MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415749113 · doi:10.1080/01621459.2025.2579953

A Factor-Copula Latent-Vine Time Series Model for Extreme Flood Insurance Losses

2025· article· en· W4415749113 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaoting Li, Harry Joe, Christian Genest

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)Time seriesFlood mythRisk model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical inference on the dependence of multivariate extremes poses notable challenges, particularly in contexts characterized by large dimensions and sparse extreme observations. While copula models provide flexible parametric methods for dependence modeling, caution is warranted when using them for extremal dependence inference or tail extrapolation. In this article, a novel class of factor-vine copula models is introduced. It is designed for modeling the dependence of extreme insurance losses within the context of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), with broader applicability to space-time dependence modeling in multivariate time series data featuring a clustering structure. The proposed model is a specialized graphical vine dependence model with a latent factor structure. It integrates the advantages of both vine and factor copulas by allowing for great flexibility in tail dependence modeling while maintaining interpretability through a parsimonious latent structure. It is also shown how the incorporation of univariate extreme-value margins and tail-weighted dependence measures within the factor-vine model can address current challenges associated with using parametric copulas for extreme inference. Applications of the proposed model are discussed in the context of the NFIP, focusing on its efficacy in evaluating the risks associated with extreme weather events.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207