Intermediate-term earthquake prediction.

An earthquake of magnitude M and linear source dimension L(M) is preceded within a few years by certain patterns of seismicity in the magnitude range down to about (M - 3) in an area of linear dimension about 5L-10L. Prediction algorithms based on such patterns may allow one to predict approximately 80% of strong earthquakes with alarms occupying altogether 20-30% of the time-space considered. An area of alarm can be narrowed down to 2L-3L when observations include lower magnitudes, down to about (M - 4). In spite of their limited accuracy, such predictions open a possibility to prevent considerable damage. The following findings may provide for further development of prediction methods: (i) long-range correlations in fault system dynamics and accordingly large size of the areas over which different observed fields could be averaged and analyzed jointly, (ii) specific symptoms of an approaching strong earthquake, (iii) the partial similarity of these symptoms worldwide, (iv) the fact that some of them are not Earth specific: we probably encountered in seismicity the symptoms of instability common for a wide class of nonlinear systems.

Hypothesis testing and earthquake prediction.

Requirements for testing include advance specification of the conditional rate density (probability per unit time, area, and magnitude) or, alternatively, probabilities for specified intervals of time, space, and magnitude. Here I consider testing fully specified hypotheses, with no parameter adjustments or arbitrary decisions allowed during the test period. Because it may take decades to validate prediction methods, it is worthwhile to formulate testable hypotheses carefully in advance. Earthquake prediction generally implies that the probability will be temporarily higher than normal. Such a statement requires knowledge of "normal behavior"--that is, it requires a null hypothesis. Hypotheses can be tested in three ways: (i) by comparing the number of actual earth-quakes to the number predicted, (ii) by comparing the likelihood score of actual earthquakes to the predicted distribution, and (iii) by comparing the likelihood ratio to that of a null hypothesis. The first two tests are purely self-consistency tests, while the third is a direct comparison of two hypotheses. Predictions made without a statement of probability are very difficult to test, and any test must be based on the ratio of earthquakes in and out of the forecast regions.