Am 66(6):2003–2016
Lengliné O, Marsan D (2009) Inferring the coseismic and postseismic stress changes caused by the 2004 Mw_6 Parkfield earthquake from variations of recurrence times of microearthquakes. J Geophys Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB006118
Lysenko V.B., V.F. Pisarenko (1994) Low-frequency spectrum asymptotics as a measure of non-stationarity for some geophysical processes, Geodynamics and earthquake prediction (Computational Seismology, Iss. 26, M.: Nauka, 45–57. (in Russian)
Lyubushin AA, Tsapanos TM, Pisarenko VF, Koravos GCh (2002) Seismic hazard for selected sites in Greece: A Bayesian estimates of seismic peak ground acceleration. Nat Hazard 25(1):83–89
Lyubushin AA, Parvez IA (2010) Map of seismic hazard of India using Bayesian approach. Nat Hazard 55(2):543–556
Marsan D, Tan YJ (2020) Maximum earthquake size and seismicity rate from an ETAS model with slip budget. Bull Seismol Soc Am 110:874–885. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120190196
Michael AJ (2014) How complete is the ISC-GEM global earthquake catalog? Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(4):1829–1837. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130227
Mirlin EG, Mironov YuV, Rodkin MV, Chesalova EI (2018) Intraplate seamounts of the Northwest Sector of the Pacific Ocean. Oceanol 58(2):290–300
Morell KD, Styron R, Stirling M, Griffin J, Archuleta R, Onur T (2020) Seismic hazard analyses from geologic and geomorphic data: Current and future challenges. Tecton 39:e2018TC005365. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018TC005365
Onderdonk, N., McGill, S., and Rockwell, T. (2018) A 3700 yr paleoseismic record from the northern San Jacinto fault and implications for joint rupture of the San Jacinto and San Andreas faults, Geosphere, 14(6), 2447–2468, https:// doi .org/10 .1130/GES01687.1.
Parsons T, Console R, Falcone G, Murru M, Yamashina K (2012) Comparison of characteristic and Gutenberg-Richter models for time-dependent M ≥ 7.9 earthquake probability in the Nankai-Tokai subduction zone. Japan Geophys J Int 190:1673–1688
Parsons T, Geist EL, Console R, Carluccio R (2018) Characteristic earthquake magnitude frequency distributions on faults calculated from consensus data in California. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 123:10761–10784
Pisarenko VF (1991) Statistical estimation of the maximum possible earthquake. Fizika Zemli 9:38–46, (in Russian). English translation: Pisarenko VF (1991) Statistical evaluation of maximum possible magnitude. Izvestiya Earth Phys 27:757–763
Pisarenko V.F.(2018) The Notion of Probability and Difficulties of Interpretation, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 88(4), 289–293,© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2018.
Pisarenko VF, Lyubushin AA, Lysenko VB, Golubeva TV (1996) Statistical estimation of seismic hazard parameters: maximal possible magnitude and related parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(3):691–700
Pisarenko VF, Lyubushin AA (1997) Statistical estimation of maximum peak ground acceleration at a given point of seismic region. J Seismol 1:395–405
Pisarenko VF, Lyubushin AA (1999) Bayesian approach to seismic hazard estimation: maximum values of magnitudes and peak ground accelerations. Earthq Res China (english Edition) 13(1):47–59
Pisarenko V.F., M.V.Rodkin (2007) The Distributions with Heavy Tails: Application to Disaster Analysis, Comput Seismol, Issue 38, GEOS, Moscow, 240 p. (in Russian)
Pisarenko VF, Rodkin MV (2009) Instability of parameter Mmax and an alternative to its using. Phys Solid Earth 45:1081. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1069351309120052
Pisarenko VF, Rodkin MV (2010a) Heavy-tailed distributions in disaster analysis. Springer, New York
Pisarenko VF, Rodkin MV (2010b) Distribution of maximum earthquake magnitudes in future time intervals: application to the seismicity of Japan (1923–2007). Earth Planets Space 62:1–12
Pisarenko V, Rodkin M (2014) Statistical Analysis of natural disasters and related losses. Springer, Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-New York, p 82
Pisarenko VF, Rodkin MV (2015) The maximum earthquake considered in future T years: Checking by a real catalog. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 74:89–98
Pisarenko VF, Rodkin MV (2017) The estimation of probability of extreme events for small samples. Pure Appl Geophys 174(4):1547–1560
Pisarenko VF, Rodkin MV (2013) The new quantile approach: application to the seismic risk assessment. In: Rascobic B, Mrdja S (eds) Natural disasters: prevention, risk factors and management. NOVA Publishers, New York, pp 141–174
Pisarenko V.F., M.V. Rodkin (2019) Declusterisation of the seismic flow, statistical analysis, Fizika Zemli, No.5, 1–15, (in Russian). English translation: Pisarenko V.F., M. V. Rodkin. Declustering of Seismicity Flow: Statistical Analysis. ISSN 1069–3513, Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 2019, Vol. 55, No. 5, pp. 733–745.
Pisarenko V.F., M.V. Rodkin, T.A. Rukavishnikova (2020) A stable modification of the seismic recurrence law and perspectives of its application to the seismic zoning, Fizika Zemli, No.1, 62–76, (in Russian). English translation: Pisarenko V.F., M.V. Rodkin, T.A.Rukavishnikova. Stable Modification of Frequency–Magnitude Relation and Prospects for Its Application in Seismic Zoning. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 2020, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 53–65.
Pisarenko V.F., A.A.Lyubusin, M.V. Rodkin (2021) Maximum Earthquakes in Future Time Intervals, Fizika Zimli, No.2, 1–19(in Russian). English translation: Maximum Earthquakes in Future Time Intervals, Izvestiya, Phys. Solid Earth, 2021, 57(32), 163–179.
Pisarenko VF, Sornette D (2003) Characterization of the frequency of extreme earthquake events by the generalized pareto distribution. Pure Appl Geophys 160:2343–2364
Pisarenko VF, Sornette A, Sornette D, Rodkin MV (2008) New approach to characterization of Mmax and the tail of distribution of earthquake magnitudes. Pure Appl Geophys 65:847–888
Pisarenko VF, Sornette D, Rodkin MV (2010) Distribution of maximum earthquake magnitudes in future time intervals: application to the seismicity of Japan (1923–2007). Earth Planets Space 62:567–578
Pisarenko VF, Sornette A, Sornette D, Rodkin MV (2014) Characterization of the tail of the distribution of earthquake magnitudes by combining the GEV and GPD descriptions of extreme value theory. Pure Appl Geophys 171(8):1599–1624
Rodkin M.V.(2011) Alternative to SOC Concept—Model of Seismic Regime as a Set of Episodes of Random Avalanche-Like Releases Occurring on a Set of Metastable Subsystems ISSN 1069_3513, Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, Vol. 47, No. 11, pp. 966–973. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2011.
Rong Y., D.D. Jackson, H. Magistrale, and C.Goldfinger (2014) Magnitude Limits of Subduction Zone Earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 104(5) doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130287.
Savage L. The Foundations of Statistical Inference, a Discussion (1962) London, Methuen.
Sherman SI, Rodkin MV, Gorbunova EA (2017) A Tectonophysical Analysis of Earthquake Frequency-Size Relationship Types for Catastrophic Earthquakes in Central Asia. J Volcanol Seismolog 11(6):434–446
Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994 to 2024 by Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (1995) Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 85(2), 379–439.
Smith RL (1990) Extreme value theory. Wiley, Chichester
Stark P.B.(2017) Pay No Attention to the Model Behind the Curtain. Preprint, Univ. of California, Berkeley 21 p. https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/-stark/Preprints/eucCurtain15.pdf
Stein S, Friedrich A, Newman A (2005) Dependence of Possible Characteristic Earthquakes on Spatial Sampling: Illustration for the Wasatch Seismic Zone. Utah Seismological Research Letters 76(4):432–436
Strasser FO, Arango MC, Bommer JJ (2010) Scaling of the Source Dimensions of Interface and Intraslab Subduction-zone Earthquakes with Moment Magnitude. Seismol Res Lett 81(6):941–950
Stephens MA (1974) EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 68(347):730–737
Sykes, L. Quittmeyer, R. (1981) Repeat times of great earthquakes along simple plate boundaries International Review, Earthquake prediction, Wash., pp. 217–247.
Tate RF (1959) Unbiased Estimation: Functions of Location and scale parameters. Annals Math Stat 3(2):341–366
Vermeulen P, Kijko A (2017) More statistical tools for maximum possible earthquake magnitude estimation. Acta Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-017-0048-3
Ward SN (1997) More on Mmax. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87(5):1199–1208
Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. BSSA 84(4):974–1002
Wesnousky SG (1994) The Gutenberg-Richter or characteristic earthquake distribution, which is it? Bull Seism Soc Am 84:1940–1959
Wheeler R. (2009) Methods of Mmax Estimation, East of Rocky Mountains, Open-File Report 2009–1018, USGS, Reston, Virginia.
Zöller G, Hainzl S, Ben-Zion Y, Holschneider M (2009) Seismicity, critical states of: from models to practical seismic hazard estimates space. In: Meyers R (ed) Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Springer, New York, NY
Zentner I, Ameri G, Viallet E (2020) Bayesian Estimation of the Maximum Magnitude Mmax Based on the Extreme Value Distribution for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis, Pure Appl. Geophys 177:5643–5660
Zoller G, Holschneider M, Hainzl S (2013) The maximum Earthquake Magnitude in a Time Horizon: Theory and Case Studies. BSSA 103(2A):860–875
Zoller G (2013) Convergence of the frequency-magnitude distribution of global earthquakes: Maybe in 200 years. Geophys Res Lett 40:3873–3877
Zoller G, Holschneider M (2016) The maximum possible and the maximum expected earthquake magnitude for production-induced earthquakes at the gas field in Groningen. Netherlands Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(6):2917–2921
Zoller G (2016) The Earthquake History in a Fault Zone Tells Us Almost Nothing about mmax. Seismol Res Lett 87(1):1–6
Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely thank T. Prokhorova, A. Lyubushin, A. Petrosyan and D. Pisarenko for their valuable assistance in preparing this paper and A.Kijko for his kind help with references. Our particular gratitude should be expressed to the anonymous reviewers for their attentive, thorough reviews that have improved substantially the text. We also thank M. Rycroft, Editor in Chief, for his editorial improvements to our article.
Funding
The authors appreciate partial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research № 20–05-00433.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Let us consider function
The integral in the right part can be transformed as follows. We take a new variable
and denote
We get
where \(S_{u} = \, u \, + \frac{{u^{2} }}{2} + \ldots + \frac{{u^{n} }}{n}\), \(u \, = \, 1 \, {-} \, \exp \left( { - \beta \left( {M_{\max } {-} \, m_{0} } \right)} \right)\).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pisarenko, V.F., Rodkin, M.V. Approaches to Solving the Maximum Possible Earthquake Magnitude (Mmax) Problem. Surv Geophys 43, 561–595 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-021-09673-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-021-09673-1