Retrospective evaluation of the five-year and ten-year CSEP-Italy earthquake forecasts

Maximilian J. Werner*, J. Douglas Zechar, Warner Marzocchi, Stefan Wiemer, CSEP-Italy Working Grp

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

On August 1, 2009, the global Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) launched a prospective and comparative earthquake predictability experiment in Italy. The goal of this CSEP-Italy experiment is to test earthquake occurrence hypotheses that have been formalized as probabilistic earthquake forecasts over temporal scales that range from days to years. In the first round of forecast submissions, members of the CSEP-Italy Working Group presented 18 five-year and ten-year earthquake forecasts to the European CSEP Testing Center at ETH Zurich. We have considered here the twelve time-independent earthquake forecasts among this set, and evaluated them with respect to past seismicity data from two Italian earthquake catalogs. We present the results of the tests that measure the consistencies of the forecasts according to past observations. As well as being an evaluation of the time-independent forecasts submitted, this exercise provides insight into a number of important issues in predictability experiments with regard to the specification of the forecasts, the performance of the tests, and the trade-off between robustness of results and experiment duration. We conclude with suggestions for the design of future earthquake predictability experiments.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)11-30
Number of pages20
JournalAnnals of Geophysics
Volume53
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Keywords

  • LIKELIHOOD MODEL
  • SEISMICITY
  • CALIFORNIA
  • MAGNITUDE
  • PREDICTABILITY
  • PREDICTION

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Retrospective evaluation of the five-year and ten-year CSEP-Italy earthquake forecasts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this