Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Asian Earth Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jseaes

Detection and characterization of geomagnetic anomaly waveforms

Zongxuan Wu a, b, c, f, Jiening Xia a, b, c, f, *, Benyan Tan a, b, c, f, Bin Wang d, Qian Zhao e,
Shaopeng He d
a
Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration, Wuhan, China
b
Hubei Earthquake Administration, Wuhan, China
c
Hubei Key Laboratory of Earthquake Early Warning, Institute of Seismology, Wuhan, China
d
Hebei Earthquake Administration, Shijiazhuang, China
e
Liaoning Earthquake Administration, Shenyang, China
f
Wuhan Institute of Seismologic Instrument Co., LTD, Wuhan, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Geomagnetic anomalies are abnormal changes in the geomagnetic field caused by changes in the stress of the
Windowed Weighted Correlation (WWC) underground rock. Research on geomagnetic anomaly signals can help explore earthquake prediction. This study
Geomagnetic anomaly proposes a window-weighted correlation degree (WWC) method to detect geomagnetic vertical component
Machine learning
anomaly waveforms, addressing the limitations of traditional methods. The WWC method calculates the simi­
Earthquake prediction
Artificial intelligence
larity between geomagnetic and reference data in daytime and nighttime windows, identifying abnormal signals
based on change values. This method achieves a 0.976 accuracy in identifying geomagnetic anomaly waveforms,
effectively detecting and recognizing complex waveform features in the geomagnetic field. Further, based on this
method, a dataset of geomagnetic anomaly waveforms under various earthquake events was built, identifying
seven typical anomalies. Five types of features were selected and constructed to measure the non-random de­
viation of diurnal geomagnetic variation from the baseline signal, improving the precision and recall of the
random forest classification model. The machine learning method can classify and predict geomagnetic anomaly
waveforms related to earthquake occurrence with superior precision and recall compared to traditional methods.
This approach offers a productive means for identifying geomagnetic anomaly waveforms associated with
earthquake occurrence and analyzing the potential correlations between anomalies and seismic events. It also
provides a possibility for exploring the physical mechanism involved in geomagnetic anomalies’ generation and
evolution process. It provides effective data support for further analysis of seismic-magnetic relationships and
helps to promote the deep integration of artificial intelligence and earthquake prediction research.

1. Introduction electromagnetic method for earthquake prediction is to set up in­

Earthquakes result from fault instability caused by long-term accu­
mulation and change of underground stress(Chen et al., 2009). This
natural occurrence can produce massive disasters, resulting in loss of
life, economic losses, and environmental damage. In order to effectively
prevent the impact of earthquake disasters, people have taken various
measures, one of which is to try to achieve earthquake prediction(Uyeda
et al., 2009). Among them, the seismic electromagnetic method, as a
critical predictive method, has played an essential role in observing pre-
seismic anomaly precursors and is regarded as one of the primary
methods that may produce advances in earthquake prediction first
(Hayakawa & Molchanov, 2007; Zhao et al., 2022). The process of an
struments at each station, observe the electromagnetic data of the
covered area, and extract anomalies from it. Among them, the
geomagnetic field data anomalies have a higher sensitivity in reflecting
seismic activity(Ding et al., 2004; Xie et al., 2018). Therefore, the
extraction and analysis of geomagnetic anomaly signals are fundamental
for studying earthquake early warning and forecasting, as well as other
spatial electromagnetic anomaly phenomena(Xu et al., 2018).
However, geomagnetic anomaly signals are often difficult to identify
from the background noise because of interference from solar activity,
atmospheric disturbance, artificial noise, and other factors. In order to
suppress the impact of external field signals and highlight the abnormal
disturbances in the seismic source area, scholars have proposed various

* Corresponding author at: Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration, Wuhan, China.
E-mail address: time_xjn@whu.edu.cn (J. Xia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2023.105837
Received 29 June 2023; Received in revised form 16 August 2023; Accepted 26 August 2023
Available online 28 August 2023
1367-9120/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Wu et al.
Fig. 1. (a) The preprocessed minute-level data of the vertical component of the geomagnetic field from the magnetic flux gate magnetometer at a geomagnetic
station in Sichuan Province in 2021 is shown in blue, along with its trend component in orange. (b) The waveform of the preprocessed minute-level data after
removing the trend component. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 2. The reference signals for some geomagnetic stations.
methods for extracting and analyzing geomagnetic anomaly informa­
tion. Such as the geomagnetic vertical intensity polarization method
(Hayakawa et al., 1996; Hayakawa et al., 2000; Molchanov et al., 2003;
Li et al., 2015; He & Feng, 2017; Liu et al., 2017; He, 2018; Li et al.,
2019; Liao et al., 2019; Liao et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2021; Fan et al.,
2022), principal component analysis method (Gotoh et al., 2002; Uyeda
et al., 2002; Serita et al., 2005; Hattori et al., 2006; Mursula & Holappa,
2017; Zhu et al., 2019), and short-term average long-term average signal
processing method (STA-LTA) (Kappler et al., 2019).
In earthquake prediction, these methods reflect the changes in the
geomagnetic field to a certain extent before the earthquake. However,
according to Li et al. (2015), there are some drawbacks to the polari­
zation method for detecting pre-seismic anomalies, most notably in two
areas, firstly, it is impacted by the quality of observation data and the
deployment spacing of stations, and the anomaly signal typically only
manifests on a single station close to the epicenter. Secondly, it is
challenging to exclude data interference factors, and the reliability of
abnormal signals is difficult to judge. In Kappler’s study, the STA/LTA
method is sensitive to the selection of window length, trigger threshold,
and feature function, and these parameters may need to be adjusted
according to different signal and noise conditions(Liu et al., 2017).
2
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837
Furthermore, all of the above methods require complex signal process­
ing techniques for the observed data (Smirnova & Hayakawa, 2007; He
& Liao, 2019; Feng et al., 2021), which could lead to the loss of some
seismic information features in the raw data. In many cases, it is chal­
lenging to establish a valid link between geomagnetic signal anomalies
and earthquake occurrence. As a result, there is still a great deal of
uncertainty when utilizing these techniques to anticipate earthquakes,
which limits our ability to investigate and analyze geomagnetic data one
by one.
In view of the problems and limitations of traditional methods in
extracting and analyzing geomagnetic anomaly information, this paper
proposes a method for detecting geomagnetic vertical component
anomaly waveforms based on window-weighted correlation. The
method uses window-weighted correlation as a judgment criterion,
segments the observed data by sliding windows, and calculates the
correlation between the data within each window and the reference
data. When the correlation is lower than a certain threshold, it is
considered that there is an abnormal waveform in the window. This
method effectively identifies anomalous waveforms in the geomagnetic
field and is not affected by the choice of station location or azimuth. The
geomagnetic anomaly dataset was then constructed based on this
method, and seven types of typical anomalies were identified. Anomaly
signals were classified and predicted using machine learning techniques.
Based on the time-domain and frequency-domain features constructed
with reference to previous studies, this paper mines the seismic wave­
form records in the dataset. Then, we constructed five types of features
that can accurately characterize the details of typical anomalies. This
provides the possibility to realize earthquake prediction through
geomagnetic anomalies and explore the physical mechanisms involved
in generating and evolving electromagnetic anomalies.
The first section of this paper introduces the research background,
significance, problems, and challenges of traditional geomagnetic
anomaly signal extraction methods. The second section introduces the
principles of data pre-processing and geomagnetic anomaly waveform
detection methods and describes how to construct a geomagnetic
anomaly waveform dataset based on these methods. In the third section,
through the in-depth analysis of the anomalous dataset, we classify and
summarize the characteristics of geomagnetic anomaly waveforms,
combine feature engineering, and propose five types of features that can
Z. Wu et al. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837

Fig. 3. The comparison of the identification performance of geomagnetic anomalies using correlation coefficients and WWC is shown in the figure. The blue curve
represents the reference signals for each station, while the orange curve represents the geomagnetic anomaly waveforms deviating from the reference signals. Pcorr
denotes the waveform similarity calculated based on correlation coefficients, while Pw represents the similarity calculated based on WWC. (a) Pcorr = 0.87, Pw =
0.57;(b) Pcorr = 0.71, Pw = 0.39;(c) Pcorr = 0.72, Pw = 0.45;(d) Pcorr = 0.64, Pw = 0.34. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 1
Precision and recall of different methods for detecting geomagnetic anomalies.
(Where precision represents the proportion of correctly classified positive sig­
nals among all predicted positive signals, and recall represents the proportion of
positive samples that are correctly predicted as positive among all actual posi­
tive samples (Zhou, 2016). KNN indicates K-Nearest Neighbors; LOF refers to
Local Outlier Factor; COF stands for Connectivity Outliers Factor; DBSCA in­
dicates Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise）.
accuracy and recall rate by combining the five types of features proposed
in the third part. The fifth section deliberates upon the strengths of this
research and acknowledges potential shortcomings. Ultimately, the
sixth section comprehensively summarizes the undertaken work and
resultant achievements.
2. Methodology

Method Precision Recall

2.1. Data pre-processing method
3sigmma 0.095 0.056
KNN 0.238 0.270
The geomagnetic field is the superposition of various magnetic field
LOF 0.048 0.333
COF 0.214 0.243 components generated by the magnetic rocks inside the earth and the
DBSCAN 0.333 0.169 current systems distributed inside and outside the earth (Zhang et al.,
Isolation Forest 0.310 0.302 2021). It reflects the changes in physical processes inside and outside the
Euclidean Distance 0.595 0.455 earth. Although the geomagnetic field’s distribution and variations
Correlation Coefficient 0.690 0.763
WWC 0.976 0.911
show considerable regularity(Xiao et al., 2006), they are frequently
influenced by various random factors, which causes noise and outliers in
the data. In order to extract the abnormal signals reflecting pre-seismic
characterize the details of anomaly waveforms. In the fourth segment, precursor information from geomagnetic data, remove the linear trend
we apply machine learning techniques to classify and predict the data­ of geomagnetic signal, and highlight its periodic variation, it is neces­
set, compare the classification effects under different datasets, try to sary to preprocess the original data reasonably and effectively.
improve the quality of the dataset, and improve the classification Singular spectrum analysis (SSA) is a method for processing

3
Z. Wu et al.
Fig. 4. Trend anomalies.
nonlinear time series data(Vautard et al., 1992; Golyandina and Zhigl­
javsky, 2013). SSA is not constrained by the sine wave assumption, does
not require prior information, and has advantages such as stable iden­
tification and enhancement of periodic signals(Lu et al., 2015). By
decomposing and reconstructing the trajectory matrix of time series,
different component series such as long-term trend, seasonal trend, and
noise are extracted to analyze or denoise time series and use them for
other tasks.
This paper removed the linear trend component from the pre­
processed minute-level data of the vertical component of the geomag­
netic field from each station using the singular spectrum analysis (SSA)
method. The resulting residual sequence contains the primary modes
and periodic components of the geomagnetic field variations and any
possible abnormal fluctuations or mutation phenomena in the
geomagnetic field variations. This part can show the local anomalous
fluctuations of the geomagnetic data, which paves the way for later
abnormal data identification and station reference signal generation.
The linear trend was extracted and eliminated using SSA, as shown in
Fig. 1, using the preprocessed minute-level data of the vertical compo­
nent of the geomagnetic field from the magnetic flux gate magnetometer
at a specific geomagnetic station in Sichuan Province in 2021 as an
example.
The figure shows that, after using the SSA method to remove the
linear trend from the geomagnetic data, the periodic fluctuations of the
geomagnetic signal and the abnormal local fluctuations manifest. This
opens up the possibility of later determining how similar the daily
4
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837
geomagnetic data are to the reference signal using WWC.
2.2. A geomagnetic anomaly waveform detection method based on WWC
The geomagnetic diurnal variation anomaly is defined as the non-
random deviation from the baseline signal, and the pre-seismic verti­
cal component diurnal variation anomaly mainly manifests in amplitude
and phase changes. In order to extract the possible geomagnetic diurnal
variation anomaly data related to earthquakes and pay attention to the
changes of waveform phase and amplitude, from the perspective of
similarity, we constructed the baseline signal of geomagnetic data. Then
we extracted the possible geomagnetic anomaly data. Based on the SSA
method, we removed the linear trend of each station vertical component
preprocessed minute data. The average value of each half-hour data was
taken as the baseline signal of that day. Subsequently, the mean of the
daily baseline signals was calculated to suppress noise interference,
enhance the signal-to-noise ratio and smoothness, and establish the
reference signals for all stations. The reference signals for some stations
are shown in Fig. 2.
During the anomaly analysis process, it is found that the method
based on similarity, when using correlation coefficient to measure
anomaly, only pays attention to the change of geomagnetic data wave­
form trend and ignores the absolute amplitude of peak and valley. As a
result, anomalous waveforms with significant amplitude fluctuations
that differed from the reference signals were often overlooked.
Therefore, the WWC is defined.
Z. Wu et al. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837

Fig. 5. Low point deviation (The blue curve represents the reference signal for the station, while the orange curve represents the geomagnetic anomaly waveform).
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

∑K ∑N
significantly weaker changes than the reference signal.
j=1 ωi xj yj
(1)
i=1
Pw = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ In contrast to the correlation coefficient, WWC demonstrates a
∑ N ∑N
ωi x2j ωi y2j greater detection rate for geomagnetic anomaly waveforms, as illus­
j=1 j=1
trated in Fig. 3.
It has the following properties: The degree of deviation from the reference signals was determined
by manually annotating the preprocessed minute-level data for each day
11） Pw ≤ 1； from the magnetic flux gate magnetometer at a geomagnetic station in
21） Pw (X, Y) = Pw (Y, X)； Sichuan Province in 2016. A total of 42 anomalous waveform signals
31） Pw (X, X) = 1 were identified. Based on this, the identification precision and recall rate
of different detection methods for geomagnetic anomalies were
Among them, ωi is the weights of the ith time window, K is the total compared, as shown in Table 1.
number of time windows divided, xj is the jth data point of the reference In traditional anomaly detection methods based on probability,
signal in the current sliding window, and yj is the geomagnetic data to be proximity, and clustering, anomalies are determined by the distance
between data points in space. However, using distance measurement to
recognized in the current sliding window (j = 1,2,….…,N). N is the total
detect geomagnetic anomalies has the following drawbacks: (1) it
number of data points in the current window.
cannot distinguish waveform similarity; (2) it cannot reflect the simi­
The weighting factors ω1 = 0.375, ω2 = 0.625 are chosen by
larity of dynamic trend changes; (3) for geomagnetic data with a fixed
defining data windows for daytime and nighttime and considering that
order, it cannot take into account the continuity of time dimension. The
the noise level during the day is roughly 2 nT while around 1.2 nT(Lei &
WWC-based method for geomagnetic anomaly waveform detection
Jia, 2020) during the night. The calculated values fall between [− 1,1],
effectively addresses these limitations. As shown in Table 1, combined
and the closer a value is to 1, the less likely the result is anomalous.
with mean square error to analyze and extract geomagnetic data, the
This method is sensitive to offset translation, amplitude scaling,
window weighted correlation degree has an accuracy of 0.976 for
compression, and stretching of geomagnetic data and can also reflect the
identifying geomagnetic anomaly waveforms. The anomalies extracted
similarity of waveforms well. Compared with the correlation coefficient,
by this method also include the daily ratio anomalies of geomagnetic
it can identify anomalies with similar trends to the reference signal but
diurnal amplitude variation(Rui et al., 2019), making it more effective

5
Z. Wu et al.
Fig. 6. Peak/valley anomalies.
in identifying geomagnetic anomalies and achieving high recognition
accuracy for geomagnetic anomaly waveform signals.
2.3. Construction of anomalous datasets
According to the formula for seismic electromagnetic anomaly
magnitude (M) and epicentral distance (D) statistics derived by Rikitake
(1997):
(2)
M+0.87
Dmax = 10 2.67
Where Dmax is the maximum detectable distance of the electromag­
netic emission precursor and M is the magnitude of the seismic event.
In this paper, we calculate the maximum detectable distance of the
geomagnetic signals of earthquakes of magnitude three or higher
occurring in China from 2009 to 2021, select all the stations that may
observe the geomagnetic signals in this range, construct an earthquake
catalog corresponding to the earthquakes and stations, and realize the
selection of geomagnetic anomalous signals by comparing with this
earthquake catalog.
Various geomagnetic methods indicate that anomalous seismic
magnetic disturbances exist several days to three months before an
earthquake (Yao & Feng, 2018; Marchetti et al., 2020; Özsöz & Ankaya
Pamukçu, 2021). Therefore, it is possible that the geomagnetic anomaly
disturbance data that occurred within 90 days before the target
6
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837
earthquake is highly correlated with the occurrence of the earthquake
and is a possible seismo-magnetic anomaly, which has more value for
further analysis. This type of data is labeled as 1. Otherwise, it is not
considered a seismo-magnetic anomaly and is marked as − 1. The
recorded data from 45 geomagnetic stations in provinces such as Gansu,
Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, Sichuan, Tibet, and Xinjiang were
analyzed using singular spectrum analysis, and linear trends were
removed. Next, we constructed the reference signal for each station,
constructed the allowable upper and lower deviation reference based on
the reference signal, calculated the window-weighted correlation de­
gree, and took the average. Then, by monitoring changes in similarity,
based on 3Sigmma to set dynamic threshold, the anomaly was detected
and extracted, and the dataset GAW was obtained. Each data sample
records the preprocessed minute-level data for the geomagnetic Z
component on a given day. The GAW dataset contains 9268 data points,
including 3573 positive samples with geomagnetic storm data removed
and 5695 negative samples (where anomalous data with a daily
geomagnetic storm ring current index Dst < − 30 are uniformly labeled
as − 1). In addition, ignoring the limitation of the maximum propagation
distance of electromagnetic signals, strong earthquakes in mainland
China were selected. The same method was used to construct a strong
earthquake dataset for the Sichuan region, denoted as SSW. It contains a
total of 1402 data points, including 619 positive samples and 783
negative samples.
Z. Wu et al.
Fig. 7. Sudden change anomalies.
3. Characterization of the datasets
3.1. The abnormality in the waveform of positive samples
As can be seen from the baseline geomagnetic signals of each station
in Fig. 2, it is evident that the daily amplitude of geomagnetic signals
exhibits variations across distinct time intervals. The minimum daily
amplitude of the geomagnetic signal occurs between 3 and 6 AM, re­
covers to the amplitude size at 0 between 9 and 11 AM, and maintains a
nearly constant amplitude until 0 the next day. The magnitude of the
daily amplitude change is around 15–25 nT. Through the comparative
analysis of the positive samples in the dataset and the baseline signals for
each station, it was found that the anomalies can be classified as trend
anomalies, low point deviation, peak/valley anomalies, sudden change
anomalies, amplitude compression, daytime low-value, shape anoma­
lies, as well as some data of poor quality.
Trend anomalies: This type of anomaly is mainly manifested by the
fact that, within the low point time range, the geomagnetic signal shows
a peak fluctuation instead. The daily variation distortion anomaly and
significant amplitude and phase changes are apparent. (see Fig. 4).
Low point deviation: The waveform resembles the reference signal,
but the low point of the geomagnetic signal deviates significantly from
the low point range of the reference signal. (see Fig. 5).
Peak/valley anomalies: The waveform is similar to the reference
signal, but the maximum amplitude change is 35 nT or higher. (see
Fig. 6).
7
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837
Sudden change anomalies: This anomaly is manifested by a sudden
and significant drop or rise in the geomagnetic signal. The main reasons
for forming this type of anomaly are instrument restart, vehicle stop­
ping, or high-voltage DC transmission interference(Zou et al., 2015;
Chen et al., 2020), which have minimal correlation with earthquakes
and should be removed from the dataset. (see Fig. 7)
Amplitude compression: The maximum daily amplitude variation
of the signal is far below 20 nT. (see Fig. 8)
Shape anomalies: This kind of signal is entirely dissimilar to the
baseline signal and has no regularity. The geomagnetic diurnal variation
has significant amplitude and phase changes and noticeable distortion in
shape. The low point time of the day does not exist, and the data is
relatively scattered. (see Fig. 9)
Daytime low-value: The amplitude of this kind of signal remained
unrecovered after 11 am and did not return to the level seen at 0 on the
same day. (see Fig. 10)
Error data: Such data may have poor quality due to environmental
interference or instrument malfunctions, where noise can mask changes
in the data waveform (see Fig. 11). Therefore, they should be removed
from the dataset.
From Figs. 4-10, it is evident that the abnormal daily variation of the
vertical component before the earthquake reflects the instability and
nonlinearity of the geomagnetic field before seismic events. These
anomalies mainly manifest themselves in the random deviation of
amplitude and phase from the baseline signal. Among them, the trend
and shape anomalies manifest as daily distortion and missing low point
Z. Wu et al.
Fig. 8. Amplitude compression.
time. The peak/valley anomalies, amplitude compression anomalies,
and low point deviation anomalies show waveforms similar to the
reference signal. However, the maximum daily amplitude variation of
peak/trough anomalies and amplitude compression anomalies differs
significantly from the reference signal. The low point deviation anom­
alies are characterized by the spatial deviation of the occurrence time
(low point time) of the minimum value of the daily variation amplitude
of the geomagnetic Z component at the station. A sudden change
anomaly occurs when the geomagnetic signal abruptly and significantly
decreases or increases. A daytime low-value anomaly occurs when the
signal does not fully recover by 0:00 on the same day.
After analyzing various anomalies and removing error data and
sudden change anomalies, the GAW dataset contains 9206 data points,
including 3542 positive and 5664 negative samples. The SSW dataset
contains 1398 samples, including 617 positive and 781 negative. The
dataset inevitably contains noise signals from the environment, but after
removing sudden change anomalies and error data, the electromagnetic
disturbances do not reflect the characteristics of noise changes. These
are inconsistent with the known ambient noise and human noise char­
acteristics, but other sources, which may be related to the occurrence of
earthquakes. As shown in Fig. 12, Fig. 12a and b show the geomagnetic
anomalies before the 6.4-magnitude earthquake in Menyuan, Qinghai.
In contrast, Fig. 12c and d show the geomagnetic anomalies before the
6.3-magnitude earthquake in Zaduo, Qinghai. Studies by Xie, Li, and Rui
(Xie et al., 2018; Rui et al., 2019; Li et al., 2021) have shown that such
8
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837
anomalous signals may be related to earthquake occurrences.
Although some studies on the anomaly of pre-earthquake geomag­
netic fields have already been done by earlier scholars, systematic
identification and classification analysis of these anomalies are still
uncommon. These anomalies show regularities in spatial distribution
and time series and are closely related to seismic activity. Therefore, it
can provide a significant foundation and references for earthquake
prediction by systematically identifying and categorizing these anoma­
lous types.
3.2. Feature engineering
With the development of observational technologies and the
expansion of data volumes in recent years, some researchers have
attempted to extract features from a large amount of observational data,
construct mathematical models, and achieve prediction of the proba­
bility or scale of earthquakes occurrence. In 2007, Panakkat and Adeli
(2007; 2009) proposed an effective method for earthquake prediction
using seismic activity indices. These indices are calculated from the
temporal distribution of earthquakes and represent the potential seismic
state of the region. Based on geophysical facts such as Gutenberg-Richter
inversion law, earthquake occurrence frequency, foreshock frequency,
and earthquake magnitude distribution, Asim et al. (2017) constructed
eight features by mathematical modeling in 2017. Asim et al. (2018)
collected 60 seismic activity indicators the following year to predict
Z. Wu et al.
Fig. 9. Shape anomalies.
earthquakes of magnitude M5.0 and above. However, seismic activity
indicators based on conventional seismic catalogs typically only
discretely record information about unstable ruptures in fault zones,
missing more subtle or unconventional fault zone activities, such as fault
tremor or creep. This results in coarser features.
Therefore, to better reflect the subtle changes and complexity of fault
zone activity, some researchers have begun exploring new methods to
achieve earthquake prediction. In 2019, based on the data provided by
the multi-component seismic monitoring system AETA, Lv constructed
and selected 25 general statistical features based on the time domain,
energy, and frequency characteristics as the prediction basis for the
classifier. Lv then predicted destructive earthquakes (magnitude ≥
Ms5.0) occurring within a range of five days from the seismic station
within 200 km. In the retrospective experiment, the pre-earthquake
prediction model achieved a precision rate of 0.66 and a recall rate of
0.75. In 2021, Wei(2021) also built time, frequency, and sliding window
features using waveform data of the Earth’s electric field from 20 days
before an earthquake. The NS component’s prediction accuracy was
0.692 at the Pingliang Earth electric field monitoring station.
However, the time-domain features cannot reflect the periodic in­
formation in the signal. The time-domain features cannot effectively
distinguish or identify some signals with periodic or frequency varia­
tions. The frequency-domain features cannot reflect the changes in the
signal over time, and for some signals with time-varying or non-
smoothness, the frequency-domain features cannot effectively capture
or describe them. The sliding window features are sensitive to the
9
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837
selection of windows. Obviously, for periodic non-smooth geomagnetic
signals, the above features do not reflect the non-random deviation of
the daily geomagnetic variation from the reference signal, measuring its
amplitude and waveform phase variation.
Based on the time domain and frequency domain features con­
structed by previous studies, this paper aims at the waveform charac­
teristics of geomagnetic anomaly signals and mines the seismic
waveform records in the dataset. On top of this foundation, the study has
included wavelet features to assess signal details or mutations, energy
features to evaluate signal strength or amplitude, and aggregated fea­
tures to measure signal similarity or dissimilarity. The study considers
six typical anomalous waveforms after removing sudden change
anomalies in Section 3.1: trend anomalies, low point offset anomalies,
peak/valley anomalies, amplitude compression anomalies, daytime low-
value anomalies, and shape anomalies. The variations in amplitude and
time for amplitude compression, daytime low-value, and peak/valley
anomalies are described using energy and temporal features. For low
point offsets, frequency domain and wavelet features describe the
variation in frequency and scale. The spatiotemporal distribution of
trend and shape anomalies is described using temporal and aggregation
features. These five types of features are used to describe typical
geomagnetic anomalies. Therefore, an alternative comprehensive
feature set(Christ et al., 2018) is constructed, which is expected to reflect
the characteristics of the anomaly signal more accurately. (see Table 2).
Z. Wu et al.
Fig. 10. Daytime low-value.
4. Machine learning methods for classification experiments
This section used machine learning methods to classify and predict
the GAW and SSW datasets. Furthermore, based on the features con­
structed in Section 3.2, the SSW was analyzed in depth to achieve feature
selection and model construction. The objective is to promote the deep
integration of artificial intelligence and earthquake prediction research,
further integrate machine learning techniques with earthquake elec­
tromagnetics, and create the possibility for more effective delineation of
earthquake-prone areas and realization of earthquake forecasting.
4.1. Classification experiment based on the GAW dataset
The following classifiers will be constructed for the GAW dataset,
which is composed of geomagnetic anomaly signals from 45 stations (see
Table 3).
By using different processing methods on the data set GAW, such as
data differencing or data augmentation, classifiers A to I were trained
respectively, and classifier J was obtained by a simple voting ensemble
strategy. Table 4 shows the performance of the classifiers above in the
GAW dataset.
Classifier J achieved the best precision of 78.0 % and an improved
AUC of 0.769, as shown in Table 4 and Fig. 13. However, the
10
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837
classification precision increase is insignificant in the GAW dataset. This
might be because some abnormalities in the GAW dataset are brought on
by geomagnetic anomalies at a single station. Single-station magnetic
anomalies have a complicated daily variation and are significantly
influenced by outside magnetic fields. Even if there are noticeable
changes, they cannot be written off as anomalies before earthquakes.
4.2. Classification experiment for multi-station synchronous anomalies
Based on the dataset GAW, the data of the Sichuan region from 2016
to 2019 were selected, and a sub-data set of GAW was obtained, denoted
as SGAW. By selecting the anomaly signals that appeared synchronously
at multiple stations before the earthquake in this data set, the data set
MSW was obtained. Both datasets were classified using Random Forest
(n_estimators = 80), and the results were compared (see Table 5).
The comparison of confusion matrices between the two datasets is as
follows. (see Fig. 14).
After selecting the multi-station synchronous anomalies, the preci­
sion and recall rate greatly improved under the same model. This in­
dicates that replacing the anomaly data in GAW with multi-station
synchronous anomalies is a critical way to improve the quality of the
dataset and the classification precision in the next step.
Z. Wu et al.
Fig. 11. Error data.
4.3. Feature selection and classification experiment based on the SSW
dataset
Some strong earthquake precursors will produce some electromag­
netic emission source in the epicenter area, which makes the electro­
magnetic disturbance propagate to a very far place in the air(Rikitake,
1997). Therefore, the seismic electromagnetic anomaly signals that
appear before the strong earthquake can be detected by multiple
observation points at the same time, and the strong earthquake anomaly
signal dataset, that is, the SSW dataset, meets the requirements of the
multi-station synchronous anomaly to a certain extent.
For the features constructed in Section 3.3, the distribution of these
features in the training and test sets of SSW is viewed and compared by
plotting the KDE (Kernel Density Estimation) distribution, and feature
variables with uneven distribution in the two datasets are found, as
shown in Fig. 15.
The data distribution in the graph above shows that, in contrast to
the other characteristics, the distributions of the features of cv, first_­
location_of_maximum, and div differ noticeably between the training
and testing sets. Such differences make the model less generalizable. As
a result, taking these features out of the dataset is advised.
Next, following the idea of the embedded feature selection method
(Zhou, 2016), the random forest method will rank the remaining fea­
tures based on their importance. (see Fig. 16).
Using the random forest method, we can obtain the feature impor­
tance ranking for the different features. By sorting the features based on
their importance and selecting the top 14 features that account for 80 %
11
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837
of the importance, we arrive at the following features: median、
cwt_coefficients、abs_energy、mean、ft_coefficient_angle、absolute_­
sum_of_changes、abs_energy_diff、fft_aggrerated_skew、cor120、
skew、per1、cor60、fft_coefficient_abs、f_agg_mean_maxlag_60. These
features can be classified into five categories (see Table 6).
Different types of features can better characterize the six typical
anomalies. Energy features quantify the signal’s power or amplitude and
represent the signal’s size. Signal periodicity or harmonic components
are measured using frequency domain features, representing the signal’s
frequency distribution. Wavelet features measure the signal’s details or
mutations by reflecting the local variations of the signal at various scales
and places. Time-domain features quantify the shape or trend of the
signal by assessing the regularity of the signal’s change over time. The
relationships between signals are reflected in aggregation features,
which compare and contrast signals. These features represent changes in
amplitude and waveform phase and are better at measuring the non-
random deviation of daily geomagnetic variations from the reference
signal than seismic activity features. They can more accurately find the
geomagnetic anomalies that have a more significant correlation with the
occurrence of earthquakes and advance further analysis, looking for the
potential correlation with earthquakes.
We can improve the model’s capacity to detect inherent structure
and patterns in the data by choosing the right combination of charac­
teristics and their ordering. We can lower the dimensionality of the data,
eliminate noise and redundancy, and enhance the model’s functionality
and generalizability by using these five kinds of features. The original
dataset is converted using these features, and the changed dataset is used
Z. Wu et al. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837

Fig. 12. (a) The abnormal waveform was observed 17 days before the M6.4 earthquake in Menyuan (amplitude compression). (b) The abnormal waveform was
observed 9 days before the M6.4 earthquake in Menyuan (trend anomalies). (c) The abnormal waveform was observed 40 days before the M6.3 earthquake in Zaduo
(low point deviation). (d) The abnormal waveform was observed 28 days before the M6.3 earthquake in Zaduo (low point deviation).

Table 2
Alternative comprehensive feature set.
Feature name Feature meaning or calculation formula Detailed information
∑
abs_energy abs energy = ni=1 x2i The absolute energy value describes the square of the distance from the origin of a time
series data, indicating the level of fluctuation (energy) present in the data.
∑
abs_energy_diff abs energy diff = i=1,⋯,n− 1 |xi+60 − xi |2 Compute the differenced data’s absolute energy value after taking the original data’s
difference (l = 60).
ADF_pvalue Augmented Dickey-Fuller test Hypothesis test result.
ADF_teststat Augmented Dickey-Fuller test T-test, hypothesis test value.
ADF_usedlag Augmented Dickey-Fuller test The order of lag used.
binned_entropy −
∑min(max bins,len(x))
pk log(pk ) • 1(pk >0) Grouping entropy, divide the whole sequence into max_bins by value, put each value into
k=0
the corresponding bucket, and then calculate the entropy.
median ⎧ N+1 The median of the data, where X is the data sorted from smallest to largest and N is the
X[ ]; Nisodd
⎪
⎨ 2 data length.
median = N N + 1
⎩ X[ ] + X[
⎪ ]
2 2 ; Niseven
2
mean X1 + X2 + ... + XN Average of data.
mean =
N
cwt_coefficients 2 x2 x2 Ricker wavelet analysis (Wang, 2015), a is the width parameter in the wavelet transform
r = (1 − 2 )exp(− )
1 a 2a2 function.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅
3aπ4
Feature name Feature meaning or calculation formula Detailed information
(continued on next page)

12
Z. Wu et al. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837

Table 2 (continued )
Feature name Feature meaning or calculation formula Detailed information

skew 1∑n Xi − μ 3 Skewness is used to measure the asymmetry of the probability distribution of random
skew = ( )
n i=1 σ variables, where μ is the mean value and σ is the standard deviation.
fft_aggregated_skew 1 n FFT(Xi ) − μ f 3
∑ Skewness of original data after the Fourier transform, where μ f is the mean value after
fft skew = ( )
n i=1 σ f the Fourier transform of original data, σ f is the standard deviation after the Fourier
transform of original data.
fft_coefficient_abs ∑n− 1 mk To compute the coefficients of a one-dimensional discrete Fourier sequence using the
Ak = m=0 am exp(− 2πi ), k = 0, ⋯, n − 1
fft_coefficient_angle n fast Fourier transform algorithm.
∑
absolute_sum_of_changes i=1,⋯,n− 1 |xi+1 − xi | Absolute sum of first-order difference, sum of absolute values of the first-order
difference result of the time series data
f_agg_mean_maxlag_60 R(l) = The aggregated (mean) statistical feature of the 60th-order autocorrelation coefficient.
1 ∑n− l Here, Xi represents the values of a time series, n represents its length, and l represents the
(Xt − μ)(Xt+1 − μ)fagg (R(1), ⋯, R(m) )m = 60
(n − l)σ2 t=1 lag order. These values form a vector, and the mean of this vector is to be calculated.
Feature name Feature meaning or calculation formula Detailed information
cor60、cor120 1 ∑n− l The autocorrelation coefficients for a lag of 60 and 120 data points
R(l) = (Xt − μ)(Xt+1 − μ)
(n − l)σ2 t=1

large_standard_deviation std(data) > r*[max(data) − min(data)] Whether the standard deviation is multiple of the range and the output is 0 or 1,
according to the rule of thumb, the standard deviation should be one-quarter of the
range of values, and r is the percentage of the range to be compared
∑k
coeff_3_k_10 Xt = φ0 + Each order coefficient of the autoregressive equation (autoregressive order: 10, the third
i=1 φi Xt− i + εt
coefficient in autoregressive), where k is the order of the autoregressive equation.
per1 Q = Q3 − Q1 Quartile difference, Q3 is the upper quartile, Q1 is the lower quartile.
cv std Coefficient of variation, reflecting the degree of variation in a set of data
cv =
mean
∑ m
div |xi | n is the length of the time series, m < n
div = ∑n i=1
i=m+1 |xi |
first_location_of_maximum index[max(data)] The position of the relative maximum value based on the length of the sequential data.
location =
len(data)

Table 3
Classifiers.
Classifier Methods of data set Classification model selection
processing

A Undersampling
B –
C Reverse Differential
(l = -50)
D Forward Differential
(l = 50)
E Forward Differential
(l = 100)
F Random
Oversampling
G SMOTE
H ADASYN
I SMOTEENN
J Integrating the above weak classifier
SVM
BalancedRandomForestClassifier(Chen, 2004)
(n_estimators = 150)
BalancedRandomForestClassifier
(n_estimators = 200)
BalancedRandomForestClassifier
(n_estimators = 200)
BalancedRandomForestClassifier
(n_estimators = 180)
SVM
SVM
SVM
SVM

to retrain a random forest model. The results of the random forest

Fig. 13. The ROC curves and the corresponding AUC for each classifier.
method on both the SSW dataset and the feature-engineered SSW dataset
are displayed in the following table (see Table 7, Fig. 17, Fig. 18).
The AUC value in SGAW is 0.705, MSW is 0.786, and SSW is 0.762.

Table 4
The performance of each classifier on the GAW dataset. (The definitions of Precision and Recall can be found in Table 1. F1-Score is the harmonic mean of Precision and
Recall. Specificity, also known as the true negative rate, represents the proportion of true negative samples in the actual negative samples. AUC stands for Area Under
Curve, which is defined as the area enclosed by the ROC curve and the coordinate axes. The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve is referred to as ROC.).
Classifier Precision Recall F1 score Specificity AUC

- + Avg/Total - + Avg/Total - + Avg/Total - + Avg/Total

A 0.83 0.63 0.76 0.73 0.76 0.74 0.78 0.69 0.75 0.76 0.73 0.75 0.744
B 0.84 0.62 0.76 0.72 0.77 0.74 0.78 0.69 0.74 0.77 0.72 0.75 0.745
C 0.72 0.50 0.64 0.66 0.56 0.62 0.69 0.53 0.63 0.56 0.66 0.60 0.612
D 0.72 0.49 0.63 0.66 0.56 0.62 0.68 0.53 0.63 0.56 0.66 0.60 0.609
E 0.73 0.52 0.65 0.67 0.58 0.64 0.70 0.55 0.64 0.58 0.67 0.62 0.629
F 0.81 0.68 0.76 0.81 0.69 0.76 0.81 0.68 0.76 0.69 0.81 0.73 0.747
G 0.81 0.68 0.76 0.81 0.68 0.76 0.81 0.68 0.76 0.68 0.81 0.73 0.747
H 0.81 0.67 0.76 0.81 0.67 0.76 0.81 0.67 0.75 0.67 0.81 0.72 0.739
I 0.82 0.61 0.74 0.72 0.73 0.72 0.77 0.66 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.73 0.725
J 0.83 0.69 0.78 0.81 0.73 0.78 0.82 0.71 0.78 0.73 0.81 0.76 0.769

13
Z. Wu et al.
Table 5
Different performances of Random Forest on the SGAW and MSW datasets.
Dataset Precision Recall F1 score Specificity data
SGAW 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.69 1039
MSW 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.79 843
The classifier’s AUC after feature engineering and feature selection is
0.827.
Exploring the waveform recordings in SSW and performing feature
engineering enhanced the performance of the same model on the strong
earthquake geomagnetic anomaly dataset when compared to using raw
time-series data directly as input for machine learning. Therefore, the
subsequent work must eliminate variations in the normal background
field. Based on GAW, compared with the geomagnetic stations with the
same latitude, longitude and all geomagnetic stations in China, the data
of non-local or non-regional changes are removed, and feature engi­
neering is performed on this basis. By combining machine learning
methods, possible geomagnetic anomaly waveforms related to earth­
quake occurrences can be identified, and the correlation with earth­
quakes can be analyzed to achieve a one-to-one correspondence between
electromagnetic anomalies and earthquake occurrences. This can lead to
earthquake prediction through geomagnetic anomalies, and further
research can be conducted to investigate the causes of electromagnetic
anomalies and provide more possibilities for summarizing the charac­
teristics of electromagnetic anomalies caused by earthquakes.
5. Discussion
In the field of earthquake prediction, the traditional methods for
detecting geomagnetic anomalies include the polarization method for
vertical geomagnetic intensity, the daily variation amplitude and its
day-to-day ratio for the vertical component of geomagnetism, and the
amplitude-phase method. In 2007, Zhang et al. (2007) used the 25-year
hour average data for the vertical component of geomagnetism at the
Urumqi station from 1980 to 2004 to determine the amplitude of daily
variation and its day-to-day ratio. He compared the earthquake reflec­
tion ability of the daily variation amplitude and day-to-day ratio
method. He found that the Z component daily amplitude anomaly had a
Fig. 14. (a) Confusion matrix of the classifier on the SGAW dataset. (b) Confusion matrix of the classifier on the MSW dataset.
14
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837
precision of 0.692 and a recall of 0.5. In contrast, the Z component daily
amplitude ratio anomaly had a precision of 0.687 and a recall of 0.733.
In 2016, Li et al. (2016) used the daily variation amplitude and load-
unload response ratio approach for the Z component to analyze some
geomagnetic observation data collected in Qinghai and neighboring
regions (Gansu, Sichuan) between 2007 and 2014, and obtained an
earthquake reflection rate of 0.643 and a recall of 0.450. The following
year, He and Feng(2017) used the second-sampled observation data
produced by the geomagnetic combination observation system at the
Chengdu station in Sichuan Province as the research object. Applying
the polarization method to extract ultra-low frequency magnetic
anomaly signals before several moderate to strong earthquakes near this
station, the precision of anomalies that correspond to earthquakes was
0.625, with a recall rate of 0.714. Huang et al. (2020) calculated the low-
point displacement anomalies between 2008 and 2019 using the
amplitude-phase method in 2020. The earthquake reflection rate was
discovered to be 0.696.
Therefore, this paper’s geomagnetic anomaly dataset is constructed
based on the window-weighted correlation method. Through feature
engineering of the dataset SSW, the final classification accuracy and
recall rate reaches 0.83, higher than the seismicity mapping rate of the
traditional geomagnetic anomaly detection method. This study in­
troduces the machine learning method and provides a new perspective
and exploration path for analyzing the potential correlation between
geomagnetic anomalies and earthquakes. The in-depth analysis of the
anomaly signals provides effective data support for further analysis of
the seismo-magnetic relationship. It provides strong support for inte­
grating and developing artificial intelligence and earthquake prediction
research. However, the method is sensitive to data quality, reference
data selection, and time window size, which need further optimization.
The anomaly signal dataset established based on the method covers
multiple scales of seismic events, but the number of samples is still
limited. In addition, the imbalance of positive and negative samples and
the existence of a single geomagnetic day-variation anomaly have some
impacts on the training effect of the machine learning model.
6. Conclusion
This paper proposes a method for detecting geomagnetic anomaly
waveforms based on window-weighted correlation to solve the problems
Z. Wu et al. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837

Fig. 15. The distribution of each feature in the training and testing sets.

Fig. 16. Ranking of the importance of the feature.

15
Z. Wu et al. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837

Table 6
Categorization of features.
Types of features Feature names

Energy feature abs_energy、abs_energy_diff

Frequency domain fft_coefficient_angle、fft_coefficient_abs、
feature fft_aggrerated_skew
Wavelet feature cwt_coefficients
Time domain feature cor120、cor60、absolute_sum_of_changes、、median、
mean、skew、per1
Aggregation feature f_agg_mean_maxlag_60

and limitations of traditional methods in geomagnetic anomaly infor­

mation extraction and analysis. Compared with the traditional anomaly
detection method, the method can identify geomagnetic anomalies more
effectively, with an identification accuracy of 97.6 %, demonstrating an
efficient detection capability for weak and complex changing regularity
waveform features. By comparing with the reference signals from
various magnetic stations, it is found that the daily amplitude of the
geomagnetic signals varies in different periods, and the daily amplitude Fig. 18. ROC curve and area under the curve (AUC) of the Random Forest
varies in the range of about 15–25 nT. In addition, based on the window- method on SGAW, SSW, MSW, and SSW after feature engineering
weighted similarity, the geomagnetic anomaly dataset and the strong transformation.
earthquake dataset of the Sichuan region for earthquakes above
magnitude 3 were constructed, and seven typical types of geomagnetic
anomaly waveforms were summarized, as well as the regularity of each may be related to earthquake occurrences and analyzing their potential
type of anomaly in spatial distribution and time series. Finally, machine correlation with earthquakes provides the possibility of earthquake
learning methods were employed to extract five types of distinct features prediction through geomagnetic anomalies. Furthermore, it provides
and conduct classification and prediction experiments on the dataset. effective data support for further analysis of the seismo-magnetic
The final model achieved an AUC of 0.827, with better earthquake relationship.
reflection ability than traditional geomagnetic anomaly detection
methods. Identifying possible geomagnetic anomaly waveforms that

Table 7
The performance of Random Forest on SSW and SSW after feature engineering.
Dataset Precision Recall F1 score Specificity AUC

- + Avg/Total - + Avg/Total - + Avg/Total - + Avg/Total

SSW 0.80 0.72 0.76 0.75 0.77 0.76 0.78 0.74 0.76 0.77 0.75 0.76 0.705
After feature engineering 0.86 0.79 0.83 0.81 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.81 0.83 0.827

Fig. 17. (a) Confusion matrix of the classifier on SSW. (b) Confusion matrix of the classifier on SSW after feature engineering.

16
Z. Wu et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zongxuan Wu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Resources, Visualization, Project administration.
Jiening Xia: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Supervision, Project administration. Benyan
Tan: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Visualiza­
tion, Supervision. Bin Wang: Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervi­
sion. Qian Zhao: Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision. Shaopeng
He: Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Double Innovation Fund Research
Project of Zhong Zhen (No. ZZSC2022G03), and the 2022 Hubei High-
Value IPR Cultivation Project (Patent Category). We thank Geomag­
netic Network Center of China, Institute of Geophysics, China Earth­
quake Administration for providing geomagnetic data.
References
Adeli, H., Panakkat, A., 2009. A probabilistic neural network for earthquake magnitude
prediction. Neural Netw. 22 (7), 1018–1024.
Asim, K.M., Martínez-Álvarez, F., Basit, A., Iqbal, T., 2017. Earthquake magnitude
prediction in Hindukush region using machine learning techniques. Nat. Hazards 85
(1), 471–486.
Asim, K.M., Idris, A., Iqbal, T., Martínez-Álvarez, F., 2018. Earthquake prediction model
using support vector regressor and hybrid neural networks X. PLoS One 13 (7),
e0199004.
Chen, X., Huang, E.X., Cheng, W.L., Yu, S.J., 2020. Typical interference identification
and data processing of FHD geomagnetic data in Xinyang Platform. Ground Water
(in Chinese) 42 (2), 101–103.
Chen, C.H., Liu, J.Y., Yang, W.H., Yen, H.Y., Hattori, K., Lin, C.R., Yeh, Y.H., 2009.
SMART analysis of geomagnetic data observed in Taiwan. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts
A/B/C 34 (6–7), 350–359.
Chen, C., 2004. Using Random Forest to Learn Imbalanced Data.
Christ, M., Braun, N., Neuffer, J., Kempa-Liehr, A.W., 2018. Time Series FeatuRe
Extraction on basis of Scalable Hypothesis tests (tsfresh – A Python package).
Neurocomputing 307, 72–77.
Ding, J.H., Liu, J., Yu, S.R., Xiao, W.J., 2004. Geomagnetic Diurnal-Variation Anomalies
and Their Relation to Strong Earthquakes. Acta Seismol. Sin. (in Chinese) S1, 79–87.
FAN Wenjie, FENG Lili, Li Xia, et al. Characteristic of geomagnetic vertical intensity
polarization anomalies before the Menyuan, Qimghai Ms6.9 earthquake on January
8, 2022. China Earthq. Eng. J. (in Chinese), 44(3): 744–750.
Feng, L.L., Guan, Y.L., Fan, W.J., He, M.Q., Li, X., et al., 2021. Geomagnetic Vertical
Component Polarization Anomaly In October 15TH 2020 Before Maduo M7.4
Earthquake. Plateau Earthquake (in Chinese) 33, 1–6.
Golyandina, N. & Zhigljavsky, A. 2013. Basic SSA. In N. Golyandina & A. Zhigljavsky,
eds. Singular Spectrum Analysis for Time Series. SpringerBriefs in Statistics. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer: 11–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34913-3_2 5
March 2023.
Gotoh, K., Akinaga, Y., Hayakawa, M., Hattori, K., 2002. Principal component analysis of
ULF geomagnetic data for Izu islands earthquakes in July 2000. J. Atmospheric
Elect. 22 (1), 1–12.
Hattori, K., Serita, A., Yoshino, C., Hayakawa, M., Isezaki, N., 2006. Singular spectral
analysis and principal component analysis for signal discrimination of ULF
geomagnetic data associated with 2000 Izu Island Earthquake Swarm. Phys. Chem.
the Earth, Parts A/B/C 31 (4–9), 281–291.
Hayakawa, M., Molchanov, O.A. 2007. Seismo-Electromagnetics as a New Field of
Radiophysics: Electromagnetic Phenomena Associated with Earthquakes., (320): 10.
Hayakawa, M., Kawate, R., Molchanov, O.A., Yumoto, K., 1996. Results of ultra-low-
frequency magnetic field measurements during the Guam earthquake of 8 August
1993. Geophys. Res. Lett. 23 (3), 241–244.
Hayakawa, M., Itoh, T., Hattori, K., Yumoto, K., 2000. ULF electromagnetic precursorsfor
an earthquakeat Biak, Indonesia on February 17, 1996. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27 (10),
1531–1534.
17
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837
He, C., Feng, Z.S., 2017. Application of polarization method to geomagnetic data from
the station Chengdu. Acta Seismologica Sinica (in Chinese), 39(4): 558-564+633.
He, C., Liao, X.F., 2019. Study on anomaly characteristics of geomagnetic vertical
intensity polarization method. Int. Seismic Dynamics (in Chinese) 8, 130–131.
He, C., 2018. Application of geomagnetic polarization method in Sichuan area. Chinese
Geophysical Society, Chinese Seismological Society, Organizing Committee of
National Symposium on Petrology and Geodynamics, Tectonic Geology and
Geodynamics Committee of Geological Society of China, Regional Geology and
Metallogenic Committee of Geological Society of China, and Earth Science
Department of National Natural Science Foundation of China (in Chinese): 12.
https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?
dbcode=CPFD&dbname=CPFDLAST2019&filename=ZGDW201810042009&v=.
Huang, S., Yao, L., Jiang, C.F., 2020. Validity Analysis of Geomagnetic Low-point
Displacement Based on Amplitude-phase Method. Earthquake (in Chinese) 40 (3),
131–141.
Kappler, K.N., Schneider, D.D., MacLean, L.S., Bleier, T.E., Lemon, J.J., 2019. An
algorithmic framework for investigating the temporal relationship of magnetic field
pulses and earthquakes applied to California. Comput. Geosci. 133, 104317 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2019.104317.
Lei, Q., & Jia, L. NOISE SUPPRESSION OF FGM-01 GEOMAGNETIC OBSERVATION
DATA BY HILBERT-HUANG TRANSFORM. Inland Earthquake (in Chinese), 34(4):
363–377.
Li, X., Ma, Y.H., Ma, Z., et al. 2015. APPLICATION OF Z COMPONENT GEOMAGNETIC
LOAD-UNLOADING RESPONSE RATIO IN QINGHAI AREA. Plateau Earthquake (in
Chinese), 28(1): 14–18.
Li, X., Feng, L.L., Feng, Z.S., Zhao, Y.H., Liu, L., 2019. The characteristics of ULF
magnetic field in Qinghai were analyzed by polarization method. Int. Seismic
Dynam. (in Chinese) 8, 69–70.
Li, J.H., Jiang, C.F., Feng, L.L., He, K., 2021. Analysis on Geomagnetic Diurnal Variation
Anomaly Before the Ms7.4 Maduo Earthquake. Sichuan Earthq. (in Chinese) 4, 7–11.
Li, Q., Yang, X., Cai, S.P., 2015. Case Study of Applying Polarization Method to
Geomagnetic Array Data. Earthq. Prevent. Technol. (in Chinese) 10 (2), 412–417.
Liao, X.F., Feng, L.L., Qi, Y.P., Li, X., 2019. Application of Geomagnetic Polarization
Method in the Alashan M5.0 Earthquake. Earthquake (in Chinese) 39 (4), 127–135.
Liao, X.F., Fan, W.J., Qiu, G.L., Li, X.H., Yang, P., 2021. Analysis on Short Term
Characteristics of Geomagnetic Vertical Intensity Polarization Anomaly Before
Jiuzhaigou 7.0 Earthquake on August 8 2017. Earthquake (in Chinese) 41 (4),
68–77.
Liu, S.Z., Qin, Z.M., Zhang, L.E., 2017a. Dynamic Variation Characteristics Analysis of
Geomagnetic ULF in Taiyuan Station by polarization method. Shanxi Earthquake (in
Chinese) 4, 5–7.
Liu, X.M., Zhao, J.J., Wang, Y.M., Peng, P.A., 2017b. Automatic microseismic P-wave
pickup based on improved STA/LTA method. J. Northeastern Univ. (Natural Science
Edition) (in Chinese) 38, 740–745.
Lu, C.L., Kuang, C.L., Yi, C.H., Zhang, Z.T., 2015. Singular Spectrum Analysis Filter
Method for Mitigation of GPS Multipath Error. J. Wuhan University (Information
Science Edition) (in Chinese), 40(7): 924–931.
Marchetti, D., De Santis, A., D’Arcangelo, S., Poggio, F., Jin, S., Piscini, A.,
Campuzano, S.A., 2020. Magnetic Field and Electron Density Anomalies from Swarm
Satellites Preceding the Major Earthquakes of the 2016–2017 Amatrice-Norcia
(Central Italy) Seismic Sequence. Pure Appl. Geophys. 177 (1), 305–319.
Molchanov, O., Schekotov, A., Fedorov, E., Belyaev, G., Gordeev, E., 2003. Preseismic
ULF electromagnetic effect from observation at Kamchatka. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.
Sci. 3 (3/4), 203–209.
Mursula, K., Holappa, L., 2017. Principal Component Analysis of Geomagnetic Activity
13, 197–200.
Özsöz, İ., Ankaya Pamukçu, O., 2021. Detection and interpretation of precursory
magnetic signals preceding October 30, 2020 Samos earthquake. Turk. J. Earth Sci.
30 (SI-1), 748–757.
Panakkat, A., Adeli, H., 2007. NEURAL NETWORK MODELS FOR EARTHQUAKE
MAGNITUDE PREDICTION USING MULTIPLE SEISMICITY INDICATORS. Int. J.
Neural Syst. 17 (01), 13–33.
Rikitake, T., 1997. Nature of Electromagnetic Emission Precursory to an Earthquake.
J. Geomag. Geoelec. 49 (9), 1153–1163.
Rui, X.L., Liao, X.F., Yang, P., Huang, L.J., 2019. Analysis of Geomagnetic Anomalies of
Sichuan Associated with the Jiuzhaigou M7.0 earthquake. Sichuan Earthquake (in
Chinese) 3, 28–31.
Serita, A., Hattori, K., Yoshino, C., Hayakawa, M., Isezaki, N., 2005. Principal component
analysis and singular spectrum analysis of ULF geomagnetic data associated with
earthquakes. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 5 (5), 685–689.
Smirnova, N.A., Hayakawa, M., 2007. Fractal characteristics of the ground-observed ULF
emissions in relation to geomagnetic and seismic activities. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys.
69 (15), 1833–1841.
Uyeda, S., Hayakawa, M., Nagao, T., Molchanov, O., Hattori, K., Orihara, Y., Gotoh, K.,
Akinaga, Y., Tanaka, H., 2002. Electric and magnetic phenomena observed before
the volcano-seismic activity in 2000 in the Izu Island Region, Japan. Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci. 99 (11), 7352–7355.
Uyeda, S., Nagao, T., Kamogawa, M., 2009. Short-term earthquake prediction: Current
status of seismo-electromagnetics. Tectonophysics 470 (3–4), 205–213.
Vautard, R., Yiou, P., Ghil, M., 1992. Singular-spectrum analysis: A toolkit for short,
noisy chaotic signals. Physica D 58 (1–4), 95–126.
Wang, Y., 2015. Frequencies of the Ricker wavelet. GEOPHYSICS, 80(2): A31–A37.
Wei, 2021. Research on anomaly detection and classification of ground electric field
based on Machine learning. Lanzhou Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake
Administration (in Chinese).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?
dbcode=CMFD&dbname=CMFD202102&filename=1021616293.nh&v=.
Z. Wu et al.
Xiao, W.J., Yu, S.R., Ding, J.H., 2006. The anomalous phenomenon of geomagnetism
before strong earthquake occurrence. Earthquake (in Chinese) 4, 52–58.
Xie, T., Liu, J., Lu, J., et al., 2018. Retrospective analysis on electromagnetic anomalies
observed by ground fixed station before the 2008 Wenchuan Ms8.0 earthquake.
Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese) 61 (5), 1922–1937.
Xu, P.S., Teng, Y.T., Yu, Z.Y., Wang, X.M., Wu, Q., Hu, X.X., 2018. Electromagnetic
anomaly identification algorithm based on signal fingerprinting. Acta Seismol. Sin.
(in Chinese) 40 (1), 79–88.
YAO Xiu-yi & FENG Zhi-sheng. 2018. Review on the recent development of analysis
methods on magnetic disturbance associated with earthquakes. Progress in Geophysics
(in Chinese), 33(2): 511–520.
Zhang Zhihong, Guo Anning, Li Mengying, et al. 2021. Geomagnetic anomalies analysis
of 2018 Songyuan Ms5.7 earthquake in Jilin Province. Science Technology and
Engineering (in Chinese), 21(29): 12406–12414.
18
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 259 (2024) 105837
Zhang, Y., Yang, F.X., He, R., 2007. THE OMEN ANALYSIS OF DAY AMPLITUDE AND
ITS DAY TO DAY RATIO ABOUT THE GEOMAGNETISM Z COMPONENT IN
URUMQI STATION. Inland Earthquake (in Chinese) 1, 78–85.
Zhao, G., Zhang, X., Cai, J., Zhan, Y., Ma, Q., Tang, J., Du, X., Han, B., Wang, L., Chen, X.,
Xiao, Q., Sun, X., Dong, Z., Wang, J., Zhang, J., Fan, Y., Ye, T., 2022. A review of
seismo-electromagnetic research in China. Sci. China Earth Sci. (in Chinese). https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11430-021-9930-5.
Zhou, Z.H., 2016. Machine Learning. Tsinghua University Press, 2 March 2023.
Zhu, K., Li, K., Fan, M., Chi, C., Yu, Z., 2019. Precursor Analysis Associated With the
Ecuador Earthquake Using Swarm A and C Satellite Magnetic Data Based on PCA.
IEEE Access 7, 93927–93936.
Zou, G., Gao, S.Q., Zhao, G., Feng, Y., Sheng, Y., 2015. INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS ON
FHD-2B PROTON MAGNETOMETER DATA IN WENQUAN SEISMIC STATION.
Inland Earthquake (in Chinese) 29 (4), 371–377.