3066-280XISSN (Online)
Volume 5 , Issue 1 , PP: 01-25, 2026 | Cite this article as | XML | Html | PDF | Full Length Article
Mahmoud Shabrawy 1 * , Nahla B. Abdel-Hamid 2 , El-Sayed M. El-Kenawy 3 , Mohamed M. Abdelsalam 4
Doi: https://doi.org/10.54216/MOR.050101
Prediction, hazard evaluation, and response to disasters remain severely problematic due to the nonlinear and multiscale nature of crustal behaviour on Earth and the relative sparsity, noise, and heterogeneity of observations. Even with significant improvements in seismology, conventional statistical and physical models still struggle to make short-term predictions, consistently identify precursors, and provide dynamic situational awareness of the state and post-seismic events. In turn, the rapid development of machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and large language models (LLMs) has created new opportunities to extract meaningful patterns from diverse datasets, integrate multimodal information, and enable real-time decision-making in earthquake-prone regions. The paper provides an overview of recent advances in AI-based earthquake studies, including environmental precursors, spatiotemporal seismic prediction, ground-motion prediction, multimodal structural damage, and LLM-based knowledge integration. We discuss developments in hydrochemical anomaly detection using ML models developed in the context of long-term hot spring monitoring and highlight improvements in anomaly detection, as well as the challenges posed by varying indicators and time-dependent instabilities. At the world scale, we consider deep architectures that use spherical convolutions and attention to model seismicity on the curved surface of the Earth, showing significant improvements in accuracy, recall, and long-term dependency modeling. Simultaneously, ensemble ML models for peak ground acceleration prediction and SARIMAX-based time-series models with exogenous variables demonstrate how data-driven models can supersede traditional attenuation relationships and capture some fundamental temporal behaviour of seismic processes. Beyond prediction, we consider the growing importance of LLMs as integrative reasoning systems that can combine heterogeneous streams of information, such as textual reports, sensor logs, social media content, and visual signals. These paradigms support the new pipelines of building earthquake emergency knowledge graphs, performing retrieval-based logistics prediction, creating engineering-grade structural damage estimates, and providing real-time situational awareness based on citizen communication. Their increased utility, however, also creates new domain-grounding, bias, interpretability, and reliability issues in high-stakes settings. In these various uses, there are a few common barriers, such as limited model generalization to tectonic settings, insufficient high-magnitude events for training, physical constraints, and uncertainty quantification, all of which can be addressed. These results highlight that future systems are likely best built by blending physical knowledge with data-driven systems, using multimodal sources including seismic, environmental, satellite, geodetic, and social data, and using LLMs as embodiments of agents operating on transparent tools rather than opaque creators. At the end of the paper, the main directions for future research have been identified, including the need for standardized multimodal benchmarks, hybrid physics-ML designs, simulation-based training controls, robust uncertainty estimation methods, and governance systems that are transparent, fair, and reliable. These advances, combined, will no doubt lead to a new generation of AI-modified seismic forecasting and disaster-response structures that are scientifically defensible and operationally feasible, eventually making societies less susceptible to earthquake hazards.
Earthquake Prediction , Machine Learning and Deep Learning , Large Language Models , Spatiotemporal Seismic Forecasting , Disaster Response and Decision Support
[1] Guofu Luo, Yingcai Xu, Hengzhi Luo, Wenjun Li, and Bingzheng Hou. Spatiotemporal characteristics of the energy field and disaster cause of the 2023 gansu jishishan m 6.2 earthquake. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 16(1):2569822, 2025.
[2] Attila Gergely, Tamas S ´ andor Bir ´ o, Ferenc J ´ arai-Szab ´ o, and Zolt ´ an N ´ eda. Statistics of earthquakes ´ based on the extended lggr model. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 650:129983, 2024.
[3] Xiangli He, Zhaoning Chen, Qing Yang, and Chong Xu. Advances in earthquake and cascading disasters. Natural Hazards Research, 5(2):421–431, 2025.
[4] Wangxin Zhang, Jianian Wen, Huihui Dong, Qiang Han, and Xiuli Du. Post-earthquake functionality and resilience prediction of bridge networks based on data-driven machine learning method. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 190:109127, 2025.
[5] Khairul Adib Yusof, Syamsiah Mashohor, Mardina Abdullah, Mohd Amiruddin Abd Rahman, Nurul Shazana Abdul Hamid, Kasyful Qaedi, Khamirul Amin Matori, and Masashi Hayakawa. Earthquake prediction model based on geomagnetic field data using automated machine learning. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 21:1–5, 2024.
[6] Ying Zhang, Chengxiang Zhan, Qinghua Huang, and Didier Sornette. Seismically informed reference models enhance ai-based earthquake prediction systems. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 129(3):e2023JB028037, 2024.
[7] Qiyue Wang, Yekun Zhang, Jiaqi Zhang, Zekang Zhao, and Xijun He. On the use of vmd-lstm neural network for approximate earthquake prediction. Natural Hazards, 120(14):13351–13367, 2024.
[8] Ruijie Zhu, Fengtian Yang, Xiaocheng Zhou, Jiao Tian, Yongxian Zhang, Miao He, Jingchao Li, Jinyuan Dong, and Ying Li. Anomaly detection using machine learning in hydrochemical data from hot springs: Implications for earthquake prediction. Water Resources Research, 60(6):e2023WR034748, 2024.
[9] Hisahiko Kubo, Makoto Naoi, and Masayuki Kano. Recent advances in earthquake seismology using machine learning. Earth, Planets and Space, 76(1):36, 2024.
[10] Zhongchang Zhang and Yubing Wang. A global earthquake prediction model based on spherical convolutional lstm. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62:1–10, 2024.
[11] Anushka Joshi, Balasubramanian Raman, C Krishna Mohan, and Linga Reddy Cenkeramaddi. Application of a new machine learning model to improve earthquake ground motion predictions. Natural Hazards, 120(1):729–753, 2024.
[12] Marat Nurtas, Zhumabek Zhantaev, and Aizhan Altaibek. Earthquake time-series forecast in kazakhstan territory: Forecasting accuracy with sarimax. Procedia Computer Science, 231:353–358, 2024. 14th International Conference on Emerging Ubiquitous Systems and Pervasive Networks / 13th International Conference on Current and Future Trends of Information and Communication Technologies in Healthcare (EUSPN/ICTH 2023).
[13] Wentao Zhou, Meng Huang, Shuai Liu, Qiao You, and Fanxin Meng. Research on the construction and application of earthquake emergency information knowledge graph based on large language models. IEEE Access, 13:127742–127757, 2025.
[14] Chenchen Xie, Huiran Gao, Yuandong Huang, Zhiwen Xue, Chong Xu, and Kebin Dai. Leveraging the deepseek large model: A framework for ai-assisted disaster prevention, mitigation, and emergency response systems. Earthquake Research Advances, 5(4):100378, 2025.
[15] Song Zhang, Meng Huang, Shuai Liu, Fanxin Meng, Yingyao Xie, Xirui Ren, Yuanwang Zhang, and Wenbo Shao. Ai-driven post-earthquake emergency material demand prediction: Integrating rag with reasoning large language model. IEEE Access, 13:100630–100646, 2025.
[16] Jin Han, Zhe Zheng, Xin-Zheng Lu, Ke-Yin Chen, and Jia-Rui Lin. Enhanced earthquake impact analysis based on social media texts via large language model. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 109:104574, 2024.
[17] Deep Patel, Panthadeep Bhattacharjee, Amit Reza, and Priodyuti Pradhan. Earthquake response analysis with ai. In Ngoc Thanh Nguyen, Tokuro Matsuo, Ford Lumban Gaol, Yannis Manolopoulos, Hamido Fujita, Tzung-Pei Hong, and Krystian Wojtkiewicz, editors, Recent Challenges in Intelligent Information and Database Systems, pages 18–30, Singapore, 2025. Springer Nature Singapore.
[18] Yongqing Jiang, Jianze Wang, Xinyi Shen, and Kaoshan Dai. Large language model for postearthquake structural damage assessment of buildings. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2025.
[19] Bo Zhang, Ziang Hu, Pin Wu, Haiwang Huang, and Jiansheng Xiang. Ept: A data-driven transformer model for earthquake prediction. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 123:106176, 2023.
[20] John B. Rundle, Geoffrey C. Fox, Andrea Donnellan, and Lisa Grant Ludwig. Nowcasting Earthquakes with QuakeGPT: Methods and First Results, pages 113–138. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 2025.
[21] Alireza Jafari, Geoffrey Fox, John B. Rundle, Andrea Donnellan, and Lisa Grant Ludwig. Time series foundation models and deep learning architectures for earthquake temporal and spatial nowcasting. GeoHazards, 5(4):1247–1274, 2024.
[22] Bikash Sadhukhan, Shayak Chakraborty, Somenath Mukherjee, and Raj Kumar Samanta. Climatic and seismic data-driven deep learning model for earthquake magnitude prediction. Frontiers in Earth Science, 11:1082832, 2023.
[23] Christopher W Johnson, Kun Wang, and Paul A Johnson. Automatic speech recognition predicts contemporaneous earthquake fault displacement. Nature Communications, 16(1):1069, 2025.
[24] Sevim Bilici, Fatih Kulahcı, and Ahmet Bilici. Predicting the unpredictable: advancements in earth- ¨ quake forecasting using artificial intelligence and lstm networks. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 64(5):760–771, 2024.
[25] Bikash Sadhukhan, Shayak Chakraborty, and Somenath Mukherjee. Predicting the magnitude of an impending earthquake using deep learning techniques. Earth Science Informatics, 16(1):803–823, 2023.
[26] Ewnetu Abebe, Hailemichael Kebede, Mickus Kevin, and Zelalem Demissie. Earthquakes magnitude prediction using deep learning for the horn of africa. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 170:107913, 2023.
[27] Cemil Emre Yavas, Lei Chen, Christopher Kadlec, and Yiming Ji. Improving earthquake prediction accuracy in los angeles with machine learning. Scientific Reports, 14(1):24440, 2024.
[28] Mehdi Akhoondzadeh. Earthquake prediction using satellite data: Advances and ahead challenges. Advances in Space Research, 74(8):3539–3555, 2024.
[29] Mayu Tsuchiya, Hiroyuki Nagahama, Jun Muto, Mitsuhiro Hirano, and Yumi Yasuoka. Detection of atmospheric radon concentration anomalies and their potential for earthquake prediction using random forest analysis. Scientific Reports, 14(1):11626, 2024.
[30] Sarah Oberbichler, Johanna Mauermann, The Trung Tran, and Carlos-Emiliano Gonzalez-Gallardo. ´ Studying model design biases in llms for multilingual historical newspaper extraction; the messina earthquake case study. In Wolf-Tilo Balke, Koraljka Golub, Yannis Manolopoulos, Kostas Stefanidis, and Zheying Zhang, editors, Linking Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, pages 263–286, Cham, 2025. Springer Nature Switzerland.
