Scale effect in hazard assessment - application to daily rainfall

International audienceDaily precipitation is recorded as the total amount of water collected by a rain-gauge in 24h. Events are modelled as a Poisson process and the 24h precipitation by a Generalized Pareto Distribution (GPD) of excesses. Hazard assessment is complete when estimates of the Poisson rate and the distribution parameters, together with a measure of their uncertainty, are obtained. The shape parameter of the GPD determines the support of the variable: Weibull domain of attraction (DA) corresponds to finite support variables, as should be for natural phenomena. However, Fréchet DA has been reported for daily precipitation, which implies an infinite support and a heavy-tailed distribution. We use the fact that a log-scale is better suited to the type of variable analyzed to overcome this inconsistency, thus showing that using the appropriate natural scale can be extremely important for proper hazard assessment. The approach is illustrated with precipitation data from the Eastern coast of the Iberian Peninsula affected by severe convective precipitation. The estimation is carried out by using Bayesian techniques

The normal distribution in some constrained sample spaces

Phenomena with a constrained sample space appear frequently in practice. This is the case, for example, with strictly positive data, or with compositional data, such as percentages or proportions. If the natural measure of difference is not the absolute one, simple algebraic properties show that it is more convenient to work with a geometry different from the usual Euclidean geometry in real space, and with a measure different from the usual Lebesgue measure, leading to alternative models that better fit the phenomenon under study. The general approach is presented and illustrated using the normal distribution, both on the positive real line and on the D-part simplex. The original ideas of McAlister in his introduction to the lognormal distribution in 1879, are recovered and updated

The effect of scale in daily precipitation hazard assessment

Daily precipitation is recorded as the total amount of water collected by a rain-gauge in 24 h. Events are modelled as a Poisson process and the 24 h precipitation by a Generalised Pareto Distribution (GPD) of excesses. Hazard assessment is complete when estimates of the Poisson rate and the distribution parameters, together with a measure of their uncertainty, are obtained. The shape parameter of the GPD determines the support of the variable: Weibull domain of attraction (DA) corresponds to finite support variables as should be for natural phenomena. However, Fréchet DA has been reported for daily precipitation, which implies an infinite support and a heavy-tailed distribution. Bayesian techniques are used to estimate the parameters. The approach is illustrated with precipitation data from the Eastern coast of the Iberian Peninsula affected by severe convective precipitation. The estimated GPD is mainly in the Fréchet DA, something incompatible with the common sense assumption of that precipitation is a bounded phenomenon. The bounded character of precipitation is then taken as a priori hypothesis. Consistency of this hypothesis with the data is checked in two cases: using the raw-data (in mm) and using log-transformed data. As expected, a Bayesian model checking clearly rejects the model in the raw-data case. However, log-transformed data seem to be consistent with the model. This fact may be due to the adequacy of the log-scale to represent positive measurements for which differences are better relative than absolute

Evidence functions : a compositional approach to information

The discrete case of Bayes' formula is considered the paradigm of information acquisition. Prior and posterior probability functions, as well as likelihood functions, called evidence functions, are compositions following the Aitchison geometry of the simplex, and have thus vector character. Bayes' formula becomes a vector addition. The Aitchison norm of an evidence function is introduced as a scalar measurement of information. A fictitious fire scenario serves as illustration. Two different inspections of affected houses are considered. Two questions are addressed: (a) which is the information provided by the outcomes of inspections, and (b) which is the most informative inspection

Bayes linear spaces

Linear spaces consisting of o-finite probability measures and infinite measures (improper priors and likelihood functions) are defined. The commutative group operation, called perturbation, is the updating given by Bayes theorem; the inverse operation is the Radon-Nikodym derivative. Bayes spaces of measures are sets of classes of proportional measures. In this framework, basic notions of mathematical statistics get a simple algebraic interpretation. For example, exponential families appear as affine subspaces with their sufficient statistics as a basis. Bayesian statistics, in particular some well-known properties of conjugated priors and likelihood functions, are revisited and slightly extended

Sensitivity of fluvial sediment source apportionment to mixing model assumptions: A Bayesian model comparison

Mixing models have become increasingly common tools for apportioning fluvial sediment load to various sediment sources across catchments using a wide variety of Bayesian and frequentist modeling approaches. In this study, we demonstrate how different model setups can impact upon resulting source apportionment estimates in a Bayesian framework via a one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) sensitivity analysis. We formulate 13 versions of a mixing model, each with different error assumptions and model structural choices, and apply them to sediment geochemistry data from the River Blackwater, Norfolk, UK, to apportion suspended particulate matter (SPM) contributions from three sources (arable topsoils, road verges, and subsurface material) under base flow conditions between August 2012 and August 2013. Whilst all 13 models estimate subsurface sources to be the largest contributor of SPM (median ∼76%), comparison of apportionment estimates reveal varying degrees of sensitivity to changing priors, inclusion of covariance terms, incorporation of time-variant distributions, and methods of proportion characterization. We also demonstrate differences in apportionment results between a full and an empirical Bayesian setup, and between a Bayesian and a frequentist optimization approach. This OFAT sensitivity analysis reveals that mixing model structural choices and error assumptions can significantly impact upon sediment source apportionment results, with estimated median contributions in this study varying by up to 21% between model versions. Users of mixing models are therefore strongly advised to carefully consider and justify their choice of model structure prior to conducting sediment source apportionment investigations