A Comparison of Generalized Pareto and Weibull Distributions for Modeling Megathrust Seismic Hazard in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30829/zero.v10i2.28556Keywords:
Extreme Earthquakes, Generalized Pareto Distribution (GPD), Parameter Estimation, Seismic Risk Mapping, Weibull Distribution.Abstract
Mapping extreme earthquake risks in Indonesia's megathrust zones is critical for disaster mitigation. This study compares the Generalized Pareto (GPD) and Weibull distributions in modeling extreme earthquake magnitude probabilities. We analyzed 74,514 events (Mw>5.5) across 16 megathrust segments from 1973 to 2024. This data representing a comprehensive large-scale analysis at the national level. To ensure statistical independence of observations, a declustering algorithm was applied to isolate mainshocks. Parameters were estimated using Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) via Nelder-Mead optimization, and evaluated using PDF/CDF plots, AIC, and Cramer-von Mises statistics. Results indicate a significant disparity: the Weibull distribution failed to fit any of the segments, whereas the GPD proved suitable for all 16. Consistently lower AIC and test statistics confirm the GPD's superior accuracy in representing extreme magnitude patterns. Furthermore, return periods and corresponding return levels were calculated to explicitly quantify future extreme seismic hazards.References
S. Pasari, A. V. H. Simanjuntak, A. Mehta, Neha, and Y. Sharma, “The Current State of Earthquake Potential on Java Island, Indonesia,” Pure Appl. Geophys., vol. 178, no. 8, pp. 2789–2806, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s00024-021-02781-4.
M. Foote, J. Hillier, K. Mitchell‐Wallace, and M. Jones, Natural catastrophe risk management and modelling. Wiley, 2017. doi: 10.1002/9781118906057.
C. A. Isnard and E. C. Zeeman, “Some models from catastrophe theory in the social sciences,” in The Use of Models in the Social Sciences, vol. 1, L. Collins, Ed., Routledge, 1976, pp. 38–75. doi: 10.4324/9781315014227.
D. R. Tampubolon, R. Pratama, and A. Y. Gunawan, “Modeling the risk of financial losses due to tectonic earthquakes: Case study on damages to school buildings in a region in Indonesia,” 2024, p. 060001. doi: 10.1063/5.0171170.
P. Taylor, “Calculating Financial Loss from Catastrophes,” in Earthquake Risk and Engineering towards a Resilient World, Cambridge: SECED, Jul. 2015, pp. 1–15.
M. I. Gomes and A. Guillou, “Extreme Value Theory and Statistics of Univariate Extremes: A Review,” International Statistical Review, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 263–292, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1111/insr.12058.
W. Anggraeni, S. Supian, Sukono, and N. B. A. Halim, “Earthquake Catastrophe Bond Pricing Using Extreme Value Theory: A Mini-Review Approach,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 22, p. 4196, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.3390/math10224196.
J. Beirlant, A. Kijko, T. Reynkens, and J. H. J. Einmahl, “Estimating the maximum possible earthquake magnitude using extreme value methodology: the Groningen case,” Natural Hazards, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 1091–1113, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11069-017-3162-2.
R. Shcherbakov, J. Zhuang, G. Zöller, and Y. Ogata, “Forecasting the magnitude of the largest expected earthquake,” Nat. Commun., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 4051, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11958-4.
C. T. Guloksuz and N. Celik, “An Extension of Generalized Extreme Value Distribution: Uniform-GEV Distribution and Its Application to Earthquake Data,” 2020. [Online]. Available: http//:statassoc.or.th
M.-H. Wu, J. P. Wang, and K.-W. Ku, “Earthquake, Poisson and Weibull distributions,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 526, p. 121001, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.04.237.
A. Arshad, A. H. Hasan, and S. M. Ahmed, “Optimizing Weibull Distribution Parameters for Improved Earthquake Modeling in Japan: A Comparative Approach,” International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 65–73, 2024, doi: 10.54216/IJNS.240106.
K. H. Coban and N. Sayil, “Evaluation of earthquake recurrences with different distribution models in western Anatolia,” J. Seismol., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1405–1422, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10950-019-09876-5.
S. Pasari and O. Dikshit, “Stochastic earthquake interevent time modeling from exponentiated Weibull distributions,” Natural Hazards, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 823–842, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11069-017-3074-1.
V. F. Pisarenko, A. Sornette, D. Sornette, and M. V. Rodkin, “Characterization of the Tail of the Distribution of Earthquake Magnitudes by Combining the GEV and GPD Descriptions of Extreme Value Theory,” Pure Appl. Geophys., vol. 171, no. 8, pp. 1599–1624, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s00024-014-0882-z.
A. Dutfoy, “Earthquake Recurrence Model Based on the Generalized Pareto Distribution for Unequal Observation Periods and Imprecise Magnitudes,” Pure Appl. Geophys., vol. 178, no. 5, pp. 1549–1561, May 2021, doi: 10.1007/s00024-021-02712-3.
M. Zhang and H. Pan, “Application of generalized Pareto distribution for modeling aleatory variability of ground motion,” Natural Hazards, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 2971–2989, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11069-021-04809-3.
M. Ren, “Uncertainty analysis of strong earthquake hazard estimation based on the generalized Pareto distribution model: a case study of the northeastern Tibetan Plateau,” Annals of Geophysics, vol. 64, no. 6, p. SE656, May 2022, doi: 10.4401/ag-8610.
R. Chattamvelli and R. Shanmugam, Continuous Distributions in Engineering and the Applied Sciences - Part I. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-02430-6.
C. Chaudhary and M. L. Sharma, “Probabilistic Models For Earthquakes With Large Return Periods In Himalaya Region,” Pure Appl. Geophys., vol. 174, no. 12, pp. 4313–4327, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s00024-017-1667-y.
Y. D. W. Sari and Sutikno, “Estimasi Parameter Generalized Pareto Distribution Pada Kasus Identifikasi Perubahan Iklim di Sentra Produksi Padi Jawa Timur,” Jurnal Sains dan Seni ITS, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 2337–3520, 2013.
A. A. Balkema and L. de Haan, “Residual Life Time at Great Age,” The Annals of Probability, vol. 2, no. 5, Oct. 1974, doi: 10.1214/aop/1176996548.
J. Pickands, “Statistical Inference Using Extreme Order Statistics,” The Annals of Statistics, vol. 3, no. 1, Jan. 1975, doi: 10.1214/aos/1176343003.
S. Kotz and S. Nadarajah, Extreme Value Distributions. Imperial College Press, 2000. doi: 10.1142/p191.
S. Ghosh and S. Resnick, “A discussion on mean excess plots,” Stoch. Process. Their Appl., vol. 120, no. 8, pp. 1492–1517, Aug. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.spa.2010.04.002.
S. Coles, An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values. London: Springer London, 2001. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-3675-0.
C. Scarrott and A. Macdonald, “A Review of Extreme Value Threshold Estimation and Uncertainty Quantification,” 2012.
J. I. McCool, Using the Weibull Distribution. Wiley, 2012. doi: 10.1002/9781118351994.
J. R. M. Hosking and J. R. Wallis, “Parameter and Quantile Estimation for the Generalized Pareto Distribution,” Technometrics, vol. 29, no. 3, p. 339, Aug. 1987, doi: 10.2307/1269343.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
