Experiment in prediction by RTP algorithm
An overview, December 28, 2006

 ` # ` `Region/` `target ` `earthquakes` `Period of ` `alarm` `Prediction ` `was put on ` `record on` `Target earthquake ` `Prediction` `outcome` `Probability of a ` `random success` ` ` `Probability of a ` `random success` `with R1=2.5R` `1` `Japan` `MJMA>=7.0` `Mar 27, 2003 - ` `-  Jan 27, 2004` `July 1, 2003` `Sep 25, 2003, ` `Mw=8.3` `within the alarm` `Correct ` `0.25` `(0.34)` `2` `California` `MANSS>=6.4` `May 5,  2003 -` `-  Feb 27, 2004 ` `June 24, 2003` `Dec 22, 2004, ` `M=6.5 ` `within the alarm` `Correct ` `0.05` `(0.07)` ` ` `3` `Southern ` `California` `MANSS>=6.4` `Oct 29, 2003 -` `-  Sep 05, 2004` `May 12, 2004` ` ` `False alarm` `0.08` `(0.10)` `4` `Honshu,` `Japan` `Mw>=7.2` `Feb 8, 2004 -` `-  Nov 8, 2004` `June 1, 2004` `Sep 5, 2004, ` `Mw=7.4 ` `outside the region;  ` `127 km outside alarm` `Near miss` `(correct with ` `R1=2.5R)` `0.07` `(0.11)` `5` `Northern ` `Dinarides` `Mw>=5.5` `Feb 29, 2004 -` `-  Nov 29, 2004` `May 12, 2004` `Jul 12, 2004, ` `Mw=5.2, ML=5.7` `within the alarm` `Near miss` `(correct for  ` `ML>=5.5 )` `0.07` `estimate was made ` `for ML>=5.5` `(0.08)` `estimate ` `for ML>=5.5` `6,` `6a` `6b` `6c` `Southern ` `California` `MANSS>=6.4` `Nov 14, 2004 -` `- Dec 24, 2006` `Nov 16, 2004,` `Oct 5, 2005` `Mar 17, 2006` `Mar 30, 2006` ` ` `False alarm ` `0.19` `0.30` `7` `Oregon ` `off coast` `MANSS>=6.4` `Nov 16, 2004 -` `-  Aug 16, 2005` `Jan 29, 2005` `Jun 15, 2005, ` `Mw=7.2` `60 km outside alarm` `Near miss` `(correct with ` `R1=2.5R)` `0.01` `0.03` `8,` `8a` `Central Italy ` `M>=5.5` `Jan 1, 2005` `- Oct 1, 2005` `- Feb 6, 2006 ` `Jan 29, 2005,` `Oct 1, 2005` ` ` `False alarm` `0.09 ` `0.10 ` `9` `Honshu, ` `Japan` `Mw>=7.2` `June 14, 2005 -` `-  Mar 14, 2006` `Oct 1, 2005 ` `Aug 16, 2005, ` `Mw=7.2 ` `within the alarm ` `Due to technical ` `delay of data, the alarm ` `was determined after the  ` `earthquake Aug 16, 2005` ` ` `0.05` `0.14` `10,` `10a` `Hokkaido-S. Kurils` `Mw>=7.2` `May 11, 2006 -` `- Feb 11, 2007` `- June 30, 2007` `May 22, 2006` `Oct 9, 2006` `Nov 15, 2006` `Mw=8.3 ` `within the alarm` `Correct` `0.25` `0.30`

These results lead to the following conclusions.

1. The binary score is: three successes, six false alarms, one failure to predict. This score includes neither current alarms nor the target earthquake near coast of Honshu, Japan, August 16, 2005, Mw=7.2. This earthquake is not admissible for scoring due to the technical delay of data which made impossible advance determination of alarm. This statistics is not yet sufficient for evaluating significance of RTP predictions.

2. Regarding further development of RTP algorithm: Note, that among six false alarms are three near misses: in cases ## 4 and 7 (see the Table) a target earthquake occurred near the alarm area; in one more case (#3) a rare strong earthquake has occurred, but its magnitude was by 0.3 units below the target. In cases ## 4 and 7, we would obtain correct predictions after increasing by factor 2.5 parameter R of the algorithm. The area of alarm would then expand and cover the nearly missed earthquakes. At the same time, the probabilities of random success would remain quite acceptable (compare two last columns of the Table; values obtained a posteriori are in brackets). Motivated by that retrospective observation we launched on October 1, 2005 a parallel test of the algorithm changing as indicated above only the R value. We will call the original test A, and the new test - B.

Fig. 1. RTP predictions in California, Western Nevada and Oregon.

Notations. Contours outline the area of alarms. Their color shows the outcome of prediction: Green - correct (confirmed) alarm; blue - false alarm; light green - "near miss". Circles show epicenters forming a precursory chain.  Stars show strong earthquakes targeted for prediction, within or near alarm.  Predictions, from North to South, correspond to ## 7, 2, 3, 6 in the Table. Fig. 2. RTP predictions in and near Japan.

See notations in Figure 1. Panels on top left, top right, bottom left, and bottom right correspond to lines ## 1, 4, 9 and 10 in the Table. An area surrounding the target epicenter in the top right panel (thin contour) was absent in the original prediction. The corresponding epicenter forming the precursory chain is located outside the formal region boundaries. The total shape of the alarm area is obtained in case of absence of this limitation.    Fig. 3. RTP prediction in Central Apennines, Alps, Northern Dinarides and Po Valley.

See notations in Figure 1. Predictions, from North to South, correspond to ## 5 and 8 in the Table. Last updated: 2007-01-03 14:10:03