PSHA: Does It Deal with What It Is or What We Want It to Be?

In a recent opinion piece Albarello and Paolucci (2023; hereafter, AP23) provide their view as members of the past Seismic Group of the Commissione Grandi Rischi (CGR-SRS) in Italy, which represents the main scientific consultant for Italian Civil Protection, about the difficulty using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) models for building code purposes. Here, we refer to this specific kind of PSHA modeling as National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM). We agree with AP23 that the topic is of great and general importance, and here we aim at contributing to this discussion by offering our perspective on two points that are at the heart of the matter, concluding that AP23 is misguided in how to deal with them. First, we assert that the credibility of an NSHM has to be rooted only in the use of the best available science, which includes a rigorous testing phase with observations, independent from the consequences in terms of risk. (PSHA deals with what it is.) Second, we claim that the difficulties in accepting a new NSHM with some major changes with respect to the previous model are mostly due to too rigid building code procedures that do not account for the epistemic uncertainty in the hazard estimates.