3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prospective evaluation of multiplicative hybrid earthquake forecasting models in California

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          SUMMARY

          The Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) experiment, conducted within the Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP), showed that the smoothed seismicity (HKJ) model by Helmstetter et al. was the most informative time-independent earthquake model in California during the 2006–2010 evaluation period. The diversity of competing forecast hypotheses and geophysical data sets used in RELM was suitable for combining multiple models that could provide more informative earthquake forecasts than HKJ. Thus, Rhoades et al. created multiplicative hybrid models that involve the HKJ model as a baseline and one or more conjugate models. In retrospective evaluations, some hybrid models showed significant information gains over the HKJ forecast. Here, we prospectively assess the predictive skills of 16 hybrids and 6 original RELM forecasts at a 0.05 significance level, using a suite of traditional and new CSEP tests that rely on a Poisson and a binary likelihood function. In addition, we include consistency test results at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.025 to address the problem of multiple tests. Furthermore, we compare the performance of each forecast to that of HKJ. The evaluation data set contains 40 target events recorded within the CSEP California testing region from 2011 January 1 to 2020 December 31, including the 2016 Hawthorne earthquake swarm in southwestern Nevada and the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence. Consistency test results show that most forecasting models overestimate the number of earthquakes and struggle to explain the spatial distribution of epicenters, especially in the case of seismicity clusters. The binary likelihood function significantly reduces the sensitivity of spatial log-likelihood scores to clustering, however; most models still fail to adequately describe spatial earthquake patterns. Contrary to retrospective analyses, our prospective test results show that none of the models are significantly more informative than the HKJ benchmark forecast, which we interpret to be due to temporal instabilities in the fit that forms hybrids. These results suggest that smoothing high-resolution, small earthquake data remains a robust method for forecasting moderate-to-large earthquakes over a period of 5–15 yr in California.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          When to use the Bonferroni correction.

          The Bonferroni correction adjusts probability (p) values because of the increased risk of a type I error when making multiple statistical tests. The routine use of this test has been criticised as deleterious to sound statistical judgment, testing the wrong hypothesis, and reducing the chance of a type I error but at the expense of a type II error; yet it remains popular in ophthalmic research. The purpose of this article was to survey the use of the Bonferroni correction in research articles published in three optometric journals, viz. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics, Optometry & Vision Science, and Clinical & Experimental Optometry, and to provide advice to authors contemplating multiple testing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Regression and time series model selection in small samples

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Geophysical Journal International
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0956-540X
                1365-246X
                June 2022
                February 28 2022
                June 2022
                February 28 2022
                January 18 2022
                : 229
                : 3
                : 1736-1753
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Queens Road, BS81QU, Bristol, UK
                [2 ]Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CE 90089-0742, USA
                [3 ]GNS Science, 1 Fairway Drive, Avalon 5010 PO Box 30-368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand
                Article
                10.1093/gji/ggac018
                d5a9ec56-1cf5-4842-adfa-dc5195742432
                © 2022

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article