USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70273218

A scientific vision and roadmap for earthquake rupture forecast developments, a USGS perspective

Abstract

We articulate a scientific vision and roadmap for the development of improved Earthquake Rupture Forecast models, which are one of the two main modeling components used in modern seismic hazard and risk analysis. One primary future objective is to provide fully time-dependent models that include both elastic rebound and spatiotemporal clustering nationwide, which is particularly important for shorter-term hazard and risk considerations (e.g., earthquake insurance products). We also discuss the importance and perennial challenges associated with quantifying epistemic uncertainties, including those associated with deformation-model slip rates, un-quantified sampling errors with respect to off-fault seismicity, and any spatial covariances. The need for more physics-based approaches is also emphasized, as is the benefit of adding model valuation (quantifying usefulness) to our verification and validation protocols. Given the multidisciplinary and system-level nature of this activity, modular design is critical. Future updates will also draw from best-available science by both the United States Geological Survey and the external community. The primary goal of this paper is to highlight plans that guide research and facilitate community engagement with model development, especially with respect to lowering the entry barrier for early career scientists and engineers. The paper is written so readers can focus on the sections that interest them most (see table of contents), with the Introduction and Discussion providing a stand-alone overview and summary.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Edward H. Field, Alexandra Elise Hatem, Bruce E. Shaw, Morgan T. Page, P. Martin Mai, Kevin Ross Milner, Andrea L. Llenos, Andrew J. Michael, Frederick Pollitz, Jessica A. Thompson Jobe, Thomas E. Parsons, Olaf Zielke, David R. Shelly, Alice-Agnes Gabriel, Devin McPhillips, Richard W. Briggs, Elizabeth S. Cochran, Nico Luco, Mark D. Petersen, Peter M. Powers, Justin L. Rubinstein, Allison M. Shumway, Nicholas van der Elst, Yuehua Zeng, Christopher B. DuRoss, Jason M. Altekruse. 2025-09-02. A scientific vision and roadmap for earthquake rupture forecast developments, a USGS perspective. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120240217

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

The U.S. Geological Survey 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands time-independent earthquake rupture forecast

We present the 2025 U.S. Geological Survey Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI) time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast (ERF), developed for the 2025 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for PRVI. The updated ERF improves upon a prior model from 2003, including an expanded fault inventory with slip‐rate estimates, updated seismicity catalogs, and refined subduction zone geometries and deformation models. It applies the fault‐system inversion methodology to solve for rates of ruptures on modeled faults, adapted from the 2023 NSHM (NSHM23) for the western United States, including the first application of the inversion to model rates on a U.S. subduction interface. Off‐fault and intraslab seismicity are constrained by observed seismicity and use updated methods developed for NSHM23. Uncertainties in model components are substantial, and the ERF represents epistemic uncertainties through a comprehensive logic tree consisting of 1.7 billion logic‐tree branches combined across all sources.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands

The 1912 Ms 7.2 earthquake in the Denali region of central Alaska

The 2002 M w 7.9 earthquake in central Alaska ruptured 340 km on three faults—Susitna Glacier thrust fault, Denali fault, Totschunda fault—crossing both the Richardson Highway and the Alaska Pipeline. Its occurrence prompted renewed interest in historical large earthquakes that possibly originated on the Denali fault. One of these earthquakes was a M s 7.2 event on July 7, 1912, which we revisit with two approaches: (1) probabilistic relocation of the epicenter using globally recorded arrival times, and (2) compilation and reassessment of shaking intensity reports to estimate a macroseismic epicenter. Our preferred instrumental epicenter is west of the Parks Highway and in agreement with the maximum‐reported shaking, which was from the Parker–Browne expedition of Denali. We also relocated a M s 6.4 aftershock, whose epicenter is 11 km from the mainshock. Candidate faults for the 1912 earthquake include the Denali fault, the McLeod Creek thrust fault, and the Kantishna Hills thrust fault. Future analysis of active faults, paleoseismic results, 1912 instrumental data, and 1912 felt reports may help in interpreting the fault and mechanism of the 1912 earthquake.

Alaska

High-precision earthquake catalog for Minto Flats fault zone, central Alaska, reveals complex and conjugate faulting

The Minto Flats fault zone (MFFZ) in central Alaska is a left‐lateral strike‐slip fault system situated between the continental‐scale right‐lateral Denali and Kaltag‐Tintina faults. The MFFZ has the potential to generate magnitude 7 earthquakes, and it hosted a magnitude 6 earthquake in 1995. It has also produced exotic events, such as very‐low‐frequency earthquakes and nucleation signals. We use network‐matched filtering and relative earthquake relocation techniques to derive a detailed catalog of earthquake locations for the MFFZ. The catalog spans from August 2014 to December 2019, a time period including 13 temporary seismic stations in the region. Our results provide the most complete catalog for the MFFZ and include deeper events, clusters of shallow seismicity, and a complex and segmented fault structure not observed in the original regional catalog. We document right‐lateral strike‐slip faulting, conjugate to the main northeast‐striking left‐lateral faults of the MFFZ. Below Nenana basin, the relocated seismicity reveals northwest‐dipping left‐lateral faults, supporting the inference that deep crustal active faulting is associated with recent basin deformation.

Alaska