Trends, Shifting, or Oscillations? Stochastic Modeling of Nonstationary Time Series for Future Water‐Related Risk Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydrological time series often present nonstationarities such as trends, shifts, or oscillations due to anthropogenic effects and hydroclimatological variations, including global climate change. For water managers, it is crucial to recognize and define the nonstationarities in hydrological records. The nonstationarities must be appropriately modeled and stochastically simulated according to the characteristics of observed records to evaluate the adequacy of flood risk mitigation measures and future water resources management strategies. Therefore, in the current study, three approaches were suggested to address stochastically nonstationary behaviors, especially in the long‐term variability of hydrological variables: as an overall trend, shifting mean, or as a long‐term oscillation. To represent these options for hydrological variables, the autoregressive model with an overall trend, shifting mean level (SML), and empirical mode decomposition with nonstationary oscillation resampling (EMD‐NSOR) were employed in the hydrological series of the net basin supply in the Lake Champlain‐River Richelieu basin, where the International Joint Committee recently managed and significant flood damage from long consistent high flows occurred. The detailed results indicate that the EMD‐NSOR model can be an appropriate option by reproducing long‐term dependence statistics and generating manageable scenarios, while the SML model does not properly reproduce the observed long‐term dependence, that are critical to simulate sustainable flood events. The trend model produces too many risks for floods in the future but no risk for droughts. The overall results conclude that the nonstationarities in hydrological series should be carefully handled in stochastic simulation models to appropriately manage future water‐related risks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".