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.

Implications of fault constitutive properties for earthquake prediction.

The rate- and state-dependent constitutive formulation for fault slip characterizes an exceptional variety of materials over a wide range of sliding conditions. This formulation provides a unified representation of diverse sliding phenomena including slip weakening over a characteristic sliding distance Dc, apparent fracture energy at a rupture front, time-dependent healing after rapid slip, and various other transient and slip rate effects. Laboratory observations and theoretical models both indicate that earthquake nucleation is accompanied by long intervals of accelerating slip. Strains from the nucleation process on buried faults generally could not be detected if laboratory values of Dc apply to faults in nature. However, scaling of Dc is presently an open question and the possibility exists that measurable premonitory creep may precede some earthquakes. Earthquake activity is modeled as a sequence of earthquake nucleation events. In this model, earthquake clustering arises from sensitivity of nucleation times to the stress changes induced by prior earthquakes. The model gives the characteristic Omori aftershock decay law and assigns physical interpretation to aftershock parameters. The seismicity formulation predicts large changes of earthquake probabilities result from stress changes. Two mechanisms for foreshocks are proposed that describe observed frequency of occurrence of foreshock-mainshock pairs by time and magnitude. With the first mechanism, foreshocks represent a manifestation of earthquake clustering in which the stress change at the time of the foreshock increases the probability of earthquakes at all magnitudes including the eventual mainshock. With the second model, accelerating fault slip on the mainshock nucleation zone triggers foreshocks.