4.5 Article

The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability: Achievements and Priorities

Journal

SEISMOLOGICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 89, Issue 4, Pages 1305-1313

Publisher

SEISMOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1785/0220180053

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. W. M. Keck Foundation
  2. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) under National Science Foundation (NSF) [EAR-1033462]
  3. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [G12AC20038]
  4. New Zealand Strategic Science Investment Fund
  5. Global Earthquake Model Foundation
  6. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) [URF/1/2160-01-01]
  7. Directorate For Geosciences
  8. Division Of Earth Sciences [1600087] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) is a global cyberinfrastructure for prospective evaluations of earthquake forecast models and prediction algorithms. CSEP's goals are to improve our understanding of earthquake predictability, advance forecasting model development, test key scientific hypotheses and their predictive power, and improve seismic hazard assessments. Since its inception in California in 2007, the global CSEP collaboration has been conducting forecast experiments in a variety of tectonic settings and at a global scale and now operates four testing centers on four continents to automatically and objectively evaluate models against prospective data. These experiments have provided a multitude of results that are informing operational earthquake forecasting systems and seismic hazard models, and they have provided new and, sometimes, surprising insights into the predictability of earthquakes and spurned model improvements. CSEP has also conducted pilot studies to evaluate ground-motion and hazard models. Here, we report on selected achievements from a decade of CSEP, and we present our priorities for future activities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available