Assessing annual global M6+ seismicity forecasts

Abstract

We consider a seismicity forecast experiment conducted during the last 4 yr. At the beginning of each year, three models make a 1-yr forecast of the distribution of large earthquakes everywhere on the Earth. The forecasts are generated and the observations are collected in the Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP). We apply CSEP likelihood measures of consistency and comparison to see how well the forecasts match the observations, and we compare results from some intuitive reference models. These results illustrate some undesirable properties of the consistency tests: the tests can be extremely sensitive to only a few earthquakes, and yet insensitive to seemingly obvious flaws—a na ̈ıve hypothesis that large earthquakes are equally likely everywhere is not always rejected. The results also suggest that one should check the assumptions of the so-called T and W comparison tests, and we illustrate some methods to do so. As an extension of model assessment, we explore strategies to combine forecasts, and we discuss the implications for operational earthquake forecasting. Finally, we make suggestions for the next generation of global seismicity forecast experiments.