The commented paper reports about a study, aimed at comparing epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) to different hazard models. The study is interesting; nevertheless, there are some issues that the commenters feel compelled to discuss, to avoid generating incorrect understanding in less experienced readers. The comments herein, that are intentionally limited to the comparison of probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) and sequence‐based PSHA (SPSHA) with ETAS, focus on (1) the link between abstract and conclusions of the paper and the results of the study; (2) the approach taken for the calibration of the compared models and the possible impact on the...

You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.