the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Return period of high-dimensional compound events. Part II: Analysis of spatially-variable precipitation
Abstract. This study introduces a comprehensive framework for modeling compound precipitation events, with a focus on handling zero intermittency in rainfall data. By expanding the existing methodologies to a five-dimensional approach and applying the joint return period (JRP) concept using both Gaussian copulas and R-vines with Gaussian, extreme value, and t-Student copulas, we offer a more accurate understanding of these complex events. A key contribution of this study is the proposal of a model that calculates the multivariate return period in five dimensions, surpassing the commonly used bivariate approach, and considers the dependence of precipitation events across multiple sites, accounting for both lower and upper tail dependencies. The comparison of dependency structures in the generated samples shows that the R-vine structure with extreme value copulas in a multivariate mixed model is particularly effective at capturing the spatial dependence in the data. Our findings emphasize that an inappropriate choice of copulas can lead to either overestimation or underestimation of design events with defined return periods, with significant implications for risk management.
- Preprint
(8260 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-335', Hafidha Khebizi, 08 Jan 2025
Dear authors and colleagues of the scientific community,
Fist, I would like to thank the authors for the valuable response to my comment concerning Part I and I am pleased to add a second comment for Return period of high-dimensional compound events. Part II: Analysis of spatially-variable precipitation.
For this, four questions seems to me interesting to be asked if possible. My first question concerns the RP. It changes in space and time and its occurrence is not necessarily of the same intensity. How can you differentiate short return periods from long-term ones?
My second question, in addition to the hydraulic and hydrological study, is it possible to introduce anthropogenic variables, for example, the existence of dams, sewage networks, treatment plants, which can by incidence or overload amplify the risk of flooding?
My third question concerns the implications of geomorphology and the terrigenous material transported and deposited during the flood. For this, I would like to invite you to read my discussion concerning the Evaluation the Effectiveness Of The Existing Flood Risk Protection Measures Along Wadi Deffa In El-Bayadh City, Algeria By Ben Said M., Hafnaoui M.A., Hachemi A., Madi M., Benmalek A.
In this discussion, I highlighted the implications of geomorphology and the sedimentary material transported and then deposited during the flood. These are two related factors that change over time where we can follow the evolution of the morphology of the river and quantify the terrigenous material. Using your approach, can you combine runoff morphology and sediment supply in a flood scenario?
A final question concerns the lithological vulnerability, particularly erosion and the implication of flooding on urban areas. Is it possible to add variables indicating the lithological vulnerability in the modelling, or should the modelling in your approach be limited to hydroclimatological data?
Here attached, my discussion Of Evaluating The Effectiveness Of The Existing Flood Risk Protection Measures Along Wadi Deffa In El-Bayadh City, Algeria By Ben Said M., Hafnaoui M.A., Hachemi A., Madi M., Benmalek A.
Reference:
Khebizi H. (2024) Discussion Of Evaluating The Effectiveness Of The Existing Flood Risk Protection Measures Along Wadi Deffa In El-Bayadh City, Algeria By Ben Said M., Hafnaoui M.A., Hachemi A., Madi M., Benmalek A. Larhyss Journal, ISSN 1112-3680, n°60, Dec 2024, pp. 293-296.
Kind regards
- RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-335', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2024-335', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Feb 2025
The manuscript addresses the analysis of precipitation across spatially-related sites with a focus on modeling zero-inflated data. It places significant emphasis on the multivariate nature of the problem, demonstrated through a five-dimensional application. While the topic is interesting and relevant, the manuscript requires greater detail in several areas to adequately convey the value and robustness of the proposed methodology. Below are specific comments and suggestions for improvement:
General CommentsComputational Complexity and Data Requirements:
- The model estimates 2^d distributions, where d is the number of sites. This naturally entails considerable computational costs. Additionally, since each model is estimated on a subset of the data (e.g., Group 32 is only modeled when all variables are non-zero), the approach presupposes access to a large dataset. These aspects warrant discussion and explicit acknowledgment within the manuscript.
Detailed Comments
Equation (1):
Greater clarity is required for the parameters p0,p1,…, etc, to ensure they constitute a valid probability model. Specifically, do these parameters sum to 1? Providing this information would strengthen the theoretical foundations of the model.Model Descriptions (Page 5):
Model 1 (Gaussian Copula Without Intermittency):
Does this model fit a copula to zero-inflated data without accounting for the discrete component of the marginal distributions? If so, is it appropriate to apply copulas to non-continuous data? Addressing this issue would clarify the legitimacy of the approach.Model 3 (Vine Gaussian Copulas):
Are vine Gaussian copulas equivalent to traditional Gaussian copulas? When bivariate Gaussian copulas are assigned to the edges of a vine, the resulting multivariate density corresponds to a Gaussian density parameterized by a partial correlation vine rather than a standard correlation matrix. Clarification on this point would enhance understanding.Model 4 (Vine Extreme Copula Model):
The terminology for this model may be misleading. It appears to be a vine copula where pair-copulas can be selected from different classes, including those that describe asymptotic tail dependence. This does not necessarily qualify it as an extreme-value copula. A reconsideration of the terminology is recommended to avoid confusion.Figure 1:
It appears that model estimation is conducted independently within each group. Is this correct? Based on Equation (1), the model suggests conditional independence when conditioned on the rain/no-rain status for each site. As a result, the copula for Group 32 is entirely independent from the copula for Group 31. Is this assumption realistic? Further discussion on this matter is recommended.Page 11 (Marginal GEV Estimation):
The manuscript briefly mentions that marginal GEV estimation is conducted using Bayesian techniques. However, details regarding the Bayesian approach are sparse. Please provide a more comprehensive description of the estimation procedure.Line 310 (Computational Complexity of GPR Technique):
Given the computational intensity of calculating copula values from vine specifications, more details should be provided, including an algorithm if possible, to clarify the practical implementation of the Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) technique.Line 330 (Upper Tail Dependence):
The statement regarding the superior fit of copulas with upper tail dependence requires clarification. The model is five-dimensional, making it unclear how tail dependence is conceptualized and evaluated. Further elaboration is necessary.Section 3.5.2 (Likelihood vs. Probability):
It may be beneficial to distinguish between likelihood and probability, as is customary in the literature. This would ensure greater terminological precision and alignment with established conventions.I hope these suggestions prove helpful in strengthening the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-335-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
262 | 49 | 12 | 323 | 10 | 11 |
- HTML: 262
- PDF: 49
- XML: 12
- Total: 323
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1