Seg-Specific b-value Weights Hazard Maps

Table Of Contents

• PGA (g), 2% in 50 year
  • Mean hazard maps and comparisons, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year
  • Median hazard maps and comparisons, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year
  • Percentile comparison maps, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year
  • Bounds, spread, and COV, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year
  • PGA (g), 2% in 50 year Logic Tree Comparisons
    • Deformation Model, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year
    • Scaling Relationship, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year
    • Supra-Seismogenic b-value, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year
    • Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year
    • Segmentation Model, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year
• PGA (g), 10% in 50 year
  • Mean hazard maps and comparisons, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year
  • Median hazard maps and comparisons, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year
  • Percentile comparison maps, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year
  • Bounds, spread, and COV, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year
  • PGA (g), 10% in 50 year Logic Tree Comparisons
    • Deformation Model, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year
    • Scaling Relationship, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year
    • Supra-Seismogenic b-value, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year
    • Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year
    • Segmentation Model, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year
• 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year
  • Mean hazard maps and comparisons, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year
  • Median hazard maps and comparisons, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year
  • Percentile comparison maps, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year
  • Bounds, spread, and COV, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year
  • 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year Logic Tree Comparisons
    • Deformation Model, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year
    • Scaling Relationship, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year
    • Supra-Seismogenic b-value, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year
    • Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year
    • Segmentation Model, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year
• 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year
  • Mean hazard maps and comparisons, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year
  • Median hazard maps and comparisons, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year
  • Percentile comparison maps, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year
  • Bounds, spread, and COV, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year
  • 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year Logic Tree Comparisons
    • Deformation Model, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year
    • Scaling Relationship, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year
    • Supra-Seismogenic b-value, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year
    • Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year
    • Segmentation Model, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year

PGA (g), 2% in 50 year

(top)

Download Mean Hazard CSVs: pga_TWO_IN_50.csv pga_TWO_IN_50_comp.csv

Mean hazard maps and comparisons, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year

(top)

Primary (Seg-Specific b-value Weights) Weighted-Average	Comparison (Original Weights) Weighted-Average

The following plots compare mean hazard between Seg-Specific b-value Weights and a comparison model, Original Weights. The top row gives hazard ratios, expressed as % change, and the bottom row gives differences.

The left column compares the mean maps directly, with the comparison model as the divisor/subtrahend. Warmer colors indicate increased hazard in Seg-Specific b-value Weights relative to Original Weights.

The right column shows where and by how much the comparison mean model (Original Weights) is outside the distribution of values across all branches of the primary model (Seg-Specific b-value Weights). Here, places that are zeros (light gray) indicate that the comparison mean hazard map is fully contained within the range of values in Seg-Specific b-value Weights, cool colors indicate areas where the primary model is always lower than the comparison mean model, and warm colors areas where the primary model is always greater. Note that the color scales are reversed here so that colors are consistent with the left column even though the comparison model is now the dividend/minuend.

Mean % Change	Comparison Mean % Change From Extremes
Mean Difference	Comparison Mean Difference From Extremes

Median hazard maps and comparisons, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year

(top)

Primary Weighted-Median	Comparison Weighted-Median

This section is the same as above, but using median hazard maps rather than mean.

Median % Change	Comparison Median % Change From Extremes
Median Difference	Comparison Median Difference From Extremes

Percentile comparison maps, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year

(top)

The maps below show where the comparison (Original Weights) model mean (left column) and median (right column) map lies within the primary model (Seg-Specific b-value Weights) distribution. Areas where the comparison mean or median map is outside the primary model distribution are shown here in black regardless of if they are above or below.

Comparison Mean Percentile	Comparison Median Percentile

Branched-average hazard can be dominated by outlier branches. The map below on the left shows the percentile at which the primary model's mean map lies within its own full hazard distribution. Areas far from the 50-th percentile here are likely outlier-dominated and may show up in percentile comparison maps, even if mean hazard differences are minimal. Keep this in mind when evaluating the maps above, and the influence of individual logic tree branches by this metric. The right map show the ratio of mean to median hazard.

Mean Map Percentile	Mean vs Median

Bounds, spread, and COV, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year

(top)

The maps below show the range of values across all logic tree branches, the ratio of the maximum to minimum value, and the coefficient of variation (std. dev. / mean). Note that the minimum and maximum maps are not a result for any single logic tree branch, but rather the smallest or largest value encountered at each location across all logic tree branches. Each of those quantities is plotted separately for the primary and comparison model, then compared in the rightmost column.

Primary Minimum	Comparison Minimum	% Change
Primary Maximum	Comparison Maximum	% Change
Primary Log10 (Max/Min)	Comparison Log10 (Max/Min)	Difference
Primary COV	Comparison COV	Difference

PGA (g), 2% in 50 year Logic Tree Comparisons

(top)

This section shows how hazard changes across branch choices at each level of the logic tree. The summary figures below show mean hazard on the left, and then ratios & differences between the mean map considering subsets of the model holding each branch choice constant, and the overall mean map.

Combined Summary Maps

Deformation Model, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Deformation Model branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: pga_TWO_IN_50_DM.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 51.83%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
Geologic
Evans
Pollitz
Shen-Bird
Zeng

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs Geologic	Vs Evans	Vs Pollitz	Vs Shen-Bird	Vs Zeng
Geologic
Evans
Pollitz
Shen-Bird
Zeng

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

Geologic	Evans	Pollitz	Shen-Bird	Zeng

Scaling Relationship, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 6 choices at the Scaling Relationship branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: pga_TWO_IN_50_Scale.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 15.24%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
LogA+4.3
LogA+4.2
LogA+4.1
WdthLmtd
LogA+4.2, SqrtLen
WdthLmtd, CSD

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs LogA+4.3	Vs LogA+4.2	Vs LogA+4.1	Vs WdthLmtd	Vs LogA+4.2, SqrtLen	Vs WdthLmtd, CSD
LogA+4.3
LogA+4.2
LogA+4.1
WdthLmtd
LogA+4.2, SqrtLen
WdthLmtd, CSD

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

LogA+4.3	LogA+4.2	LogA+4.1	WdthLmtd	LogA+4.2, SqrtLen	WdthLmtd, CSD

Supra-Seismogenic b-value, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Supra-Seismogenic b-value branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: pga_TWO_IN_50_SupraB.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 5.83%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
b=0.0
b=0.25
b=0.5
b=0.75
b=1.0

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs b=0.0	Vs b=0.25	Vs b=0.5	Vs b=0.75	Vs b=1.0
b=0.0
b=0.25
b=0.5
b=0.75
b=1.0

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

b=0.0	b=0.25	b=0.5	b=0.75	b=1.0

Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 3 choices at the Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: pga_TWO_IN_50_PaleoUncert.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 0.43%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
EvenFit
OverFit
UnderFit

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs EvenFit	Vs OverFit	Vs UnderFit
EvenFit
OverFit
UnderFit

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

EvenFit	OverFit	UnderFit

Segmentation Model, PGA (g), 2% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Segmentation Model branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: pga_TWO_IN_50_SegModel.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 7.41%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
None
LowSeg
MidSeg
HighSeg
Classic

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs None	Vs LowSeg	Vs MidSeg	Vs HighSeg	Vs Classic
None
LowSeg
MidSeg
HighSeg
Classic

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

None	LowSeg	MidSeg	HighSeg	Classic

PGA (g), 10% in 50 year

(top)

Download Mean Hazard CSVs: pga_TEN_IN_50.csv pga_TEN_IN_50_comp.csv

Mean hazard maps and comparisons, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year

(top)

Primary (Seg-Specific b-value Weights) Weighted-Average	Comparison (Original Weights) Weighted-Average

The following plots compare mean hazard between Seg-Specific b-value Weights and a comparison model, Original Weights. The top row gives hazard ratios, expressed as % change, and the bottom row gives differences.

The left column compares the mean maps directly, with the comparison model as the divisor/subtrahend. Warmer colors indicate increased hazard in Seg-Specific b-value Weights relative to Original Weights.

The right column shows where and by how much the comparison mean model (Original Weights) is outside the distribution of values across all branches of the primary model (Seg-Specific b-value Weights). Here, places that are zeros (light gray) indicate that the comparison mean hazard map is fully contained within the range of values in Seg-Specific b-value Weights, cool colors indicate areas where the primary model is always lower than the comparison mean model, and warm colors areas where the primary model is always greater. Note that the color scales are reversed here so that colors are consistent with the left column even though the comparison model is now the dividend/minuend.

Mean % Change	Comparison Mean % Change From Extremes
Mean Difference	Comparison Mean Difference From Extremes

Median hazard maps and comparisons, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year

(top)

Primary Weighted-Median	Comparison Weighted-Median

This section is the same as above, but using median hazard maps rather than mean.

Median % Change	Comparison Median % Change From Extremes
Median Difference	Comparison Median Difference From Extremes

Percentile comparison maps, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year

(top)

The maps below show where the comparison (Original Weights) model mean (left column) and median (right column) map lies within the primary model (Seg-Specific b-value Weights) distribution. Areas where the comparison mean or median map is outside the primary model distribution are shown here in black regardless of if they are above or below.

Comparison Mean Percentile	Comparison Median Percentile

Branched-average hazard can be dominated by outlier branches. The map below on the left shows the percentile at which the primary model's mean map lies within its own full hazard distribution. Areas far from the 50-th percentile here are likely outlier-dominated and may show up in percentile comparison maps, even if mean hazard differences are minimal. Keep this in mind when evaluating the maps above, and the influence of individual logic tree branches by this metric. The right map show the ratio of mean to median hazard.

Mean Map Percentile	Mean vs Median

Bounds, spread, and COV, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year

(top)

The maps below show the range of values across all logic tree branches, the ratio of the maximum to minimum value, and the coefficient of variation (std. dev. / mean). Note that the minimum and maximum maps are not a result for any single logic tree branch, but rather the smallest or largest value encountered at each location across all logic tree branches. Each of those quantities is plotted separately for the primary and comparison model, then compared in the rightmost column.

Primary Minimum	Comparison Minimum	% Change
Primary Maximum	Comparison Maximum	% Change
Primary Log10 (Max/Min)	Comparison Log10 (Max/Min)	Difference
Primary COV	Comparison COV	Difference

PGA (g), 10% in 50 year Logic Tree Comparisons

(top)

This section shows how hazard changes across branch choices at each level of the logic tree. The summary figures below show mean hazard on the left, and then ratios & differences between the mean map considering subsets of the model holding each branch choice constant, and the overall mean map.

Combined Summary Maps

Deformation Model, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Deformation Model branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: pga_TEN_IN_50_DM.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 112.54%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
Geologic
Evans
Pollitz
Shen-Bird
Zeng

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs Geologic	Vs Evans	Vs Pollitz	Vs Shen-Bird	Vs Zeng
Geologic
Evans
Pollitz
Shen-Bird
Zeng

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

Geologic	Evans	Pollitz	Shen-Bird	Zeng

Scaling Relationship, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 6 choices at the Scaling Relationship branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: pga_TEN_IN_50_Scale.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 25.08%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
LogA+4.3
LogA+4.2
LogA+4.1
WdthLmtd
LogA+4.2, SqrtLen
WdthLmtd, CSD

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs LogA+4.3	Vs LogA+4.2	Vs LogA+4.1	Vs WdthLmtd	Vs LogA+4.2, SqrtLen	Vs WdthLmtd, CSD
LogA+4.3
LogA+4.2
LogA+4.1
WdthLmtd
LogA+4.2, SqrtLen
WdthLmtd, CSD

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

LogA+4.3	LogA+4.2	LogA+4.1	WdthLmtd	LogA+4.2, SqrtLen	WdthLmtd, CSD

Supra-Seismogenic b-value, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Supra-Seismogenic b-value branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: pga_TEN_IN_50_SupraB.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 11.89%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
b=0.0
b=0.25
b=0.5
b=0.75
b=1.0

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs b=0.0	Vs b=0.25	Vs b=0.5	Vs b=0.75	Vs b=1.0
b=0.0
b=0.25
b=0.5
b=0.75
b=1.0

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

b=0.0	b=0.25	b=0.5	b=0.75	b=1.0

Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 3 choices at the Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: pga_TEN_IN_50_PaleoUncert.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 0.98%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
EvenFit
OverFit
UnderFit

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs EvenFit	Vs OverFit	Vs UnderFit
EvenFit
OverFit
UnderFit

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

EvenFit	OverFit	UnderFit

Segmentation Model, PGA (g), 10% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Segmentation Model branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: pga_TEN_IN_50_SegModel.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 15.21%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
None
LowSeg
MidSeg
HighSeg
Classic

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs None	Vs LowSeg	Vs MidSeg	Vs HighSeg	Vs Classic
None
LowSeg
MidSeg
HighSeg
Classic

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

None	LowSeg	MidSeg	HighSeg	Classic

1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year

(top)

Download Mean Hazard CSVs: 1.0s_TWO_IN_50.csv 1.0s_TWO_IN_50_comp.csv

Mean hazard maps and comparisons, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year

(top)

Primary (Seg-Specific b-value Weights) Weighted-Average	Comparison (Original Weights) Weighted-Average

The following plots compare mean hazard between Seg-Specific b-value Weights and a comparison model, Original Weights. The top row gives hazard ratios, expressed as % change, and the bottom row gives differences.

The left column compares the mean maps directly, with the comparison model as the divisor/subtrahend. Warmer colors indicate increased hazard in Seg-Specific b-value Weights relative to Original Weights.

The right column shows where and by how much the comparison mean model (Original Weights) is outside the distribution of values across all branches of the primary model (Seg-Specific b-value Weights). Here, places that are zeros (light gray) indicate that the comparison mean hazard map is fully contained within the range of values in Seg-Specific b-value Weights, cool colors indicate areas where the primary model is always lower than the comparison mean model, and warm colors areas where the primary model is always greater. Note that the color scales are reversed here so that colors are consistent with the left column even though the comparison model is now the dividend/minuend.

Mean % Change	Comparison Mean % Change From Extremes
Mean Difference	Comparison Mean Difference From Extremes

Median hazard maps and comparisons, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year

(top)

Primary Weighted-Median	Comparison Weighted-Median

This section is the same as above, but using median hazard maps rather than mean.

Median % Change	Comparison Median % Change From Extremes
Median Difference	Comparison Median Difference From Extremes

Percentile comparison maps, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year

(top)

The maps below show where the comparison (Original Weights) model mean (left column) and median (right column) map lies within the primary model (Seg-Specific b-value Weights) distribution. Areas where the comparison mean or median map is outside the primary model distribution are shown here in black regardless of if they are above or below.

Comparison Mean Percentile	Comparison Median Percentile

Branched-average hazard can be dominated by outlier branches. The map below on the left shows the percentile at which the primary model's mean map lies within its own full hazard distribution. Areas far from the 50-th percentile here are likely outlier-dominated and may show up in percentile comparison maps, even if mean hazard differences are minimal. Keep this in mind when evaluating the maps above, and the influence of individual logic tree branches by this metric. The right map show the ratio of mean to median hazard.

Mean Map Percentile	Mean vs Median

Bounds, spread, and COV, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year

(top)

The maps below show the range of values across all logic tree branches, the ratio of the maximum to minimum value, and the coefficient of variation (std. dev. / mean). Note that the minimum and maximum maps are not a result for any single logic tree branch, but rather the smallest or largest value encountered at each location across all logic tree branches. Each of those quantities is plotted separately for the primary and comparison model, then compared in the rightmost column.

Primary Minimum	Comparison Minimum	% Change
Primary Maximum	Comparison Maximum	% Change
Primary Log10 (Max/Min)	Comparison Log10 (Max/Min)	Difference
Primary COV	Comparison COV	Difference

1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year Logic Tree Comparisons

(top)

This section shows how hazard changes across branch choices at each level of the logic tree. The summary figures below show mean hazard on the left, and then ratios & differences between the mean map considering subsets of the model holding each branch choice constant, and the overall mean map.

Combined Summary Maps

Deformation Model, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Deformation Model branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: 1.0s_TWO_IN_50_DM.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 29.19%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
Geologic
Evans
Pollitz
Shen-Bird
Zeng

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs Geologic	Vs Evans	Vs Pollitz	Vs Shen-Bird	Vs Zeng
Geologic
Evans
Pollitz
Shen-Bird
Zeng

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

Geologic	Evans	Pollitz	Shen-Bird	Zeng

Scaling Relationship, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 6 choices at the Scaling Relationship branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: 1.0s_TWO_IN_50_Scale.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 9.37%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
LogA+4.3
LogA+4.2
LogA+4.1
WdthLmtd
LogA+4.2, SqrtLen
WdthLmtd, CSD

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs LogA+4.3	Vs LogA+4.2	Vs LogA+4.1	Vs WdthLmtd	Vs LogA+4.2, SqrtLen	Vs WdthLmtd, CSD
LogA+4.3
LogA+4.2
LogA+4.1
WdthLmtd
LogA+4.2, SqrtLen
WdthLmtd, CSD

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

LogA+4.3	LogA+4.2	LogA+4.1	WdthLmtd	LogA+4.2, SqrtLen	WdthLmtd, CSD

Supra-Seismogenic b-value, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Supra-Seismogenic b-value branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: 1.0s_TWO_IN_50_SupraB.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 3.40%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
b=0.0
b=0.25
b=0.5
b=0.75
b=1.0

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs b=0.0	Vs b=0.25	Vs b=0.5	Vs b=0.75	Vs b=1.0
b=0.0
b=0.25
b=0.5
b=0.75
b=1.0

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

b=0.0	b=0.25	b=0.5	b=0.75	b=1.0

Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 3 choices at the Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: 1.0s_TWO_IN_50_PaleoUncert.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 0.66%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
EvenFit
OverFit
UnderFit

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs EvenFit	Vs OverFit	Vs UnderFit
EvenFit
OverFit
UnderFit

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

EvenFit	OverFit	UnderFit

Segmentation Model, 1.0s SA, 2% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Segmentation Model branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: 1.0s_TWO_IN_50_SegModel.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 4.74%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
None
LowSeg
MidSeg
HighSeg
Classic

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs None	Vs LowSeg	Vs MidSeg	Vs HighSeg	Vs Classic
None
LowSeg
MidSeg
HighSeg
Classic

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

None	LowSeg	MidSeg	HighSeg	Classic

1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year

(top)

Download Mean Hazard CSVs: 1.0s_TEN_IN_50.csv 1.0s_TEN_IN_50_comp.csv

Mean hazard maps and comparisons, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year

(top)

Primary (Seg-Specific b-value Weights) Weighted-Average	Comparison (Original Weights) Weighted-Average

The following plots compare mean hazard between Seg-Specific b-value Weights and a comparison model, Original Weights. The top row gives hazard ratios, expressed as % change, and the bottom row gives differences.

The left column compares the mean maps directly, with the comparison model as the divisor/subtrahend. Warmer colors indicate increased hazard in Seg-Specific b-value Weights relative to Original Weights.

The right column shows where and by how much the comparison mean model (Original Weights) is outside the distribution of values across all branches of the primary model (Seg-Specific b-value Weights). Here, places that are zeros (light gray) indicate that the comparison mean hazard map is fully contained within the range of values in Seg-Specific b-value Weights, cool colors indicate areas where the primary model is always lower than the comparison mean model, and warm colors areas where the primary model is always greater. Note that the color scales are reversed here so that colors are consistent with the left column even though the comparison model is now the dividend/minuend.

Mean % Change	Comparison Mean % Change From Extremes
Mean Difference	Comparison Mean Difference From Extremes

Median hazard maps and comparisons, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year

(top)

Primary Weighted-Median	Comparison Weighted-Median

This section is the same as above, but using median hazard maps rather than mean.

Median % Change	Comparison Median % Change From Extremes
Median Difference	Comparison Median Difference From Extremes

Percentile comparison maps, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year

(top)

The maps below show where the comparison (Original Weights) model mean (left column) and median (right column) map lies within the primary model (Seg-Specific b-value Weights) distribution. Areas where the comparison mean or median map is outside the primary model distribution are shown here in black regardless of if they are above or below.

Comparison Mean Percentile	Comparison Median Percentile

Branched-average hazard can be dominated by outlier branches. The map below on the left shows the percentile at which the primary model's mean map lies within its own full hazard distribution. Areas far from the 50-th percentile here are likely outlier-dominated and may show up in percentile comparison maps, even if mean hazard differences are minimal. Keep this in mind when evaluating the maps above, and the influence of individual logic tree branches by this metric. The right map show the ratio of mean to median hazard.

Mean Map Percentile	Mean vs Median

Bounds, spread, and COV, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year

(top)

The maps below show the range of values across all logic tree branches, the ratio of the maximum to minimum value, and the coefficient of variation (std. dev. / mean). Note that the minimum and maximum maps are not a result for any single logic tree branch, but rather the smallest or largest value encountered at each location across all logic tree branches. Each of those quantities is plotted separately for the primary and comparison model, then compared in the rightmost column.

Primary Minimum	Comparison Minimum	% Change
Primary Maximum	Comparison Maximum	% Change
Primary Log10 (Max/Min)	Comparison Log10 (Max/Min)	Difference
Primary COV	Comparison COV	Difference

1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year Logic Tree Comparisons

(top)

This section shows how hazard changes across branch choices at each level of the logic tree. The summary figures below show mean hazard on the left, and then ratios & differences between the mean map considering subsets of the model holding each branch choice constant, and the overall mean map.

Combined Summary Maps

Deformation Model, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Deformation Model branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: 1.0s_TEN_IN_50_DM.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 78.44%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
Geologic
Evans
Pollitz
Shen-Bird
Zeng

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs Geologic	Vs Evans	Vs Pollitz	Vs Shen-Bird	Vs Zeng
Geologic
Evans
Pollitz
Shen-Bird
Zeng

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

Geologic	Evans	Pollitz	Shen-Bird	Zeng

Scaling Relationship, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 6 choices at the Scaling Relationship branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: 1.0s_TEN_IN_50_Scale.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 15.91%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
LogA+4.3
LogA+4.2
LogA+4.1
WdthLmtd
LogA+4.2, SqrtLen
WdthLmtd, CSD

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs LogA+4.3	Vs LogA+4.2	Vs LogA+4.1	Vs WdthLmtd	Vs LogA+4.2, SqrtLen	Vs WdthLmtd, CSD
LogA+4.3
LogA+4.2
LogA+4.1
WdthLmtd
LogA+4.2, SqrtLen
WdthLmtd, CSD

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

LogA+4.3	LogA+4.2	LogA+4.1	WdthLmtd	LogA+4.2, SqrtLen	WdthLmtd, CSD

Supra-Seismogenic b-value, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Supra-Seismogenic b-value branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: 1.0s_TEN_IN_50_SupraB.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 6.84%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
b=0.0
b=0.25
b=0.5
b=0.75
b=1.0

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs b=0.0	Vs b=0.25	Vs b=0.5	Vs b=0.75	Vs b=1.0
b=0.0
b=0.25
b=0.5
b=0.75
b=1.0

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

b=0.0	b=0.25	b=0.5	b=0.75	b=1.0

Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 3 choices at the Paleoseismic Data Uncertainties branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: 1.0s_TEN_IN_50_PaleoUncert.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 1.02%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
EvenFit
OverFit
UnderFit

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs EvenFit	Vs OverFit	Vs UnderFit
EvenFit
OverFit
UnderFit

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

EvenFit	OverFit	UnderFit

Segmentation Model, 1.0s SA, 10% in 50 year

(top)

This section shows how mean hazard varies accross 5 choices at the Segmentation Model branch level.

Download Choice Hazard CSV: 1.0s_TEN_IN_50_SegModel.csv

The table below gives summary statistics for the spatial average difference and average absolute difference of hazard between mean hazard maps for each individual branch choices. In other words, it gives the expected difference (or absolute difference) between two models if you picked a location at random. Values are listed between each pair of branch choices, and also between that choice and the overall mean map in the first column.

The overall average absolute difference between the map for any choice to each other choice, a decent summary measure of how much hazard varies due to this branch choice, is: 8.59%

The map table below shows how the mean map for each branch choice compares to the overall mean map, expressed as % change (first column) and difference (second column). The third column, 'Choice Percentile in Full Dist', shows at what percentile the map for that branch choice lies within the full distribution, and the fourth column, 'Choice Percentile in Dist Without', shows the same but for the distribution of all other branches (without this choice included).

Note that these percentile comparisons can be outlier dominated, in which case even if a choice is near the overall mean hazard it may still lie far from the 50th percentile (see 'Mean Map Percentile' above to better understand outlier dominated regions).

	Choice Mean vs Full Mean, % Change	Choice Mean - Full Mean	Choice Percentile in Full Dist	Choice Percentile in Dist Without
None
LowSeg
MidSeg
HighSeg
Classic

The table below gives % change maps between each option, head-to-head.

Choice	Vs None	Vs LowSeg	Vs MidSeg	Vs HighSeg	Vs Classic
None
LowSeg
MidSeg
HighSeg
Classic

The table below shows how much the mean hazard map would change if each branch were eliminated. This differs from the above comparisons in that it also reflects the weight assigned to each branch. The sign is now flipped such that blue and green areas indicate areas where hazard is higher due to inclusion of the listed listed choice, and would go down were that choice eliminated.

None	LowSeg	MidSeg	HighSeg	Classic