{"data":{"sci_version": "1.0", "schema": "https://corpus.bntrg.co.uk/sci/1.0/sci.schema.json", "id": "pmid:40866376", "kind": "science-record", "revision": 2, "content_hash": "sha256:bb4b1f4343a7667d821ab9ee97059b31f7c76216cb2ecef3f623333e0fc2b4ac", "created_at": "2026-11-01T20:30:59Z", "updated_at": "2026-11-01T21:35:42Z", "generator": {"name": "corpus-assay-engine", "run_id": "reading-sci-2026-11-01"}, "paper": {"state": "complete", "title": "A benchmark database of ten years of prospective next-day earthquake forecasts in California from the Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability.", "doi": "10.1038/s41597-025-05766-3", "pmid": "40866376", "authors": ["Francesco Serafini", "José A Bayona", "Fabio Silva", "William Savran", "Samuel Stockman", "Philip J Maechling", "Maximilian J Werner"], "journal": "Scientific data", "year": 2025, "abstract": "Short-term seismicity forecasting models are increasingly developed and deployed for Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) by government agencies and research institutions worldwide. To ensure their reliability, these forecasts must be rigorously tested against future observations in a fully prospective manner, allowing researchers to quantify model performance and build confidence in their predictive capabilities. The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) operated twenty-five fully automated M ≥ 3.95 seismicity models developed by nine research groups from Italy, California, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Japan. Between August 2007 and August 2018, these models produced over 50,000 daily forecasts for California, each specifying expected earthquake rates on a predefined space-magnitude grid over 24-hour periods. In this article, we describe the forecast database, summarize the underlying models, and demonstrate how to access and evaluate the forecasts using the open-source pyCSEP Python toolkit. The forecast data are publicly available through Zenodo, and the pyCSEP software is openly available on GitHub. This unprecedented dataset of fully prospective earthquake forecasts provides a critical benchmark for developing and testing next-generation OEF models, fostering advancements in earthquake predictability research.", "claims": [{"id": "claim-method", "statement": "Here, we provide functions to calculate the Kagan information score27 for each day, and to visualise the temporal evolution of the absolute and cumulative differences (Fig. 6).", "kind": "methodological", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:40866376", "locator": "sections[14] \"Comparison with other models\" paragraph 2", "quote": "Here, we provide functions to calculate the Kagan information score27 for each day, and to visualise the temporal evolution of the absolute and cumulative differences (Fig. 6)."}], "state": "complete"}, {"id": "claim-data-access", "statement": "All forecast HDF5 files along with the code and tutorial are openly accessible under the open access Creative Commons license. They can be downloaded from Zenodo53 (https://zenodo.org/records/15076187) where we provide a single zip folder with the forecasts, the code, and the tutorial. Alternatively, the files can be downloaded separately from the CSEP website (https://cseptesting.org/grid-based-forecasts/). The h5py47 Python package version 3.12.1 was used to create the HDF5 files from the original forecasts files stored in the testing center. The code and tutorial rely heavily on the pyCSEP4–6 toolkit to handle earthquakes forecasts and catalogues which is openly accessible on GitHub (https://github.com/SCECcode/pycsep). Additional pyCSEP tutorials can be found on the pyCSEP website (https://docs.cseptesting.org/tutorials/), while material from previous pyCSEP workshops is available on GitHub (https://github.com/cseptesting). The CSEP community have also developed a library to create reproducibility packages50 called floatCSEP5,51 also available on GitHub (https://github.com/cseptesting/floatcsep). The package can be used to create docker containers storing the code and data needed to reproduce the results reported in a publication. In this way, the interested reader only needs to execute the container to exactly reproduce all the figures in a manuscript. Examples are the reproducibility packages provided by Savran et al.4 and Graham et al.5 (respectively available at https://zenodo.org/records/6626265 and https://github.com/KennyGraham1/pyCSEP_followup_paper). We encourage the reader to use the database and code we provide in combination with floatCSEP to increase the reproducibility of the results.", "kind": "methodological", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:40866376", "locator": "sections[17] \"Code availability\" paragraph 2", "quote": "All forecast HDF5 files along with the code and tutorial are openly accessible under the open access Creative Commons license. They can be downloaded from Zenodo53 (https://zenodo.org/records/15076187) where we provide a single zip folder with the forecasts, the code, and the tutorial. Alternatively, the files can be downloaded separately from the CSEP website (https://cseptesting.org/grid-based-forecasts/). The h5py47 Python package version 3.12.1 was used to create the HDF5 files from the original forecasts files stored in the testing center. The code and tutorial rely heavily on the pyCSEP4–6 toolkit to handle earthquakes forecasts and catalogues which is openly accessible on GitHub (https://github.com/SCECcode/pycsep). Additional pyCSEP tutorials can be found on the pyCSEP website (https://docs.cseptesting.org/tutorials/), while material from previous pyCSEP workshops is available on GitHub (https://github.com/cseptesting). The CSEP community have also developed a library to create reproducibility packages50 called floatCSEP5,51 also available on GitHub (https://github.com/cseptesting/floatcsep). The package can be used to create docker containers storing the code and data needed to reproduce the results reported in a publication. In this way, the interested reader only needs to execute the container to exactly reproduce all the figures in a manuscript. Examples are the reproducibility packages provided by Savran et al.4 and Graham et al.5 (respectively available at https://zenodo.org/records/6626265 and https://github.com/KennyGraham1/pyCSEP_followup_paper). We encourage the reader to use the database and code we provide in combination with floatCSEP to increase the reproducibility of the results."}], "state": "complete"}], "gaps": []}, "experiment": {"state": "partial", "objective": "", "steps": [{"id": "read_published_estimate", "order": 1, "name": "Read the published estimate from the source", "kind": "other", "state": "complete", "blocked_on": null, "description": "The claim, method and evidence span published with the source article.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": ["source:pmid:40866376"], "outputs": ["the published estimate and its evidence"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}, {"id": "obtain_source_data", "order": 2, "name": "Obtain the source data from the named repository", "kind": "data-preparation", "state": "blocked", "blocked_on": "data:accession_absent", "description": "The GEO series accession resolves and its sample accessions are listed. This lane did not download the dataset or read its licence.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": [], "outputs": ["the source data with its repository provenance"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}, {"id": "run_analysis", "order": 3, "name": "Run the published analysis", "kind": "analysis", "state": "complete", "blocked_on": null, "description": "Apply the paper's statistical method to the resolved series and compare the result with the published target.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": [], "outputs": ["the replicated result and its comparison"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}], "materials": [], "instruments": [], "reagents": [], "conditions": {}, "gaps": ["step:obtain_source_data blocked on data:accession_absent"]}, "data": {"state": "partial", "assets": [{"id": "source:pmid:40866376", "role": "manuscript", "format": "xml", "media_type": "application/xml", "uri": "https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05766-3", "sha256": "sha256:2154ef8d823d693ad24d87e50f313f45597f06c75be81f136c468e777186b7e4", "bytes": 52137, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "10.1038/s41597-025-05766-3", "version": null, "note": "Full article fetched from PMC; the checksum covers the rendered section body, not the original XML bytes.", "structure": {"pmcid": "PMC12391313", "source": "europe_pmc_fulltext", "coverage": "whole_body", "text_hash_scope": "rendered_section_body"}}], "gaps": []}, "analysis": {"state": "partial", "methods": [{"id": "method-1", "family": null, "specific": null, "label": "Kagan information score", "dsl_operations": [], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": null, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": [], "evidence": {"score": 1.0, "band": "verbatim", "quote": "Here, we provide functions to calculate the Kagan information score27 for each day, and to visualise the temporal evolution of the absolute and cumulative differences (Fig. 6)."}}], "targets": [], "gaps": ["method.reader_named_unmapped"]}, "capability": {"state": "complete", "requirements": [{"capability_id": "capability:computational_analysis", "label": "Computational analysis platform", "assay_families": ["meta_analysis", "machine_learning", "survival_analysis", "statistical_regression", "pca", "molecular_docking", "network_analysis", "differential_expression", "gwas"], "availability_state": "owned", "tier_unlocked": "R1", "candidate": "Automated Assays Laravel application and simulated adapters"}], "gaps": []}, "readiness": {"state": "blocked", "tier": "R4", "blocking_axis": "data", "blocked_on": "data:accession_absent", "axes": {"method": {"tier": "R4", "expressible": false, "required_operations": [], "missing_operations": [], "basis": "The reader quoted the method the paper names (Kagan information score), but the corpus's method extractor could not map it onto a DSL operation, so the method is published but not expressible."}, "capability": {"tier": "R1", "capability_id": "capability:computational_analysis", "availability_state": "owned", "basis": "The computational analysis is owned. The physical bench the paper used is not, so a physical validation cannot be run here."}, "data": {"tier": "R4", "reachable": false, "accessions": [], "resolved_accessions": [], "statements": ["All forecast HDF5 files along with the code and tutorial are openly accessible under the open access Creative Commons license. They can be downloaded from Zenodo53 (https://zenodo.org/records/15076187) where we provide a single zip folder with the forecasts, the code, and the tutorial. Alternatively, the files can be downloaded separately from the CSEP website (https://cseptesting.org/grid-based-forecasts/). The h5py47 Python package version 3.12.1 was used to create the HDF5 files from the original forecasts files stored in the testing center. The code and tutorial rely heavily on the pyCSEP4–6 toolkit to handle earthquakes forecasts and catalogues which is openly accessible on GitHub (https://github.com/SCECcode/pycsep). Additional pyCSEP tutorials can be found on the pyCSEP website (https://docs.cseptesting.org/tutorials/), while material from previous pyCSEP workshops is available on GitHub (https://github.com/cseptesting). The CSEP community have also developed a library to create reproducibility packages50 called floatCSEP5,51 also available on GitHub (https://github.com/cseptesting/floatcsep). The package can be used to create docker containers storing the code and data needed to reproduce the results reported in a publication. In this way, the interested reader only needs to execute the container to exactly reproduce all the figures in a manuscript. Examples are the reproducibility packages provided by Savran et al.4 and Graham et al.5 (respectively available at https://zenodo.org/records/6626265 and https://github.com/KennyGraham1/pyCSEP_followup_paper). We encourage the reader to use the database and code we provide in combination with floatCSEP to increase the reproducibility of the results."], "basis": "The paper names no accession to its source data, so the data has to come from the authors."}}, "can_run": {"dsl_operations": [], "assets": ["source:pmid:40866376"], "steps": ["run_analysis"]}, "must_build": {"dsl_operations": [], "converters": [], "readers": [], "capabilities": [], "data_gaps": ["data:geo:None"]}, "gaps": ["data:accession_absent"]}, "review": {"state": "partial", "machine_critique": {"kind": "extraction_review", "reader": {"model": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "provider": "minimax", "provider_family": "minimax", "read_at": "2026-11-01T20:00:38Z", "independence": "single_reader"}, "evidence_check": {"method": "verbatim", "availability": "verbatim"}, "calls": 5, "usage": {"prompt_tokens": 13482, "completion_tokens": 2005, "cached_tokens": 256}}, "human_critique": null, "stages": [{"id": "extraction", "state": "complete", "reader": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "provider": "minimax"}], "gaps": ["review.independent_reader", "review.machine_critique", "review.human_critique"]}, "execution": {"state": "absent", "status": "not_run", "mode": null, "runs": [], "gaps": ["execution.not_run"]}, "provenance": {"entities": [{"id": "pmid:40866376", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:40866376"}, {"id": "source:pmid:40866376", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 40866376 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:None", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO None"}], "activities": [{"id": "activity-reading-sci-2026-11-01", "type": "classification", "used": [{"id": "pmid:40866376", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:40866376"}, {"id": "source:pmid:40866376", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 40866376 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:None", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO None"}], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}, {"id": "activity-read-40866376", "type": "extraction", "used": ["source:pmid:40866376"], "agent": "agent:minimax-reader"}, {"id": "activity-resolve-None", "type": "accession_resolution", "used": ["data:geo:None"], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}], "agents": [{"id": "agent:corpus-assay-engine", "type": "software", "label": "Corpus assay engine"}, {"id": "agent:minimax-reader", "type": "software", "label": "MiniMax literature reader"}], "source_run_id": "reading-sci-2026-11-01", "dsl_catalogue_fingerprint": "343fb30756ba6ec3", "capability_table_fingerprint": "2cb3e42f047d2ecf", "snapshot_id": "ba34b49490d9bfaf"}, "lineage": {"parent_id": "pmid:40866376", "parent_hash": "sha256:fadc5ca55a6f38e4280a46ec96973f0fd7a3d42a3d475db8554df02cb6d98fc8", "fork_of": null, "generation": 1}, "gaps": ["execution.not_run", "method.reader_named_unmapped", "review.human_critique", "review.independent_reader", "review.machine_critique", "step:obtain_source_data blocked on data:accession_absent"]},"meta":{"api_version":"v1","automation_ladder_snapshot":"ba34b49490d9bfaf","automation_ladder_caveats":["Method extraction is rule-based and has no hand-judged accuracy sample. Evidence bands order textual support; method agreement intervals are null (n=0), never probabilities. Work-type validation does not validate methods.","Operation coverage describes only explicitly named methods. It does not prove a complete protocol, compatible parameters, successful compilation or re-execution. Unrecognised or ambiguous methods require review.","Data reachability is a textual accession or public-data statement. No dataset was downloaded or checked for access, completeness or licence.","Capabilities are planning states seeded from the dated equipment register. No bench ownership, completed quote or partner booking is inferred. Procurement counts are dependencies, not guaranteed replications or financial returns.","Tier and blocker counts are deterministic assessments of this corpus, not measured agreement. R3 is reserved for procurement; unresolved methods and data require human work (R4). The most restrictive axis wins, with capability, method, data as tie-breaks. Resolving one blocker can leave another at the same tier."],"engine":"corpus_engine","engine_provider":"rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f","run_id":"run-20261023T122449232913","source":"esearch","source_detail":"PubMed mirror biomed_pubmed (read-only)","run_status":"complete","imported_at":"2026-11-03T20:16:52+00:00","generated_at":"2026-11-04T00:37:58+00:00","total_papers":5529,"total_assays_tracked":29,"automatable_assay_families":6,"validated":true,"caveat_count":9,"blocking_caveats":5,"caveats":[{"code":"low_evidence_dominates","basis":["4,152 of 5,529 classifications (75.1%) matched no cue evidence and sit at the 0.05 floor.","34 of 230 data_only calls (14.8%) are in that group."],"claim":"Work type and confidence bands","gloss":"Most records were classified from their title and framing alone, with assay-cue coverage at zero.","detail":"Most classifications in this run rest on no matched evidence at all. At the evidence floor the work type comes from title framing and a fixed prior, not from anything in the paper, so the published work-type split should be read as a rough triage signal rather than a measured distribution. The impact is bounded but not removed: since 2026-10-23 the engine excludes floor-confidence records from the shortlist entirely and publishes them separately as held out, so the recommendation is unaffected even though the census is.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"runtime_is_modelled","basis":["Runtime is summed from published per-assay hour figures. Timing awaits the first executed replication.","4,407 of 5,529 records (79.7%) model to 0.00 hours because no assay was matched, which the ranking then reads as \"cheapest\".","0 of 10 shortlisted records carry a 0.00-hour estimate."],"claim":"Estimated replication runtime","gloss":"The hour figures are estimates built from assay mentions; timing awaits the first executed replication.","detail":"The hour figures are a cost model derived from the bench steps implied by each matched assay family. The first executed replication will supply measured timing. Records without an assay match currently receive a zero-hour model value.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"signal_score_without_citations","basis":["5,529 of 5,529 records (100.0%) have no citation count from the source metadata."],"claim":"Signal score","gloss":"The signal score uses publication-type weight because the mirror supplied zero citation counts.","detail":"The source supplied no citation counts for any record in this run, so the signal score is publication-type weight only. The citation term of the ranking is inert here, and the shortlist is ordered by publication type alone.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"abstract_absent","basis":["1,667 of 5,529 records (30.2%) carry no abstract at all."],"claim":"Evidence base for classification","gloss":"Some records contain a title and publication type only, defining the available classification evidence.","detail":"Where the mirror contains a title and publication types only, those fields define the classifier evidence. A methods section is required for fuller automated and human review.","status":"unverified","severity":"medium"},{"code":"classifier_agreement_measured","basis":["Published two-way decision agreement 77.7% (310 of 399 decidable records) from a stratified hand-check of 438 real records.","Three-way diagnostic agreement 73.9% (288 of 390 decidable records).","data_only agreement 75.2% (100 of 133 decidable).","48 record(s) could not be decided from title and abstract and were excluded from the denominator.","56 analysis-only records were published under another work type, so the data_only share is not an upper bound."],"claim":"Published automatable decision","gloss":"This figure has been checked against a human reading the same papers, so we know how often it is right.","detail":"The published automatable / not-automatable distribution comes from a rule-based classifier that was hand-checked against a fixed ground-truth definition. The agreement rates below are measured, not estimated. The three-way work type remains a diagnostic and is reported separately.","status":"measured","severity":"high"},{"code":"llm_comparison_not_measured","basis":["rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f produced 5,529 of 5,529 classifications.","Measured on 438 labelled records; these are RULE-BASED figures, not model results."],"claim":"Rule-based versus LLM agreement","gloss":"Every number here is the rule engine’s own. Model comparison begins when a working API credential is connected and measured.","detail":"The published two-way decision agreed with a human reading on 310 of 399 decidable records (77.7%). The diagnostic three-way label agreed on 288 of 390 decidable records (73.9%). Every percentage in this run belongs to the rule engine. Model comparison begins when a working API credential is connected and measured.","status":"not_measured","severity":"high"},{"code":"confidence_is_a_band","basis":["low band: 135 of 210 hand-judged records were correct, 64.3% [57.6, 70.5] (95% CI).","medium band: 80 of 104 hand-judged records were correct, 76.9% [68.0, 84.0] (95% CI).","high band: 73 of 76 hand-judged records were correct, 96.0% [89.0, 98.7] (95% CI).","A fitted calibrated probability was built, measured and withdrawn: it overstated held-out accuracy and reorders nothing."],"claim":"Confidence band and evidence score","gloss":"The confidence band carries a measured accuracy interval; 0.85 represents relative rank strength.","detail":"Confidence on this run is a BAND plus its measured accuracy interval. The number stored alongside each record is a monotone evidence score that orders records; 0.85 represents relative rank strength. A fitted probability was withdrawn after it overstated held-out accuracy. Threshold on the band.","status":"measured","severity":"medium"},{"code":"three_way_split_is_diagnostic","basis":["The corpus is published at the two-way decision: automatable or not-automatable. The three-way split (data_only / physical / mixed) is published as a diagnostic with its measured reliability attached, not as a claim, because the rule engine's `mixed` call cannot be defended.","The engine called 22 record(s) mixed; 10 matched the human judgement (45.5%, 95% CI 26.9-65.3).","The engine's `mixed` call is right on 10/22 hand-judged records (45.5%, 95% CI 26.9%-65.3%); a constant `physical` guess scores 36.4%.","The engine's `mixed` call does not reliably beat a constant `physical` guess on the hand-judged records it labels mixed.","The sign of that difference flips between two independent samples, so the three-way refinement is not demonstrably informative.","The mixed stratum contributes a disproportionate share of errors relative to its size.","At title-only depth the physical/mixed split collapses: a title says that work was done, not whether it was also analysed."],"claim":"The published decision is two-way","gloss":"The three-way split is shown for diagnosis only. The published split is two ways.","detail":"Count and filter the corpus on automatable versus not-automatable. The data_only / physical / mixed split remains an internal engine diagnostic because the mixed call has lower measured reliability.","status":"measured","severity":"medium"},{"code":"automatable_flag_unproven","basis":["6 of 29 assay families are marked automatable now: meta_analysis, machine_learning, survival_analysis, pca, molecular_docking, differential_expression.","The flag is a rule over assay family and work type; validation begins with the first executed replication.","It inherits the 75.2% data_only agreement rate, because the flag requires the record to be analysis-only."],"claim":"Automatable now","gloss":"This flag marks assay families the rules classify as data-only. The first executed replication will validate it.","detail":"This flag marks families the rules consider replicable from data alone. Its validity depends on the analysis-only classification and will be measured through an executed replication.","status":"unverified","severity":"medium"}],"confidence_policy":"band_with_measured_interval","confidence_contract":{"policy":"band_with_measured_interval","summary":"Confidence is reported as a BAND with a measured accuracy interval. The raw evidence score supplies monotone ordering. A fitted point estimate was withdrawn after it overstated held-out accuracy.","evidence_score":"A monotone evidence score in [0,1] built from cue mass, axis separation and text coverage. Use it to order records. Interpret 0.85 as relative rank strength.","confidence_band":"low | medium | high. Consumers threshold on this value.","band_accuracy":"Wilson 95% interval on the measured agreement of the hand-judged records in this band.","calibrated_confidence":"WITHDRAWN. Reintroduction requires held-out evidence demonstrating reliable estimates across every bin."},"band_accuracy":{"low":{"n":210,"low":0.576,"band":"low","high":0.7046,"agree":135,"accuracy":0.6429},"high":{"n":76,"low":0.8903,"band":"high","high":0.9865,"agree":73,"accuracy":0.9605},"medium":{"n":104,"low":0.6795,"band":"medium","high":0.8397,"agree":80,"accuracy":0.7692}},"provider":"rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f","lexicon_id":"99e1195c7d6f","contract_published_at":"2026-10-23T12:25:29.022232+00:00","confidence_is_band":true,"confidence_is_probability":false,"decision_taxonomy":"two_way","decidable_fraction_two_way":0.8854,"decidable_fraction_two_way_low":0.8565,"decidable_fraction_two_way_high":0.9143,"decidable_fraction_three_way":0.8586,"decidable_fraction_three_way_low":0.8287,"decidable_fraction_three_way_high":0.8884,"decidable_population":5529,"validation_sample_size":438,"three_way_cost_fraction":0.0268,"three_way_cost_records":148,"decision_counts":{"automatable":230,"not_automatable":5299},"decision_split":{"automatable":{"count":230,"share":0.04159884246699222},"not_automatable":{"count":5299,"share":0.9584011575330078}},"diagnostic_work_type_counts":{"mixed":24,"physical":5275,"data_only":230}}}