Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inverse Gaussian versus lognormal distribution in earthquake forecasting: keys and clues

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Seismology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In earthquake fault systems, active faults release elastic strain energy in a near-repetitive manner. Earthquake forecasting that basically refers to the assessment of earthquake hazards via probability estimates is crucial for many strategic and engineering planning. As the current need across sciences dominantly grows for conceptualization, abstraction, and application, comparison of lifetime probability distributions or understanding their physical significance becomes a fundamental concern in statistical seismology. Using various characteristic measures derived from density function, hazard rate function, and mean residual life function with its asymptotic (limiting) behavior, the present study examines the similitude of the two most versatile inverse Gaussian and lognormal distributions in earthquake forecasting. We consider three homogeneous and complete seismic catalogs from northeast India, northwest Himalaya, and Kachchh (western India) region for illustration. We employ maximum likelihood and moment methods for parameter estimation, and Fisher information for uncertainty valuation. Using three performance tests based on Akaike information criterion, Kolmogorov-Smirnov criterion, and Anderson-Darling test, we show that the heavy-tailed lognormal distribution performs relatively better in terms of its model fit to the observed data. We envisage that the ubiquitous heavy-tailed property of lognormal distribution helps in capturing desired characteristics of seismicity dynamics, providing better insights to the long-term earthquake forecasting in a seismically active region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angelier J, Baruah S (2009) Seismotectonics in Northeast India: a stress analysis of focal mechanism solutions of earthquakes and its kinematic implications. Geophys J Int 178(1):303–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bak P, Christensen K, Danon L, Scanlon T (2002) Unified scaling law for earthquakes. Phys Rev Lett 88(17):178501–1–178501–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia A, Pasari S, Mehta A (2018) Earthquake forecasting using artificial neural networks. ISPRS-Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inform Sci XLII-5:823–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilham R (2004) Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics geodesy and history. Ann Geophys 47(2/3):839–858

    Google Scholar 

  • Chhikara RS, Folks JL (1977) The inverse Gaussian distribution as a lifetime model. Technometrics 19:461–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christos K, Eleftheria P, George T, Vassilios K (2018) Earthquake recurrence models and occurrence probabilities of strong earthquakes in the North Aegean Trough (Greece). J Seismol 22:1225–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-018-9763-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58:1583–1606

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis PM, Jackson DD, Kagan YY (1989) The longer it has been since the last earthquake the longer the expected time till the next? Bull Seismol Soc Am 79:1439–1456

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraes SG (2003) The conditional probability of earthquake occurrence and the next large earthquake in Tokyo. J Seismol 7:145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guess F, Proschan F (1985) Mean residual life: theory and applications. AFOSR Tech Rep 85:178

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta RC, Gupta RD (2007) Proportional reversed hazard rate model and its applications. J Stats Planning Inf 137:3525–3536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta HK, Rao NP, Rastogi BK, Sarkar D (2001) The deadliest intraplate earthquake. Science 291:2101–2102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagiwara Y (1974) Probability of earthquake occurrence as obtained from a Weibull distribution analysis of crustal strain. Tectonophys 23:313–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg RV, Mckean JW, Craig AT (2005) Introduction to mathematical statistics. PRC Press, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Jade S, Mukul M, Gaur VK, Kumar K, Shrungeshwar TS, Satyal GS, Dumka RK, Jagannathan S, Ananda MB, Kumar PD, Banerjee S (2014) Contemporary deformation in the Kashmir–Himachal, Garhwal and Kumaon Himalaya: significant insights from 1995–2008 GPS time series. J Geod 88:539–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1995) Continuous univariate distributions. Wiley-Interscience, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan TH (2006) Earthquake predictability, brick by brick. Seismol Res Lett 77(1):3–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan YY, Knopoff L (1987) Random stress and earthquake statistics: time dependence. Geophys J R Astron Soc 88:723–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan YY, Schoenberg F (2001) Estimation of the upper cutoff parameter for the tapered Pareto distribution. J Appl Probab 38:158–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kijko A, Sellevoll MA (1981) Triple exponential distribution, a modified model for the occurrence of large earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:2097–2101

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee YT, Turcotte DL, Holliday JR, Sachs MK, Rundle JB, Chen CC, Tiampo KF (2011) Results of the regional earthquake likelihood models (RELM) test of earthquake forecasts in California. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(40):16533–16538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoud M (1991) Bayesian estimation of the 3-parameter inverse Gaussian distribution. Trabajos De Estadistica 6(1):45–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews MV, Ellsworth WL, Reasenberg PA (2002) A Brownian model for recurrent earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(6):2233–2250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulargia F, Tinti S (1985) Seismic sample area defined from incomplete catalogs: an application to the Italian territory. Phys Earth Planetary Int 40(4):273–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nandy DR (2001) Geodynamics of north eastern India and the adjoining region. ACB Publications, Kolkata

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishenko SP, Buland R (1987) A generic recurrence interval distribution for earthquake forecasting. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:1382–1399

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons T (2008) Earthquake recurrence on the South Hayward fault is most consistent with a time dependent renewal process. Geophys Res Lett 35:L21301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parvez IA, Ram A (1997) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards in the north-east Indian peninsula and Hindukush regions. Pure Appl Geophys 149:731–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasari S (2015) Understanding Himalayan tectonics from geodetic and stochastic modeling. PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India

  • Pasari S (2017a) Reliability of an earthquake system: a case study from eastern Himalaya. Proceedings in International Conference on Disaster Risk Mitigation, Dhaka, Bangladesh (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasari S (2017b) Design of earthquake catastrophe insurance scheme in northwest Himalaya: a preliminary study. Indian Cartographer 37:354–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasari S (2018a) Nowcasting earthquakes in the Bay-of-Bengal region. Pure Appl Geophys (in press); doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-018-2037-0

  • Pasari S (2018b) Stochastic modelling of earthquake interoccurrence times in Northwest Himalaya and adjoining regions. Geomatics Nat Haz Risk 9(1):568–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasari S, Dikshit O (2014a) Impact of three-parameter Weibull models in probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards. Pure Appl Geophys 171(7):1251–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasari S, Dikshit O (2014b) Three-parameter generalized exponential distribution in earthquake recurrence interval estimation. Nat Hazards 73:639–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasari S, Dikshit O (2015a) Distribution of earthquake interevent times in northeast India and adjoining regions. Pure Appl Geophys 172:2533–2544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasari S, Dikshit O (2015b) Earthquake interevent time distribution in Kachchh, northwestern India. Earth Planets Space 67:129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasari S, Dikshit O (2018) Stochastic earthquake interevent time modeling from exponentiated Weibull distributions. Nat Hazards 90(2):823–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasari S, Mehta A (2018) Nowcasting earthquakes in the northwest Himalaya and surrounding regions. ISPRS-Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sensi Spatial Inform Sci XLII-5:855–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seshadri V (1999) The inverse Gaussian distribution, statistical theory and applications. Lecture Notes Statist, 137. Springer-Verlag, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma Y, Pasari S, Dikshit O, Ching KE (2018) GPS-based monitoring of crustal deformation in Garhwal-Kumaun Himalaya. ISPRS-Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inform Sci XLII-5:451–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobolev GA (2011) Seismicity dynamics and earthquake predictability. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:445–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sornette D, Knopoff L (1997) The paradox of the expected time until the next earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:789–798

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens MA (1974) EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 69:730–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takagi K, Kumagai S, Matsunaga I, Kusaka Y (1997) Application of inverse Gaussian distribution to occupational exposure data. Ann Occup Hyg 1(5):505–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utsu T (1984) Estimation of parameters for recurrence models of earthquakes. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo 59:53–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel P, Smith WHF (1995) New version of the generic mapping tools released EOS trans. Am Geophys Union 76:329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. 2013. The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast Version 3 (UCERF 3), USGS Open File Report 2013–1165 and California Geological Survey Special Report 228 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/). Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  • Yadav RBS, Tripathi JN, Rastogi BK, Das MC, Chopra S (2008) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazard in Gujatat and adjoining region of India. Pure Appl Geophys 165:1813–1833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav RBS, Tripathi JN, Rastogi BK, Das MC, Chopra S (2010) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake recurrence in northeast India and adjoining regions. Pure Appl Geophys 167:1331–1342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazdani A, Kowsari M (2011) Statistical prediction of the sequence of large earthquakes in Iran. IJE Trans B: Appl 24(4):325–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin A (2006) Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as constrained by along-strike variation of structural geometry, exhumation history, and foreland sedimentation. Earth Sci Rev 76:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is thankful to the anonymous reviewer and the Editor in Chief for their constructive comments and suggestions. The Generic Mapping Tool (GMT) developed by Wessel and Smith (1995) is used in preparing some of the figures.

Funding

This research work is partially supported from a grant received from BITS Pilani under the scheme of Additional Competitive Research Grant (ACRG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani, Pilani Campus, Rajasthan, India

    Sumanta Pasari

Authors
  1. Sumanta Pasari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sumanta Pasari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pasari, S. Inverse Gaussian versus lognormal distribution in earthquake forecasting: keys and clues. J Seismol 23, 537–559 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-019-09822-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-019-09822-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation