Matthias Rosenau

Matthias Rosenau

Auto-generated profile, based on publicly available information

Matthias Rosenau

GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences Potsdam Germany

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

26Years (2001-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 September 2010 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MMMarcos Moreno
Marcos Moreno
MRMatthias Rosenau
Matthias Rosenau
OOOnno Oncken
Onno Oncken

1 March 2012 in Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MMM. Moreno
M. Moreno
DMD. Melnick
D. Melnick
MRM. Rosenau
M. Rosenau
JBJ. Baez
J. Baez
JKJ. Klotz
J. Klotz
HHH. Hase
H. Hase

8 August 2006 in Tectonics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MRMatthias Rosenau
Matthias Rosenau
DMDaniel Melnick
Daniel Melnick
HEHelmut Echtler
Helmut Echtler

1 May 2011 in Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MMM. Moreno
M. Moreno
DMD. Melnick
D. Melnick
MRM. Rosenau
M. Rosenau
JBJ. Bolte
J. Bolte
JKJ. Klotz
J. Klotz
OOO. Oncken
O. Oncken

1 August 2016 in Tectonophysics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MKM. Klinkmüller
M. Klinkmüller
GSG. Schreurs
G. Schreurs
MRM. Rosenau
M. Rosenau
HKH. Kemnitz
H. Kemnitz

6 February 2019 in Geophysical Research Letters
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FCF. Corbi
F. Corbi
LSL. Sandri
L. Sandri
JBJ. Bedford
J. Bedford
FFF. Funiciello
F. Funiciello
SBS. Brizzi
S. Brizzi
SLS. Lallemand
S. Lallemand
Despite the growing spatiotemporal density of geophysical observations at subduction zones, predicting the timing and size of future earthquakes remains a challenge. Here we simulate multiple seismic cycles in a laboratory‐scale subduction zone. The model creates both partial and full margin ruptures, simulating magnitude Mw 6.2–8.3 earthquakes with a coefficient of variation in recurrence intervals of 0.5, similar to real subduction zones. We show that the common procedure of estimating the next earthquake size from slip‐deficit is unreliable. On the contrary, machine learning predicts well the timing and size of laboratory earthquakes by reconstructing and properly interpreting the spatiotemporally complex loading history of the system. These results promise substantial progress in real earthquake forecasting, as they suggest that the complex motion recorded by geodesists at subduction zones might be diagnostic of earthquake imminence.