Abstract
In the last years, deep learning has solved seemingly intractable problems, boosting the hope to find (approximate) solutions to problems that now are considered unsolvable. Earthquake prediction - a recognized moonshot challenge - is obviously worthwhile exploring with deep learning. Although encouraging results have been obtained recently, deep neural networks (DNN) may sometimes create the illusion that patterns hidden in data are complex when this is not necessarily the case. We investigate the results of De Vries et al. [Nature, vol. 560, 2018] who defined a DNN of 6 hidden layers with 50 nodes each, and with an input layer of 12 stress features, to predict aftershock patterns in space. The performance of their DNN was assessed using ROC with AUC = 0.85 obtained. We first show that a simple artificial neural network (ANN) of 1 hidden layer yields a similar performance, suggesting that aftershock patterns are not necessarily highly abstract objects. Following first principle guidance, we then bypass the elastic stress change tensor computation, making profit of the tensorial nature of neural networks. AUC = 0.85 is again reached with an ANN, now with only two geometric and kinematic features. Not only seems deep learning to be “excessive” in the present case, the simpler ANN streamlines the process of aftershock forecasting, limits model bias, and provides better insights into aftershock physics and possible model improvement. Complexification is a controversial trend in all of Science and first principles should be applied wherever possible to gain physical interpretations of neural networks.
Keywords
- Aftershock modelling
- Pattern recognition
- Applied deep learning
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G.: Deep learning. Nature 521, 436–444 (2015)
Jordan, M.I., Mitchell, T.M.: Machine learning: trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science 349(6245), 255–260 (2015)
Carleo, G., Troyer, M.: Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks. Science 355, 602–606 (2017)
Han, J., Jentzen, A., Weinan, E.: Solving high-dimensional partial differential equations using deep learning. PNAS 115(34), 8505–8510 (2018)
Pathak, J., Hunt, B., Girvan, M., Lu, Z., Ott, E.: Model-free prediction of large spatiotemporally chaotic systems from data: a reservoir computing approach. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 024102 (2018)
Kong, Q., Trugman, D.T., Ross, Z.E., Bianco, M.J., Meade, B.J., Gerstoft, P.: Machine learning in seismology: turning data into insights. Seismol. Res. Lett. 90(1), 3–14 (2019)
Panakkat, A., Adeli, H.: Recurrent neural network for approximate earthquake time and location prediction using multiple seismicity indicators. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 24, 280–292 (2009)
Geller, R.J., Jackson, D.D., Kagan, Y.Y., Mulargia, F.: Earthquakes cannot be predicted. Science 275(5306), 1616–1617 (1997)
Brodi, B.: A neural-network model for earthquake occurrence. J. Geodyn. 32, 289–310 (2001)
Moustra, M., Avraamides, M., Christodoulou, C.: Artificial neural networks for earthquake prediction using time series magnitude data or seismic electric signals. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 15032–15039 (2011)
DeVries, P.M.R., Viégas, F., Wattenberg, M., Meade, B.J.: Deep learning of aftershock patterns following large earthquakes. Nature 560, 632–634 (2018)
Vere-Jones, D., Ben-Zion, Y., Zuniga, R.: Statistical seismology. Pure Appl. Geophys. 162, 1023–1026 (2005)
Mignan, A.: Retrospective on the Accelerating Seismic Release (ASR) hypothesis: controversy and new horizons. Tectonophysics 505, 1–16 (2011)
Sornette, D.: Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences, Chaos, Fractals, Selforganization and Disorder: Concepts and Tools. Springer, New York (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-33182-4
Mignan, A.: Seismicity precursors to large earthquakes unified in a stress accumulation framework. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L21308 (2012)
Mignan, A.: Static behaviour of induced seismicity. Nonlin. Process. Geophys. 23, 107–113 (2016)
Mignan, A.: Utsu aftershock productivity law explained from geometric operations on the permanent static stress field of mainshocks. Nonlin. Process. Geophys. 25, 241–250 (2018)
Tiampo, K.F., Shcherbakov, R.: Seismicity-based earthquake forecasting techniques: ten years of progress. Tectonophysics 522–523, 89–121 (2012)
Mignan, A.: Modeling aftershocks as a stretched exponential relaxation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 9726–9732 (2015)
Richards-Dinger, K., Stein, R.S., Toda, S.: Decay of aftershock density with distance does not indicate triggering by dynamic stress. Nature 467, 583–586 (2010)
Hainzl, S., Brietzke, G.B., Zöller, G.: Quantitative earthquake forecasts resulting from static stress triggering. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B11311 (2010)
Båth, M.: Lateral inhomogeneities of the upper mantle. Tectonophysics 2(6), 483–514 (1965)
Gerstenberger, M.C., Wiemer, S., Jones, L.M., Reasenberg, P.A.: Real-time forecasts of tomorrow’s earthquakes in California. Nature 435, 328–331 (2005)
Lakkos, S., Hadjiprocopis, A., Compley, R., Smith, P.: A neural network scheme for earthquake prediction based on the seismic electric signals. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Neural Networks and Signal Processing, pp. 681–689. IEEE, Ermioni (1994)
Alves, E.I.: Notice on the predictability of earthquake occurrences. Memórias e Notícias 117, 51–61 (1994)
Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, B., Wu, G.: Earthquake prediction by RBF neural network ensemble. In: Yin, F.-L., Wang, J., Guo, C. (eds.) ISNN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3174, pp. 962–969. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-28648-6_153
Alves, E.I.: Earthquake forecasting using neural networks: results and future work. Nonlin. Dyn. 44, 341–349 (2006)
Panakkat, A., Adeli, H.: Neural network models for earthquake magnitude prediction using multiple seismicity indicators. Int. J. Neural Syst. 17(1), 13–33 (2007)
Martínez-Álvarez, F., Reyes, J., Morales-Esteban, A., Rubio-Escudero, C.: Determining the best set of seismicity indicators to predict earthquakes. Two case studies Chile and the Iberian Peninsula. Knowl.-Based Syst. 50, 198–210 (2013)
Asencio-Cortés, G., Martínez-Álvarez, F., Morales-Esteban, A., Reyes, J.: A sensitivity study of seismicity indicators in supervised learning to improve earthquake prediction. Knowl.-Based Syst. 101, 15–30 (2016)
Madahizadeh, R., Allamehzadeh, M.: Prediction of aftershocks distribution using artificial neural networks and its application on the May 12, 2008 Sichuan earthquake. JSEE 11(3), 111–120 (2009)
Rouet-Leduc, B., Hulbert, C., Lubbers, N., Barros, K., Humphreys, C.J., Johnson, P.A.: Machine learning predicts laboratory earthquakes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 9276–9282 (2017)
Leach, R., Dowla, F.: Earthquake early warning system using real-time signal processing. In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Signal Processing Society Workshop, pp. 463–472. IEEE, Kyoto (1996)
Kong, Q., Allen, R.M., Schreier, L., Kwon, Y.-W.: MyShake: a smartphone seismic network for earthquake early warning and beyond. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501055 (2016)
Perol, T., Gharbi, M., Denolle, M.: Convolutional neural network for earthquake detection and location. Sci. Adv. 4, e1700578 (2018)
Ross, Z.E., Meier, M.-A., Hauksson, E.: P wave arrival picking and first-motion polarity determination with deep learning. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 123, 5120–5129 (2018)
Ross, Z.E., Yue, Y., Meier, M.-A., Hauksson, E.: Phaselink: a deep learning approach to seismic phase association. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth (2019). https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jb016674
Bouchon, M., Karabulut, H., Aktar, M., Özalaybey, S., Schmittbuhl, J., Bouin, M.P.: Extended nucleation of the 1999 Mw 7.6 Izmit earthquake. Science 331(6019), 877–880 (2011)
Mignan, A.: The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: a meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 4, 4099 (2014)
Mignan, A.: Asymmetric Laplace mixture modelling of incomplete power-law distributions: application to ‘seismicity vision’. In: Arai, K., Kapoor, S. (eds.) CVC 2019. AISC, vol. 944, pp. 30–43. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17798-0_4
Valentine, A.P., Trampert, J.: Data space reduction, quality assessment and searching of seismograms: autoencoder networks for waveform data. Geophys. J. Int. 189, 1183–1202 (2012)
Li, Z., Meier, M.-A., Hauksson, E., Zhan, Z., Andrews, J.: Machine learning seismic wave discrimination: application to earthquake early warning. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 4773–4779 (2018)
International Seismological Center. http://www.isc.ac.uk/. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
Finite-Source Rupture Model Database. http://equake-rc.info/SRCMOD/. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
Okada, Y.: Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75(4), 1135–1154 (1985)
King, G.C.P.: Fault interaction, earthquake stress changes, and the evolution of seismicity. Treatise Geophys. 4, 225–255 (2007)
Nature News: Artificial intelligence nails predictions of earthquake aftershocks. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06091-z. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
The New York Times: A.I. is Helping Scientists Predict When and Where the Next Big Earthquake Will Be. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/technology/earthquake-predictions-artificial-intelligence.html. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
Futurism: Google’s AI can help predict where earthquake aftershocks are most likely. https://futurism.com/the-byte/aftershocks-earthquake-prediction. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
The Verge: Google and Harvard team up to use deep learning to predict earthquake aftershocks. https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/30/17799356/ai-predict-earthquake-aftershocks-google-harvard. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
Meade, B.J., DeVries, P.M.R., Faller, J., Viegas, F., Wattenberg, M.: What is better than coulomb failure stress? A ranking of scalar static stress triggering mechanisms from 105 mainshock-aftershock pairs. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 11409–11416 (2017)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mignan, A., Broccardo, M. (2019). A Deeper Look into ‘Deep Learning of Aftershock Patterns Following Large Earthquakes’: Illustrating First Principles in Neural Network Physical Interpretability. In: Rojas, I., Joya, G., Catala, A. (eds) Advances in Computational Intelligence. IWANN 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11506. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20521-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20521-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20520-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20521-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)