Peaks-Over-Threshold-Based Regional Flood Frequency Analysis Using Regularised Linear Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional flood frequency analysis (RFFA) is widely used to estimate design floods in ungauged catchments. Most of the RFFA techniques are based on the annual maximum (AM) flood model; however, research has shown that the peaks-over-threshold (POT) model has greater flexibility than the AM model. There is a lack of studies on POT-based RFFA techniques. This paper presents the development of POT-based RFFA techniques, using regularised linear models (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, ridge regression and elastic net regression). The results of these regularised linear models are compared with multiple linear regression. Data from 145 stream gauging stations of south-east Australia are used in this study. A leave-one-out cross-validation is adopted to compare these regression models. It has been found that the regularised linear models provide quite accurate flood quantile estimates, with a median relative error in the range of 37 to 47%, which outperform the AM-based RFFA techniques currently recommended in the Australian Rainfall and Runoff guideline. The developed RFFA technique can be used to estimate flood quantiles in ungauged catchments in the study region.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".