SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1

Anomaly detection of earthquakes with Benford’s law and extreme value approach

Benford yasası ve uç değer yaklaşımı ile depremlerde anomali tespiti

Ceren Ünal(Hacettepe University)0000-0002-9357-1771
Gamze Özel Kadılar(HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-3886-3074
Pages
171–190
Publication Date
2026-01-12
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings highlight the importance of using these statistical methods to assess seismic risks and identify potential anomalies in earthquake data.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Türkiye is located on active fault lines where significant tectonic movements occur regularly leading to earthquakes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study focuses on detecting anomalies in earthquake magnitudes in Türkiye, spanning the years 1970 to 2021.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings highlight the importance of using these statistical methods to assess seismic risks and identify potential anomalies in earthquake data.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Benford yasası · blok maksima · deprem tehlikesi

Abstract

Türkiye is located on active fault lines where significant tectonic movements occur regularly leading to earthquakes. Western Anatolia, being in the North Anatolian Fault Zone, has a higher earthquake risk. This study focuses on detecting anomalies in earthquake magnitudes in Türkiye, spanning the years 1970 to 2021. The analysis utilizes Benford's Law and the Generalized Extreme Value distribution within the Block Maxima framework to examine the conformity of earthquake magnitude data and identify potential anomalies. This study is one of the first to apply these methods specifically to the Aegean Region, providing new insights into the seismic risk in this tectonically active region. The dataset, comprising 15845 seismic events with magnitudes of 3.0 and above, was evaluated using both statistical methods. Benford's Law indicated that the data conforms to natural patterns, with statistical tests confirming the expected distribution of first digits in the magnitude data. The Generalized Extreme Value distribution, applied through the Block Maxima approach, revealed that the expected magnitude of extreme events increases with longer return periods, with return levels estimated at 4.77 Mw for 2 years, 5.81 Mw for 20 years, and 6.36 Mw for 100 years. These findings highlight the importance of using these statistical methods to assess seismic risks and identify potential anomalies in earthquake data.

Özet

Türkiye, depremlere yol açan önemli tektonik hareketlerin düzenli olarak meydana geldiği aktif fay hatları üzerinde yer almaktadır. Kuzey Anadolu Fay hattında yer alan Batı Anadolu, daha yüksek bir deprem riskine sahiptir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'de 1970-2021 yıllarını kapsayan deprem büyüklüklerindeki anomalileri tespit etmeye odaklanmaktadır. Analizde deprem büyüklüğü verilerinin uygunluğunu incelemek ve potansiyel anomalileri belirlemek için Benford Yasası ve Blok Maksima çerçevesinde Genelleştirilmiş Uç Değer dağılımını kullanmaktadır. Bu çalışma, söz konusu yöntemleri özellikle Ege Bölgesi’ne uygulayan ilk çalışmalardan biri olmakla beraber tektonik açıdan aktif bu bölgede deprem riski üzerine yeni bakış açıları sunmaktadır. Büyüklüğü 3.0 ve üzerinde olan 15845 sismik olaydan oluşan veri seti her iki istatistiksel yöntem kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Benford Yasası, verilerin doğal örüntülere uygun olduğunu göstermiş ve istatistiksel testler büyüklük verilerindeki ilk rakamların beklenen dağılımını doğrulamıştır. Blok Maksima yaklaşımıyla uygulanan Genelleştirilmiş Uç Değer dağılımı, ekstrem olayların beklenen büyüklüğünün daha uzun geri dönüş süreleriyle arttığını, geri dönüş seviyelerinin 2 yıl için 4,77 Mw, 20 yıl için 5,81 Mw ve 100 yıl için 6,36 Mw olarak tahmin edildiğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu sonuçlar, sismik riskleri değerlendirmek ve deprem verilerindeki potansiyel anomalileri belirlemek için bu istatistiksel yöntemlerin kullanılmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ünal, C., Kadılar, G. Ö. (2026). Anomaly detection of earthquakes with Benford’s law and extreme value approach. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1, 171–190. https://doi.org/10.25092/baunfbed.1695930

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (61)

  1. Stein, S. and Wysession, M., Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure, Blackwell, Malden, Mass, (2003).
  2. Kanamori, H., "Real-time seismology and earthquake damage mitigation", Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33(1), 195–214, (2005).
  3. Turcotte, D. L. and Schubert, G., Geodynamics, 2. Baskı, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2002).
  4. KOERI, "6 Şubat 2023 ML7.5 Ekinözü-Kahramanmaraş Depremi", http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/2/06-subat-2023-ml7-5-ekinozu-kahramanmaras-depremi/, (15.02.2023).
  5. Duman, T. Y., Çan, T., Emre, Ö., Kadirioğlu, F. T., Başarır, B. B., Kılıç, T., Arslan, S., Özalp, S., Kartal, R. F., Kalafat, D., Karakaya, F., Eroğlu, A. T., Özel, N. M., Ergintav, S., Akkar, S., Altınok, Y., Tekin, S., Cingöz, A. and Kurt, A. İ., Türkiye Sismotektonik Haritası Ölçek 1:1.250.000, Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, Özel Yayın Serisi – 34, Ankara, (2017).
  6. Öcal, A., "Natural disasters in Turkey: Social and economic perspective", International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), 51–61, (2019).
  7. Barka, A. and Reilinger, R., "Active tectonics of the Eastern Mediterranean region: Deduced from GPS, neotectonic and seismicity data", Annali di Geofisica, 40, 587–610, (1997).
  8. Seyitoğlu, G. and Scott, B. C., "The age of the Menderes graben (west Turkey) and its tectonic implications", Geological Magazine, 29, 239–242, (1992).
  9. Seyitoğlu, G. and Scott, B. C., "Age of Alagehir graben (west Turkey) and its tectonic implications", Geological Journal, 31, 1–11, (1996).
  10. Koçyiğit, A., Yusufoğlu, H. ve Bozkurt, E., "Evidence from the Gediz graben for episodic two-stage extension in western Turkey", Journal of the Geological Society of London, 156, 605–616, (1999).
  11. Şalk, M., Altıner, Y. and Ergün, M., "Geodynamics of western Turkey and implications", Proceedings of International Conference on Earthquake Hazard and Risk in the Mediterranean Region, I, 179–189, (2000).
  12. Kahraman, S., Baran, T. and Şalk, M., "Frequency and Risk Analyses for İzmir and its Surrounding Region Earthquake", Proceedings of VIth International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering, I, 500–509, İstanbul, (2004).
  13. Çağatay, İ. H., "Experimental evaluation of buildings damaged in recent earthquakes in Turkey", Engineering Failure Analysis, 12(3), 440–452, (2005).
  14. Bayrak, Y. and Bayrak, E., "An evaluation of earthquake hazard potential for different regions in Western Anatolia using the historical and instrumental earthquake data", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 169(10), 1859–1873, (2012).
  15. Karadaş, A. and Öner, E., "The Effects of Alluvial Geomorphology of the Bornova Plain on the Damage Caused by the 30 October 2020 Samos Earthquake in İzmir-Bayraklı", Journal of Geography, 42, 139–153, (2021).
  16. Yegulalp, T. M. and Kuo, J. T., "Statistical prediction of the occurrence of maximum magnitude earthquakes", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 64(2), 393–414, (1974).
  17. Knopoff, L. and Kagan, Y., "Analysis of the theory of extremes as applied to earthquake problems", Journal of Geophysical Research, 82(36), 5647–5657, (1977).
  18. Kagan, Y. Y. and Jackson, D. D., "Probabilistic forecasting of earthquakes", Geophysical Journal International, 143(2), 438–453, (2000).
  19. Pisarenko, V. F. and Sornette, D., "Statistical detection and characterization of a deviation from the Gutenberg-Richter distribution above magnitude 8", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 161, 839–864, (2004).
  20. Apostol, B. F., "A model of seismic focus and related statistical distributions of earthquakes", Physics Letters A, 357(6), 462–466, (2006).
  21. Lombardi, A. M. and Marzocchi, W., "Evidence of clustering and nonstationarity in the time distribution of large worldwide earthquakes", Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 112, 1–15, (2007).
  22. Kagan, Y. Y., "Statistical distributions of earthquake numbers: consequence of branching process", Geophysical Journal International, 180(3), 1313–1328, (2010).
  23. Pisarenko, V. F., Sornette, D. and Rodkin, M. V., "Distribution of maximum earthquake magnitudes in future time intervals: application to the seismicity of Japan (1923–2007)", Earth, Planets and Space, 62, 567–578, (2010).
  24. Pisarenko, V. F., Sornette, A., Sornette, D. and Rodkin, M. V., "Characterization of the tail of the distribution of earthquake magnitudes by combining the GEV and GPD descriptions of extreme value theory", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 171, 1599–1624, (2014).
  25. Dutfoy, A., "Estimation of tail distribution of the annual maximum earthquake magnitude using extreme value theory", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 176(2), 527–540, (2019).
  26. Diekmann, A., "Not the first digit! Using Benford's law to detect fraudulent scientific data", Journal of Applied Statistics, 34(3), 321–329, (2007).
  27. Nigrini, M. J. and Mittermaier, L. J., "The use of Benford's Law as an Aid in Analytical Procedures", Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 16(2), 52, (1997).
  28. Özkan, K., "Estimating ecosystem naturalness using Benford’s law and generalized Benford’s law", Turkish Journal of Forestry, 22(2), 73–82, (2021).
  29. De, A. S. and Sen, U., "Benford's law detects quantum phase transitions similarly as earthquakes", Physics Letters A, 95(5), 5008, (2011).
  30. Sottili, G., Palladino, D. M. and Giaccio, B., "Benford’s law in time series analysis of seismic clusters", Mathematical Geosciences, 44, 619–634, (2012).
  31. Diaz, J., Gallart, J. and Ruiz, M., On the ability of the Benford's law to detect earthquakes and discriminate seismic signals, Seismological Research Letters, 86, 1, 192–201, (2015).
  32. Newcomb, S., Note on the frequency of use of the different digits in natural numbers, American Journal of Mathematics, 4, 1, 39–40, (1881).
  33. Benford, F., The law of anomalous numbers, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 551–572, (1938).
  34. Varian, H., Benford’s Law, The American Statistician, 26, 3, 65, (1972).
  35. Nigrini, M. J., The detection of income tax evasion through an analysis of digital distribution, PhD Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, (1992).
  36. Nigrini, M. J., A taxpayer compliance application of Benford’s law, Journal of the American Taxation Association, 18, 1, 72–91, (1996).
  37. Nigrini, M. J. and Miller, S. J., Benford’s law applied to hydrology data—results and relevance to other geophysical data, Mathematical Geology, 39, 469–490, (2007).
  38. Sambridge, M., Tkalčić, H. and Jackson, A., Benford's law in the natural sciences, Geophysical Research Letters, 37, 22, 1–5, (2010).
  39. Geyer, A. and Martí, J., Applying Benford's law to volcanology, Geology, 40, 4, 327–330, (2012).
  40. Cleary, R. and Thibodeau, J. C., Applying digital analysis using Benford's law to detect fraud: The dangers of type I errors, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 24, 1, 77–81, (2005).
  41. Durtschi, C., Hillison, W. and Pacini, C., The effective use of Benford’s law to assist in detecting fraud in accounting data, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 5, 1, 17–34, (2004).
  42. Hindls, R. and Hronová, S., Benford's Law and Possibilities for Its Use in Governmental Statistics, Statistika: Statistics & Economy Journal, 95, 2, (2015).
  43. Fisher, R. A. and Tippett, L. H. C., Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest or smallest member of a sample, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, (1928).
  44. Liu, X., Data analysis in extreme value theory, Master Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Statistics and Operations Research, (2009).
  45. Mallor, F. and Omey, E., An introduction to statistical modelling of extreme values, Hub Research Paper, 36, 5–31, (2009).
  46. Hill, B. M., A simple general approach to inference about the tail of a distribution, Annals of Statistics, 3, 1163–1174, (1975).
  47. Davison, A. C. and Smith, R. L., Models for exceedances over high thresholds, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 52, 3, 393–425, (1990).
  48. Kalafat, D. and Görgün, E., An example of triggered earthquakes in western Turkey: 2000–2015 Afyon-Akşehir Graben earthquake sequences, Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 146, 103–113, (2017).
  49. Turkan, S. and Özel, G., Modeling destructive earthquake casualties based on a comparative study for Turkey, Natural Hazards, 72, 2, 1093–1110, (2014).
  50. Flerit, F., Armijo, R., King, G. and Meyer, B., The mechanical interaction between the propagating North Anatolian Fault and the back-arc extension in the Aegean, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 224, 3–4, 347–362, (2004).
  51. Bohnhoff, M., Harjes, H. P. and Meier, T., Deformation and stress regimes in the Hellenic subduction zone from focal mechanisms, Journal of Seismology, 9, 3, 341–366, (2005).
  52. TUBITAK 1002, Earthquake Magnitude Estimation for the Western Anatolia Region with Bidirectional Deep Learning Methods, Proje No: 124F059, (2024).
  53. AFAD Earthquake Department, 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea, Seferihisar (İzmir) Offshore (17.26 km) Preliminary Evaluation Report on Mw 6.6 Earthquake, (2020).
  54. Şengör, A. M. C., The North Anatolian transform fault: its age, offset and tectonic significance, Journal of the Geological Society, 136, 269–282, (1979a).
  55. Şengör, A. M. C., Mid-Mesozoic closure of Permo-Triassic Tethys and its implications, Nature, 279, 590–593, (1979b).
  56. Tan, O., Turkish Homogenized Earthquake Catalogue (TURHEC), Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5056801, (2021).
  57. Scordilis, E. M., Empirical global relations converting MS and mb to moment magnitude, Journal of Seismology, 10, 225–236, (2006).
  58. Kadirioglu, F. T. and Kartal, R. F., The new empirical magnitude conversion relations using an improved earthquake catalogue for Turkey and its near vicinity, Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 25, 4, 300–310, (2016).
  59. Gardner, J. K. and Knopoff, L., Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 64, 5, 1363–1367, (1974).
  60. KOERI, "6 Şubat 2023 ML7.5 Ekinözü-Kahramanmaraş Depremi", http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/2/06-subat-2023-ml7-5-ekinozu-kahramanmaras-depremi/, (15.02.2023).
  61. Tan, O., Turkish Homogenized Earthquake Catalogue (TURHEC), Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5056801, (2021).