chebЧебышевский сборникChebyshevskii Sbornik2226-8383Tula State Lev Tolstoy Pedagogical University10.22405/2226-8383-2018-19-4-227-242cheb-452Research ArticleСтатьиArticleМатематические методы анализа и прогноза афтершоков землетрясений: необходимость смены парадигмыMathematical methods of analysis and forecast of earthquake aftershocks: the need to change the paradigmШебалинП. Н.ShebalinP. N.

Шебалин Петр Николаевич — доктор физико-математических наук, главный научный сотрудник

Shebalin Petr Nikolaevich — D. Sci.; Chief scientist

shebalin@mitp.ruИнститут теории прогноза землетрясений и математической геофизики РАНРоссияInstitute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics RASRussian Federation201804112018194227242Copyright © Шебалин П.Н., 20192019Шебалин П.Н.Shebalin P.N.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.chebsbornik.ru/jour/article/view/452

Анализ и прогноз афтершоков сильных землетрясений в мировой практике в настоящее время основан исключительно на стохастических моделях развития афтершокового процесса. Это дает возможность использования статистических методов анализа, а также применять в прогнозе ”сценарный” подход путем многократного генерирования случайных последовательностей афтершоков и подсчета частоты повторения интересующих событий. Исследования по проекту РНФ ”Создание информационной системы автоматической оценки сейсмической опасности после сильных землетрясений по данным геофизического мониторинга” в 2016-2018 гг. показали однако, что эффективность таких подходов имеет существенные ограничения. В статье дается критический обзор статистических методов анализа и прогноза афтершоков, интерпретируются пределы эффективности прогнозов при использовании стандартных подходов, приводится обоснование необходимости смены парадигмы. В качестве одного из направлений поиска предлагается применение методов Дискретного математического анализа (ДМА), разрабатываемых академиком А.Д. Гвишиани и его научной школой. Очевидное преимущество такого подхода продемонстрировано на примере простого алгоритма идентификации афтершоков с использованием аппарата нечетких сравнений.

Analysis and forecast of aftershocks of large earthquakes in the world practice is currently based exclusively on stochastic models of aftershock process. This makes it possible to use statistical methods of analysis, and also to apply the ”scenario” approach in forecasts by repeatedly generating random sequences of aftershocks and counting the frequency of repetition of the events of interest. Studies on the Russian Science Foundation project ”Development of information system for automatic seismic hazard assessment after large earthquakes based on geophysical monitoring” in 2016-2018 showed however that the effectiveness of such approaches has significant limitations. In this paper I give a critical review of statistical methods for the analysis and forecast of aftershocks, an interpretation of the effectiveness limits of forecasts using standard approaches, provide the rationale for the need to change the paradigm. As one of the search directions, the application of Discrete Mathematical Analysis (DMA) methods developed by Academician A.D. Gvishiani and his scientific school. An obvious advantage of this approach is demonstrated by the example of a simple algorithm for identification of aftershocks using fuzzy comparisons.

афтершоки землетрясенийзакон Оморизакон Гутенберга-Рихтеразакон повторяемости числа афтершоковкластердискретный математический анализнечеткие множестванечеткие сравненияaftershocks of earthquakesOmori lawGutenberg-Richter lawlaw of repeatability of the number of aftershocksclusterDiscrete Mathematical Analysisfuzzy setsfuzzy comparisonsРоссийский научный фонд, грант (проект 16-17-00093)ReferencesBaiesi M., Paczuski M. Scale–free networks of earthquakes and aftershocks // Phys. Rev. E. 2004. Vol. 69.M. Baiesi and M. Paczuski. 2004, ”Scale–free networks of earthquakes and aftershocks”, Phys. Rev. E, vol. 69.Baranov S., Pavlenko V., Shebalin P. Forecasting aftershock activity: 4. Estimating maximum magnitude of subsequent aftershocks // Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth. 2019. Vol. 55, no. 1.S.V. Baranov, V.A. Pavlenko, and P.N. Shebalin. 2019, ”Forecasting aftershock activity: 4. Estimating maximum magnitude of subsequent aftershocks”, Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, vol 55, no. 1.Baranov S., Shebalin P. Forecasting aftershock activity: 3. B˚ath dynamic law // Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth. 2018. Vol. 54, no. 6. P. 926–932.S.V. Baranov and P.N. Shebalin. 2018, ”Forecasting aftershock activity: 3. B˚ath dynamic law”, Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 926–932.Baranov S., Shebalin P. Global statistics of aftershocks of large earthquakes: independence of times and magnitudes // Journal of Volcanology and Seismology. 2018. Vol. 12, no. 6.S.V. Baranov and P.N. Shebalin. 2018, ”Global statistics of aftershocks of large earthquakes: independence of times and magnitudes”, Journal of Volcanology and Seismology, vol. 12, no. 6.Bath M. Lateral inhomogeneities in the upper mantle // Tectonophysics. 1965. Vol. 2. P. 483– 514.M. Bath. 1965 ”Lateral inhomogeneities in the upper mantle”, Tectonophysics, vol. 2, pp. 483–514.Fuzzy logic algorithms in the analysis of electrotelluric data with reference to monitoring of volcanic activity / Sh.R. Bogoutdinov, S.M. Agayan, A.D. Gvishiani et al. // Izvestiya. Physics of the Solid Earth. 2007. Vol. 43, no. 7. P. 597–609.Sh.R. Bogoutdinov, S.M. Agayan, A.D. Gvishiani, E.M. Graeva, M.V. Rodkin, J. Zlotnicki, and J.L. LeMouel. 2007, ”Fuzzy logic algorithms in the analysis of electrotelluric data with reference to monitoring of volcanic activity”, Izvestiya. Physics of the Solid Earth, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 597–609.Davis S., Frohlich C. Single-link cluster analysis of earthquakes aftershocks: decay laws and regional variations // J. Geophys. Res. 1991. Vol. 96. P. 6335–1350.S.D. Davis and C. Frohlich. 1991, ”Single-link cluster analysis of earthquakes aftershocks: decay laws and regional variations”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 96, pp. 6335–1350.Gardner J., Knopoff L. Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California with aftershocks removed Poissonian? // Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1974. Vol. 5. P. 1363–1367.J. Gardner and L. Knopoff. 1974, ”Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California with aftershocks removed Poissonian?” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 5, pp.1363–1367.Gordeev E., Fedotov S., Chebrov V. Detailed Seismological Investigations in Kamchatka during the 1961–2011 period: main results // Journal of Volcanology and Seismology. 2013. Vol. 7, no. 1. P. 1–15.E.I. Gordeev, S.A. Fedotov, and V.N. Chebrov. 2013, ”Detailed seismological investigations in Kamchatka during the 1961–2011 Period: main results”. Journal of Volcanology and Seismology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp.1–15.Gutenberg B., Richter C. Seismicity of the Earth. Princeton Univ. Press, 1954.B. Gutenberg and C.F. Richter. 1954, ”Seismicity of the Earth”. Princeton Univ. Press.Algorithm barrier with single learning class for strong earthquake–prone areas recognition / A.D. Gvishiani, S. Agayan, B. Dzeboev, I. Belov // Geoinformatics Research Papers: Proceedings of Geophysical Center RAS. 2017. Vol. 5, no. 1. P. 95.A.D. Gvishiani, S. Agayan, B. Dzeboev, and I. Belov. 2017, ”Algorithm barrier with single learning class for strong earthquake–prone areas recognition”, Geoinformatics Research Papers: Proceedings of Geophysical Center RAS, vol. 5, no. 1, p.95.Gvishiani A., Agayan S., Bogoutdinov S. Fuzzy recognition of anomalies in time series // Doklady Earth Sciences. 2008. Vol. 421, no. 1. P. 838–842.A.D. Gvishiani, S.M. Agayan, and Sh.R. Bogoutdinov. 2008, ”Fuzzy recognition of anomalies in time series”, Doklady Earth Sciences, vol. 421, no. 1, pp.838–842.Mathematical methods of geoinformatics. III. Fuzzy comparisons and recognition of anomalies in time series / A.D. Gvishiani, S.M. Agayan, Sh.R. Bogoutdinov et al. // Cybernetics and Systems Analysis. 2008. Vol. 44, no. 3. P. 309–323.A.D. Gvishiani, S.M. Agayan, Sh.R. Bogoutdinov, J. Zlotnicki, and J. Bonnin. 2008, ”Mathematical methods of geoinformatics. III. Fuzzy comparisons and recognition of anomalies in time series”, Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, vol. 44, no. 3, pp.309–323.Recognition of strong earthquake–prone areas with a single learning class / A.D. Gvishiani, S.M. Agayan, B.A. Dzeboev, I.O. Belov // Doklady Earth Sciences. 2017. Vol. 474, no. 1. P. 546–551.A.D. Gvishiani, S.M. Agayan, B.A. Dzeboev, and I.O. Belov. 2017, ”Recognition of strong earthquake–prone areas with a single learning class”, Doklady Earth Sciences, vol. 474, no. 1, pp.546–551.Fuzzy–based clustering of epicenters and strong earthquake–prone areas / A.D. Gvishiani, M.N. Dobrovolsky, S. Agayan, B. Dzeboev // Environmental Engineering and Management Journal. 2013. Vol. 12, no. 1. P. 1–10.A.D. Gvishiani, M.N. Dobrovolsky, S. Agayan, and B. Dzeboev. 2013, ”Fuzzy–based clustering of epicenters and strong earthquake–prone areas”, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp.1–10.Gvishiani A., Dzeboev B., Agayan S. A new approach to recognition of the strong earthquake– prone areas in the Caucasus // Izvestiya. Physics of the Solid Earth. 2013. Vol. 49, no. 6. P. 747–766.A.D. Gvishiani, B. Dzeboev, and S. Agayan. 2013, ”A new approach to recognition of the strong earthquake–prone areas in the Caucasus”, Izvestiya. Physics of the Solid Earth, vol. 49, no.6, pp.747–766.Gvishiani A., Dzeboev B., Agayan S. Fcazm intelligent recognition system for locating areas prone to strong earthquakes in the Andean and Caucasian mountain belts // Izvestiya. Physics of the Solid Earth. 2016. Vol. 52, no. 4. P. 461–491.A.D. Gvishiani, B. Dzeboev, and S. Agayan. 2016, ”FCAZM intelligent recognition system for locating areas prone to strong earthquakes in the Andean and Caucasian mountain belts”, Izvestiya. Physics of the Solid Earth, vol. 52, no.4, pp.461–491.Significant earthquake–prone areas in the Altai–Sayan region / A.D. Gvishiani, B.A. Dzeboev, N.A. Sergeeva et al. // Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth. 2018. Vol. 54, no. 3. P. 406–414.A.D. Gvishiani, B.A. Dzeboev, N.A. Sergeeva, I.O. Belov, and A.I. Rybkina. 2018, ”Significant earthquake–prone areas in the Altai–Sayan region”, Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, vol. 54, no.3, pp. 406–414.Formalized clustering and significant earthquake-prone areas in the Crimean peninsula and Northwest Caucasus / A.D. Gvishiani, B.A. Dzeboev, N.A. Sergeeva, A.I. Rybkina // Izvestiya. Physics of the Solid Earth. 2017. Vol. 53, no. 3. P. 353–365.A.D. Gvishiani, B.A. Dzeboev, N.A. Sergeeva, and A.I. Rybkina. 2017 ”Formalized clustering and significant earthquake-prone areas in the Crimean peninsula and Northwest Caucasus”, Izvestiya. Physics of the Solid Earth, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 353–365.Kagan Y., Jackson D. Long–term earthquake clustering // Geophys. J. Intern. 1991. Vol. 104. P. 117–133.Y. Kagan and D. Jackson. 1991, ”Long–term earthquake clustering”, Geophys. J. Intern., vol.104, pp.117–133.Fuzzy logic methods for geomagnetic events detections and analysis / R.G. Kulchinsky, E.P. Kharin, I.P. Shestopalov et al. // Russian Journal of Earth Sciences. 2010. Vol. 11, no. 4. P. 1–6.R.G. Kulchinsky, E.P. Kharin, I.P. Shestopalov, A.D. Gvishiani, S.M. Agayan, and Sh.R. Bogoutdinov. 2010, ”Fuzzy logic methods for geomagnetic events detections and analysis”, Russian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 11, no.4, pp.1–6.Marsan D., Lengline O. A new estimation of the decay of aftershock density with distance to the mainshock // Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 2010. Vol. 115, no. B9.D. Marsan and O. Lengline. 2010, ”A new estimation of the decay of aftershock density with distance to the mainshock”, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, vol. 115(B9).Molchan G., Dmitrieva O. Aftershock identification: methods and new approaches // Geophys. J. Int. 1992. Vol. 109. P. 501–516.G. Molchan and O. Dmitrieva. 1992, ”Aftershock identification: methods and new approaches”, Geophys. J. Int., vol. 109, pp.501–516.Ogata Y. Statistical models for standard seismicity and detection of anomalies by residual analysis // Tectonophysics. 1989. Vol. 169. P. 159–174.Y. Ogata. 1989, ”Statistical models for standard seismicity and detection of anomalies by residual analysis”, Tectonophysics, vol. 169, pp. 159–174.Ogata Y. Seismicity analysis through point-process modeling; a review // PAGEOPH. 1999. Vol. 155. P. 471–508.Y. Ogata. 1999, ”Seismicity analysis through point-process modeling; a review”, PAGEOPH, vol. 155, pp.471–508.Omori F. On the aftershocks of earthquake // J. Coll. Sci. Imp. Univ. Tokyo. 1894. Vol. 7. P. 111–200.F. Omori. 1894, ”On the aftershocks of earthquake”. J. Coll. Sci. Imp. Univ. Tokyo, vol.7, pp.111–200.Reasenberg P. Second-order moment of Central California seismicity, 1969-1982 // J. Geophys. Res. 1985. Vol. 90. P. 5479–5495.P. Reasenberg. 1985, ”Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969-1982” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 90, pp.5479–5495.Reasenberg P., Jones L. Earthquake hazard after a mainshock in California // Science. 1989. Vol. 242. P. 1173–1176.P.A. Reasenberg and L.M. Jones. 1989, ”Earthquake hazard after a mainshock in California”. Science, vol. 242, pp.1173–1176.Savage W. Microearthquake clustering near Fairview Peak, Nevada, and in the Nevada Seismic Zone // J. Geophys. Res. 1972. Vol. 77, no. 35. P. 7049–7056.W.U. Savage. 1972, ”Microearthquake clustering near Fairview Peak, Nevada, and in the Nevada seismic zone”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 77, no. 35, pp. 7049–7056.Shebalin P., Baranov S., Dzeboev B. The law of the repeatability of the number of aftershocks // Doklady Earth Sciences. 2018. Vol. 481, no. 1. P. 963–966.P.N. Shebalin, S.V. Baranov, and B.A. Dzeboev. 2018, ”The law of the repeatability of the number of aftershocks”, Doklady Earth Sciences, vol. 481, no.1, pp.963–966.Smirnov V. Prognostic anomalies of seismic regime: methodical basis of data preprocessing // Geofisicheskiye Issledovaniya. 2009. Vol. 10, no. 2. P. 7–22.V.B. Smirnov. 2009, ”Prognostic anomalies of seismic regime: methodical basis of data preprocessing”, Geofisicheskiye Issledovaniya, vol. 10, no.2, pp.7–22.Utsu T. A statistical study on the occurrence of aftershocks // Geophys. Mag. 1961. Vol. 30. P. 521–605.T. Utsu. 1961, ”A statistical study on the occurrence of aftershocks”, Geophys. Mag., vol.30, pp.521–605.Clustering analysis of seismicity and aftershock identification / I. Zaliapin, A. Gabrielov, V. Keilis-Borok, H. Wong // Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008. Vol. 101, no. 1. P. 1–4.I. Zaliapin, A. Gabrielov, V. Keilis-Borok, and H. Wong. 2008, ”Clustering analysis of seismicity and aftershock identification”, Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 101, no.1, pp.1–4.Zaliapin I., Ben-Zion Y. Earthquake clusters in Southern California I: Identification and stability // Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 2013. Vol. 118, no. 6. P. 2847–2864.Ilya Zaliapin and Yehuda Ben-Zion. 2013, ”Earthquake clusters in Southern California I: Identification and stability”, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, vol. 118, no.6, pp.2847–2864.Zaliapin I., Ben-Zion Y. A global classification and characterization of earthquake clusters // Geophysical Journal International. 2016. Vol. 207, no. 1. P. 608–634.Ilya Zaliapin and Yehuda Ben-Zion. 2016, ”A global classification and characterization of earthquake clusters”, Geophysical Journal International, vol. 207, no.1, pp.608–634.Zhuang J. Y., Ogata K., Vere-Jones D. Stochastic declustering of space–time earthquake occurrences // J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2002. Vol. 97. P. 369–380.J. Y. Zhuang, K. Ogata, and D. Vere-Jones. 2002, ”Stochastic declustering of space–time earthquake occurrences”, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., vol. 97, pp.369–380.Automatic fuzzy–logic recognition of anomalous activity on long geophysical records: application to electric signals associated with the volcanic activity of La Fournaise volcano (R´eunion island) / J. Zlotnicki, J.L. LeMouel, A. Gvishiani et al. // Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 2005. Vol. 234, no. 1–2. P. 261–278.J. Zlotnicki, J.L. LeMouel, A. Gvishiani, S. Agayan, V. Mikhailov, S. Bogoutdinov, R. Kanwar, and P. Yvetot. 2005, ”Automatic fuzzy–logic recognition of anomalous activity on long geophysical records: application to electric signals associated with the volcanic activity of La Fournaise volcano (R´eunion island)”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol. 234, no.1–2, pp. 261–278.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.