MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Advancing Earthquake Prediction Accuracy Through Machine Learning: A GBM-Based Study on Diagnostic Performance and Reliability

2025· article· W7133529081 on OpenAlexaff
Ragini Y P, Ola Khresat, B. Mamatha, Rakesh Chandrashekar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Earthquake predictionComponent (thermodynamics)Field (mathematics)Measure (data warehouse)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the study of seismic data, earthquake prediction has proved to be an important issue because of the sophisticated, non-linear, character of the information. In this paper, we discuss the effectiveness of Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM), a strong ensemble learning algorithm, in classifying earthquake events over a well-organized seismic data set. We used stratified data partitions to train and validate our model, which would result in the balancing and confirm appropriate representation of classes. This analysis was done by using various performance measurements and illustrations in order to carry out an effective evaluation. The Confusion matrix indicates a high level of classification of the model, with true positive number of 358 and true negative number of 288, and false negative 34, and false positive 85. The combined accuracy is at 84 percent implying a balanced sensitivity on the model with regard to earthquake and non-earthquake cases. Also, the precision of non-earthquake and earthquake are 0.89 and 0.81 respectively in the classification report whereas recall is high in earthquake cases (0.91) which means high sensitivity and less chance of misses. The high values of the F1-score (0.83 and 0.86, respectively) indicate overall high balance between the precision and recall in classes 0 and 1. The Discriminative strength of the model is further supported by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve which indicates a good ability to discriminate between the 2 classes with Area under the curve (AUC) score of 0.90. In the learning curve results, training and validation scores improve steadily and converge at the end of the learning curve, and threshold analysis proves that the model is optimized by avoiding either false positive or false negative. This method which is based on GBM shows quite high level of accuracy and strength in earthquake prediction. Due to its capacity to run complicated seismic characteristics, it is being utilized as an invaluable instrument in disaster preparedness, in combination with early warning systems, which portrays a data-based approach to the kind of reliability that results in seismic event predictions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207