Regional flood quantile estimation under linear transformation of the data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine some performance indices (PIs) that are used to compare regional and at‐site flood quantile estimation methods. These include the relative bias, the regional average root‐mean‐square‐error (RMSE), the regional average relative root‐mean‐square‐error (RRMSE), and the average RMSE and RRMSE ratios of quantile estimators. We study the dependence of these PIs on the relative variability (coefficient of variation) of the data. This is done by examining the effect of a location shift in the data on these PIs. The aim is to bring awareness to the fact that when comparing hydrological quantile estimators, some PIs are more greatly affected than others by data shifts in location. Among the PIs considered, we identify those that are invariant to a location shift in the data and those that are not. This is done under both assumptions of homogeneous and heterogeneous hydrological region. The generalized extreme value distribution is used to demonstrate some of the results, but the conclusions are applicable to other distributions with a location parameter. It is argued that because of the lack of invariance to location shift of certain quantile estimation methods and PIs, additional precautions need to be taken when comparing these methods. Although we focus discussion around flood frequency analysis, the points raised should be viewed within the broader context of hydrological frequency analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".