Premium
Reply to “Statistical evaluation of the VAN Method using the historic earthquake catalog in Greece,” by Richard L. Aceves, Stephen K. Park and David J. Strauss
Author(s) -
Varotsos P.,
Lazaridou M.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
geophysical research letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.007
H-Index - 273
eISSN - 1944-8007
pISSN - 0094-8276
DOI - 10.1029/96gl00907
Subject(s) - aftershock , earthquake prediction , statistics , value (mathematics) , mathematics , geology , history , seismology
The pioneering calculation by Aceves et al. [1996] shed light on the main question of this debate, i.e., on whether “VAN predictions can be ascribed to chance.” Aceves et al. [1996] conclude that “the VAN method has resulted in a significantly higher prediction rate than randomly sampling a PDF (probability density function) map generated from a 25 year history of earthquakes.” After investigating the totality of VAN predictions issued during the period 1987–1989, Aceves et al. [1996] found: “The prediction rate for the VAN method clearly exceeds that from the random model at all time lags between 5–22 days. At a 5 day time lag, the VAN prediction rate of 35.7% has a P‐value of less than 0.06%. This means that a random model does as well as does the VAN method less than 0.06% of the time. At 22 days, the prediction rate of 67.9% has a P‐value of less than 0.07%.” These conclusions basically coincide with those of Hamada [1993] although Aceves et al. [1996] followed different procedures. They are also in fundamental agreement with the results of Honkura and Tanaka [1996]. Another important conclusion of Aceves et al. [1996] is that, after declustering the earthquake catalog and prediction list from aftershocks, “;VAN method is still formally significant.”