A Markov switching model for annual hydrologic time series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".