Nowcasting Earthquakes by Visualizing the Earthquake Cycle with Machine Learning: A Comparison of Two Methods

The earthquake cycle of stress accumulation and release is associated with the elastic rebound hypothesis proposed by H.F. Reid following the M7.9 San Francisco earthquake of 1906. However, observing details of the actual values of time- and space-dependent tectonic stress is not possible at the pre...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surveys in geophysics 2022-04, Vol.43 (2), p.483-501
Hauptverfasser: Rundle, John B., Donnellan, Andrea, Fox, Geoffrey, Crutchfield, James P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 501
container_issue 2
container_start_page 483
container_title Surveys in geophysics
container_volume 43
creator Rundle, John B.
Donnellan, Andrea
Fox, Geoffrey
Crutchfield, James P.
description The earthquake cycle of stress accumulation and release is associated with the elastic rebound hypothesis proposed by H.F. Reid following the M7.9 San Francisco earthquake of 1906. However, observing details of the actual values of time- and space-dependent tectonic stress is not possible at the present time. In two previous papers, we have proposed methods to image the earthquake cycle in California by means of proxy variables. These variables are based on correlations in patterns of small earthquakes that occur nearly continuously in time. The purpose of the present paper is to compare these two methods by evaluating their information content using decision thresholds and Receiver Operating Characteristic methods together with Shannon information entropy. Using seismic data from 1940 to present in California, we find that both methods provide nearly equivalent information on the rise and fall of earthquake correlations associated with major earthquakes in the region. We conclude that the resulting timeseries can be viewed as proxies for the cycle of stress accumulation and release associated with major tectonic activity. Article Highlights The current state of the earthquake cycle of tectonic stress accumulation and release is unobservable We review two methods for visualizing the current state of the earthquake cycle from correlation in small earthquake patterns Machine learning techniques indicate that signals in a correlation time series corresponding to future large earthquakes can be detected
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10712-021-09655-3
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_osti_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1976675</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2676398998</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a413t-9265bfb8246e178296778a77764ec51b6413b9709c0fc7f6eb5389b206bc53f03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtPwzAQhC0EEqXwBzhZcA74UdsxtyoqD6mFS-FqOcZpUtq4tR1V5dfjEiQ4cVqt5pvR7gBwidENRkjcBowEJhkiOEOSM5bRIzDATNC0Mn4MBghzmVEi81NwFsISIZRzSQdg_ex2RofYtAs40T7W205_2ADLPXxrQqdXzedBirX9I8Nib1YW7ppYw5k2ddNaOLXatwm9g2NYuPVG-ya4FroKzncOzmys3Xs4ByeVXgV78TOH4PV-Mi8es-nLw1MxnmZ6hGnMJOGsrMqcjLjFIieSC5FrIQQfWcNwyRNVSoGkQZURFbclo7ksCeKlYbRCdAiu-lyXPlPBNNGa2ri2tSYqLAXngiXouoc23m07G6Jaus636S5FuOBU5lLmiSI9ZbwLwdtKbXyz1n6vMFKH7lXfvUrdq-_uFU0m2ptCgtuF9b_R_7i-APMphjI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2676398998</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Nowcasting Earthquakes by Visualizing the Earthquake Cycle with Machine Learning: A Comparison of Two Methods</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Rundle, John B. ; Donnellan, Andrea ; Fox, Geoffrey ; Crutchfield, James P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rundle, John B. ; Donnellan, Andrea ; Fox, Geoffrey ; Crutchfield, James P. ; Univ. of California, Davis, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><description>The earthquake cycle of stress accumulation and release is associated with the elastic rebound hypothesis proposed by H.F. Reid following the M7.9 San Francisco earthquake of 1906. However, observing details of the actual values of time- and space-dependent tectonic stress is not possible at the present time. In two previous papers, we have proposed methods to image the earthquake cycle in California by means of proxy variables. These variables are based on correlations in patterns of small earthquakes that occur nearly continuously in time. The purpose of the present paper is to compare these two methods by evaluating their information content using decision thresholds and Receiver Operating Characteristic methods together with Shannon information entropy. Using seismic data from 1940 to present in California, we find that both methods provide nearly equivalent information on the rise and fall of earthquake correlations associated with major earthquakes in the region. We conclude that the resulting timeseries can be viewed as proxies for the cycle of stress accumulation and release associated with major tectonic activity. Article Highlights The current state of the earthquake cycle of tectonic stress accumulation and release is unobservable We review two methods for visualizing the current state of the earthquake cycle from correlation in small earthquake patterns Machine learning techniques indicate that signals in a correlation time series corresponding to future large earthquakes can be detected</description><identifier>ISSN: 0169-3298</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0956</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10712-021-09655-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Accumulation ; Astronomy ; Correlation ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Earth Sciences ; Earthquakes ; Entropy ; Entropy (Information theory) ; Geochemistry &amp; Geophysics ; Geophysics/Geodesy ; Learning algorithms ; Machine learning ; Methods ; Nowcasting ; Observations and Techniques ; Seismic activity ; Seismic data ; Seismological data ; Tectonics</subject><ispartof>Surveys in geophysics, 2022-04, Vol.43 (2), p.483-501</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a413t-9265bfb8246e178296778a77764ec51b6413b9709c0fc7f6eb5389b206bc53f03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a413t-9265bfb8246e178296778a77764ec51b6413b9709c0fc7f6eb5389b206bc53f03</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1966-4144 ; 0000000219664144</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10712-021-09655-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10712-021-09655-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/1976675$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rundle, John B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donnellan, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fox, Geoffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crutchfield, James P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Univ. of California, Davis, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><title>Nowcasting Earthquakes by Visualizing the Earthquake Cycle with Machine Learning: A Comparison of Two Methods</title><title>Surveys in geophysics</title><addtitle>Surv Geophys</addtitle><description>The earthquake cycle of stress accumulation and release is associated with the elastic rebound hypothesis proposed by H.F. Reid following the M7.9 San Francisco earthquake of 1906. However, observing details of the actual values of time- and space-dependent tectonic stress is not possible at the present time. In two previous papers, we have proposed methods to image the earthquake cycle in California by means of proxy variables. These variables are based on correlations in patterns of small earthquakes that occur nearly continuously in time. The purpose of the present paper is to compare these two methods by evaluating their information content using decision thresholds and Receiver Operating Characteristic methods together with Shannon information entropy. Using seismic data from 1940 to present in California, we find that both methods provide nearly equivalent information on the rise and fall of earthquake correlations associated with major earthquakes in the region. We conclude that the resulting timeseries can be viewed as proxies for the cycle of stress accumulation and release associated with major tectonic activity. Article Highlights The current state of the earthquake cycle of tectonic stress accumulation and release is unobservable We review two methods for visualizing the current state of the earthquake cycle from correlation in small earthquake patterns Machine learning techniques indicate that signals in a correlation time series corresponding to future large earthquakes can be detected</description><subject>Accumulation</subject><subject>Astronomy</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Earthquakes</subject><subject>Entropy</subject><subject>Entropy (Information theory)</subject><subject>Geochemistry &amp; Geophysics</subject><subject>Geophysics/Geodesy</subject><subject>Learning algorithms</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Nowcasting</subject><subject>Observations and Techniques</subject><subject>Seismic activity</subject><subject>Seismic data</subject><subject>Seismological data</subject><subject>Tectonics</subject><issn>0169-3298</issn><issn>1573-0956</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtPwzAQhC0EEqXwBzhZcA74UdsxtyoqD6mFS-FqOcZpUtq4tR1V5dfjEiQ4cVqt5pvR7gBwidENRkjcBowEJhkiOEOSM5bRIzDATNC0Mn4MBghzmVEi81NwFsISIZRzSQdg_ex2RofYtAs40T7W205_2ADLPXxrQqdXzedBirX9I8Nib1YW7ppYw5k2ddNaOLXatwm9g2NYuPVG-ya4FroKzncOzmys3Xs4ByeVXgV78TOH4PV-Mi8es-nLw1MxnmZ6hGnMJOGsrMqcjLjFIieSC5FrIQQfWcNwyRNVSoGkQZURFbclo7ksCeKlYbRCdAiu-lyXPlPBNNGa2ri2tSYqLAXngiXouoc23m07G6Jaus636S5FuOBU5lLmiSI9ZbwLwdtKbXyz1n6vMFKH7lXfvUrdq-_uFU0m2ptCgtuF9b_R_7i-APMphjI</recordid><startdate>20220401</startdate><enddate>20220401</enddate><creator>Rundle, John B.</creator><creator>Donnellan, Andrea</creator><creator>Fox, Geoffrey</creator><creator>Crutchfield, James P.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>Springer</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1966-4144</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000219664144</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220401</creationdate><title>Nowcasting Earthquakes by Visualizing the Earthquake Cycle with Machine Learning: A Comparison of Two Methods</title><author>Rundle, John B. ; Donnellan, Andrea ; Fox, Geoffrey ; Crutchfield, James P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a413t-9265bfb8246e178296778a77764ec51b6413b9709c0fc7f6eb5389b206bc53f03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Accumulation</topic><topic>Astronomy</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Earthquakes</topic><topic>Entropy</topic><topic>Entropy (Information theory)</topic><topic>Geochemistry &amp; Geophysics</topic><topic>Geophysics/Geodesy</topic><topic>Learning algorithms</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Nowcasting</topic><topic>Observations and Techniques</topic><topic>Seismic activity</topic><topic>Seismic data</topic><topic>Seismological data</topic><topic>Tectonics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rundle, John B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donnellan, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fox, Geoffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crutchfield, James P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Univ. of California, Davis, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>Surveys in geophysics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rundle, John B.</au><au>Donnellan, Andrea</au><au>Fox, Geoffrey</au><au>Crutchfield, James P.</au><aucorp>Univ. of California, Davis, CA (United States)</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Nowcasting Earthquakes by Visualizing the Earthquake Cycle with Machine Learning: A Comparison of Two Methods</atitle><jtitle>Surveys in geophysics</jtitle><stitle>Surv Geophys</stitle><date>2022-04-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>483</spage><epage>501</epage><pages>483-501</pages><issn>0169-3298</issn><eissn>1573-0956</eissn><abstract>The earthquake cycle of stress accumulation and release is associated with the elastic rebound hypothesis proposed by H.F. Reid following the M7.9 San Francisco earthquake of 1906. However, observing details of the actual values of time- and space-dependent tectonic stress is not possible at the present time. In two previous papers, we have proposed methods to image the earthquake cycle in California by means of proxy variables. These variables are based on correlations in patterns of small earthquakes that occur nearly continuously in time. The purpose of the present paper is to compare these two methods by evaluating their information content using decision thresholds and Receiver Operating Characteristic methods together with Shannon information entropy. Using seismic data from 1940 to present in California, we find that both methods provide nearly equivalent information on the rise and fall of earthquake correlations associated with major earthquakes in the region. We conclude that the resulting timeseries can be viewed as proxies for the cycle of stress accumulation and release associated with major tectonic activity. Article Highlights The current state of the earthquake cycle of tectonic stress accumulation and release is unobservable We review two methods for visualizing the current state of the earthquake cycle from correlation in small earthquake patterns Machine learning techniques indicate that signals in a correlation time series corresponding to future large earthquakes can be detected</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10712-021-09655-3</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1966-4144</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000219664144</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0169-3298
ispartof Surveys in geophysics, 2022-04, Vol.43 (2), p.483-501
issn 0169-3298
1573-0956
language eng
recordid cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1976675
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Accumulation
Astronomy
Correlation
Earth and Environmental Science
Earth Sciences
Earthquakes
Entropy
Entropy (Information theory)
Geochemistry & Geophysics
Geophysics/Geodesy
Learning algorithms
Machine learning
Methods
Nowcasting
Observations and Techniques
Seismic activity
Seismic data
Seismological data
Tectonics
title Nowcasting Earthquakes by Visualizing the Earthquake Cycle with Machine Learning: A Comparison of Two Methods
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T19%3A41%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_osti_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Nowcasting%20Earthquakes%20by%20Visualizing%20the%20Earthquake%20Cycle%20with%20Machine%20Learning:%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Two%20Methods&rft.jtitle=Surveys%20in%20geophysics&rft.au=Rundle,%20John%20B.&rft.aucorp=Univ.%20of%20California,%20Davis,%20CA%20(United%20States)&rft.date=2022-04-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=483&rft.epage=501&rft.pages=483-501&rft.issn=0169-3298&rft.eissn=1573-0956&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10712-021-09655-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_osti_%3E2676398998%3C/proquest_osti_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2676398998&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true