Forecast models in statistical seismology are commonly evaluated with log-likelihood (LL) scores of the full distribution P(n) of earthquake numbers, yet fat tails and out-of-range observations (realized counts exceeding all simulations) can bias model ranking. We develop a tail-aware evaluation framework that estimates cell-wise P(n) using adaptive Gaussian kernel density estimation and tests three strategies for handling out-of-range counts (power law extrapolation, fixed minimum probability, and exclusion). Using the AoyuX platform, we perform an ∼25-yr (2000–2023) month-by-month pseudoprospective forecast experiment in the China Seismic Experimental Site (CSES), comparing epidemic-type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model with a homogeneous background (ETASμ) with a spatially heterogeneous variant (ETASμ(x,y)) across six spatial resolutions and five magnitude thresholds; each forecast window is supported by 100,000 simulations. Empirical frequency distributions of counts per cell are well described by power laws P(n)∼n−(1+a) with exponents a ≈ 1.02 ± 0.23 across all settings. Using previous theoretical results, this provides a robust estimate of the productivity exponent, α=0.83±0.19 using a b value equal to 0.85 ± 0.002, providing a valuable quantification of this key parameter in aftershock modeling. Model ranking is sensitive to how the tail of the full distribution P(n) of earthquake counts is treated: power law extrapolation is both theoretically justified and empirically the most robust, whereas the apparent superiority of the fixed-probability approach in a few coarse low-magnitude cases can be attributed to noise. Cumulative information gain (CIG) shows that ETASμ(x,y) outperforms ETASμ in data-rich configurations (e.g., Mt=3.0 to 3.5 and whole-region tests), with positive mean information gain spatially concentrated in regions where M ≥ 5 earthquakes occurred during the study period, whereas in data-poor settings, stochastic fluctuations dominate. A coefficient-of-variation analysis of per-window LL differences distinguishes genuine upward trends in CIG from noise-dominated fluctuations. By aligning a fat tail–aware scoring methodology with an open testing platform, our work advances fair and statistically grounded assessment of earthquake forecasting models for the CSES and beyond.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: