A Probabilistic Model for Maximum Rainfall Frequency Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As determining the probability of the exceedance of maximum precipitation over a specified duration is critical to hydrotechnical design, particularly in the context of climate change, a model was developed to perform a frequency analysis of maximum precipitation of a specified duration. The PMAXΤP model (Precipitation MAXimum Time (duration) Probability) harbors a pair of computational modules fulfilling different roles: (i) statistical analysis of precipitation series, and (ii) estimation of maximum precipitation for a specified duration and its probability of exceedance. The input data consist of homogeneous 30-element series of precipitation values for 16 different durations: 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 360, 720, 1080, 1440, 2160, 2880, and 4320 min, obtained through Annual Maximum Precipitation (AMP) and Peaks-Over-Threshold (POT) approaches. The statistical analysis of the precipitation series includes: (i) detecting outliers using the Grubbs-Beck test; (ii) checking for the random variable’s independence using the Wald-Wolfowitz test and the Anderson serial correlation coefficient test; (iii) checking the random variable’s stationarity using nonparametric tests, e.g., the Kruskal-Wallis test and Spearman rank correlation coefficient test for trends of mean and variance; (iv) identifying the trend of the random variables using correlation and regression analysis, including an evaluation of the form of the trend function; and (v) checking for the internal correlation of the random variables using the Anderson autocorrelation coefficient test. To estimate maximum precipitations of a specified duration and with a specified probability of exceedance, three-parameter theoretical probability distributions were used: a shifted gamma distribution (Pearson type III), a log-normal distribution, a Weibull distribution (Fisher-Tippett type III), a log-gamma distribution, as well as a two-parameter Gumbel distribution. The best distribution was selected by: (i) maximum likelihood estimation of parameters; (ii) tests of the hypothesis of goodness of fit of the theoretical probability distribution function with the empirical distribution using Pearson’s χ2 test; (iii) selection of the best-fitting function within each type according to the criterion of minimum Kolmogorov distance; (iv) selection of the most credible probability distribution function from the set of various types of best-fitting functions according to the Akaike information criterion; and (v) verification of the most credible function using single-dimensional tests of goodness of fit: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Anderson-Darling test, the Liao-Shimokawa test, and Kuiper’s test. The PMAXTP model was tested on data from two meteorological stations in northern Poland (Chojnice and Bialystok) drawn from a digital database of high-resolution precipitation records for the period of 1986 to 2015, available for 100 stations in Poland (i.e., the Polish Atlas of Rainfall Intensities (PANDa)). Values of maximum precipitation with a specified probability of exceedance obtained from the PMAXTP model were compared with values obtained from the probabilistic Bogdanowicz-Stachý model. The comparative analysis was based on the standard error of fit, graphs of the density function for the probability of exceedance, and estimated quantile errors. The errors of fit were lower for the PMAXTP compared to the Bogdanowicz-Stachý model. For both stations, the smallest errors were obtained for the quantiles determined on the basis of maximum precipitation POT using PMAXTP.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».