# Pre-Registered Predictions — Out-of-Sample CR–Seismic Validation **Written:** 2026-04-22T00:44:30Z **Git SHA:** unknown **OOS window:** 2020-01-01 → 2025-04-29 **Surrogates:** 100,000 phase-randomisation This file was created BEFORE loading or analysing any out-of-sample data. All thresholds are pre-specified. Results are recorded in `results/out_of_sample_report.md`. --- ## In-sample context (1976–2019) From scripts 02–05 (Homola replication + stress tests): | Quantity | Value | |---|---| | Dominant peak lag (raw) | −525 days (half solar cycle) | | Dominant peak \|r\| (raw) | 0.469 | | r(τ=+15 d) raw | +0.310 (solar-cycle confounded) | | r(τ=+15 d) HP-detrended | +0.041 | | In-sample p_global (IAAFT, raw) | 1.000 (NOT significant after surrogate correction) | | After detrending | p < 0.001 at lags ≠ +15 d | The in-sample dominant peak is at −525 days, not at the claimed +15 days. r(+15 d) ≈ 0.04 after solar-cycle removal — this is the baseline expectation for the out-of-sample window. --- ## Pre-registered predictions ### P1 — Sign and location of claimed correlation peak **Prediction:** If Homola et al.'s mechanism is real, the OOS window should show a cross-correlation peak at τ ≈ +15 days (cosmic rays leading seismic activity by 15 days) with **positive sign** (positive CR deviation → elevated seismic Mw-sum 15 days later). **Operationalisation:** - PASS if r(τ=+15 d) > 0 AND the lag of maximum |r(τ)| for τ ∈ [5, 30] days is within ±3 days of +15 days. - FAIL otherwise. **Baseline from in-sample HP-detrended:** r(+15 d) ≈ +0.041 **Monte Carlo tolerance (at 100,000 surrogates):** ±0.0063 ### P2 — Significance and solar-phase trend **Prediction:** The OOS window (2020–2025) covers Solar Cycle 25 rising phase, approaching the predicted 2025–2027 solar maximum. Homola's model predicts the CR–seismic correlation should be in a RISING phase of its ~11-year envelope (the last in-sample envelope peak was near 2014). **Operationalisation:** - PASS if: (a) p_global (phase-surrogate) < 0.05, AND (b) r(τ=+15 d) in rolling 18-month windows shows a non-negative trend (slope ≥ 0) across the OOS period. - PARTIAL if (a) holds but (b) does not. - FAIL if p_global ≥ 0.05. ### P3 — Rolling-window lag stability **Prediction:** The lag at which r(τ) is maximised for τ ∈ [5, 30] days should be stable to within ±3 days across 18-month rolling windows of the OOS data. **Operationalisation:** - PASS if std(τ*) ≤ 5 days across rolling sub-windows where a peak in [5, 30] days exists. - FAIL if std(τ*) > 10 days or peaks migrate outside [5, 30] days in majority of windows. ### P4 — Geographic non-localisation **Prediction:** Per Homola et al.'s own result, the correlation should be GLOBAL (disappear in location-specific analyses). After BH FDR correction at q=0.05, the number of significant (station, cell) pairs should NOT significantly exceed the expected false-discovery count. **Operationalisation:** - PASS if n_significant ≤ 2 × expected_FP (BH q=0.05). - FAIL if n_significant > 2 × expected_FP AND a clear geographic cluster emerges. --- ## Falsification criteria (pre-specified) ### F1 — No peak in claimed window **Criterion:** No lag τ ∈ [5, 30] days has |r(τ)| exceeding the 95th percentile of the phase-surrogate distribution. - F1 TRIGGERED (Homola falsified) if the criterion holds across the full OOS window AND across all 18-month sub-windows. ### F2 — Peak lag drift **Criterion:** The optimal lag τ* for τ ∈ [5, 30] days drifts by more than ±10 days between any two adjacent 18-month rolling windows. - F2 TRIGGERED if drift > 10 days in majority of window pairs. ### F3 — Unexpected geographic localisation **Criterion:** The OOS correlation is STRONGER in a specific geographic region than globally — the inverse of Homola's own finding. - F3 TRIGGERED if n_significant > 3 × expected_FP AND a geographic cluster with min p < BH-threshold is identified. - This would be informative negative evidence: a real local effect, but NOT the global cosmic-ray mechanism Homola proposed. --- ## Analysis decisions (pre-specified) | Parameter | Value | Reason | |---|---|---| | Bin size | 5 days | Matches Homola et al. | | Lag range | ±200 days | Covers claimed +15 d with context; shorter window makes ±1000 d infeasible | | Surrogates | 100,000 | GPU-accelerated; MC tolerance ±0.0063 | | Surrogate method | Phase randomisation | Preserves power spectrum; faster than IAAFT | | Detrending | Linear + sunspot OLS | HP/STL inappropriate for <1 solar cycle window | | Min stations/bin | 3 | Matches Homola et al. | | Min magnitude | 4.0 | Matches Homola et al. | | Rolling window | 18 months | Minimum for meaningful correlation at 5-day bins | | Rolling step | 3 months | Smooth time evolution | | FDR | BH q=0.05 | Standard | --- *This file is part of a pre-registered analysis. Results are reported regardless of direction in `results/out_of_sample_report.md`.*