Analytical and Residual Bootstrap Methods for Parameter Uncertainty Assessment in Tidal Analysis with Temporally Correlated Noise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reconstructing tidal signals is indispensable for verifying altimetry products, forecasting water levels, and evaluating long-term trends. Uncertainties in the estimated tidal parameters must be carefully assessed to adequately select the relevant tidal constituents and evaluate the accuracy of the reconstructed water levels. Customary harmonic analysis uses ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions for their simplicity. However, the OLS may lead to incorrect estimations of the regression coefficient uncertainty due to the neglect of the residual autocorrelation. This study introduces two residual resamplings (moving-block and semiparametric bootstraps) for estimating the variability of tidal regression parameters and shows that they are powerful methods to assess the effects of regression errors with nontrivial autocorrelation structures. A Monte Carlo experiment compares their performance to four analytical procedures selected from those provided by the RT_Tide, UTide, and NS_Tide packages and the robustfit.m MATLAB function. In the Monte Carlo experiment, an iteratively reweighted least squares (IRLS) regression is used to estimate the tidal parameters for hourly simulations of one-dimensional water levels. Generally, robustfit.m and the considered RT_Tide method overestimate the tidal amplitude variability, while the selected UTide and NS_Tide approaches underestimate it. After some substantial methodological corrections the selected NS_Tide method shows adequate performance. As a result, estimating the regression variance–covariance with the considered RT_Tide, UTide, and NS_Tide methods may lead to the erroneous selection of constituents and underestimation of water level uncertainty, compromising the validity of their results in some applications. Significance Statement At many locations, the production of reliable water level predictions for marine navigation, emergency response, and adaptation to extreme weather relies on the precise modeling of tides. However, the complicated interaction between tides, weather, and other climatological processes may generate large uncertainties in tidal predictions. In this study, we investigate how different statistical methods may lead to different quantification of tidal model uncertainty when using data with completely known properties (e.g., knowing the tidal signal, as well as the amount and structure of noise). The main finding is that most commonly used statistical methods may estimate incorrectly the uncertainty in tidal parameters and predictions. This inconsistency is due to some specific simplifying assumptions underlying the analysis and may be reduced using statistical techniques based on data resampling.
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 | 0.043 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".