12 research outputs found
Relative asymptotic bias [%] of x^1% from T = IG distribution, assuming F = GE model.
<p>Relative asymptotic bias [%] of <math><mrow><msub><mi>x</mi><mo>^</mo><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>%</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></math> from T = IG distribution, assuming F = GE model.</p
The relation of conventional skewness coefficient <i>C</i><sub><i>S</i></sub> versus conventional variation coefficient <i>C</i><sub><i>V</i></sub> for two-parameter inverse Gaussian, IG, and generalized exponential, GE, distributions plotted with the Polish data of 90-year annual peak flow series.
<p>The relation of conventional skewness coefficient <i>C</i><sub><i>S</i></sub> versus conventional variation coefficient <i>C</i><sub><i>V</i></sub> for two-parameter inverse Gaussian, IG, and generalized exponential, GE, distributions plotted with the Polish data of 90-year annual peak flow series.</p
Probability of inconsistent selection [%] for competing GE and IG distributions by the <i>K</i> or <i>QK</i> discrimination procedures.
<p>Probability of inconsistent selection [%] for competing GE and IG distributions by the <i>K</i> or <i>QK</i> discrimination procedures.</p
Probability of correct selection [%] for competing GE and IG distributions by the <i>KS</i> discrimination procedure.
<p>Probability of correct selection [%] for competing GE and IG distributions by the <i>KS</i> discrimination procedure.</p
Probability density functions of GE and IG distributions for <i>ÎĽ</i> = 1.0 and selected values of <i>C</i><sub><i>V</i></sub> and thus <i>C</i><sub><i>S</i></sub>.
<p>Probability density functions of GE and IG distributions for <i>ÎĽ</i> = 1.0 and selected values of <i>C</i><sub><i>V</i></sub> and thus <i>C</i><sub><i>S</i></sub>.</p
Probability of correct selection [%] for competing GE and IG distributions by the <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> discrimination procedures.
<p>Probability of correct selection [%] for competing GE and IG distributions by the <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> discrimination procedures.</p
Relative asymptotic bias [%] of x^1% from T = GE distribution, assuming F = IG model.
<p>Relative asymptotic bias [%] of <math><mrow><msub><mi>x</mi><mo>^</mo><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>%</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></math> from T = GE distribution, assuming F = IG model.</p
The relation of conventional skewness coefficient <i>C</i><sub><i>S</i></sub> versus conventional variation coefficient <i>C</i><sub><i>V</i></sub> for some two-parameter distributions commonly used if FFA plotted with the Polish data of 90-year annual peak flow series.
<p>Distributions: Ga–gamma, We–Weibull, LN–log-normal, LL–log-logistic, LG–log-Gumbel, Exp–exponential.</p
The relation of linear skewness coefficient <i>LC</i><sub><i>S</i></sub> versus linear variation coefficient <i>LC</i><sub><i>V</i></sub> for some two-parameter distributions commonly used if FFA plotted with the Polish data of 90-year annual peak flow series.
<p>Distributions: Ga–gamma, We–Weibull, LN–log-normal, LL–log-logistic, LG–log-Gumbel, Exp–exponential.</p
The relation of linear skewness coefficient <i>LC</i><sub><i>S</i></sub> versus linear variation coefficient <i>LC</i><sub><i>V</i></sub> for two-parameter inverse Gaussian, IG, and generalized exponential, GE, distributions plotted with the Polish data of 90-year annual peak flow series.
<p>The relation of linear skewness coefficient <i>LC</i><sub><i>S</i></sub> versus linear variation coefficient <i>LC</i><sub><i>V</i></sub> for two-parameter inverse Gaussian, IG, and generalized exponential, GE, distributions plotted with the Polish data of 90-year annual peak flow series.</p