Abstract

In his paper Kossobokov investigates the efficiency of our short-term forecast for two western Pacific regions. Although we agree with the basic results of his evaluation that the forecast statistics is much better than a random guess, we have reservations about his definition of earthquake prediction, some of his tests, and his interpretation of the test results. We distinguish between deterministic earthquake predictions and statistical forecasts. We argue that some techniques used by Kossobokov may not be appropriate for testing our forecasts and discuss other testing methods, based on the likelihood function. We demonstrate that Kossobokov's null hypothesis may be biased, and this bias can influence some of his conclusions. We show that contrary to Kossobokov's statement, our algorithm predicts mainshocks when they are preceded by foreshocks.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.