David A. Rhoades | Geology Reports

USGS2024

Developing, testing, and communicating earthquake forecasts: Current practices and future directions

While deterministically predicting the time and location of earthquakes remains impossible, earthquake forecasting models can provide estimates of the probabilities of earthquakes occurring within some region over time. To enable informed decision-making of civil protection, governmental agencies, or the public, Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems aim to provide authoritative earthquake forecasts based on current earthquake activity in near-real time. Establishing OEF systems involves several nontrivial choices. This review captures the current state of OEF worldwide and analyzes expert recommendations on the development, testing, and communication of earthquake forecasts. An introductory summary of OEF-related research is followed by a description of OEF systems in Italy, New Zealand, and the United States. Combined, these two parts provide an informative and transparent snapshot of today's OEF landscape. In Section 4, we analyze the results of an expert elicitation that was conducted to seek guidance for the establishment of OEF systems. The elicitation identifies consensus and dissent on OEF issues among a non-representative group of 20 international earthquake forecasting experts. While the experts agree that communication products should be developed in collaboration with the forecast user groups, they disagree on whether forecasting models and testing methods should be user-dependent. No recommendations of strict model requirements could be elicited, but benchmark comparisons, prospective testing, reproducibility, and transparency are encouraged. Section 5 gives an outlook on the future of OEF. Besides covering recent research on earthquake forecasting model development and testing, upcoming OEF initiatives are described in the context of the expert elicitation findings.

Reviews of Geophysics↗

USGS2020

Pseudo-prospective evaluation of UCERF3-ETAS forecasts during the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence

The 2019 Ridgecrest sequence provides the first opportunity to evaluate Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast v.3 with epidemic‐type aftershock sequences (UCERF3‐ETAS) in a pseudoprospective sense. For comparison, we include a version of the model without explicit faults more closely mimicking traditional ETAS models (UCERF3‐NoFaults). We evaluate the forecasts with new metrics developed within the Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP). The metrics consider synthetic catalogs simulated by the models rather than synoptic probability maps, thereby relaxing the Poisson assumption of previous CSEP tests. Our approach compares statistics from the synthetic catalogs directly against observations, providing a flexible approach that can account for dependencies and uncertainties encoded in the models. We find that, to the first order, both UCERF3‐ETAS and UCERF3‐NoFaults approximately capture the spatiotemporal evolution of the Ridgecrest sequence, adding to the growing body of evidence that ETAS models can be informative forecasting tools. However, we also find that both models mildly overpredict the seismicity rate, on average, aggregated over the evaluation period. More severe testing indicates the overpredictions occur too often for observations to be statistically indistinguishable from the model. Magnitude tests indicate that the models do not include enough variability in forecasted magnitude‐number distributions to match the data. Spatial tests highlight discrepancies between the forecasts and observations, but the greatest differences between the two models appear when aftershocks occur on modeled UCERF3‐ETAS faults. Therefore, any predictability associated with embedding earthquake triggering on the (modeled) fault network may only crystalize during the presumably rare sequences with aftershocks on these faults. Accounting for uncertainty in the model parameters could improve test results during future experiments.

California↗