MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1578538178 · doi:10.1029/2004wr003605

A Markov switching model for annual hydrologic time series

2005· article· en· W1578538178 on OpenAlexafffund
B. Akintug, P. F. Rasmussen

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAutocorrelationMarkov chainAutoregressive–moving-average modelSeries (stratigraphy)Stochastic modellingHidden Markov modelEconometricsMathematicsMarkov modelStatisticsMarkov propertyTime seriesApplied mathematicsSequence (biology)Computer scienceAutoregressive modelArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the properties of Markov switching (MS) models (also known as hidden Markov models) for generating annual time series. This type of model has been used in a number of recent studies in the water resources literature. The model considered here assumes that climate is switching between M states and that the state sequence can be described by a Markov chain. Observations are assumed to be drawn from a normal distribution whose parameters depend on the state variable. We present the stochastic properties of this class of models along with procedures for model identification and parameter estimation. Although, at a first glance, MS models appear to be quite different from ARMA models, we show that it is possible to find an ARMA model that has the same autocorrelation function and the same marginal distribution as any given MS model. Hence, despite the difference in model structure, there are strong similarities between MS and ARMA models. MS and ARMA models are applied to the time series of mean annual discharge of the Niagara River. Although it is difficult to draw any general conclusion from a single case study, it appears that MS models (and ARMA models derived from MS models) generally have stronger autocorrelation at higher lags than ARMA models estimated by conventional maximum likelihood. This may be an important property if the purpose of the study is the analysis of multiyear droughts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207