Optimal depth-based regional frequency analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Classical methods of regional frequency analysis (RFA) of hydrological variables face two drawbacks: (1) the restriction to a particular region which can lead to a loss of some information and (2) the definition of a region that generates a border effect. To reduce the impact of these drawbacks on regional modeling performance, an iterative method was proposed recently, based on the statistical notion of the depth function and a weight function φ. This depth-based RFA (DBRFA) approach was shown to be superior to traditional approaches in terms of flexibility, generality and performance. The main difficulty of the DBRFA approach is the optimal choice of the weight function ϕ (e.g., φ minimizing estimation errors). In order to avoid a subjective choice and naïve selection procedures of φ, the aim of the present paper is to propose an algorithm-based procedure to optimize the DBRFA and automate the choice of ϕ according to objective performance criteria. This procedure is applied to estimate flood quantiles in three different regions in North America. One of the findings from the application is that the optimal weight function depends on the considered region and can also quantify the region's homogeneity. By comparing the DBRFA to the canonical correlation analysis (CCA) method, results show that the DBRFA approach leads to better performances both in terms of relative bias and mean square error.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".