Measuring seismicity diversity and anomalies using point process models: case studies before and after the 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes in Kyushu, Japan

Earth, Planets and Space

Table 7 Model comparisons between the two-stage ETAS model and the non-stationary ETAS model

ΔAIC or ΔABIC	S1	S2	S3
Change-point T _c (ΔAIC)	− 6.99 (T _c = 1.1656)	− 9.04 (T _c = 21)	− 6.26 (T _c = 14.9)
Non-stationary ETAS (ΔABIC)	− 17.58	− 15.11	− 7.03

The differences in the AIC value of the two-stage ETAS model and ABIC value of the non-stationary ETAS model from the AIC of the reference ETAS model are listed. The AIC of the baseline ETAS model is the same as the ABIC of the reference ETAS model. These values are estimated for the entire period for the target region; T _c corresponds to the natural change-point at the occurrence time of the M7.3 mainshock, and days are counted from the occurrence time of the M6.5 foreshock event