Detecting long-memory: Monte Carlo simulations and application to daily streamflow processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The Lo's modified rescaled adjusted range test (R/S test) (Lo, 1991), GPH test (Geweke and Porter-Hudak, 1983) and two approximate maximum likelihood estimation methods, i.e., Whittle's estimator (W-MLE) and another one implemented in S-Plus (S-MLE) based on the algorithm of Haslett and Raftery (1989) are evaluated through intensive Monte Carlo simulations for detecting the existence of long-memory. It is shown that it is difficult to find an appropriate lag q for Lo's test for different short-memory autoregressive (AR) and fractionally integrated autoregressive and moving average (ARFIMA) processes, which makes the use of Lo's test very tricky. In general, the GPH test outperforms the Lo's test, but for cases where a strong short-range dependence exists (e.g., AR(1) processes with φ=0.95 or even 0.99), the GPH test gets useless, even for time series of large data size. On the other hand, the estimates of d given by S-MLE and W-MLE seem to give a good indication of whether or not the long-memory is present. The simulation results show that data size has a significant impact on the power of all the four methods because the availability of larger samples allows one to inspect the asymptotical properties better. Generally, the power of Lo's test and GPH test increases with increasing data size, and the estimates of d with GPH method, S-MLE method and W-MLE method converge with increasing data size. If no large enough data set is available, we should be aware of the possible bias of the estimates. The four methods are applied to daily average discharge series recorded at 31 gauging stations with different drainage areas in eight river basins in Europe, Canada and USA to detect the existence of long-memory. The results show that the presence of long-memory in 29 daily series is confirmed by at least three methods, whereas the other two series are indicated to be long-memory processes with two methods. The intensity of long-memory in daily streamflow processes has only a very weak positive relationship with the scale of watershed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".