Incorporating spatial dependence in regional frequency analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficiency of regional frequency analysis (RFA) is undermined by intersite dependence, which is usually ignored in parameter estimation. We propose a spatial index flood model where marginal generalized extreme value distributions are joined by an extreme-value copula characterized by a max-stable process for the spatial dependence. The parameters are estimated with a pairwise likelihood constructed from bivariate marginal generalized extreme value distributions. The estimators of model parameters and return levels can be more efficient than those from the traditional index flood model when the max-stable process fits the intersite dependence well. Through simulation, we compared the pairwise likelihood method with an L-moment method and an independence likelihood method under various spatial dependence models and dependence levels. The pairwise likelihood method was found to be the most efficient in mean squared error if the dependence model was correctly specified. When the dependence model was misspecified within the max-stable models, the pairwise likelihood method was still competitive relative to the other two methods. When the dependence model was not a max-stable model, the pairwise likelihood method led to serious bias in estimating the shape parameter and return levels, especially when the dependence was strong. In an illustration with annual maximum precipitation data from Switzerland, the pairwise likelihood method yielded remarkable reduction in the standard errors of return level estimates in comparison to the L-moment method.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".