Forecasting ability of a multi-renewal seismicity model for Italy

TL;DR

This study evaluates a multi-renewal seismicity model for Italy, analyzing its statistical estimation and predictive performance, finding limited but zone-specific effectiveness with high false alarm rates, and discussing implications for earthquake prediction testing.

Contribution

It provides a detailed analysis of a specific IET-based earthquake prediction model for Italy, including its estimation, zone-specific predictive ability, and comparison with standard testing approaches.

Findings

Effective prediction in 4 out of 34 zones with high seismicity.

Zone-independent alarm strategy optimizes HK skill score.

High false alarm rate per event in predictive zones.

Abstract

The inter-event time, IET, is sometimes used as a basis for prediction of large earthquakes. It is the case when theoretical analysis of prediction is possible. Quite recently a specific IET- model was suggested for dynamic probabilistic prediction of M > 5.5 events in Italy . In this study we analyze both some aspects of the statistical estimation of the model and its predictive ability. We find that more or less effective prediction is possible within 4 out of 34 seismotectonic zones where seismicity rate or clustering of events is relatively high. We show that, in the framework of the model, one can suggest a simple zone independent strategy, which practically optimizes the relative number of nonaccidental successes, or the Hanssen-Kuiper, HK, skill score. This quasi-optimal strategy declares alarm in a zone for the first 2.67 years just after the occurrence of each large event in the zone. The optimal HK skill score values are: 26% for the 3 most active zones and 2-10% for the 26 least active zones. However, the number of false alarm time intervals per one event in each of the zones is unusually high: 0.7 and 0.8-0.95 respectively. Both these theoretical estimations are important because any prospective testing of the model is unrealistic in most of the zones during a reasonable time. This particular analysis requires a discussion of the following issues of general interest: a specific approach to the analysis of predictions vs. the standard CSEP testing approach; prediction vs. forecasting; HK skill score vs. probability gain; the total forecast error diagram and connected false alarms.