## 4 Discussion and Conclusions
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: \begin{tabular}{l l} BPD & Bayesian Predictive Distribution \\ CSEP & Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability \\ ETAS & Epidemic Type Aftershock Sequence \\ EVD & Extreme Value Distribution \\ GFT & Goodness of Fit Test \\ GR & Gutenberg-Richter \\ MCMC & Markov Chain Monte Carlo \\ \end{tabular}   
Figure A2: The log-log plot of the earthquake decay rates for: (**a**) the 2002, Mw 7.9 Denali sequence with \(m\geq 3.0\); (**b**) the 2018, Mw 7.9 Kodiak sequence with \(m\geq 3.2\) are presented as open squares. The blue solid lines are the corresponding fit of the OU law, Equation (5), to the aftershock sequences. The obtained parameters from the OU law, Equation (5), with the 95% confidence intervals are reported in the legends. Figure 13: The aftershock sequence and corresponding earthquake magnitude for: (**a**) the 2002, Mw 7.9 Denali sequence with \(m\geq 3.0\); (**b**) the 2018, Mw 7.9 Kodiak sequence with \(m\geq 3.2\). The ETAS model fit, Equation (6), for the target time interval of \([T_{s},\,T_{e}]=[0.06,\,30]\) is plotted as a solid blue line, and the obtained set of parameters are reported with 95% confidence intervals. The OU law fit, Equation (5), is plotted as a black dashed line for comparison. Figure A4: The model parameter estimation during the aftershock sequence of the 2018, Anchorage for all the events with magnitude 2.8 and greater. (**a**) The estimated \(b\)-value, Equation (1), (**b**) the parameters \(\{K,\,c,\,p\}\) of the OU law, Equation (5), and (**c**) the parameters \(\{A,\,c,\,p,\,\alpha\}\) of the ETAS model, Equation (6). The error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals during the target time intervals, \(\{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,14,21,30\}\), days after the mainshock. Figure 16: The distribution of each parameter and the matrix plot of the pairs of the ETAS parameters computed using the MCMC sampling for the 2018, Mw 7.1 Anchorage sequence with \(m\geq 2.8\). Figure A7: The probabilities to have the largest expected aftershocks to be larger than \(m_{\rm ex}\geq 5.0\), 6.0, 7.0 using the BPD, Equation (12), during a constant target time interval of \([T_{s},\,T_{e}]=[0.06,\,2]\) days and for the varying target time intervals. **(a)** The 3 November 2002, Mw 7.9 Denali sequence with \(m\geq 3.0\). **(b)** The 23 January 2018, Mw 7.9 Kodiak sequence with \(m\geq 3.2\). **(c)** The 30 November 2018, Mw 7.1 Anchorage sequence with \(m\geq 2.8\). Figure 8: The comparison of the probabilities to have the largest expected aftershock during the target time interval of \([T_{s},\,T_{e}]=[0.06,\,2]\) days for the three sequences: (**a**) 3 November 2002, Mw 7.9 Denali (**b**) 23 January 2018, Mw 7.9 Kodiak (**c**) 30 November 2018, Mw 7.1 Anchorage. The blue triangles are computed using the BPD, Equation (12), with an earthquake decay rate given by the ETAS model, Equation (6). The purple squares are computed using BPD, Equation (12), with an earthquake decay rate given by OU law, Equation (5). The green circles give probabilities computed using the EVD, Equation (11). The aftershock magnitudes are modelled using Equation (3). Figure A9: The number of forecasted and observed aftershocks in the forecasting time interval \(\Delta T=[1,\,2,\,5,\,7,\,10,\,14]\) days for **(a)** The 3 November 2002, Mw 7.9 Denali for \(m\geq 3.0\); **(b)** The 23 January 2018, Mw 7.9 Kodiak for \(m\geq 3.2\); **(c)** The 30 November 2018, Mw 7.1 Anchorage for \(m\geq 2.8\) by using the constant target time interval \([T_{s},\,T_{e}]=[0.06,\,2]\) days. The red squares show the average number of forecasted earthquakes using the ETAS model, Equation (6), and the black triangles illustrate the average number of forecasted earthquakes using OU law, Equation (5). The shading bands represent 95% confidence intervals. The blue circles represents the observed number of earthquakes in the forecast time interval.