The smoothed seismicity models intend to be brought into the new Italian Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps 2017-2018. In this investigation we report progress on the utilization of smoothed seismicity models created by utilizing fixed and the versatile smoothing calculations and present a tremor rate figure created from an outfit smoothed seismicity model. Ongoing advancements in versatile smoothing techniques and factual tests for assessing and contrasting rate models brief us with research the fittingness of versatile smoothing together with the fixed smoothing seismicity models for the new Italian seismic risk maps. The gridded-seismicity models depend on both authentic and instrumental quakes and accept that bigger tremors happen at or close to bunches of past littler tremors. When all is said in done, the methodology of utilizing spatially smoothed recorded seismicity is not quite the same as the one utilized beforehand by Working gathering MSP04 (2004), and Slejko et al. (1998) for Italy, in which source zones were drawn around the seismicity and the structural areas and is the first to be utilized for the new probabilistic seismic risk maps for Italy. We create two diverse smoothed seismicity models following the notable and broadly applied fixed (Frankel, 1995) and versatile smoothing techniques (Helmstetter et al., 2007) and look at the subsequent models (Moschetti, 2015) by figuring and assessing the probability test. In this structure, the smoothed seismicity models are developed by utilizing both the authentic Catalog Parametrico dei Terremoti Italiani, CPTI15, (1000-2014) (Rovida et al. 2015) and the instrumental Italian list (1981-20165) (Gasperini et al., 2013) and their related fulfillment levels to create a space-time conjecture of things to come Italian seismicity. We pursue direction from past examinations to upgrade the smoothing seismicity parameters; the connection smoothing separation (fixed smoothing) and the neighboring number (versatile smoothing) by looking at model probability esteems, which gauge the probability that the watched quake focal points from the ongoing index are gotten from the smoothed rate models. We think about probability esteems from all rate models to rank the smoothing techniques. We likewise contrast two our models and the best two models of the few Italian Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Probability (CSEP) explore models, to check their relative exhibitions. At long last we make six a group models joining utilizing two distinctive smoothing models (versatile and fixed), which are weighted similarly with various loads through a rationale tree way to deal with improve the gauge capacity (Marzocchi et al., 2012; Taroni et al., 2014) and to appraise the vulnerability related with the models. Presentation Probabilistic seismic danger examination (PSHA) measures the likelihood of ground shaking at a predetermined site that surpasses a predefined force level (Cornell 1968, SSHAC 1997). It contains two fundamental ingredientsparts: (1) the seismic tremor rate and crack models, for which specifyication of the factual dissemination of quakes in time, space and (size); and (2) the ground movement expectation conditions, for which estimateion of the normal ground shaking level (and dispersion) at a site for every quake break (Field et al. 2005). As of late created eEarthquake rate models which are the contributions to PSHA, produced for PSHA, may incorporate appraisals of tremor repeat from chronicled, geographical, and paleo-seismological perceptions, and inferencesas well as the fromestimates from the crustal disfigurements and seismicity rates (Stirling et al., 2002; Field et al., 2014; Petersen et al., 2014; Adams et al., 2015). In these models we for the most part perform past seismic tremor rates evaluating future rates from the spatial smoothing of quake areas from inventories, particularly in locales where we have close to nothing, restricted or inadequate data about the dynamic deficiencies. Present day seismic tremor burst conjectures ordinarily use past quake rates to appraise future rates. Especially in districts where information about dynamic shortcomings is restricted and not finish, quake rate figures are generally created from the spatial smoothing of tremor areas from lists (i.e., smoothed seismicity models). Truth be told the Ssmoothed seismicity models have been commonlybroadly performedapplied in the course of recent decades in creating tremor break gauges (Kagan and Jackson, 1994; Frankel, 1995; Wang et al., 2011; Akinci, 2010) and seismic-peril models (Frankel et al., 1996; Petersen et al., 2014; Adams et al., 2015; Akinci et al., 2004; Akinci et al., 2009). Early smoothed seismicity models utilized spatially uniform smoothing parameters (i.e., fixed smoothing), with the end goal that the parts used to smooth list inferred seismicity rates were invariant to spatial varieties in seismicity rate. In any case, some as of late created strategies (Stock and Smith, 2002; Helmstetter et al., 2007; Werner et al., 2011) spatially adjust the smoothing parameters to the quake rate (i.e., versatile smoothing). Versatile smoothing techniques have the general impact of concentrating seismicity rates close to the bunches of high movement and lessening them in zones of low-foundation seismicity contrasted with models got from fixed smoothing. In this examination, we apply both fixed and versatile smoothed seismicity techniques to build up a long haul quake rate model for free occasions. The smoothed seismicity is an option in contrast to the methodology that was utilized beforehand for the peril estimation in Italy, in which region source zones were drawn around seismic or structural territories. Exceptional zones take into consideration neighborhood fluctuation in seismicity qualities inside a zone (for instance, hypocentral profundity changes, changes in b-esteem, changes in most extreme extent Mmax, and uniform seismicity attributes). These models are consolidated to represent the suite of potential tremors that can influence a site. In any case, one bit of leeway of the smoothed-seismicity techniques is to abstain from picking zone limits that are at times inadequately constrained by information and drawn by abstractly consolidating land and seismological informationprobability. The delimitation and parametric portrayal of little zones can be answerable for bringing vulnerabilities into the danger assessment. In its most perfect structure, the smoothed-seismicity strategy essentially accept that examples of chronicled tremors foresee future action, yet it can without much of a stretch be enhanced by structural – or geodetic – based zones or other model components if there is motivation to presume that seismicity inventories are inadequate. Despite the fact that in the methodology by Frankel (1995) no seismicity source zones are required, some model parameters can be taken as homogeneous all through local sub-zones. For instance in this investigation, the examination district is subdivided into seven expansive zones for the most part based on the distinctive list attributes/fulfillment of the area. In this examination the smoothed seismicity models are developed dependent on the spatial dispersion of both the recorded (Catalog Parametrico dei Terremoti Italiani, CPTI15) and the instrumental Italian inventories and their related culmination levels delivered for the Mappa di Pericolosita’ Sismica (MPS16) to achieve a space-time figure of things to come Italian seismicity. The fixed smoothing model pursues the strategy for Frankel (1995) and utilizes spatially uniform smoothing parameters (i.e., fixed smoothing), with the end goal that the parts used to smooth index inferred seismicity rates are invariant to spatial varieties in seismicity rate. Be that as it may, the versatile smoothing strategy (Helmstetter et al., 2007) characterizes a novel smoothing separation for every quake focal point from the separation to the n-th closest neighbor. We inspected the capacity of the two models to foresee the spatial dispersion of seismicity from the ongoing piece of the tremor index utilizing standard probability counts. We pursued the si milar probability testing techniques that have been prodded by the Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) (Schorlemmer et al., 2007) and the Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) (Zechar, 2010) testing communities for assessment and examination of seismic tremor figure models (Schorlemmer et al., 2007; Zechar, et al., 2010). The point of this exertion is to create and give models to the seismicity rates utilizing the most as of late rehearsed approachs alongside refreshed databases (seismic inventories) to be performed towards to new probabilistic seismic danger maps for Italy. Quake Catalogs and Completeness The seismicity based source models advantage the smoothed seismicity rates determined on a spatial lattice stage from the two indexes: 1) The parametric index of Italian quakes (Catalog Parametrico dei Terremoti Italiani, CPTI15) that contains bigger seismic tremors up to greatness 7.3 since 1000 up to year of 2014; 2) The instrumental list of Italian seismicity that contains the little quakes down to Mw 1.0, with a limit of Mw 6.53, in the course of recent years (1981-201675). The shallow foundation seismicity rates are determined on a spatial matrix utilizing the recorded CPTI15 inventory (Rovida et al. 2015), comprising of 442718 records (M≥>4.0) in the time window from 1000 AD to 2014. Since PSHA accept a Poissonian procedure of quakes, where seismic occasions are viewed as transiently free, the CPTI15 index is declustered utilizing Gardner and Knopoff (1974) strategy to evacuate huge variances of seismicity rates in existence because of delayed repercussion groupings, and we select aggregate of 28971594 principle stuns for the last calculation with profundity ≤30 kKm. The culmination times of the CPTI15 list were identified by the Working Group 2015 (http;//emidius.mi.ingv.it/CPTI15-DBMI15/information/CPTI15_descrizione.pdf), in light of both authentic and the measurable examinations. >