Advertisement

Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 176, Issue 11, pp 4649–4660 | Cite as

Earthquake Networks as a Tool for Seismicity Investigation: a Review

  • D. ChorozoglouEmail author
  • A. Iliopoulos
  • C. Kourouklas
  • O. Mangira
  • E. Papadimitriou
Article
  • 153 Downloads

Abstract

Seismic hazard assessment is one of the main targets of seismological research, aiming to contribute to reducing the catastrophic consequences of strong earthquakes (e.g., \( M \ge 6.0 \)). From the early stage of seismological research, both purely seismological and statistical methods were adopted for seismic hazard assessment. An approach towards this target was attempted by means of network theory, aiming to provide insight into the complex physical mechanisms that cause earthquakes and whether the occurrence of strong earthquakes can be predicted to some extent. Application of network theory in different areas of the world with intense seismic activity, such as Japan, California, Italy, Greece, Iran, and Chile, has yielded promising results that have negligible probability of being obtained by purely random guessing.

Keywords

Nodes Connections Network measures Randomized networks Correlation Time series Main shocks 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support by the European Union and Greece (Partnership Agreement for the Development Framework 2014-2020) for the project “Development and application of time-dependent stochastic models in selected regions of Greece for assessing the seismic hazard” is gratefully acknowledged (MIS5004504). Geophysics Department Contribution 923.

References

  1. Abe, S., Pasten, D., Munoz, V., & Suzuki, N. (2011). Universalities of earthquake-network characteristics. Chinese Science Bulletin,56(34), 3697–3701.Google Scholar
  2. Abe, S., & Suzuki, N. (2004a). Small-world structure of earthquake network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications,337, 357–362.Google Scholar
  3. Abe, S., & Suzuki, N. (2004b). Scale-free network of earthquakes. Europhysics Letters,65, 581–586.Google Scholar
  4. Abe, S., & Suzuki, N. (2006). Complex-network description of seismicity. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics,13, 145–150.Google Scholar
  5. Abe, S., & Suzuki, N. (2009). Main shocks and evolution of complex earthquake networks. Brazilian Journal of Physics,39(2A), 428–430.Google Scholar
  6. Abe, S., & Suzuki, N. (2012). Universal law for waiting internal time in seismicity and its implication to earthquake network. Europhysics Letters,97(4), 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/97/49002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Albert, R., & Barabasi, A. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics,74, 47–97.Google Scholar
  8. Altınok, Y. (1991). Evaluation of earthquake risk in West Anatolia by semi-Markov model. Jeofizik,5, 135–140.Google Scholar
  9. Altınok, Y., & Kolçak, D. (1999). An application of the semi-Markov model for earthquake occurrences in North Anatolia, Turkey. Journal of the Balkan Geophysical Society (BGS),2, 90–99.Google Scholar
  10. Aydin, N., Duzgun, H., Wenzel, F., & Heinimann, H. (2017). Integration of stress testing with graph theory to assess the resilience of urban road networks under seismic hazards. Natural Hazards,91, 37–68.Google Scholar
  11. Baek, W., Lim, G., Kim, K., Chang, K., Jung, J., Seo, S., et al. (2011). Robustness of the topological properties of a seismic network. Journal of the Korean Physical Society,58(6), 1712–1714.Google Scholar
  12. Baiesi, M., & Paczuski, M. (2004). Scale-free networks of earthquakes and aftershocks. Physical Review,69(6), 066106.Google Scholar
  13. Baiesi, M., & Paczuski, M. (2005). Complex networks of earthquakes and aftershocks. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics,12, 1–11.Google Scholar
  14. Bak, P., Christensen, K., Danon, L., & Scanlon, T. (2002). Unified scaling law for earthquakes. Physical Review Letters,88, 178501.Google Scholar
  15. Bak, P., & Tang, C. (1989). Earthquakes as a self-organized critical phenomenon. Journal of Geophysical Research,94(B11), 635–637.Google Scholar
  16. Barabasi, A., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science,286, 509–512.Google Scholar
  17. Belkacem, F., Zekri, N., & Terbeche, M. (2015). Statistical characterization of a small-world network applied to forest fires. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics,128, 27–37.Google Scholar
  18. Bialonski, S., Horstmann, M., & Lehnertz, K. (2010). From brain to earth and climate systems: Small-world interaction networks or not? American Institute of Physics Chaos,20, 013134.Google Scholar
  19. Billio, M., Getmansky, M., Lo, A., & Pelizzon, L. (2012). Econometric measures of connectedness and systemic risk in the finance and insurance sectors. Journal of Financial Economics,104(3), 535–559.Google Scholar
  20. Bullmore, E., Fornito, A., & Zalesky, A. (2016). Fundamentals of brain network analysis (p. 494). Cambridge: Academic. (eBook ISBN: 9780124081185).Google Scholar
  21. Carbone, V., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Harabaglia, P., & Guerra, I. (2005). Unified scaling law for waiting times between seismic events. Europhysics Letters,71(6), 1036–1042.Google Scholar
  22. Chorozoglou, D., & Kugiumtzis, D. (2018). Testing the randomness of correlation networks from multivariate time series. Journal of Complex Networks.  https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cny020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chorozoglou, D., Kugiumtzis, D., & Papadimitriou, E. (2017). Application of complex network theory to the recent foreshock sequences of Methoni (2008) and Kefalonia (2014) in Greece. Acta Geophysica,65(3), 543–553.Google Scholar
  24. Chorozoglou, D., Kugiumtzis, D., & Papadimitriou, E. (2018). Testing the structure of earthquake networks from multivariate time series of successive main shocks in Greece. Physica A Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications,499C, 28–39.Google Scholar
  25. Cornell, C. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,58, 1583–1606.Google Scholar
  26. Corral, A. (2004). Long-term clustering, scaling, and universality in the temporal occurrence of earthquakes. Physical Review Letters,92, 108501.Google Scholar
  27. Daskalaki, E., Spiliotis, K., Siettos, C., Minadakis, G., & Papadopoulos, G. (2016). Foreshocks and short-term hazard assessment of large earthquakes using complex networks: the case of the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics,23, 241–256.Google Scholar
  28. Del Genio, C., Kim, H., Toroczkai, Z., & Bassler, K. (2010). Efficient and exact sampling of simple graphs with given arbitrary degree sequence. PLoS One,5(4), e10012.Google Scholar
  29. Donges, J., Zou, Y., Marwan, N., & Kurths, J. (2009). The backbone of the climate network export. EPL Europhysics Letters,87, 48007.Google Scholar
  30. Emmert-Streib, F., & Dehmer, M. (2010). Influence of the time scale on the construction of financial networks. PLoS One,5(9), e12884.Google Scholar
  31. Erdős, P., & Rényi, A. (1959). On random graphs. Pub. Math. (Debrecen),6, 290–297.Google Scholar
  32. Fiedor, P. (2014). Networks in financial markets based on the mutual information rate. Physical Review E,89, 052801.Google Scholar
  33. Girvan, M., & Newman, M. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,99, 7821–7826.Google Scholar
  34. Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. (1944). Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,34, 185–188.Google Scholar
  35. Heiberger, R. (2014). Stock network stability in times of crisis. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications,393, 376.Google Scholar
  36. Helmstetter, A., Kagan, Y., & Jackson, D. (2007). High-resolution time-independent grid-based forecast for m > 5 earthquakes in California. Seismological Research Letters,78(1), 78–86.Google Scholar
  37. Herrera, C., Nava, F., & Lomnitz, C. (2006). Time-dependent earthquake hazard evaluation in seismogenic systems using mixed Markov chains: an application to the Japan area. Earth Planets Space,58, 973–979.Google Scholar
  38. Hill, D., Reasenberg, P., Michael, A., Arabaz, W., Beroza, G., Brumbaugh, D., et al. (1993). Seismicity remotely triggered by the magnitude 7.3 Landers, California earthquake Science,260, 1617–1623.Google Scholar
  39. Hlinka, J., Hartman, D., & Palus, M. (2012). Small-world topology of functional connectivity in randomly connected dynamical systems, Chaos: an Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Sciences,22(3), 033107.Google Scholar
  40. Holliday, J., Chen, C., Tiampo, K., Rundle, J., Turcotte, D., & Donnellan, A. (2007). A RELM earthquake forecast based on pattern informatics. Seismological Research Letters,78(1), 87–93.Google Scholar
  41. Horvath, S. (2011). Weighted network analysis, applications in genomics and systems biology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Janer, C., Biton, D., & Batac, R. (2017). Incorporating space, time, and magnitude measures in a network characterization of earthquake events. Acta Geophysica,65, 1153–1166.Google Scholar
  43. Jeong, H., Mason, S., Barabasi, A., & Oltvai, Z. (2001). Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature,411, 41.Google Scholar
  44. Jimenez, A., Tiampo, K., & Posadas, A. (2008). Small world in a seismic network: the California case. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics,15, 389–395.Google Scholar
  45. Kagan, Y., & Jackson, D. (1994). Long-term probabilistic forecasting of earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research,99, 13685–13700.Google Scholar
  46. Kanamori, H., & Anderson, L. (1975). Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,65(5), 1073–1095.Google Scholar
  47. Kugiumtzis, D. (2002). Statistically transformed autoregressive process and surrogate data test for nonlinearity. Physical Review E,66, 025201.Google Scholar
  48. Kugiumtzis, D., & Kimiskidis, V. (2015). Direct causal networks for the study of transcranial magnetic stimulation effects on focal epileptiform discharges. International Journal of Neural Systems,25, 1550006.Google Scholar
  49. Kugiumtzis, D., Koutlis, C., Tsimpiris, A., & Kimiskidis, V. (2017). Dynamics of epileptiform discharges induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation in genetic generalized epilepsy. International Journal of Neural Systems,27(7), 1750037.Google Scholar
  50. Lennartz, S., Livina, V., Bunde, A., & Havlin, S. (2008). Long-term memory in earthquakes and the distribution of interoccurrence times. Europhysics Letters,81, 69001.Google Scholar
  51. León, D., Valdivia, J., & Bucheli, V. (2018). Modeling of Colombian seismicity as small-world networks. Seismological Research Letters,89(5), 1807–1816.Google Scholar
  52. Lippiello, E., Arcangelis, L., & Godano, C. (2008). Influence of time and space correlations on earthquake magnitude. Physical Review Letters,100, 038501.Google Scholar
  53. Livina, V., Havlin, S., & Bunde, A. (2005). Memory in the occurrence of earthquakes. Physical Review Letters,95, 208501.Google Scholar
  54. Lomnitz, C. (1974). Global tectonics and earthquake risk. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  55. Maslov, S., & Sneppen, K. (2002). Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks. Science,296, 910–913.Google Scholar
  56. Milgram, S. (1967). The small-world problem. Psychology Today,1(1), 61–67.Google Scholar
  57. Molloy, M., & Reed, B. (1995). A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence. Random Structures and Algorithms,6(2–3), 161–180.Google Scholar
  58. Nava, F., Herrera, C., Frez, J., & Glowacka, E. (2005). Seismic hazard evaluation using Markov chains. Application to the Japan area. Pure and Applied Geophysics,162, 1347–1366.Google Scholar
  59. Newman, M. (2010). Networks, an introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Omori, F. (1894). On the aftershocks of earthquakes. Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo,7, 111–120.Google Scholar
  61. Opsahl, T., Colizza, V., Panzarasa, P., & Ramasco, J. (2008). Prominence and control: The weighted rich-club effect. Physical Review Letters,101, 168702.Google Scholar
  62. Palus, M., Hartman, D., Hlinka, J., & Vejmelka, M. (2011). Discerning connectivity from dynamics in climate networks. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics,18, 751–763.Google Scholar
  63. Papana, A., Kyrtsou, C., Kugiumtzis, D., & Diks, C. (2017). Financial networks based on Granger causality: A case study. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications,482, 65–73.Google Scholar
  64. Papo, D., Zanin, M., Martinez, J., & Buldu, J. (2016). Beware of the small-world neuroscientist. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,10, 96.Google Scholar
  65. Pastén, D., Torres, F., Toledo, B., Muñoz, V., Rogan, J., & Valdivia, J. (2016). Time-based network analysis before and after the Mw 8.3 Illapel earthquake 2015 Chile. Pure and Applied Geophysics,173(7), 2267–2275.Google Scholar
  66. Porta, A., & Faes, L. (2016). Wiener-Granger causality in network physiology with applications to cardiovascular control and neuroscience. Proceedings of the IEEE,104, 282–309.Google Scholar
  67. Rhoades, D. (2007). Application of the EEPAS model to forecasting earthquakes of moderate magnitude in Southern California. Seismological Research Letters,78(1), 110–115.Google Scholar
  68. Rubinov, M., & Sporns, O. (2010). Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpretations. Journal of Neuroscience,52, 1059–1069.Google Scholar
  69. Schreiber, T., & Schmitz, A. (1996). Improved surrogate data for nonlinearity tests. Physical Review Letters,77(4), 635–638.Google Scholar
  70. Steeples, W., & Steeples, D. (1996). Far-field aftershocks of the 1906 earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,86(4), 921–924.Google Scholar
  71. Tenenbaum, J., Havlin, S., & Stanley, H. (2012). Earthquake networks based on similar activity patterns. Physical Review E,86, 046107.Google Scholar
  72. Van den Heuvel, M., Stam, C., Boersma, M., & HulshoffPol, H. (2008). Small-world and scale-free organization of voxel-based resting-state functional connectivity in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience,43, 528–539.Google Scholar
  73. Votsi, I., Limnios, N., Tsaklidis, G., & Papadimitriou, E. (2012). Estimation of the expected number of earthquake occurrences based on semi-Markov models. Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability,14, 685–703.Google Scholar
  74. Votsi, I., Limnios, N., Tsaklidis, G., & Papadimitriou, E. (2013). Hidden Markov models revealing the stress field underlying the earthquake generation. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications,392, 2868–2885.Google Scholar
  75. Votsi, I., Limnios, N., Tsaklidis, G., & Papadimitriou, E. (2014). Hidden semi-Markov modeling for the estimation of earthquake occurrence rates. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods,43, 1484–1502.Google Scholar
  76. Wang, X., & Chen, G. (2003). Complex networks: Small-world, scale-free and beyond. Feature,3, 6–20.Google Scholar
  77. Wang, X., Koç, Y., Derrible, S., Ahmad, S., Pino, W., & Kooij, R. (2017). Multi-criteria robustness analysis of metro networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications,474, 19–31.Google Scholar
  78. Wanliss, J., Muñoz, V., Pastén, D., Toledo, B., & Valdivia, J. (2017). Critical behavior in earthquake energy dissipation. The European Physical Journal B,90, 167.Google Scholar
  79. Watts, D., & Strogatz, S. (1998). Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature,393, 440–442.Google Scholar
  80. Zhang, X., & Gan, C. (2018). Global attractivity and optimal dynamic countermeasure of a virus propagation model in complex networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications,490, 1004–1018.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Chorozoglou
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Iliopoulos
    • 1
  • C. Kourouklas
    • 1
  • O. Mangira
    • 1
  • E. Papadimitriou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geophysics, School of GeologyAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations