journal article·2025-12-17Open access

Are Ionospheric Disturbances Spatiotemporally Invariant Earthquake Precursors? A Multi-Decadal 100-Station Study

Evangelos Chaniadakis, Ioannis Contopoulos, Vasilis Tritakis

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 24

Abstract

Earthquake prediction remains one of the central unsolved problems in geophysics, and ionospheric variability offers a promising yet debated window into the earthquake preparation process through lithosphere–atmosphere–ionosphere coupling. Progress has been hindered by methodological limitations in prior studies, including the use of inappropriate performance metrics for highly imbalanced seismic data, the reliance on geographically and temporally narrow data, and inclusion of inherent spatial or temporal features that artificially inflate model performance while preventing the discovery of genuine ionospheric precursors. To address these challenges, we introduce a global, temporally validated machine learning framework grounded in thirty-eight years of ionospheric observations from more than a hundred ionosonde stations. We eliminate lookahead bias through strict temporal partitioning, prevent overlapping precursor windows across samples to eliminate autocorrelation artifacts and apply sophisticated feature selection to exclude spatial and temporal identifiers, enabling prevention of data leakage and coincidence effects. We investigate whether spatiotemporally invariant ionospheric precursors exist across diverse seismic regions, addressing the field’s reliance on geographically isolated case studies. Cross-regional validation shows that our models yield modest classification skill above chance levels, with our best-performing model achieving a weighted F1 score of 71% though performance exhibits pronounced sensitivity to temporal validation configuration, suggesting these results represent an upper bound on operational accuracy. While multimodal fusion with complementary precursor channels could possibly improve performance, our focus remains on establishing whether ionospheric observations alone contain learnable, region-independent seismic signatures. These findings suggest that ionospheric precursors, if they exist as universal phenomena, exhibit weaker cross-regional consistency than previously reported in case studies, raising questions about their standalone utility for earthquake prediction while indicating potential value as one component within multimodal observation systems.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Earthquake Detection and Analysis · earthquake and tectonic studies · High-pressure geophysics and materials

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Research Center for Astronomy and Applied Mathematics, Academy of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece

School of Electrical & Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15772 Athens, Greece

Funding

Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports of Greece

References (46)

Show source-provided references
1. Lithosphere–Atmosphere–Ionosphere Coupling (LAIC) model—An unified concept for earthquake precursors validation10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.03.005 ↗
2. A statistical investigation of preearthquake ionospheric anomaly
3. Ionospheric electron enhancement preceding the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake10.1029/2011GL047908 ↗
4. Ouzounov, D., Pulinets, S., Hattori, K., and Taylor, P. (2018). Pre-Earthquake Processes: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Earthquake Prediction Studies, Wiley.10.1002/9781119156949 ↗
5. On the onset of ionospheric precursors 40 min before strong earthquakes10.1002/2014JA020822 ↗
6. On the reported magnetic precursor of the 1993 Guam earthquake10.1029/2009GL039020 ↗
7. Pulinets, S., and Herrera, V.M.V. (2024). Earthquake Precursors: The Physics, Identification, and Application. Geosciences, 14.10.3390/geosciences14080209 ↗
8. Structural damage identification based on autoencoder neural networks and deep learning10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.109 ↗
9. Evaluating damage extent of fractured beams in steel moment-resisting frames using dynamic strain responses10.1002/eqe.2536 ↗
10. Seismo-ionospheric signatures prior to M≥6.0 Taiwan earthquakes10.1029/2000GL011395 ↗
11. Xiaohui, D., and Zhang, X. (2022). Ionospheric Disturbances Possibly Associated with Yangbi Ms6.4 and Maduo Ms7.4 Earthquakes in China from China Seismo Electromagnetic Satellite. Atmosphere, 13.10.3390/atmos13030438 ↗
12. On the use of cross-validation for time series predictor evaluation10.1016/j.ins.2011.12.028 ↗
13. Possible earthquake forecasting in a narrow space-time-magnitude window10.1007/s12145-020-00535-9 ↗
14. Tritakis, V., Contopoulos, I., Mlynarczyk, J., Chaniadakis, E., and Kubisz, J. (2025). Evaluation of the Quasi-Pre-Seismic Schumann Resonance Signals in the Greek Area During Five Years of Observations (2020–2025). Atmosphere, 16.10.3390/atmos16111251 ↗
15. Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted10.1126/science.275.5306.1616 ↗
16. Cannot Earthquakes Be Predicted?10.1126/science.278.5337.487 ↗
17. Hayakawa, M., Izutsu, J., Schekotov, A., Yang, S.S., Solovieva, M., and Budilova, E. (2021). Lithosphere–Atmosphere–Ionosphere Coupling Effects Based on Multiparameter Precursor Observations for February–March 2021 Earthquakes (M 7) in the Offshore of Tohoku Area of Japan. Geosciences, 11.10.3390/geosciences11110481 ↗
18. The physical nature of thermal anomalies observed before strong earthquakes10.1016/j.pce.2006.02.042 ↗
19. A systematic compilation of earthquake precursors10.1016/j.tecto.2009.06.008 ↗
20. Atmospheric electricity coupling between earthquake regions and the ionosphere10.1016/j.jastp.2009.12.004 ↗
21. Radon earthquake precursor: A short review10.1140/epjst/e2015-02395-9 ↗
22. Radon content of groundwater as an earthquake precursor: Evaluation of worldwide data and physical basis10.1029/JB086iB10p09397 ↗
23. Geochemical monitoring in the Marmara region (NW Turkey): A search for precursors of seismic activity
24. Variation of radon flux along active fault zones in association with earthquake occurrence10.1016/j.radmeas.2010.04.015 ↗
25. Preliminary Report on the 28 September 2004, M 6.0 Parkfield, California Earthquake10.1785/gssrl.76.1.10 ↗
26. Molchanov, O., and Hayakawa, M. (2008). Seismo Electromagnetics and Related Phenomena: History and Latest Results, TERRAPUB.
27. The ionospheric effect of atmospheric gravity waves excited prior to strong earthquake10.1016/j.asr.2004.12.049 ↗
28. Two-mode long-distance propagation of coseismic ionosphere disturbances10.1029/2008JA013853 ↗
29. Detecting ionospheric TEC perturbations caused by natural hazards using a global network of GPS receivers: The Tohoku case study10.5047/eps.2012.08.003 ↗
30. Miyaki, K., Hayakawa, M., and Molchanov, O. (2002). The role of gravity waves in the lithosphere–ionosphere coupling, as revealed from the subionospheric LF propagation data. Seismo Electromagnetics: Lithosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere Coupling, TERRAPUB.
31. Pre-earthquake signals: Underlying physical processes10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.03.009 ↗
32. Varotsos, P.A., Sarlis, N.V., and Skordas, E.S. (2011). Natural Time Analysis: The New View of Time, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-16449-1 ↗
33. Sorokin, V., Chmyrev, V., and Hayakawa, M. (2015). Electrodynamic Coupling of Lithosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere of the Earth, Nova Science Publishers.
34. An improved coupling model for the lithosphere-atmosphere-ionosphere system10.1002/2013JA019392 ↗
35. Natural magnetic disturbance fields, not precursors, preceding the Loma Prieta earthquake
36. Global Ionospheric Radio Observatory (GIRO)10.5047/eps.2011.03.001 ↗
37. Solar wind spatial scales in and comparisons of hourly Wind and ACE plasma and magnetic field data10.1029/2004JA010649 ↗
38. U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program (2017). Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Comprehensive Catalog of Earthquake Events and Products, Various.
39. Estimation of the size of earthquake preparation zones10.1007/BF00876083 ↗
40. Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine
41. Random Search for Hyper-Parameter Optimization
42. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747 ↗
43. Chicco, D., and Jurman, G. (2020). The advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation. BMC Genom., 21.10.1186/s12864-019-6413-7 ↗
44. Chinchor, N.A. (1992, January 16–18). MUC-4 evaluation metrics. Proceedings of the Message Understanding Conference, McLean, VA, USA.10.3115/1072064.1072067 ↗
45. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales10.1177/001316446002000104 ↗
46. Learning from Imbalanced Data10.1109/TKDE.2008.239 ↗