A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Techniques for Earthquake Magnitude Prediction

Authors

  • Habibeh Karimi * Department of research center, Shiroud Municipality, Mazandaran, Iran. https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8554-7008
  • Samira Torabi Griffith Centre for Coastal Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, Queensland 4222, Australia.

https://doi.org/10.22105/scfa.v2i4.78

Abstract

Earthquakes are natural disasters with the potential for catastrophic destruction and loss of life. This study aims to enhance earthquake prediction accuracy, focusing on earthquake magnitude and likelihood through Machine Learning (ML) models trained on historical seismic data. Using the earthquake dataset, which contains data on earthquake events from 1966 to 2007, we apply four ML models: linear regression, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naive Bayes, and Random Forest. Each model is trained to identify patterns by analyzing key earthquake parameters such as magnitude, location, depth, and seismic station data which are known to influence seismic event characteristics. We evaluate predictive accuracy using Mean Squared Error (MSE) and R² scores to determine the most effective model. By comparing these performance metrics, we identify which model performs best in accurately predicting earthquake magnitudes and identifying potential future occurrences. Initial results indicate that ensemble methods, such as Random Forest, tend to outperform simpler models due to their ability to capture complex feature interactions. Our findings underscore the importance of model choice in earthquake prediction and suggest that integrating more data and real-time monitoring can substantially enhance prediction accuracy. This study highlights the potential for machine learning to contribute to more reliable earthquake prediction systems, with the long-term goal of improving public safety and readiness in earthquake-prone areas. By demonstrating that machine learning models can leverage historical earthquake data for predictive purposes, we suggest a pathway toward implementing more advanced, data-driven forecasting model, which could ultimately support early warning systems and disaster preparedness efforts.

Keywords:

Earthquake prediction, Seismic data, Machine learning, Unsupervised learning, Clustering, Anomaly detection, Risk assessment, Early warning systems, Prediction models, Data analysis

References

  1. [1] Galkina, A., & Grafeeva, N. (2019). Machine learning methods for earthquake prediction: A survey. The Fourth conference on software engineering and information management (pp. 25-33). CEUR workshop proceedings. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333774922
  2. [2] Mousavi, S. M., & Beroza, G. C. (2023). Machine learning in earthquake seismology. Annual review of earth and planetary sciences, 51(1), 105–129. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-071822-100323
  3. [3] Sadhukhan, B., Chakraborty, S., & Mukherjee, S. (2023). Predicting the magnitude of an impending earthquake using deep learning techniques. Earth science informatics, 16(1), 803–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-022-00916-2
  4. [4] Iaccarino, A. G., Cristofaro, A., Picozzi, M., Spallarossa, D., & Scafidi, D. (2024). Real-time prediction of distance and PGA from P-wave features using gradient boosting regressor for on-site earthquake early warning applications. Geophysical journal international, 236(1), 675–687. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggad443
  5. [5] Xu, Y., Yonghua, L., & Zengxi, G. (2021). Machine learning and its application in seismology. Reviews of geophysics and planetary physics, 52(1), 76–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.19975/j.dqyxx.2020-006
  6. [6] Anderson, R. N., Hasegawa, A., Umino, N., & Takagi, A. (1980). Phase changes and the frequency-magnitude distribution in the upper plane of the deep seismic zone beneath Tohoku, Japan. Journal of geophysical research: Solid earth, 85(B3), 1389–1398. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB085iB03p01389
  7. [7] Smith, D. E., Christodoulidis, D. C., Kolenkiewicz, R., Dunn, P. J., Klosko, S. M., Torrence, M. H., … ., & Blackwell, S. (1985). A global geodetic reference frame from LAGEOS ranging (SL5. 1AP). Journal of geophysical research: Solid earth, 90(B11), 9221–9233. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB090iB11p09221
  8. [8] Painter, O., Lee, R. K., Scherer, A., Yariv, A., O’brien, J. D., Dapkus, P. D., & Kim, I. (1999). Two-dimensional photonic band-gap defect mode laser. Science, 284(5421), 1819–1821. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5421.1819
  9. [9] Paul, A., Gupta, S., Ghosh, S., & Choudhury, D. (2020). Probabilistic assessment and study of earthquake recurrence models for entire Northeast region of India. Natural hazards, 102, 15–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-03909-w
  10. [10] Zhu, W., & Beroza, G. C. (2019). PhaseNet: A deep-neural-network-based seismic arrival-time picking method. Geophysical journal international, 216(1), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggy423
  11. [11] Chen, Y., Zhang, M., Bai, M., & Chen, W. (2019). Improving the signal-to-noise ratio of seismological datasets by unsupervised machine learning. Seismological research letters, 90(4), 1552–1564. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190028
  12. [12] Zhang, J., Yi, S., Liang, G. U. O., Hongli, G. A. O., Xin, H., & Hongliang, S. (2020). A new bearing fault diagnosis method based on modified convolutional neural networks. Chinese journal of aeronautics, 33(2), 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.07.011
  13. [13] Patel, D., Arcomano, T., Hunt, B., Szunyogh, I., & Ott, E. (2024). Exploring the potential of hybrid machine-learning/physics-based modeling for atmospheric/oceanic prediction beyond the medium range. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.19518
  14. [14] Hao, X., Liu, L., Yang, R., Yin, L., Zhang, L., & Li, X. (2023). A review of data augmentation methods of remote sensing image target recognition. Remote sensing, 15(3), 827. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15030827
  15. [15] Ju, Y. J., Park, J. H., & Lee, S. W. (2023). NeuroInspect: Interpretable neuron-based debugging framework through class-conditional visualizations. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.07184
  16. [16] Hong, S. J., Kim, H. M., Huh, D., Suryanarayana, C., & Chun, B. S. (2003). Effect of clustering on the mechanical properties of SiC particulate-reinforced aluminum alloy 2024 metal matrix composites. Materials science and engineering: A, 347(1–2), 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(02)00593-2
  17. [17] Kumar, S., & Singh, B. (2024). Intelligent learning model in adaptive e-learning and evaluation framework. Machine intelligence research, 18(1), 226–238. https://machineintelligenceresearchs.com/index.php/mir/article/view/19
  18. [18] Zhang, Q., Liu, X., Zhang, H., Xu, C., Yang, G., Yuan, Y., Gao, Z. (2024). Variational field constraint learning for degree of coronary artery ischemia assessment. International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention (pp. 768–778). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72384-1_72
  19. [19] Yoon, C. E., O’Reilly, O., Bergen, K. J., & Beroza, G. C. (2015). Earthquake detection through computationally efficient similarity search. Science advances, 1(11), e1501057. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501057
  20. [20] Kong, Q., Trugman, D. T., Ross, Z. E., Bianco, M. J., Meade, B. J., & Gerstoft, P. (2019). Machine learning in seismology: Turning data into insights. Seismological research letters, 90(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180259
  21. [21] Xie, Y., Ebad Sichani, M., Padgett, J. E., & DesRoches, R. (2020). The promise of implementing machine learning in earthquake engineering: A state-of-the-art review. Earthquake spectra, 36(4), 1769–1801. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020919419
  22. [22] Buscema, M., & Ruggieri, M. (2011). Advanced networks, algorithms and modeling for earthquake prediction (Vol. 12). River Publishers. https://B2n.ir/ux4771
  23. [23] Mignan, A., & Chen, C. C. (2016). The spatial scale of detected seismicity. Pure and applied geophysics, 173, 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1133-7
  24. [24] Dikmen, O. (2024). Comparative analysis of machine learning models for earthquake prediction: A case study of Düzce, Türkiye. International journal of innovative research in engineering and management, 11(5), 73-82. https://doi.org/10.55524/ijirem.2024.11.5.10

Downloads

Published

2025-10-23

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 4 (2025): Soft Computing Fusion with Applications

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Karimi, H., & Torabi, S. (2025). A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Techniques for Earthquake Magnitude Prediction. Soft Computing Fusion With Applications , 2(4), 219-232. https://doi.org/10.22105/scfa.v2i4.78

Similar Articles

21-30 of 40

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.