Automated selection of r for the r largest order statistics approach with adjustment for sequential testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The r largest order statistics approach is widely used in extreme value analysis because it may use more information from the data than just the block maxima. In practice, the choice of r is critical. If r is too large, bias can occur; if too small, the variance of the estimator can be high. The limiting distribution of the r largest order statistics, denoted by GEV $$_r$$ , extends that of the block maxima. Two specification tests are proposed to select r sequentially. The first is a score test for the GEV $$_r$$ distribution. Due to the special characteristics of the GEV $$_r$$ distribution, the classical chi-square asymptotics cannot be used. The simplest approach is to use the parametric bootstrap, which is straightforward to implement but computationally expensive. An alternative fast weighted bootstrap or multiplier procedure is developed for computational efficiency. The second test uses the difference in estimated entropy between the GEV $$_r$$ and GEV $$_{r-1}$$ models, applied to the r largest order statistics and the $$r-1$$ largest order statistics, respectively. The asymptotic distribution of the difference statistic is derived. In a large scale simulation study, both tests held their size and had substantial power to detect various misspecification schemes. A new approach to address the issue of multiple, sequential hypotheses testing is adapted to this setting to control the false discovery rate or familywise error rate. The utility of the procedures is demonstrated with extreme sea level and precipitation data.
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 | 0.023 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".