Sentinel tests whether Earth-system signals, evaluated alongside human intuition data, add measurable information to natural-hazard forecasting beyond what established models already provide.
A genuine signal has to add information a seismologist's own model does not already have.
25 years of data across five fault zones. Pre-registered and filed.
One region, measured against the forecasting models seismologists already use.
Null and exploratory alike, on OSF and GitHub. See results →
Five fault zones · Cascadia · Japan Trench · North Anatolian · Central Chile · Sumatra-Andaman
The long-term goal: a probabilistic platform across all six FEMA hazard categories, built to improve risk awareness and help protect lives.
Methodology, data sources, design principles, evidence hierarchy, risks, and the phase roadmap.
Sentinel's work to date has been pseudo-prospective: chronological walk-forward validation on historical data, with the model never permitted to see the future of its test window. That structure stays. What changes is the baseline it gets compared against.
| Question | Initial approach | Next phase |
|---|---|---|
| Question asked | Does this signal separate pre-event from non-event windows better than chance? | Does this signal improve a forecast a seismologist would already accept? |
| Baseline | A fixed statistical threshold (a seismic-only feature model) | ETAS and smoothed seismicity |
| Metric | AUROC, ranking only | Information gain, calibrated probability |
| Model output | A score over a window | A probability for each grid cell and time bin |
Earthquakes cluster in space and time, so a feature that merely tracks an active period in an active place can look predictive while adding nothing a standard forecasting model did not already know. A benchmark built from ETAS and smoothed seismicity already contains everything the field gets for free. Raising the bar to this standard is what lets a genuine signal be told apart from a pattern the field already expected.
Two initial analyses are complete with writeups in progress: A dedicated Phase 2 null-results paper covering the pre-registered hypotheses and walk-forward evaluation, centered on a fold that returned an initial AUROC of 0.900 before failing to sustain under the pre-registered protocol and being correctly scored null. And a separate methods paper on the superposed-epoch post-event finding, following a novelty search to confirm it hasn't already been described elsewhere. Both will be filed to OSF and GitHub alongside the results already on the For Researchers page.
The earlier ionospheric analysis relied on the best available global maps at the time. Higher-fidelity, receiver-level TEC data is now accessible, offering a genuine upgrade in measurement quality for this phase.
Every stream Sentinel touches sits somewhere on a hierarchy from established science to open research hypothesis. Each tier is scored against its own standard of evidence, and none is allowed to borrow credibility from another.
The strategy adapts at each phase. Null results redirect the plan; confirmed signals accelerate it.
One of four Synexis initiatives, all held to the same standard.