Peaks-over-threshold model in flood frequency analysis: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In flood frequency analysis (FFA), annual maximum (AM) model is widely adopted in practice due to its straightforward sampling process. However, AM model has been criticized for its limited flexibility. FFA using peaks-over-threshold (POT) model is an alternative to AM model, which offers several theoretical advantages; however, this model is currently underemployed internationally. This study aims to bridge the current knowledge gap by conducting a scoping review covering several aspects of the POT approach including model assumptions, independence criteria, threshold selection, parameter estimation, probability distribution, regionalization and stationarity. We have reviewed the previously published articles on POT model to investigate: (a) possible reasons for underemployment of the POT model in FFA; and (b) challenges in applying the POT model. It is highlighted that the POT model offers a greater flexibility compared to the AM model due to the nature of sampling process associated with the POT model. The POT is more capable of providing less biased flood estimates for frequent floods. The underemployment of POT model in FFA is mainly due to the complexity in selecting a threshold (e.g., physical threshold to satisfy independence criteria and statistical threshold for Generalized Pareto distribution – the most commonly applied distribution in POT modelling). It is also found that the uncertainty due to individual variable and combined effects of the variables are not well assessed in previous research, and there is a lack of established guideline to apply POT model in FFA.
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 | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".