Toward the next generation of earthquake source models by accounting for model prediction error Acknowledgements: Piyush Agram, Mark Simons, Sarah Minson,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Sarah Minson California Institute of Technology. Sarah E. Minson California Institute of Technology Jessica R. Murray, John O. Langbein, Joan S. Gomberg.
Advertisements

Seismic energy radiation from dynamic faulting Raúl Madariaga Ecole Normale Supérieure Laboratoire de Géologie (from Aochi and Madariaga, BSSA 2003)
An estimate of post-seismic gravity change caused by the 1960 Chile earthquake and comparison with GRACE gravity fields Y. Tanaka 1, 2, V. Klemann 2, K.
CS Statistical Machine learning Lecture 13 Yuan (Alan) Qi Purdue CS Oct
5. Data misfit 3. Full Bayesian Analysis of the Final Slip Distribution 3.1 Used data > InSAR: RadarSAT-2, ascending and descending orbit > GPS networks:
Phase 4(c) GPS Transient Detection Using Principal Components Analysis, Hidden Markov Modeling, and Covariance Descriptor Analysis 1 NASA / Caltech / JPL.
Active Folding within the L.A. Basin with a focus on: Argus et al. (2005), Interseismic strain accumulation and anthropogenic motion in metropolitan Los.
1 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis For Cancer Survival Models Using Large- Sample Normal Approximations To The Bayesian Posterior Distribution Gordon B.
Geodesy and earthquakes
Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.
Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis Earliest approach taken to seismic hazard analysis Originated in nuclear power industry applications Still used for.
Deformation along the north African plate boundary observed by InSAR Ian Hamling 1,2 Abdelkrim Aoudia 2 1.GNS Science, Avalon, New Zealand 2.ICTP, Trieste,
Recall the momentum equation:  ∂ 2 u i /∂t 2 = ∂ j  ij +f i, where f i is the body force term An earthquake source is usually considered slip on a surface.
Retrieval Theory Mar 23, 2008 Vijay Natraj. The Inverse Modeling Problem Optimize values of an ensemble of variables (state vector x ) using observations:
03/09/2007 Earthquake of the Week
UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS Faculty of Geology and Geoenvironment Department of Geophysics and Geothermics A. Agalos (1), P. Papadimitriou (1), K. Makropoulos.
Application to Wells Nevada Earthquake
Classification: Internal Status: Draft Using the EnKF for combined state and parameter estimation Geir Evensen.
Studying Earthquakes. Seismology: the study of earthquakes and seismic waves.
Principles of the Global Positioning System Lecture 11 Prof. Thomas Herring Room A;
Sarah Minson Caltech February 22, 2011LLNL. Mark Simons (Caltech) James Beck (Caltech)
Surface wave tomography: part3: waveform inversion, adjoint tomography
Remote Sensing and Active Tectonics Barry Parsons and Richard Walker Michaelmas Term 2011 Lecture 4.
Seismic sources Seismology and the Earth’s Deep Interior Seismic moment and magnitude Fault scarps Elastic rebound Richter scale Energy of earthquakes.
Gridding Daily Climate Variables for use in ENSEMBLES Malcolm Haylock, Climatic Research Unit Nynke Hofstra, Mark New, Phil Jones.
Interseismic deformation with aseismic stress-dependent fault slip Eric A Hetland, Mark Simons, Ravi Kanda, Sue Owen TO brown-bag – 03 April 2007 a very.
INTRODUCTION When two or more instruments sound the same portion of atmosphere and observe the same species either in different spectral regions or with.
ECE 8443 – Pattern Recognition LECTURE 07: MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD AND BAYESIAN ESTIMATION Objectives: Class-Conditional Density The Multivariate Case General.
Spatial Variations in Microseismic Focal Mechanisms, Yibal Field, Oman A. AL-Anboori 1, M. Kendall 2, D. Raymer 3, R. Jones 3 and Q. Fisher 1 1 University.
Blue – comp red - ext. blue – comp red - ext blue – comp red - ext.
CS 782 – Machine Learning Lecture 4 Linear Models for Classification  Probabilistic generative models  Probabilistic discriminative models.
Jayne Bormann and Bill Hammond sent two velocity fields on a uniform grid constructed from their test exercise using CMM4. Hammond ’ s code.
The January 2010 Efpalio earthquake sequence in Western Corinth Gulf: epicenter relocations, focal mechanisms, slip models The January 2010 Efpalio earthquake.
Sarah Minson Mark Simons James Beck. TeleseismicStrong motionJoint km Delouis et al. (2009) Loveless et al. (2010) Seismic + Static.
Generating Green’s Functions with Pylith Mw 6 Queshm Island, Iran, EQ.
Yuehua Zeng & Wayne Thatcher U. S. Geological Survey
High Resolution Finite Fault Inversions for M>4.8 Earthquakes in the 2012 Brawley Swarm Shengji Wei Acknowledgement Don Helmberger (Caltech) Rob Graves.
Geology 5670/6670 Inverse Theory 21 Jan 2015 © A.R. Lowry 2015 Read for Fri 23 Jan: Menke Ch 3 (39-68) Last time: Ordinary Least Squares Inversion Ordinary.
Bayes Theorem The most likely value of x derived from this posterior pdf therefore represents our inverse solution. Our knowledge contained in is explicitly.
Gaussian Processes For Regression, Classification, and Prediction.
Featuring contributions from… Mark Simons James L. Beck Junle Jiang Francisco H. Ortega Asaf Inbal Susan E. Owen Anthony Sladen.
Assessing the GIA Contribution to SNARF Mark Tamisiea, James Davis, and Emma Hill Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Assessing the GIA Contribution to SNARF Mark Tamisiea and Jim Davis Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
California Earthquake Rupture Model Satisfying Accepted Scaling Laws (SCEC 2010, 1-129) David Jackson, Yan Kagan and Qi Wang Department of Earth and Space.
California Institute of Technology
Earthquake source modelling by second degree moment tensors Petra Adamová Jan Šílený Geophysical Institute, Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.
Inverse Modeling of Surface Carbon Fluxes Please read Peters et al (2007) and Explore the CarbonTracker website.
1 Information Content Tristan L’Ecuyer. 2 Degrees of Freedom Using the expression for the state vector that minimizes the cost function it is relatively.
2002/05/07ACES Workshop Spatio-temporal slip distribution around the Japanese Islands deduced from Geodetic Data Takeshi Sagiya Geographical Survey Institute.
Bayesian inference Lee Harrison York Neuroimaging Centre 23 / 10 / 2009.
Bayesian Brain Probabilistic Approaches to Neural Coding 1.1 A Probability Primer Bayesian Brain Probabilistic Approaches to Neural Coding 1.1 A Probability.
Shaking and Flooding by the Tohoku-Oki earthquake Shengji Wei*, Rob Graves**, Don Helmberger*, Jean-Philippe Avouac* and Junle Jiang* * Seismological Lab,
Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.
Analysis of ground-motion spatial variability at very local site near the source AFIFA IMTIAZ Doctorant ( ), NERA Project.
On constraining dynamic parameters from finite-source rupture models of past earthquakes Mathieu Causse (ISTerre) Luis Dalguer (ETHZ) and Martin Mai (KAUST)
Response of an Elastic Half Space to an Arbitrary 3-D Vector Body Force Smith and Sandwell, JGR 2003 Develop the three differential equations relating.
Uncertainty and Error Propagation
Ch3: Model Building through Regression
California Institute of Technology
Stable North American Reference Frame (SNARF): Version 1
Lithosphere Delamination and Small-Scale Convection Beneath California Imaged with High Resolution Rayleigh Wave Tomography Donald W. Forsyth and Yingjie.
Douglas Dreger, Gabriel Hurtado, and Anil Chopra
Douglas Dreger, Gabriel Hurtado, and Anil Chopra
Filtering and State Estimation: Basic Concepts
Creating the Virtual Seismologist
SICHUAN EARTHQUAKE May 12, 2008
Biointelligence Laboratory, Seoul National University
Some remarks on the leading order imaging series
Uncertainty and Error Propagation
Stable North American Reference Frame (SNARF): Version 1
Presentation transcript:

Toward the next generation of earthquake source models by accounting for model prediction error Acknowledgements: Piyush Agram, Mark Simons, Sarah Minson, James Beck, Pablo Ampuero, Romain Jolivet, Bryan Riel, Michael Aivasis, Hailiang Zhang. Zacharie Duputel Seismo Lab, GPS division, Caltech

2 Modeling ingredients ‣ Data: - Field observations - Seismology - Geodesy -... ‣ Theory: - Source geometry - Earth model -... Sources of uncertainty ‣ Observational uncertainty: - Instrumental noise - Ambient seismic noise ‣ Prediction uncertainty: - Fault geometry - Earth model A posteriori distribution Project : Toward the next generation of source models including realistic statistics of uncertainties Izmit earthquake (1999) Depth, km Slip, m Single model Ensemble of models SIV initiative

3 Partial derivatives w.r.t. the elastic parameters (sensitivity kernel) Covariance matrix describing uncertainty in the Earth model parameters Exact theory Stochastic (non-deterministic) theory A reliable stochastic model for the prediction uncertainty The forward problem ‣ posterior distribution: p(d|m) = N(d | g(,m), C p ) p(d|m) = δ(d - g(,m)) Calculation of Cp based on the physics of the problem: A perturbation approach

Covarianc e CμCμ CpCp Prediction uncertainty due to the earth model 1000 stochastic realizations

? Slip, m H Depth / H 2H2H μ1μ1 μ2μ2 μ 2 /μ 1 = H - Data generated for a layered half-space (d obs ) - 5mm uncorrelated observational noise (→C d ) - GFs for an homogeneous half-space (→C p ) - CATMIP bayesian sampler (Minson et al., GJI 2013): Toy model 1: Infinite strike-slip fault Slip, m H Depth / H 2H2H μ2μ2 0.9 H Synthetic Data + Noise shallow fault + Layered half-space Inversion: Homogeneous half-space μ1μ1 μ2μ2

Toy model 1: Infinite strike-slip fault Input (target) model Posterior Mean Model

Slip, m Depth / H Displacement, m Distance from fault / H No C p (overfitting) C p Included (larger residuals) Depth / H Why a smaller misfit does not necessarily indicate a better solution Distance from fault / H Displacement, m

8 Toy Model 2: Static Finite-fault modeling Dist. along Strike, km Dist. along Dip, km East, km North, km Shear modulus, GPa Depth, km Horizontal Disp., m Vertical Disp., m Slip, m Input (target) model Earth modelData Finite strike-slip fault ‣ Top of the fault at 0 km ‣ South-dipping = 80° ‣ Data for a layered half-space

9 Toy Model 2: Static Finite-fault modeling Dist. along Strike, km Dist. along Dip, km East, km North, km Shear modulus, GPa Depth, km Horizontal Disp., m Vertical Disp., m Slip, m Input (target) model Earth modelData Model for Data Model for GFs Finite strike-slip fault ‣ 65 patches, 2 slip components ‣ 5mm uncorrelated noise (→C d ) ‣ GFs for an homogeneous half- space (→C p )

10 Toy Model 2: Static Finite-fault modeling Dist. along Strike, km Dist. along Dip, km Shear modulus, GPa Depth, km Slip, m Finite strike-slip fault ‣ 65 patches, 2 slip components ‣ 5mm uncorrelated noise (→C d ) ‣ GFs for an homogeneous half- space (→C p ) Input (target) model - 65 patches average Earth model Dist. along Strike, km Dist. along Dip, km Slip, m Posterior mean model, No Cp Dist. along Strike, km Dist. along Dip, km Slip, m Posterior mean model, including Cp Uncertainty on the shear modulus

Conclusion and Perspectives Improving source modeling by accounting for realistic uncertainties ‣ 2 sources of uncertainty -Observational error -Modeling uncertainty ‣ Importance of incorporating realistic covariance components -More realistic uncertainty estimations -Improvement of the solution itself ‣ Accounting for lateral variations ‣ Improving kinematic source models

Jolivet et al., submitted to BSSA AGU Late breaking session on Tuesday Application to actual data: Mw 7.7 Balochistan earthquake

13 Toy Model 2: Static Finite-fault modeling Shear modulus, GPa Depth, km Finite strike-slip fault ‣ 65 patches, 2 slip components ‣ 5mm uncorrelated noise (→C d ) ‣ GFs for an homogeneous half- space (→C p ) Earth model Uncertainty on the shear modulus Dist. along Strike, km Dist. along Dip, km Slip, m Posterior mean model, including Cp C p East (x r ), m 2 x 10 4 East, km North, km Covariance with respect to x r xrxr

14 Toy Model 2: Static Finite-fault modeling Log(μ i / μ i+1 ) Depth, km Finite strike-slip fault ‣ 65 patches, 2 slip components ‣ 5mm uncorrelated noise (→C d ) ‣ GFs for an homogeneous half- space (→C p ) Earth model Dist. along Strike, km Dist. along Dip, km Slip, m Posterior mean model, including Cp C p East (x r ), m 2 x 10 4 East, km North, km xrxr Covariance with respect to x r

Toy model 1: prior: U(-0.5,20) Input (target) model Posterior Mean Model

Input (target) model Posterior Mean Model Toy model 1: prior: U(0,20)

Toy model including a slip step

Evolution of m at each beta step

Evolution of C p at each beta step

Covariance C μ 1000 realizations

Covariance C p 1000 realizations

Measurement errors Prediction errors Observational error: ‣ Measurements d obs : single realization of a stochastic variable d * which can be described by a probability density p(d*|d) = N(d*|d, C d ) Prediction uncertainty: where Ω = [ μ T, φ T ] T ‣ Ω true is not known and we work with an approximation ‣ The prediction uncertainty: ‣ scales with the with the magnitude of m ‣ can be described by p(d|m) = N(d | g(,m), C p ) A posteriori distribution: ‣ In the Gaussian case, the solution of the problem is given by: Earth model Source geometry Measurement s Displacement field Prior information On the importance of Prediction uncertainty D : Prediction space