A two-step approach to model precipitation extremes in California based on max-stable and marginal point processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In modeling spatial extremes, the dependence structure is classically inferred by assuming that block maxima derive from max-stable processes. Weather stations provide daily records rather than just block maxima. The point process approach for univariate extreme value analysis, which uses more historical data and is preferred by some practitioners, does not adapt easily to the spatial setting. We propose a two-step approach with a composite likelihood that utilizes site-wise daily records in addition to block maxima. The procedure separates the estimation of marginal parameters and dependence parameters into two steps. The first step estimates the marginal parameters with an independence likelihood from the point process approach using daily records. Given the marginal parameter estimates, the second step estimates the dependence parameters with a pairwise likelihood using block maxima. In a simulation study, the two-step approach was found to be more efficient than the pairwise likelihood approach using only block maxima. The method was applied to study the effect of El Niño-Southern Oscillation on extreme precipitation in California with maximum daily winter precipitation from 35 sites over 55 years. Using site-specific generalized extreme value models, the two-step approach led to more sites detected with the El Niño effect, narrower confidence intervals for return levels and tighter confidence regions for risk measures of jointly defined events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".