Maria Liukis
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Maria Liukis.
Seismological Research Letters | 2018
Camilla Cattania; M. Werner; Warner Marzocchi; Sebastian Hainzl; David A. Rhoades; Matthew C. Gerstenberger; Maria Liukis; William Savran; A. Christophersen; Agnès Helmstetter; Abigail Jiménez; Sandy Steacy; Thomas H. Jordan
1 The static Coulomb stress hypothesis is a widely known physical mechanism for 2 earthquake triggering, and thus a prime candidate for physics-based Operational Earth3 quake Forecasting (OEF). However, the forecast skill of Coulomb-based seismicity mod4 els remains controversial, especially in comparison to empirical statistical models. A 5 previous evaluation by the Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictabil6 ity (CSEP) concluded that a suite of Coulomb-based seismicity models were less in7 formative than empirical models during the aftershock sequence of the 1992 Mw7.3 8 Landers, California, earthquake. Recently, a new generation of Coulomb-based and 9 Coulomb/statistical hybrid models were developed that account better for uncertainties 10 and secondary stress sources. Here, we report on the performance of this new suite of 11 models in comparison to empirical Epidemic Type Aftershock Sequences (ETAS) mod12 els during the 2010-2012 Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquake sequence. Comprising 13 the 2010 M7.1 Darfield earthquake and three subsequent M ≥ 5.9 shocks (including 14 the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake), this sequence provides a wealth of data 15 (394 M ≥ 3.95 shocks). We assessed models over multiple forecast horizons (1-day, 16 1-month and 1-year, updated after M ≥ 5.9 shocks). The results demonstrate substan17 tial improvements in the Coulomb-based models. Purely physics-based models have a 18 performance comparable to the ETAS model, and the two Coulomb/statistical hybrids 19 perform better or as well as the corresponding statistical model. On the other hand, 20 an ETAS model with anisotropic (fault-based) aftershock zones is just as informative. 21 These results provide encouraging evidence for the predictive power of Coulomb-based 22 models. To assist with model development, we identify discrepancies between forecasts 23 and observations. 24
Archive | 2007
Thomas H. Jordan; Matthew C. Gerstenberger; Maria Liukis; Philip J. Maechling; Danijel Schorlemmer; Stefan Wiemer; Jeremy Douglas Zechar
Seismological Research Letters | 2018
David A. Rhoades; A. Christophersen; Matthew C. Gerstenberger; Maria Liukis; Fabio Silva; Warner Marzocchi; M. Werner; Thomas H. Jordan
Seismological Research Letters | 2018
Danijel Schorlemmer; M. Werner; Warner Marzocchi; Thomas H. Jordan; Yosihiko Ogata; David D. Jackson; Sum Mak; David A. Rhoades; Matthew C. Gerstenberger; Naoshi Hirata; Maria Liukis; Philip J. Maechling; Anne Strader; Matteo Taroni; Stefan Wiemer; Jeremy Douglas Zechar; Jiancang Zhuang
Archive | 2009
Philip J. Maechling; Thomas H. Jordan; Maria Liukis; Sarah Callaghan
Seismological Research Letters | 2018
Anne Strader; M. Werner; José Bayona; Philip J. Maechling; Fabio Silva; Maria Liukis; Danijel Schorlemmer
Japan Geoscience Union | 2015
Thomas Beutin; Maria Liukis; Philip J. Maechling; Sum Mak; Danijel Schorlemmer; John Yu
Japan Geoscience Union | 2014
Danijel Schorlemmer; Matt Gerstenberger; Naoshi Hirata; Thomas H. Jordan; Maria Liukis; Warner Marzocchi; David A. Rhoades; Hiroshi Tsuruoka; M. Werner; Jeremy Douglas Zechar
Archive | 2008
Michael P. Zeleznik; Philip J. Maechling; Maria Liukis; Sarah Callaghan; Thomas H. Jordan
Archive | 2007
Jeffrey Xu Yu; Maria Liukis; Danijel Schorlemmer; Philip J. Maechling; Thomas H. Jordan; Fabian Euchner; Jeremy Douglas Zechar; Matthew C. Gerstenberger