3 ms·

I can’t find a free copy of the paper. Here is the abstract for anyone who’s interested: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-abstract/113/6/2461/6

I can’t find a free copy of the paper. Here is the abstract for anyone who’s interested: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-abstract/113/6/2461/627949/Earthquake-Forecasting-Using-Big-Data-and https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-abstract/1... Precision was 64% and recall was 93%. In this context recall is a lot more meaningful (how many real earthquakes were predicted) than precision (how many predictions were earthquakes) as long as there aren’t too many false alarms.

vasco 2y ago
> the AI successfully predicted 14 earthquakes within about 200 miles of where it estimated they would happen and at almost exactly the calculated strength. It missed one earthquake and gave eight false warnings. It gave slightly more than 1 in 3 false alarms unfortunately.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
The low precision is problematic as a high false positive rate will cause local officials and population to ignore the warnings.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  Yes, if it was very low that would be a problem. But it was 63%. So a prediction led to an earthquake more often than not.