On the tail dependence in bivariatehydrological frequency analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Bivariate Frequency Analysis (BFA) of hydrological events, the study and quantification of the dependence between several variables of interest is commonly carried out through Pearson’s correlation (r), Kendall’s tau (τ) or Spearman’s rho (ρ). These measures provide an overall evaluation of the dependence. However, in BFA, the focus is on the extreme events which occur on the tail of the distribution. Therefore, these measures are not appropriate to quantify the dependence in the tail distribution. To quantify such a risk, in Extreme Value Analysis (EVA), a number of concepts and methods are available but are not appropriately employed in hydrological BFA. In the present paper, we study the tail dependence measures with their nonparametric estimations. In order to cover a wide range of possible cases, an application dealing with bivariate flood characteristics (peak flow, flood volume and event duration) is carried out on three gauging sites in Canada. Results show that r, τ and ρ are inadequate to quantify the extreme risk and to reflect the dependence characteristics in the tail. In addition, the upper tail dependence measure, commonly employed in hydrology, is shown not to be always appropriate especially when considered alone: it can lead to an overestimation or underestimation of the risk. Therefore, for an effective risk assessment, it is recommended to consider more than one tail dependence measure.
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 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".