Indonesian Review of Physics (IRiP) p-ISSN: 2621-3761 | e-ISSN: 2621-2889 Vol.6, No.1, June 2023, pp. 45 - 55 DOI: 10.12928/irip.v6i1.6705 http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/irip Email: irip@mpfis.uad.ac.id 45 Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data Based on AI Adi Jufriansah1*, Azmi Khusnani2, Yudhiakto Pramudya3, and Mulya Afriyanto4 1Mathematics Education Department, IKIP Muhammadiyah Maumere, Indonesia 2Physics Education Department, IKIP Muhammadiyah Maumere, Indonesia 3Postgraduate Program of Physics Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Indonesia 4Meteorological, Climatological, and Geophysical Agency (BMKG), Sikka Regency, Indonesia Email: saompu@gmail.com Article Info ABSTRACT Article History Received: Oct 10, 2022 Revision: Jun 15, 2023 Accepted: Jun 20, 2023 The earthquake catalog notes that there have been earthquakes with Mw > 7 that hit the Flores area, three of which occurred in the Flores Sea in 1992, 2015, and 2021. Revealed that the seismic activity of Eastern Indonesia is thought to be influenced by the isolated thrust fault segment of the island of Flores and the island of Wetar. The study of the rising fault segment on Flores Island and Wetar Island helps in further understanding the fault behavior, earthquake pattern, and seismic risk in the Flores Sea region. In earthquakes with giant magneto, an aftershock can occur due to the interaction of ground movements. This research analyzes and compares the data from the evaluation of the classification algorithm and the regression algorithm. The initial stages of this research include requesting IRIS DMC Web Service data. The data is then subjected to a cleaning process to obtain the expected feature extraction. The next stage is to perform the clustering process. This stage is carried out to label dependent data by adding new features as data clusters. The following procedure divides the validation value, which consists of training and test data. The estimation results show that the classification algorithm's evaluation value is better than that of the regression algorithm. The evaluation value of several algorithms indicates this, with an accuracy rate between 80% and 100%. This is an open-access article under the CC–BY-SA license. Keywords: Aftershock Flores sea earthquake Machine learning Classification algorithm Regression algorithm To cite this article: A. Jufriansah, A. Khusnani, Y. Pramudya, and M. Afriyanto, “Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data Based on AI,” Indones. Rev. Phys., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 45–55, 2023, doi: 10.12928/irip.v6i1.6705. I. Introduction Flores Island, Indonesia, is a seismically active area [1]. Pranantyo et al. [2] revealed that the seismic activity of Eastern Indonesia is thought to be influenced by the isolated thrust fault segment of the island of Flores and the island of Wetar. The study of the rising fault segment on Flores Island and Wetar Island helps in further understanding the fault behavior, earthquake pattern, and seismic risk in the Flores Sea region. The data is collected through seismic modeling, which is able to make predictions about the potential for future earthquakes. With a better understanding of isolated rising fault segments on Flores Island and Wetar Island, disaster mitigation efforts can improve, especially with a more effective early warning system. This is an important step to protect the public and reduce the negative impact caused by the earthquake in the region.The earthquake catalog records earthquakes of > Mw 7 that have hit the Flores area, three of which occurred in the Flores Sea in 1992, 2015, and 2021. In earthquakes with a giant magneto, an aftershock can occur due to the interaction of ground movements [3]. It is caused by an increase in the deformation mechanism (increase in stress) for a fracture area which is quantified as a change in Coulomb Stress Failure (CFS) [4]. Changing earthquake stress will encourage or inhibit seismic activity in the area. This can be proven by calculating the Coulomb stress, which helps predict the location of its increase in the future. Based on this, the aftershock phenomenon will often occur in areas with positive changes in Coulomb stress rather than negative Coulomb stress [5]. http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526275227&1&& http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526650381&1&& https://doi.org/10.12928/irip.v6i1.6705 http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/irip mailto:saompu@gmail.com http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Indonesian Review of Physics (IRIP) Vol.6, No.1, June 2023, pp. 45 - 55 46 A. Jufriansah, et al. Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data … p-ISSN: 2621-3761 e-ISSN: 2621-2889 Because the Flores Sea frequently sees intense seismic activity, it is crucial to research the aftershocks in this region. Aftershocks are earthquakes that happen immediately after the first shock and frequently have a smaller magnitude [6]. But aftershocks can wreak more harm and even present a risk to places already impacted by the preceding mainshock. By comprehending aftershock patterns in the Flores Sea, scientists and seismologists can more accurately evaluate risk [7]. They can identify areas that could be impacted, forecast the likelihood of aftershocks, and give the immediate area early notice. The Flores Sea aftershocks must be better understood in order to create a more reliable early warning system. One way that this technology can warn people before aftershocks happen is by using an artificial intelligence system. Machine Learning (ML) algorithms are machines that can learn like humans. ML studies the system's behavior based on dataset information without requiring prior knowledge [8]. Several ML algorithms that have been studied in earthquake prediction and Aftershock are grouped into regression and classification algorithms. Various ML architectures are presented in (Figure 1). Wieland et al. [9] explained that the success of ML is shown by its success in identifying earthquake damage. It is clarified by the use of SVM in the Japanese earthquake data in March 2011. In addition, Syifa et al. [10] once compared predictive data based on the accuracy value between SVM and ANN. So far, there has not been much research on the aftershock hazard in the Flores Sea using predictive models. So, it needs to be used as an evaluation material because three large earthquakes have historically hit the Flores Sea. Furthermore, it is essential to study the Aftershock study because it can provide new information about seismogenic processes, including the location of newly active faults. Several studies have succeeded in comparing several classification and regression algorithms. The evaluation process is carried out by comparing several parameters, such as the estimated value. So, this research is considered necessary in the future as a time alarm and forecast in analyzing Aftershock predictions. Based on the description above, the purpose of this study is to determine the estimated value of the aftershock rupture data for the Flores Sea earthquake based on AI. The best estimation results will provide a correction value to be used as comparison data for further investigations regarding the prediction of aftershocks. The benefits of this research are as a hope in the geohazards field and predict earthquakes with a reasonable accuracy level. Figure 1. ML architecture (a) SVM algorithm classification process, (b) SVR algorithm work procedure, (c) K-NN algorithm decision making process, (d) K-means algorithm principle work, (e) RF algorithm classification process, (f) Dendrogram hierarchical clustering algorithm, (g) The decision-making process of the DT algorithm [11]. II. Theory This Relevant applications of classification and regression algorithms exist in the analysis of earthquake data [12]. In this context, classification algorithms can be used to classify earthquakes into various categories, such as shallow, medium, or deep earthquakes, based on the profundity of their epicentre [13]. In the meantime, the regression algorithm can be used to simulate the relationship between certain features, such as earthquake magnitude, depth, or epicentre distance, and certain parameters, such as building damage or vibration intensity [14], [15]. In theory, classification and regression algorithms use a variety of mathematical techniques to classify and analyse earthquake data [16]. Implementing the classification algorithm on earthquake data requires data preparation, the selection of pertinent features, and the configuration of a classification algorithm model, such as SVM or Decision Tree [17], [18]. It is necessary to collect and organise quake data from multiple sources with care in order to meet the requirements of the analysis. Important characteristics, such as magnitude, depth, epicentre location, and duration, should be chosen as model training attributes [19]. To obtain optimal model performance, it is also necessary to consider the hyperparameter settings, such as C in SVM or maximum depth in the Decision Tree [20], [21]. Implementing a regression algorithm on earthquake data, on the other hand, entails similar data preparation and http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526275227&1&& http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526650381&1&& Indonesian Review of Physics (IRIP) Vol.6, No.1, June 2023, pp. 45 - 55 47 A. Jufriansah, et al. Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data … p-ISSN: 2621-3761 e-ISSN: 2621-2889 feature selection steps [22]. To predict continuous values, such as building damage or vibration intensity, a regression algorithm, such as Linear Regression or SVR, may be implemented [23], [24]. The application of a classification algorithm to earthquake data can yield valuable information regarding the characteristics of a specific earthquake [25], [26]. By classifying earthquakes based on depth, for instance, seismologists can comprehend the patterns and behaviour of earthquakes at specific depths and identify potential dangers in certain regions [27], [28]. In addition, the classification algorithm can aid in earthquake risk analysis by classifying areas according to their potential hazard level, allowing for more precise mitigation measures [29]. Applying the regression algorithm to earthquake data enables the prediction of continuous earthquake-related values [30]. Using regression, we can, for instance, predict building damage or tremor intensity based on certain earthquake characteristics, such as magnitude and epicentre distance [31]. This information can be used to assess the potential damage and impact of an earthquake in a particular location, allowing for earlier implementation of mitigation measures and disaster response plans to reduce earthquake-related risks and losses. The application of classification and regression algorithms to earthquake data contributes to a greater comprehension of earthquake patterns, the characteristics of certain earthquakes, and the potential for disaster [32], [33]. The classification algorithm aids in classifying earthquakes based on certain attributes, allowing for the identification of risks and potential dangers in certain regions [34], [35]. On the other hand, the regression algorithm enables us to model and predict earthquake impacts, such as building damage and the intensity of vibrations, so that disaster mitigation and response actions can be more precisely directed [36]. However, the implementation of this algorithm encounters obstacles in the preparation of accurate and representative data, the selection of pertinent features, and the setting of the appropriate hyperparameters [37]. In addition, earthquake data can be highly dynamic and intricate, necessitating a vigilant and ongoing analytic approach to produce accurate and useful results [38]. III. Method This study uses real-time data on the aftershock rupture of the Flores Sea, East Nusa Tenggara, which was recorded from December 14, 2021, to March 20, 2022, obtained from IRIS DMC Web Service (https://service.iris.edu). The parameters used in this study consist of latitude, longitude, depth, and magnitude data, totaling 1403 data. This research analyzes to compare the data from the evaluation of the classification algorithm and the regression algorithm. The initial stages of this research include requesting IRIS DMC Web Service data. The data is then subjected to a cleaning process to obtain the expected feature extraction It is necessary to clean up data in order to get rid of errors. This entails eliminating unimportant signals or noise, such as interference from people or equipment. Clean seismic data can be processed using techniques for filtering, blending, and outlier elimination. Following the identification and separation of the crucial phases, feature extraction is done to explain the pertinent seismic properties. Parameters like amplitude data, frequency data, duration, or wave speed are examples of possible features. To find and extract these features from seismic data, signal processing methods and statistical analysis might be applied the procedure of normalization is then carried out. Data normalization may be used in specific circumstances to guarantee consistency and accurate comparison of extracted features. By altering the scale or range of feature values, normalization can be done to make them uniform and simple to compare. Dimensionality reduction is frequently required in big seismic datasets to ease complexity and accelerate analysis. Using methods like Principle Component Analysis (PCA) or factor analysis, one can reduce the dataset's dimensionality while still preserving important data. A robust foundation for additional research, such as seismic modeling, subsurface structure mapping, or earthquake prediction, is provided by appropriate data cleaning and feature extraction procedures. Seismic researchers and scientists can examine seismic patterns, trends, and characteristics using well-extracted features. The clustering process must be done as follows: In this stage, new features are added to the data as data clusters to label the dependent data. Latitude, longitude, depth, and magnitude data are the features that have been chosen for this section. The elbow approach, also known as WCSS analysis, will be used to find the best elbow graph by utilizing the sklearn cluster import KMeans library function. The outcome is then merged with the concat command in the data frame to create a new label. The validation value, which comprises training data and test data, is divided by the subsequent process. This method compares 70% training data and 30% test data using a fitting model with training data and targets. The results of the examination of the comparative analysis of the accuracy value of the classification and regression algorithms are evaluated in the final stage. Details are presented in Figure 2. IV. Results and Discussion Historically, earthquake predictions have been made since the 19th century. Geller [39] reviewed earthquake predictions that were divided into different timescales and could explain precursors, which were recognized in the IASPEI guidelines. In the same year, Uyeda [40] revealed that the earth is a seismo-electromagnetic signal and developed the Van method for short-term earthquake prediction. By strengthening his report that electrical signals are not enough to be said as earthquake precursors. One of the researchers who disputed this was Sevgi [41], http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526275227&1&& http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526650381&1&& https://service.iris.edu/ Indonesian Review of Physics (IRIP) Vol.6, No.1, June 2023, pp. 45 - 55 48 A. Jufriansah, et al. Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data … p-ISSN: 2621-3761 e-ISSN: 2621-2889 who revealed that the seismo-electromagnetic signal still contains much noise data. Another thing to note is the local characteristics of permittivity, permeability, and background noise. However, the discussion only shows the earth's electrical signal and has not demonstrated an earthquake prediction model based on historical data. Huang et al. [42] added that earthquake precursors consist of several parameters, such as seismic, geo-electromagnetic, geodesic, gravity, and ground fluid. Several other parameters are input parameters, such as satellite imagery and animal behavior. Researchers have developed Aftershock predictions using artificial intelligence [43]–[45]. Karimzadeh et al. [46], has reviewed Aftershock on distribution slip, Coulomb stress change at source fault, and active fault orientation to predict Aftershock pattern. This study provides promising results for predicting spatial aftershocks but has not answered the predictions for the time and depth of aftershocks. Main Shock Review The Mw 7.3 earthquake that occurred in the Flores Sea on December 14, 2021, was recorded using the Australian Array (AU) station with 14 seismic stations (Figure 3). The data was obtained based on a bandpass filter of 0.1 Hz to 1.0 Hz with the cross-correlation method to 18 seismic stations. The rupture characteristics are described in (Figure 4) after filtering the waveform in the pass band range between 0.1 Hz to 0.5 Hz and 0.3 Hz to 1.0 Hz. It results in a P-waveform (Figure 5) with a coherent and in-phase signal. Figure 2. Research flow chart Figure 3. Sesismogram based on distance from earthquake (1 degree = ~111 km) (a) BHZ 0.1 – 0.5 Hz (b) BHZ 0.3 – 1.0 Hz Figure 4. Alignment process using cross correlation method Start Data Web Service Cleaning Feature Extraction Cluster NO Data Classification Algorithm Regression Algorithm Evaluation YES http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526275227&1&& http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526650381&1&& Indonesian Review of Physics (IRIP) Vol.6, No.1, June 2023, pp. 45 - 55 49 A. Jufriansah, et al. Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data … p-ISSN: 2621-3761 e-ISSN: 2621-2889 (a) BHZ 0.1 – 0.5 Hz (b) BHZ 0.3 – 1.0 Hz Figure 5. P-coda stack with long distance (dist =30-95*) Review Aftershock Figure 6(a) is the dynamics of rupture data for the Flores Sea earthquake on December 14, 2021, shown with a blue circle pattern. While Figure 6(b) is the aftershock data marked with a green circle pattern. The results of the figure show the distribution pattern after the main earthquake expanded unilaterally to the west and partly to the east. Aftershocks are more common in areas with a depth of 5.0 km to 17.5 km below sea level (Figure 6(c)). It shows that the pattern follows the area around the main earthquake. Handayani [47] has reviewed the source of the Flores island earthquake. From the results of this study, it is known that normal faults dominate the Flores Sea. It is clarified by Maneno et al. [48] that the earthquake hypocenter in the northern part of Flores was dominated by deep earthquakes associated with the Flores Thrust Zone. The southern part is more overlooked by shallow to moderate earthquakes. So far, research on the Flores earthquake has only been limited to earthquake mapping and relocation. Kurnio et al. [49] only describe a review of underwater landslides with the result that the trigger for the 1992 earthquake in the Flores Sea was an underwater landslide. The same thing was also explained by Pranantyo et al. [50] regarding seismic and non-seismic hazards in Indonesia, especially in eastern Indonesia. Then Handayani [47] clarified the seismic hazard, especially in the Flores Sea area, which had experienced seven significant earthquakes. Supendi et al. [51] explained that the Aftershock study provides new information on seismogenic processes and seismic hazards in Indonesia, including the location of newly active faults. Therefore, several parameters need to be considered when making Aftershock predictions because these will affect the performance accuracy. (a) (b) http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526275227&1&& http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526650381&1&& Indonesian Review of Physics (IRIP) Vol.6, No.1, June 2023, pp. 45 - 55 50 A. Jufriansah, et al. Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data … p-ISSN: 2621-3761 e-ISSN: 2621-2889 (c) Figure 6. (a) Event Mw 7.3 data, (b) Aftershock data, (c) Aftershock distribution data between Magnitude and Depth Classification Algorithm The classification process is carried out based on the Aftershock rupture data, which was previously carried out before the data cleaning process was carried out to avoid missing data. This process involves several stages, such as feature extraction to label new data as dependent data with the cluster name. feature, while the dependent variable is cluster data.This process is carried out as an initial step in determining the validation value using the cross-validation method, which will divide the data into training and test data [52]. Using the WCSS tool with the Elbow method, we get a cluster division of 3 clusters (Figure 7), followed by a classification algorithm. Figure 7. Elbow method The Elbow approach aims to select a small k number while maintaining a low withinss value [53]. The Elbow method of cluster analysis is used in this study to determine the ideal number of clusters, taking into account the comparative value (from the SSE calculation for each cluster value) between the number of clusters that will form an elbow at a point, such that the SSE value will decrease as the number of clusters k increases [54]. The SSE formula looks like in Equation (1). 2 1 21 1 k k k x Sk SSE x C =  = −  (1) Since there are 3 clusters based on equation (1) above, use equation (2) to calculate the distance between the two objects that are closest to one another. ( ) ( ) 2 2 , 1 n x y i d x y xi yi = = − = − (2) Table 1 includes the results of computations made using the Elbow technique. Table 1. The Elbow method is used in calculating the first five data Latitude Longitude Depth Magnitude Cluster -8,55 121,9184 10 3,34 3 -7,53 121,5823 10 3,11 3 -7,36 121,2343 15 2,58 3 -8,02 122,406 10 3,41 3 -7,51 121,6354 10 2,64 3 -7,53 122,1766 19,3 3,33 1 Banggut et al. [4] revealed that the classification method would place objects into categories. Therefore, it will depend on each classification attribute in the new data [55], [56]. There are 982 data of training data after the Train-Validation Split, while a lot of test data after the Train-Validation Split 421 data. The training data consists of two variables: the independent variable using the magnitude. The complete comparison of the accuracy of the classification algorithm is presented in Table 2. Table 2. Comparison of classification algorithm accuracy values Algorithm Accuracy Logistic Regression 0.99 Support Vektor Machine (SVM) 0.98 Hyperparameter SVM 1. SVM Linear 0.99 2. SVM Polynomial 0.99 3. SVM RBF 0.98 Decision Tree 1.00 Hyperparameter Decision Tree 0.80 Naïve Bayes 0.46 K-Nearest Neighbors 0.99 Regression Algorithm The regression process is carried out to determine the relationship between categories or labels. In this process, the algorithms that compare the evaluation values are the Decision Tree Regressor and the Random Forest Regressor. The results show that both do not meet the accuracy value because the error value is very large. It is also reinforced by using the Convolution Matrix method (Figure 8), which shows a minimal value of the relationship between attributes. Marhain et al. [47], [57] have investigated the application of AI for earthquake prediction in Terengganu using ML. In the report, several algorithms are compared, such as SVM, Random Forest (Figure 9), Decision Tree (Figure 10), and Logistic Regression. The limitation of this research is that the data information from each station is different. So the research http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526275227&1&& http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526650381&1&& Indonesian Review of Physics (IRIP) Vol.6, No.1, June 2023, pp. 45 - 55 51 A. Jufriansah, et al. Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data … p-ISSN: 2621-3761 e-ISSN: 2621-2889 only focuses on one station to compare the accuracy and probability values and then analyze the results. In the same year, Essam et al. [58] conducted a study in the same location by comparing the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Random Forest algorithms. This study succeeded in predicting ground motion parameters, namely earthquake acceleration, earthquake speed, and earthquake depth, based on four performance criteria that were successfully evaluated. These results indicate that the ANN algorithm has accuracy compared to Random Forest. Although the proposed model has an accuracy value, it has not answered the location point for the earthquake. Other researchers who use SVM are [55], [57], [59], [60]. In addition to SVM, earthquake prediction algorithms are often used, namely Random Forest [61], and Neural Network algorithm [62]–[64]. Figure 8. Convolution matrix using spearman method Figure 9. Random Forest Regressor http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526275227&1&& http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526650381&1&& Indonesian Review of Physics (IRIP) Vol.6, No.1, June 2023, pp. 45 - 55 52 A. Jufriansah, et al. Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data … p-ISSN: 2621-3761 e-ISSN: 2621-2889 Figure 10. Decision Tree Regressor Deeper insight into fault behavior and possible seismic danger can be gained by analyzing patterns and trends in aftershock data. Based on already available features, classification techniques can be used to categorize aftershocks. In this instance, by examining the resulting categorization decisions, it is possible to examine the observed patterns and trends in the aftershock data. You can check to see, for instance, whether there is a spatial pattern suggesting that stronger aftershocks are more likely to happen close to the mainshock or whether there is a temporal pattern suggesting that the frequency of aftershocks increases after a mainshock of a certain magnitude. It follows that this classification analysis can help with comprehension of aftershock characteristics and associated potential dangers. This can be used to improve comprehension of the spatial and temporal distribution of aftershocks and to offer guidance in the design of plans for mitigating earthquake risk. In order to examine trends and numerical patterns in aftershock data, regression algorithms might be applied. In this instance, the generated regression coefficients can be used to assess the pattern and observed trends in the aftershock data. A tendency toward increased aftershock frequency as time passes after the primary earthquake, for instance, may be indicated by a significant and positive regression coefficient for the time variable. This regression analysis's implication is that it can aid in more precisely simulating aftershock behavior. Regression analysis data on numerical trends and patterns can be used to anticipate and better understand fault behavior and potential seismic danger. V. Conclusion New scenarios in the field of earthquake prediction need to be seriously reviewed. It is crucial in risk assessment as prevention and early warning in the future. However, this will be difficult to do because data availability is influenced by several factors, such as noise data affecting earthquake detectors. So to do this, it is necessary to have an initial analysis that is useful in filtering noise data so that the sensor only captures earthquake data sources, not other data. The method is through an alignment process with cross-correlation, which can produce P-waves in a coherent and in-phase signal form. It is very useful when the detector is converted into a normalized value structure to determine the estimated value. The estimation results show that the classification algorithm's evaluation value is better than the regression algorithm. Several algorithms' evaluation value indicates an accuracy rate between 80% and 100%. Research utilizing SVM, HP-SVM, and PSO-SVM to predict earthquakes is a challenge that must be resolved by overcoming several limitations on prediction accuracy. Data constraints, which pose a significant barrier to model creation, are the primary issue. However, data augmentation and synthetic data integration techniques can overcome this limitation. In addition, careful feature analysis is required to identify the most pertinent features and eliminate the possibility of features with minimal correlation. When using optimization techniques such as PSO to improve SVM performance, paying special attention to how non-stationary earthquake characteristics can be incorporated into the model is crucial. As a result of these issues, the study's recommendations include the use of multiple models, particularly the combination of SVM with various optimization techniques. In addition, methods for addressing the issue of rare earthquakes and feature imbalances must be further developed to improve the accuracy of forecasts and ensure their dependability in real-world situations; thus, a comprehensive evaluation of various scenarios against earthquake spatial data sets is necessary. http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526275227&1&& http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526650381&1&& Indonesian Review of Physics (IRIP) Vol.6, No.1, June 2023, pp. 45 - 55 53 A. Jufriansah, et al. Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data … p-ISSN: 2621-3761 e-ISSN: 2621-2889 VI. Acknowledgment The researcher would like to thank the Indonesian Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology for providing research funds through the 2022 Beginner Lecturer Research Grant Scheme (PDP) under Grant No. 1098/LL15/KM/2022. References [1] A. Jufriansah, A. Khusnani, Y. Pramudya, and M. Afriyanto, “Comparison of Aftershock Behavior of the Flores Sea 12 December 1992 and 14 December 2021,” J. Phys. Theor. Appl., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 65–74, 2023. [2] I. R. Pranantyo, P. Cummins, J. Griffin, G. Davies, and H. Latief, “Modelling of Historical Tsunami in Eastern Indonesia: 1674 Ambon and 1992 Flores Case Studies,” in International Symposium on Earth Hazard and Disaster Mitigation (ISEDM) 2016: The 6th Annual Symposium on Earthquake and Related Geohazard Research for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017, p. 090005, doi: 10.1063/1.4987104. [3] A. Anggraini and E. Mardhatillah, “Perubahan Stress Statis Gempa Utama dan Asosiasi Distribusi Gempa Susulan: Studi Kasus Gempa Palu Mw 7,5 28 September 2018,” J. Fis. Indones., vol. 24, no. 1, p. 38, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.22146/jfi.v24i1.53533. [4] B. J. Santosa, “Estimation of the Source Parameters of the Flores Earthquake and Their Correlation to Aftershocks,” IPTEK J. Eng., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 14–17, May 2019, doi: 10.12962/joe.v5i1.5021. [5] E. Mardhatillah, A. Anggraini, and M. Nukman, “Tinjauan Perubahan Stress Coulomb Ko-Seismik Pada Sekuens Gempa Palu M 7,5 28 September 2018,” J. Fis. Indones., vol. 24, no. 3, p. 175, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.22146/jfi.v24i3.58237. [6] S. Baranov, C. Narteau, and P. Shebalin, “Modeling and Prediction of Aftershock Activity,” Surv. Geophys., vol. 43, pp. 437–481, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10712-022- 09698-0. [7] R. P. Felix, J. A. Hubbard, K. E. Bradley, K. H. Lythgoe, L. Li, and A. D. Switzer, “Tsunami Hazard in Lombok and Bali, Indonesia, Due to the Flores Back-arc Thrust,” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1665– 1682, May 2022, doi: 10.5194/nhess-22-1665-2022. [8] J. Schmidt, M. R. G. Marques, S. Botti, and M. A. L. Marques, “Recent Advances and Applications of Machine Learning in Solid-State Materials Science,” npj Comput. Mater., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 83, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41524-019-0221-0. [9] M. Wieland, W. Liu, and F. Yamazaki, “Learning Change from Synthetic Aperture Radar Images: Performance Evaluation of a Support Vector Machine to Detect Earthquake and Tsunami-Induced Changes,” Remote Sens., vol. 8, no. 10, p. 792, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.3390/rs8100792. [10] M. Syifa, P. Kadavi, and C.-W. Lee, “An Artificial Intelligence Application for Post-Earthquake Damage Mapping in Palu, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 542, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.3390/s19030542. [11] M. H. Al Banna et al., “Application of Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Earthquakes: State-of-the-Art and Future Challenges,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 192880– 192923, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3029859. [12] Q. Kong, D. T. Trugman, Z. E. Ross, M. J. Bianco, B. J. Meade, and P. Gerstoft, “Machine Learning in Seismology: Turning Data into Insights,” Seismol. Res. Lett., vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 3–14, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1785/0220180259. [13] F. Aden‐Antoniów, W. B. Frank, and L. Seydoux, “An Adaptable Random Forest Model for the Declustering of Earthquake Catalogs,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 127, no. 2, p. e2021JB023254, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1029/2021JB023254. [14] Y. Zhang and K.-V. Yuen, “Review of Artificial Intelligence-based Bridge Damage Detection,” Adv. Mech. Eng., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 1–21, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1177/16878132221122770. [15] S. Liu, Y. Jiang, M. Li, J. Xin, and L. Peng, “Long Period Ground Motion Simulation and Its Application to the Seismic Design of High-Rise Buildings,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 143, p. 106619, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106619. [16] Y. Xie, M. Ebad Sichani, J. E. Padgett, and R. DesRoches, “The Promise of Implementing Machine Learning in Earthquake Engineering: A State-of-the-art Review,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1769–1801, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1177/8755293020919419. [17] T. S. Bressan, M. Kehl de Souza, T. J. Girelli, and F. C. Junior, “Evaluation of Machine Learning Methods for Lithology Classification Using Geophysical Data,” Comput. Geosci., vol. 139, p. 104475, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2020.104475. [18] Y. Ao, H. Li, L. Zhu, S. Ali, and Z. Yang, “Identifying Channel Sand-Body from Multiple Seismic Attributes with an Improved Random Forest Algorithm,” J. Pet. Sci. Eng., vol. 173, pp. 781–792, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.10.048. [19] R. Jena and B. Pradhan, “Integrated ANN-cross- validation and AHP-TOPSIS Model to Improve Earthquake Risk Assessment,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 50, p. 101723, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101723. [20] Y. Xia, C. Liu, Y. Li, and N. Liu, “A Boosted Decision Tree Approach Using Bayesian Hyper-Parameter Optimization for Credit Scoring,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 78, pp. 225–241, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.017. [21] L. Yang and A. Shami, “On Hyperparameter Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms: Theory and Practice,” Neurocomputing, vol. 415, pp. 295–316, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.061. [22] M. A. Sebtosheikh and A. Salehi, “Lithology Prediction by Support Vector Classifiers Using Inverted Seismic Attributes Data and Petrophysical Logs as A New Approach and Investigation of Training Data Set Size Effect on Its Performance in A Heterogeneous Carbonate Reservoir,” J. Pet. Sci. Eng., vol. 134, pp. 143–149, Oct. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2015.08.001. [23] I. Laory, T. N. Trinh, I. F. C. Smith, and J. M. W. Brownjohn, “Methodologies for Predicting Natural Frequency Variation af A Suspension Bridge,” Eng. Struct., vol. 80, pp. 211–221, Dec. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.09.001. [24] D. Tao, Q. Ma, S. Li, Z. Xie, D. Lin, and S. Li, “Support Vector Regression for the Relationships between Ground Motion Parameters and Macroseismic Intensity in the Sichuan–Yunnan Region,” Appl. Sci., vol. 10, no. 9, p. 3086, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.3390/app10093086. [25] T. Sakaki, M. Okazaki, and Y. Matsuo, “Earthquake Shakes Twitter Users,” in Proceedings of the 19th http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526275227&1&& http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526650381&1&& https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4987104 https://doi.org/10.22146/jfi.v24i1.53533 https://doi.org/10.12962/joe.v5i1.5021 https://doi.org/10.22146/jfi.v24i3.58237 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-022-09698-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-022-09698-0 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1665-2022 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-019-0221-0 https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8100792 https://doi.org/10.3390/s19030542 https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3029859 https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180259 https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JB023254 https://doi.org/10.1177/16878132221122770 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106619 https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020919419 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2020.104475 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.10.048 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101723 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.061 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.08.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.09.001 https://doi.org/10.3390/app10093086 Indonesian Review of Physics (IRIP) Vol.6, No.1, June 2023, pp. 45 - 55 54 A. Jufriansah, et al. Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data … p-ISSN: 2621-3761 e-ISSN: 2621-2889 international conference on World wide web, Apr. 2010, pp. 851–860, doi: 10.1145/1772690.1772777. [26] S. Stramondo, C. Bignami, M. Chini, N. Pierdicca, and A. Tertulliani, “Satellite Radar and Optical Remote Sensing for Earthquake Damage Detection: Results from Different Case Studies,” Int. J. Remote Sens., vol. 27, no. 20, pp. 4433–4447, Oct. 2006, doi: 10.1080/01431160600675895. [27] D. Pasten, G. Saravia, E. E. Vogel, and A. Posadas, “Information Theory and Earthquakes: Depth Propagation Seismicity In Northern Chile,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 165, p. 112874, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112874. [28] P. Zhou, H. Yang, B. Wang, and J. Zhuang, “Seismological Investigations of Induced Earthquakes Near the Hutubi Underground Gas Storage Facility,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 124, no. 8, pp. 8753– 8770, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1029/2019JB017360. [29] P. Yariyan, H. Zabihi, I. D. Wolf, M. Karami, and S. Amiriyan, “Earthquake Risk Assessment Using an Integrated Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process with Artificial Neural Networks based on GIS: A case Study of Sanandaj in Iran,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 50, p. 101705, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101705. [30] J. Roiz-Pagador, A. Chacon-Maldonado, R. Ruiz, and G. Asencio-Cortes, “Earthquake Prediction in California Using Feature Selection Techniques,” in 16th International Conference on Soft Computing Models in Industrial and Environmental Applications (SOCO 2021), 2022, pp. 728–738, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-87869-6_69. [31] T.-Y. Hsu et al., “Rapid On-Site Peak Ground Acceleration Estimation Based on Support Vector Regression and P-Wave Features in Taiwan,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 49, pp. 210–217, Jun. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.03.001. [32] T. Zhao, V. Jayaram, A. Roy, and K. J. Marfurt, “A Comparison of Classification Techniques for Seismic Facies Recognition,” Interpretation, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. SAE29–SAE58, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.1190/INT-2015- 0044.1. [33] F. Soleimani, “Analytical Seismic Performance and Sensitivity Evaluation of Bridges Based on Random Decision Forest Framework,” Structures, vol. 32, pp. 329–341, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.02.049. [34] X. Fan et al., “Earthquake‐Induced Chains of Geologic Hazards: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Impacts,” Rev. Geophys., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 421–503, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1029/2018RG000626. [35] S. Mangalathu, H. Sun, C. C. Nweke, Z. Yi, and H. V. Burton, “Classifying Earthquake Damage to Buildings Using Machine Learning,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 183–208, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1177/8755293019878137. [36] T. Kim, J. Song, and O.-S. Kwon, “Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic Responses Using Deep Learning Method,” Struct. Saf., vol. 84, p. 101913, May 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2019.101913. [37] S. Bouktif, A. Fiaz, A. Ouni, and M. Serhani, “Optimal Deep Learning LSTM Model for Electric Load Forecasting using Feature Selection and Genetic Algorithm: Comparison with Machine Learning Approaches †,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 1636, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.3390/en11071636. [38] S. Rajkumari, K. Thakkar, and H. Goyal, “Fragility Analysis of Structures Subjected to Seismic Excitation: A State-of-the-art Review,” Structures, vol. 40, pp. 303– 316, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2022.04.023. [39] R. J. Geller, “Earthquake Prediction: A Critical Review,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 131, no. 3, pp. 425–450, Dec. 1997, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06588.x. [40] S. Uyeda, “The VAN Method of Short-Term Earthquake Prediction,” INCEDE Newslett, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 2–4, 1997, [Online]. Available: https://www.sems- tokaiuniv.jp/old/eprc/res/incede/incede2.html. [41] L. Sevgi, “A Critical Review on Electromagnetic Precursors and Earthquake Prediction,” Turkish J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2007, [Online]. Available: https://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/elektrik/vol15/iss1/1. [42] F. Huang et al., “Studies on Earthquake Precursors in China: A Review for Recent 50 Years,” Geod. Geodyn., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–12, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.geog.2016.12.002. [43] A. Mignan and M. Broccardo, “Neural Network Applications in Earthquake Prediction (1994–2019): Meta-Analytic and Statistical Insights on Their Limitations,” Seismol. Res. Lett., vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 2330– 2342, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1785/0220200021. [44] A. Mignan and M. Broccardo, “One Neuron Versus Deep Learning in Aftershock Prediction,” Nature, vol. 574, no. 7776, pp. E1–E3, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019- 1582-8. [45] A. Mignan and M. Broccardo, “A Deeper Look into ‘Deep Learning of Aftershock Patterns Following Large Earthquakes’: Illustrating First Principles in Neural Network Physical Interpretability,” in Advances in Computational Intelligence. IWANN 2019, 2019, pp. 3– 14, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-20521-8_1. [46] S. Karimzadeh, M. Matsuoka, J. Kuang, and L. Ge, “Spatial Prediction of Aftershocks Triggered by a Major Earthquake: A Binary Machine Learning Perspective,” ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Information, vol. 8, no. 10, p. 462, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.3390/ijgi8100462. [47] L. Handayani, “Seismic Hazard Analysis of Maumere, Flores: a Review of the Earthquake Sources,” 2020, doi: 10.4108/eai.12-10-2019.2296247. [48] R. Maneno, B. J. Sentosa, and G. Rachman, “Relocation of Earthquake Hypocenter in the Flores Region Using Hypo71,” IPTEK J. Eng., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 33–37, May 2019, doi: 10.12962/j23378557.v5i2.a5024. [49] H. Kurnio, T. Naibaho, and C. Purwanto, “Review of Submarine Landslides in the Eastern Indonesia Region,” Bull. Mar. Geol., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 63–76, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.32693/bomg.34.2.2019.618. [50] I. R. Pranantyo, M. Heidarzadeh, and P. R. Cummins, “Complex Tsunami Hazards in Eastern Indonesia from Seismic and Non-Seismic Sources: Deterministic Modelling Based on Historical and Modern Data,” Geosci. Lett., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 20, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40562-021-00190-y. [51] P. Supendi et al., “Relocated Aftershocks and Background Seismicity in Eastern Indonesia Shed Light on the 2018 Lombok and Palu Earthquake Sequences,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 221, no. 3, pp. 1845–1855, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggaa118. [52] A. Jufriansah, Y. Pramudya, A. Khusnani, and S. Saputra, “Analysis of Earthquake Activity in Indonesia by Clustering Method,” J. Phys. Theor. Appl., vol. 5, no. 2, p. 92, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.20961/jphystheor-appl.v5i2.59133. [53] A. Chantaramanee, K. Nakagawa, K. Yoshimi, A. Nakane, K. Yamaguchi, and H. Tohara, “Comparison of Tongue Characteristics Classified According to http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526275227&1&& http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526650381&1&& https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772777 https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160600675895 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112874 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB017360 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101705 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87869-6_69 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.03.001 https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2015-0044.1 https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2015-0044.1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.02.049 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RG000626 https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019878137 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2019.101913 https://doi.org/10.3390/en11071636 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.04.023 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06588.x https://www.sems-tokaiuniv.jp/old/eprc/res/incede/incede2.html https://www.sems-tokaiuniv.jp/old/eprc/res/incede/incede2.html https://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/elektrik/vol15/iss1/1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geog.2016.12.002 https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200021 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1582-8 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1582-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20521-8_1 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8100462 https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.12-10-2019.2296247 https://doi.org/10.12962/j23378557.v5i2.a5024 https://doi.org/10.32693/bomg.34.2.2019.618 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-021-00190-y https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaa118 https://doi.org/10.20961/jphystheor-appl.v5i2.59133 Indonesian Review of Physics (IRIP) Vol.6, No.1, June 2023, pp. 45 - 55 55 A. Jufriansah, et al. Estimation of Flores Sea Aftershock Rupture Data … p-ISSN: 2621-3761 e-ISSN: 2621-2889 Ultrasonographic Features Using a K-Means Clustering Algorithm,” Diagnostics, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 264, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12020264. [54] C. Yuan and H. Yang, “Research on K-Value Selection Method of K-Means Clustering Algorithm,” J, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 226–235, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.3390/j2020016. [55] C. Jiang, X. Wei, X. Cui, and D. You, “Application of Support Vector Machine to Synthetic Earthquake Prediction,” Earthq. Sci., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 315–320, Jun. 2009, doi: 10.1007/s11589-009-0315-8. [56] W. Astuti, R. Akmeliawati, W. Sediono, and M. J. E. Salami, “Hybrid Technique Using Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) Approach for Earthquake Prediction,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1719–1728, May 2014, doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.2014.2321972. [57] S. Marhain, A. N. Ahmed, M. A. Murti, P. Kumar, and A. El-Shafie, “Investigating the Application of Artificial Intelligence for Earthquake Prediction In Terengganu,” Nat. Hazards, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 977–999, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11069-021-04716-7. [58] Y. Essam, P. Kumar, A. N. Ahmed, M. A. Murti, and A. El-Shafie, “Exploring the Reliability of Different Artificial Intelligence Techniques In Predicting Earthquake for Malaysia,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 147, p. 106826, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106826. [59] Z. Huang, C. Yang, X. Zhou, and S. Yang, “Energy Consumption Forecasting for the Nonferrous Metallurgy Industry Using Hybrid Support Vector Regression with an Adaptive State Transition Algorithm,” Cognit. Comput., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 357–368, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s12559-019-09644-0. [60] I. Aljarah, A. M. Al-Zoubi, H. Faris, M. A. Hassonah, S. Mirjalili, and H. Saadeh, “Simultaneous Feature Selection and Support Vector Machine Optimization Using the Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm,” Cognit. Comput., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 478–495, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s12559-017-9542-9. [61] A. Lulli, L. Oneto, and D. Anguita, “Mining Big Data with Random Forests,” Cognit. Comput., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 294–316, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s12559-018-9615- 4. [62] M. N. Shodiq, D. H. Kusuma, M. G. Rifqi, A. R. Barakbah, and T. Harsono, “Neural Network for Earthquake Prediction Based on Automatic Clustering in Indonesia,” JOIV Int. J. Informatics Vis., vol. 2, no. 1, p. 37, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.30630/joiv.2.1.106. [63] M. N. Shodiq, D. H. Kusuma, M. G. Rifqi, A. R. Barakbah, and T. Harsono, “Spatial Analisys of Magnitude Distribution for Earthquake Prediction Using Neural Network Based on Automatic Clustering In Indonesia,” in 2017 International Electronics Symposium on Knowledge Creation and Intelligent Computing (IES- KCIC), Sep. 2017, pp. 246–251, doi: 10.1109/KCIC.2017.8228594. [64] A. S. N. Alarifi, N. S. N. Alarifi, and S. Al-Humidan, “Earthquakes Magnitude Predication Using Artificial Neural Network in Northern Red Sea Area,” J. King Saud Univ. - Sci., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 301–313, Oct. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.jksus.2011.05.002. Declarations Author contribution : Adi Jufriansah is responsible for the entire research project. He also leads scriptwriting and collaborations with other writers. Azmi Khusnani and Yudhiakto Pramudya participated in data collection and analysis. Mulya Afriyanto participated as a data supplier. All authors approved the final manuscript. Funding statement : This research is funded by the government of Indonesian Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology with the contract no. 1098/LL15/KM/2022) Conflict of interest : All authors declare that they have no competing interests. Additional information : No additional information is available for this paper. http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526275227&1&& http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1526650381&1&& https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020264 https://doi.org/10.3390/j2020016 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11589-009-0315-8 https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2014.2321972 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04716-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106826 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-019-09644-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-017-9542-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-018-9615-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-018-9615-4 https://doi.org/10.30630/joiv.2.1.106 https://doi.org/10.1109/KCIC.2017.8228594 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2011.05.002