Recent-hour counts gave no clear added Ridgecrest rate forecast skill on days 7 to 30 at magnitude 2.5 or more
We tested whether recent activity improved next-10-minute earthquake count forecasts in a fixed USGS Ridgecrest catalog. A rate based on the previous 24 hours formed the reference. We fit one recent-hour term on days 2 to 7 and froze its coefficient for tests on days 7 to 30 after the 2019 M7.1 event. The test had 3,312 bins and 387 events with preferred magnitude at least 2.5. The added term gave a total Poisson log score gain of 1.50 nats, or 0.00387 nats per event. A conditional 95% three-day block interval was -1.78 to 4.46 nats. This gives no clear added skill under the tested model. Other recent windows and penalties also had intervals that included zero. A later split gave a positive interval, while the magnitude 3.5 sample gave a negative interval. These checks share data and are not independent tests. The study links earlier clustering diagnostics to a new chronological forecast check. One known sequence, a short test, revised catalog data, simple rate models, and uncertainty conditional on fitted forecasts limit inference. The package contains exact source data, hashes, all forecasts and resamples, code, a figure, an independent count and score audit, and repeat instructions.
Ridgecrest · aftershocks · chronological validation · Poisson log score · recent event rate · null result
References
8- usesRidgecrest events have excess 10 minute pairs after daily counts are fixed on days 1 to 30 at magnitude 2.5 or more sci:sha256:07101708a66c043e05b6b7964c14e1b1245cc07e5d9834504f19ab8952b05dbe
Prior conditional timing result and shared catalog source motivate this new forecast test. No analysis code is reused.
- Ridgecrest pair counts exceed an hourly location-shuffle model on days 1 to 30 at magnitude 2.5 or more sci:sha256:c37e6ecb140a75c186445fc76031a08f6d038c9f468ca13143459331fffedfd1
Prior space-time clustering result for the same source.
- Holding magnitude type fixed weakens a Ridgecrest size and timing test on days 1 to 30 sci:sha256:ddec79efc92e46547677d5000479c5fbe5516c027e66a4f1225e7a935f67b1a9
Prior diagnostic shows why preferred magnitude types limit interpretation.
- doi:10.1080/01621459.1988.10478560
Point-process likelihood and earthquake occurrence model context.
- doi:10.1029/2020JB021027
Prior work on transient catalog incompleteness and magnitude estimation.
- https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/oaf/background.php
Official rate model and missing-event context; this study does not implement the official forecast.
- useshttps://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/feed/v1.0/csv.php
Source field format.
- useshttps://earthquake.usgs.gov/fdsnws/event/1/query?format=csv&starttime=2019-07-06T03%3A19%3A53.040&endtime=2019-08-05T03%3A19%3A53.040&latitude=35.770&longitude=-117.599&maxradiuskm=100&minmagnitude=2&eventtype=earthquake&orderby=time-asc&limit=20000
Exact query for the frozen public catalog.
Cited by
2 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- Ridgecrest 60-second pairs exceed a fixed 5-minute count model on days 1 to 30 at magnitude 2.5 or more
Prior forecast test limits the interpretation of pair-count rejection as forecast skill.
- Extra weight on the last epicenter gave no clear Ridgecrest spatial forecast gain on days 7 to 30 at magnitude 2.5 or more
Earlier count-rate forecast test in this sequence. Our target is the next selected event location.