Skip to main content

Table 3 ETAS parameters evaluated in various regions by previous studies

From: Spatio-temporal clustering of successive earthquakes as inferred from analyses of global CMT and NIED F-net catalogs

Region \({K}_{0}\) C (days) \(\alpha\) \(\gamma\) p \(d\)(degree2) \(q\) \({M}_{i}\) \({M}_{\text{c}}\)
Japan \(0.988\times {10}^{-4}\) \(0.840\times {10}^{-2}\) 1.962 1.326 0.910 \(0.203\times {10}^{-2}\) 1.570 8.4 4.5
\(0.171\times {10}^{-4}\) \(0.520\times {10}^{-2}\) 0.935 0.740 0.961 \(0.403\times {10}^{-3}\) 1.408 8.4 4.0
\(0.290\times {10}^{-3}\) \(0.748\times {10}^{-2}\) 1.154 0.891 0.911 \(0.552\times {10}^{-2}\) 1.524 8.4 5.0
California \(0.51\) \(0.004\) 1.27 \(1.31\) \(1.09\) \(1.868\times {10}^{-5}\) \(1.59\) 7.5 3.5
China \(0.2285\) \(0.2663\) \(1.7627\) \(0.5587\) \(1.2363\) \(9.179\times {10}^{-4}\) \(2.1249\) 7.9 4.0
0.0588 0.3049 2.3378 1.7503 1.1785 \(0.519\times {10}^{-4}\) 1.7864 7.9 4.0
Italy \(4.7\times {10}^{-2}\) \(0.012\) \(1.2\) \(0.36\) \(1.11\) \(5.662\times {10}^{-3}\) \(1.57\) 6.3 2.5
  1. Japan: Tohoku region, Western and Central Honshu, and all Japan from the top to the bottom (Ogata and Zhuang 2006) (Table 1, model 10)
  2. California: southern California (Seif et al. 2017) (Table 2, sets 1)
  3. China: Sichuan province (Guo et al. 2015) (Table 1, Model 3 and 4)
  4. Italy: Central Italy (Lombardi 2016) (Table 1, INGV Bulletin)