Penalized Maximal t Test for Detecting Undocumented Mean Change in Climate Data Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, a penalized maximal t test (PMT) is proposed for detecting undocumented mean shifts in climate data series. PMT takes the relative position of each candidate changepoint into account, to diminish the effect of unequal sample sizes on the power of detection. Monte Carlo simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the performance of PMT, in comparison with the most popularly used method, the standard normal homogeneity test (SNHT). An application of the two methods to atmospheric pressure series recorded at a Canadian site is also presented. It is shown that the false-alarm rate of PMT is very close to the specified level of significance and is evenly distributed across all candidate changepoints, whereas that of SNHT can be up to 10 times the specified level for points near the ends of series and much lower for the middle points. In comparison with SNHT, therefore, PMT has higher power for detecting all changepoints that are not too close to the ends of series and lower power for detecting changepoints that are near the ends of series. On average, however, PMT has significantly higher power of detection. The smaller the shift magnitude Δ is relative to the noise standard deviation σ, the greater is the improvement of PMT over SNHT. The improvement in hit rate can be as much as 14%–25% for detecting small shifts (Δ < σ) regardless of time series length and up to 5% for detecting medium shifts (Δ = σ–1.5σ) in time series of length N < 100. For all detectable shift sizes, the largest improvement is always obtained when N < 100, which is of great practical importance, because most annual climate data series are of length N < 100.
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 | 0.021 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".