- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review E

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Seismic entropic analysis based on magnitudes and time intervals

Eugenio E. Vogel1,2,*, D. Pastén3,†, and G. Saravia4

  • *Contact author: eugenio.vogel@ufrontera.cl
  • †Contact author: denissepasten@uchile.cl
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 114, 054101 – Published 2 November, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/xj32-b6tj

Abstract

Usually, seismic analyses are based on magnitudes which are obtained from models based on the energy released by each earthquake. The present approach supplements this description by including the intervals between consecutive events. This is justified by arguments coming from fundamental physics: energy and time are canonical variables, so they offer complementary and equally acceptable descriptions of the same phenomenon. We then apply both schemes to four seismic zones along the coast of the Pacific Ocean (part of the “circle of fire”) surrounding the following major earthquakes: Mw8.2 in Alaska (2021), Mw7.1 in California (2019), Mw8.2 in Iquique (2014), and Mw8.8 in Maule (2010). Following a basic statistical characterization, we applied mutability and diversity analyses—two information theory techniques related to Shannon entropy—to the magnitude and interval sequences. The analysis of the interval sequences provides an accurate description of the seismic activity. Magnitude and intervals present opposite variations in the dynamical analyses, thus offering complementary descriptions of the same phenomenon. However, the results for intervals render a more direct interpretation of the seismic sequence.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (48)

  1. L. Telesca and C.-C. Chen, Nonextensive analysis of crustal seismicity in Taiwan, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 10, 1293 (2010).
  2. L. Telesca, Tsallis-based nonextensive analysis of the Southern California seismicity, Entropy 13, 1267 (2011).
  3. L. Telesca, Maximum likelihood estimation of the nonextensive parameters of the earthquake cumulative magnitude distribution, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 102, 886 (2012).
  4. N. V. Sarlis, E. S. Skordas, and P. A. Varotsos, Nonextensivity and natural time: The case of seismicity, Phys. Rev. E 82, 021110 (2010).
  5. F. Vallianatos, G. Michas, and G. Papadakis, A description of seismicity based on non-extensive statistical physics: A review, in Earthquakes and their Impact on Society, edited by S. D'Amico (Springer Natural Hazards, Cham, 2015), p. 1.
  6. E. E. Vogel, F. G. Brevis, D. Pastén, V. Muñoz, R. A. Miranda, and A. C.-L. Chian, Measuring the seismic risk along the Nazca–South American subduction front: Shannon entropy and mutability, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 2943 (2020).
  7. A. Posadas, J. Morales, and A. Posadas, Earthquakes and entropy: Characterization of occurrence of earthquakes in southern Spain and Alboran Sea, Chaos 31, 043124 (2021).
  8. A. Posadas, J. Morales, J. Ibáñez, and A. Posadas, Shaking earth: Non-linear seismic processes and the second law of thermodynamics: A case study from Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquakes, Chaos Solitons Fractals 151, 111243 (2022).
  9. A. Posadas, D. Pasten, E. E. Vogel, and G. Saravia, Earthquake hazard characterization by using entropy: Application to northern Chilean earthquakes, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 23, 1911 (2023).
  10. SSNMX, Servicio Sismológico Nacional de México, 2025.
  11. USGS, United States geological service, 2025.
  12. N. N. Biswas, J. Pujol, G. Tytgat, and K. Dean, Synthesis of seismicity studies for western Alaska, Tectonophysics 131, 369 (1986).
  13. D. I. Doser and H. Rodriguez, A seismotectonic study of the southeastern Alaska region, Tectonophysics 497, 105 (2011).
  14. R. Martin-Short, R. Allen, I. D. Bastow, R. W. Porritt, and M. S. Miller, Seismic imaging of the Alaska subduction zone: Implications for slab geometry and volcanism, Geochem., Geophys., Geosyst. 19, 4541 (2018).
  15. K. Smith and C. Tape, Seismic Noise in Central Alaska and Influences From Rivers, Wind, and Sedimentary Basins, J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 124, 11678 (2019).
  16. K. A. Daly, G. A. Abers, M. E. Mann, S. Roecker, and D. H. Christensen, Subduction of an oceanic plateau across Southcentral Alaska: High-resolution seismicity, J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 126, e2021JB022809 (2021).
  17. R. Qu, Y. Ji, W. Zhu, Y. Zhao, and Y. Zhu, Fast and slow earthquakes in Alaska: Implications from a three-dimensional thermal regime and slab metamorphism, Appl. Sci. 12, 11139 (2022).
  18. M. C. Arango, F. O. Strasser, J. J. Bommer, D. A. Hernández, and J. M. Cepeda, A strong-motion database from the Central American subduction zone, J. Seismol. 15, 261 (2011).
  19. M. Arroyo-Solórzano and L. Linkimer, Spatial variability of the b-value and seismic potential in Costa Rica, Tectonophysics 814, 228951 (2021).
  20. C. Gamboa-Canté, M. Arroyo-Solórzano, B. Benito, J. Aguilar, I. G. Arroyo, E. Camacho-Astigarrabia, D. Castro, O. Flores, L. Linkimer, M. G. Marroquin, L. Mixco-Durán, W. Strauch, E. Talavera, G. Valle, and R. Yani-Quiyuch, Seismicity in Central America (1520–2020) and Earthquake catalog compilation for seismic hazard assessments, Bull. Earthquake Eng. 22, 7201 (2024).
  21. M. Métois, A. Socquet, C. Vigny, D. Carrizo, S. Peyrat, A. Delorme, E. Maureira, C. Valderas-Bermejo, and I. Ortega, Revisiting the North Chile seismic gap segmentation using GPS-derived interseismic coupling, Geophys. J. Int. 194, 1283 (2013).
  22. M. Métois, C. Vigny, and A. Socquet, Interseismic coupling, megathrust earthquakes and seismic swarms along the Chilean subduction zone (38∘–18∘), Pure Appl. Geophys. 173, 1431 (2016).
  23. B. Schurr, G. Asch, S. Hainzl, J. Bedford, A. Hoechner, M. Palo, R. Wang, M. Moreno, M. Bartsch, Y. Zhang, O. Oncken, F. Tilmann, T. Dahm, P. Victor, S. Barrientos, and J.-P. Vilotte, Gradual unlocking of plate boundary controlled initiation of the 2014 Iquique earthquake, Nature (London) 512, 299 (2014).
  24. C. Sippl, B. Schurr, T. John, and S. Hainzl, Filling the gap in a double seismic zone: Intraslab seismicity in northern Chile, Lithos 346-347, 105155 (2019).
  25. IPOC, doi.org/10.1002/2017jb015384, 2020.
  26. U. de Chile, 2013: Red Sismologica Nacional. International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks. Other/Seismic Network. 10.7914/SN/C1, https://doi.org/10.7914/sn/c1.
  27. H. Goldstein, C. Poole, and J. Safko, Classical Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Pearson, London, 2013).
  28. N. Zettili, Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and Applications, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, 2022).
  29. O. Sotolongo-Costa and A. Posadas, Fragment-asperity interaction model for earthquakes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 048501 (2004).
  30. R. Silva, G. S. França, C. S. Vilar, and J. S. Alcaniz, Nonextensive models for earthquakes, Phys. Rev. E 73, 026102 (2006).
  31. A. H. Darooneh and A. Mehri, A nonextensive modification of the Gutenberg–Richter law: q-stretched exponential form, Physica A 389, 509 (2010).
  32. S. M. Valverde-Esparza, A. Ramírez-Rojas, E. L. Flores-Márquez, and L. Telesca, Non-extensivity analysis of seismicity within four subduction regions in Mexico, Acta Geophys. 60, 833 (2012).
  33. P. Varotsos, N. Sarlis, E. Skordas, T. Nagao, and M. Kamogawa, Natural time analysis together with non-extensive statistical mechanics shorten the time window of the impending 2011 Tohoku M9 earthquake in Japan, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 125, 107370 (2023).
  34. P. A. Varotsos, N. V. Sarlis, E. S. Skordas, T. Nagao, M. Kamogawa, E. L. Flores-Márquez, A. Ramírez-Rojas, and J. Perez-Oregon, Improving the estimation of the occurrence time of an impending major earthquake using the entropy change of seismicity in natural time analysis, Geosciences 13, 222 (2023).
  35. D. Schorlemmer, S. Wiemer, and M. Wyss, Variations in earthquake-size distribution across different stress regimes, Nature (London) 437, 539 (2005).
  36. C. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379 (1948).
  37. C. Shannon and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1949).
  38. E. Vogel, G. Saravia, and L. Cortez, Data compressor designed to improve recognition of magnetic phases, Physica A 391, 1591 (2012).
  39. D. Pastén, E. E. Vogel, G. Saravia, and A. Posadas, Spatial, Temporal, and Dynamic Behavior of Different Entropies in Seismic Activity: The February 2023 Earthquakes in Türkiye and Syria, Entropy 27, 462 (2025).
  40. D. Pasten, E. E. Vogel, G. Saravia, A. Posadas, and O. Sotolongo, Tsallis entropy and mutability to characterize seismic sequences: The case of 2007–2014 Northern Chile earthquakes, Entropy 25, 1417 (2023).
  41. E. E. Vogel, D. Pastén, G. Saravia, M. Aguilera, and A. Posadas, 2021 Alaska earthquake: Entropy approach to its precursors and aftershock regimes, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 24, 3895 (2024).
  42. E. Vogel and G. Saravia, Information theory applied to econophysics: Stock market behaviors, Eur. Phys. J. B 87, 177 (2014).
  43. E. E. Vogel, G. Saravia, and A. J. Ramirez-Pastor, Phase transitions in a system of long rods on two-dimensional lattices by means of information theory, Phys. Rev. E 96, 062133 (2017).
  44. E. E. Vogel, G. Saravia, D. Pastén, and V. Muñoz, Time-series analysis of earthquake sequences by means of information recognizer, Tectonophysics 712-713, 723 (2017).
  45. O. Negrete, P. Vargas, F. Pena, G. Saravia, and E. Vogel, Entropy and mutability for the q-state clock model in small systems, Renewable Energy 20, 933 (2018).
  46. E. Vogel, G. Saravia, S. Kobe, R. Schumann, and R. Schuster, A novel method to optimize electricity generation from wind energy, Renewable Energy 126, 724 (2018).
  47. O. A. Negrete, P. Vargas, F. J. Peña, G. Saravia, and E. E. Vogel, Short-range Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless phase characterization for the q-state clock model, Entropy 23, 1019 (2021).
  48. E. E. Vogel, C. Tsallis, and G. Saravia, Diversity as an entropic measure derived from entropic-like functionals, Phys. Rev. E 113, 044127 (2026).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 114, 054101– Published 2 November, 2026
  • Received 14 July 2025
  • Accepted 20 October 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation