1. Meeting Objectives Discuss proposed CISM structure and activities
Focus on development of RSQSim as a forecasting tool
Review status of RSQSim platform development
Physical modeling
Computational issues
Agree on first-year RSQSim objectives
Statistical models to guide empirical UCERF
End-to-end physics-based forecasting
Organize RSQSim-related activities
Working group structure
Software access issues
Year-1 development schedule

2. Collaboratory for Interseismic Simulation and Modeling (CISM)
Project Goal
Develop a collaboratory where interdisciplinary teams can create system- specific models for time-dependent earthquake forecasting that are comprehensive, physics-based, data-calibrated, and prospectively testable
Physics-based
simulations
Ground
Motions
Ground Motion
Simulator
extended
ERF
CyberShake
synthetic
seismograms
Earthquake Rupture
Simulator
RSQsim
Intensity
Measures
Ground-Motion
Prediction Eqn
Earthquake Rupture
Forecast
Empirical
models
UCERF3
NGA GMPEs
response
spectra
Comprehensive forecast

3. Collaboratory for Interseismic Simulation and Modeling (CISM) (funded for period by a $2M grant from W.M. Keck Foundation)
Develop a collaboratory where interdisciplinary teams can create system- specific models for time-dependent earthquake forecasting that are comprehensive, physics-based, data calibrated, and prospectively testable
Develop rupture simulators and ground-motion simulators using California as the primary test bed
Combine time-dependent earthquake rupture forecasting models with ground motion prediction models to forecast exceedance probabilities
Test models in CSEP and by other means (e.g., using virtual earthquakes)
Develop a high-performance, workflow-oriented cyberinfrastructure that facilitates model verification, simulation, validation, and data assimilation
Provide researchers with advanced tools for integrating heterogeneous sets of scientific software modules into testable forecasting models
Maintain a high-performance computing environment in which system-level models can be rapidly executed and analyzed
Initiate WMKF Fellowships in Earthquake Forecasting Research
Sponsor CISM participation of early-career scientists

4. Collaboratory for Interseismic Simulation and Modeling (CISM)
Cyberinfrastructure Objective
Implement a high-performance, workflow-oriented cyberinfrastructure that supports research on comprehensive physics-based forecasting models by facilitating earthquake simulation and data assimilation

5. CISM Structural Elements – Year 1
RSQSim Platform
CyberShake Platform
RSQS1
RSQS2
RSQSn .
RSQSim
CyberShake
UCERF-TD
UCERF-TI
UCERF-ETAS
UCERF3
NGA GMPEs
OpenSHA Platform

6. CISM Validation Datasets – Year 1
Earthquake Rupture Forecasting
Ground Motion Prediction
RSQS1
RSQS2
RSQSn .
RSQSim
CyberShake
Retrospective testing:
Historical seismograms
Fragile geologic features
Retrospective testing:
Historical seismic catalogs
Paleoseismic model catalogs
Prospective testing:
Intensity measurements
ShakeMap observations
Virtual earthquakes
UCERF-TD
UCERF-TI
UCERF-ETAS
UCERF3
NGA GMPEs
Prospective testing:
CSEP data sets, Calif. and elsewhere

7. CISM ERF Objectives – Year 1
Develop formats for exchanging data across the ERF  GMP  EHM computational pathway
Develop RSQSim workflows
Other simulators?
Generate RSQSim catalogs for UCERF3 fault system
Derive empirical probability distributions to condition UCERF forecasting variables
Prototype physics-based ERF using RSQSim
Couple UCERF3 to the CyberShake (LA region)
Demonstrate UCERF3-ETAS  CyberShake as OEF prototype
Submit a short-term ERF for CSEP testing
UCERF3-ETAS?

8. Collaboratory for Interseismic Simulation and Modeling (CISM)
Key Personnel and Responsibilities
SCEC Directors, T. Jordan (USC) and G. Beroza (Stanford) will lead the project
SCEC Executive Science Director for Special Projects will manage science
SCEC AD for Administration, J. McRaney (USC), will manage administration
SCEC IT Architect, P. Maechling (USC), will oversee collaboratory development, supported by professional software engineers based at USC
Geophysicists J. Dieterich and K. Richards-Dinger (UC Riverside) will lead the development of physics-based rupture simulators
Computer scientist Y. Cui (SDSC) will coordinate HPC code development
CSEP lead scientist, M. Werner (U. Bristol), will coordinate CSEP activities with CISM
Chair of the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, N. Field (USGS, Golden), will coordinate CISM activities with the USGS program in operational earthquake forecasting

9. CISM Working Groups – Year 1
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities
Chair: Ned Field
IT liaison: Kevin Milner
RSQSim Working Group
Chair(s): Jim Dieterich and/or Keith Richards-Dinger
A-Team
Chair: Dave Jackson
CyberShake Working Group
Chair: Christine Goulet
IT liaison: Scott Callaghan
CSEP
Chair: Max Werner
IT liaison: Masha Liukis

10. End

11. CISM Working Groups – Year 1
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities
Chair: Ned Field
IT liaison: Kevin Milner
RSQSim Working Group
Chair(s): Jim Dieterich and/or Keith Richards-Dinger
A-Team
Chair: Dave Jackson
CyberShake Working Group
Chair: Christine Goulet
IT liaison: Scott Callaghan
CSEP
Chair: Max Werner
IT liaison: Masha Liukis

12. CISM ERF Objectives – Year 1
Develop formats for exchanging data across the ERF  GMP  EHM computational pathway
Develop RSQSim workflows
Other simulators?
Generate RSQSim catalogs for UCERF3 fault system
Derive empirical probability distributions to condition UCERF forecasting variables
Prototype physics-based ERF using RSQSim
Couple UCERF3 to the CyberShake (LA region)
Demonstrate UCERF3-ETAS  CyberShake as OEF prototype
Submit a short-term ERF for CSEP testing
UCERF3-ETAS?

13. Notes on 2016 potential action items
Develop standard formats for the various input
Provide kinematic models for exploring pipeline to GMs and to evaluate slip speed issue.
Develop suite of test cases for evaluating parameter sensitivities. Jacqui ran a lot of those, but do that for various cases/fault geometries. Formalize test cases and develop tools to compute statistics on differences.
Comparisons between RS off-fault and UCERF3-ETAS. Could be done for a few cases taken from the RS catalog. Also could compare similar ruptures in RS and see how similar or different they are.
Produce 50 catalogs after issues with MRIs fixed (representation of epistemic uncertainty).
Define computational needs (Jim and Keith) so that SCEC can provide the best resources (cluster, BlueWaters, etc.).
Going from discrete distributions to OEF. One option could be to develop efficient code for annealing from catalog. Explore other options?