The commenting paper (Iervolino and Giorgio, 2022, referred to as IG22 in this replying paper) gives constructive and helpful comments on our recently published paper (Wang et al., 2021). We agree with some of the comments. But there are others requiring explanation in detail. In this reply, we address those on which our opinions differ, and focus on those that can be validated with new results:

  1. ETAS (epidemic‐type aftershock sequences): truth or benchmark.

  2. Uncertainties in the calibration of the compared models.

  3. ETAS‐implied hazard with re‐estimated ETAS parameters.

  4. Results of declustered Poisson (DP) and Poisson mainshock...

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