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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abe, S., Pasten, D., Munoz, V., & Suzuki, N. (2011). Universalities of earthquake-network characteristics. Chinese Science Bulletin,56(34), 3697–3701.
Abe, S., & Suzuki, N. (2004a). Small-world structure of earthquake network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications,337, 357–362.
Abe, S., & Suzuki, N. (2004b). Scale-free network of earthquakes. Europhysics Letters,65, 581–586.
Abe, S., & Suzuki, N. (2006). Complex-network description of seismicity. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics,13, 145–150.
Abe, S., & Suzuki, N. (2009). Main shocks and evolution of complex earthquake networks. Brazilian Journal of Physics,39(2A), 428–430.
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.
Albert, R., & Barabasi, A. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics,74, 47–97.
Altınok, Y. (1991). Evaluation of earthquake risk in West Anatolia by semi-Markov model. Jeofizik,5, 135–140.
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.
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.
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.
Baiesi, M., & Paczuski, M. (2004). Scale-free networks of earthquakes and aftershocks. Physical Review,69(6), 066106.
Baiesi, M., & Paczuski, M. (2005). Complex networks of earthquakes and aftershocks. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics,12, 1–11.
Bak, P., Christensen, K., Danon, L., & Scanlon, T. (2002). Unified scaling law for earthquakes. Physical Review Letters,88, 178501.
Bak, P., & Tang, C. (1989). Earthquakes as a self-organized critical phenomenon. Journal of Geophysical Research,94(B11), 635–637.
Barabasi, A., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science,286, 509–512.
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.
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.
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.
Bullmore, E., Fornito, A., & Zalesky, A. (2016). Fundamentals of brain network analysis (p. 494). Cambridge: Academic. (eBook ISBN: 9780124081185).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cornell, C. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,58, 1583–1606.
Corral, A. (2004). Long-term clustering, scaling, and universality in the temporal occurrence of earthquakes. Physical Review Letters,92, 108501.
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.
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.
Donges, J., Zou, Y., Marwan, N., & Kurths, J. (2009). The backbone of the climate network export. EPL Europhysics Letters,87, 48007.
Emmert-Streib, F., & Dehmer, M. (2010). Influence of the time scale on the construction of financial networks. PLoS One,5(9), e12884.
Erdős, P., & Rényi, A. (1959). On random graphs. Pub. Math. (Debrecen),6, 290–297.
Fiedor, P. (2014). Networks in financial markets based on the mutual information rate. Physical Review E,89, 052801.
Girvan, M., & Newman, M. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,99, 7821–7826.
Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. (1944). Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,34, 185–188.
Heiberger, R. (2014). Stock network stability in times of crisis. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications,393, 376.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Horvath, S. (2011). Weighted network analysis, applications in genomics and systems biology. New York: Springer.
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.
Jeong, H., Mason, S., Barabasi, A., & Oltvai, Z. (2001). Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature,411, 41.
Jimenez, A., Tiampo, K., & Posadas, A. (2008). Small world in a seismic network: the California case. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics,15, 389–395.
Kagan, Y., & Jackson, D. (1994). Long-term probabilistic forecasting of earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research,99, 13685–13700.
Kanamori, H., & Anderson, L. (1975). Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,65(5), 1073–1095.
Kugiumtzis, D. (2002). Statistically transformed autoregressive process and surrogate data test for nonlinearity. Physical Review E,66, 025201.
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.
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.
Lennartz, S., Livina, V., Bunde, A., & Havlin, S. (2008). Long-term memory in earthquakes and the distribution of interoccurrence times. Europhysics Letters,81, 69001.
León, D., Valdivia, J., & Bucheli, V. (2018). Modeling of Colombian seismicity as small-world networks. Seismological Research Letters,89(5), 1807–1816.
Lippiello, E., Arcangelis, L., & Godano, C. (2008). Influence of time and space correlations on earthquake magnitude. Physical Review Letters,100, 038501.
Livina, V., Havlin, S., & Bunde, A. (2005). Memory in the occurrence of earthquakes. Physical Review Letters,95, 208501.
Lomnitz, C. (1974). Global tectonics and earthquake risk. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Maslov, S., & Sneppen, K. (2002). Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks. Science,296, 910–913.
Milgram, S. (1967). The small-world problem. Psychology Today,1(1), 61–67.
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.
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.
Newman, M. (2010). Networks, an introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Omori, F. (1894). On the aftershocks of earthquakes. Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo,7, 111–120.
Opsahl, T., Colizza, V., Panzarasa, P., & Ramasco, J. (2008). Prominence and control: The weighted rich-club effect. Physical Review Letters,101, 168702.
Palus, M., Hartman, D., Hlinka, J., & Vejmelka, M. (2011). Discerning connectivity from dynamics in climate networks. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics,18, 751–763.
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.
Papo, D., Zanin, M., Martinez, J., & Buldu, J. (2016). Beware of the small-world neuroscientist. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,10, 96.
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.
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.
Rhoades, D. (2007). Application of the EEPAS model to forecasting earthquakes of moderate magnitude in Southern California. Seismological Research Letters,78(1), 110–115.
Rubinov, M., & Sporns, O. (2010). Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpretations. Journal of Neuroscience,52, 1059–1069.
Schreiber, T., & Schmitz, A. (1996). Improved surrogate data for nonlinearity tests. Physical Review Letters,77(4), 635–638.
Steeples, W., & Steeples, D. (1996). Far-field aftershocks of the 1906 earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,86(4), 921–924.
Tenenbaum, J., Havlin, S., & Stanley, H. (2012). Earthquake networks based on similar activity patterns. Physical Review E,86, 046107.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wang, X., & Chen, G. (2003). Complex networks: Small-world, scale-free and beyond. Feature,3, 6–20.
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.
Wanliss, J., Muñoz, V., Pastén, D., Toledo, B., & Valdivia, J. (2017). Critical behavior in earthquake energy dissipation. The European Physical Journal B,90, 167.
Watts, D., & Strogatz, S. (1998). Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature,393, 440–442.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chorozoglou, D., Iliopoulos, A., Kourouklas, C. et al. Earthquake Networks as a Tool for Seismicity Investigation: a Review. Pure Appl. Geophys. 176, 4649–4660 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02253-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02253-w