Just two moments! A cautionary note against use of high-order moments in multifractal models in hydrology

F. Lombardo, E. Volpi, D. Koutsoyiannis, and S.M. Papalexiou, Just two moments! A cautionary note against use of high-order moments in multifractal models in hydrology, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 18, 243–255, doi:10.5194/hess-18-243-2014, 2014.

[doc_id=1343]

[English]

The need of understanding and modelling the space–time variability of natural processes in hydrological sciences produced a large body of literature over the last thirty years. In this context, a multifractal framework provides parsimonious models which can be applied to a widescale range of hydrological processes, and are based on the empirical detection of some patterns in observational data, i.e. a scale invariant mechanism repeating scale after scale. Hence, multifractal analyses heavily rely on available data series and their statistical processing. In such analyses, high order moments are often estimated and used in model identification and fitting as if they were reliable. This paper warns practitioners against the blind use in geophysical time series analyses of classical statistics, which is based upon independent samples typically following distributions of exponential type. Indeed, the study of natural processes reveals scaling behaviours in state (departure from exponential distribution tails) and in time (departure from independence), thus implying dramatic increase of bias and uncertainty in statistical estimation. Surprisingly, all these differences are commonly unaccounted for in most multifractal analyses of hydrological processes, which may result in inappropriate modelling, wrong inferences and false claims about the properties of the processes studied. Using theoretical reasoning and Monte Carlo simulations, we find that the reliability of multifractal methods that use high order moments (> 3) is questionable. In particular, we suggest that, because of estimation problems, the use of moments of order higher than two should be avoided, either in justifying or fitting models. Nonetheless, in most problems the first two moments provide enough information for the most important characteristics of the distribution.

PDF Full text (731 KB)

PDF Additional material:

See also: http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-243-2014

Remarks:

Replies to discussions can also be found in:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3505.4325

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2391.3207

Our works referenced by this work:

1. D. Koutsoyiannis, The Hurst phenomenon and fractional Gaussian noise made easy, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 47 (4), 573–595, doi:10.1080/02626660209492961, 2002.
2. D. Koutsoyiannis, and A. Montanari, Statistical analysis of hydroclimatic time series: Uncertainty and insights, Water Resources Research, 43 (5), W05429, doi:10.1029/2006WR005592, 2007.
3. D. Koutsoyiannis, A random walk on water, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14, 585–601, doi:10.5194/hess-14-585-2010, 2010.
4. D. Koutsoyiannis, and A. Langousis, Precipitation, Treatise on Water Science, edited by P. Wilderer and S. Uhlenbrook, 2, 27–78, Academic Press, Oxford, 2011.
5. D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Paschalis, and N. Theodoratos, Two-dimensional Hurst-Kolmogorov process and its application to rainfall fields, Journal of Hydrology, 398 (1-2), 91–100, 2011.
6. D. Koutsoyiannis, Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics as a result of extremal entropy production, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 390 (8), 1424–1432, doi:10.1016/j.physa.2010.12.035, 2011.
7. F. Lombardo, E. Volpi, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Rainfall downscaling in time: Theoretical and empirical comparison between multifractal and Hurst-Kolmogorov discrete random cascades, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 57 (6), 1052–1066, 2012.
8. S.M. Papalexiou, D. Koutsoyiannis, and C. Makropoulos, How extreme is extreme? An assessment of daily rainfall distribution tails, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17, 851–862, doi:10.5194/hess-17-851-2013, 2013.
9. Y. Markonis, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Climatic variability over time scales spanning nine orders of magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch cycles with Hurst–Kolmogorov dynamics, Surveys in Geophysics, 34 (2), 181–207, doi:10.1007/s10712-012-9208-9, 2013.
10. D. Koutsoyiannis, Encolpion of stochastics: Fundamentals of stochastic processes, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.10956.82564, Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering – National Technical University of Athens, Athens, 2013.

Our works that reference this work:

1. P. Dimitriadis, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Climacogram versus autocovariance and power spectrum in stochastic modelling for Markovian and Hurst–Kolmogorov processes, Stochastic Environmental Research & Risk Assessment, 29 (6), 1649–1669, doi:10.1007/s00477-015-1023-7, 2015.
2. D. Koutsoyiannis, Generic and parsimonious stochastic modelling for hydrology and beyond, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 61 (2), 225–244, doi:10.1080/02626667.2015.1016950, 2016.
3. P. Dimitriadis, D. Koutsoyiannis, and P. Papanicolaou, Stochastic similarities between the microscale of turbulence and hydrometeorological processes, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 61 (9), 1623–1640, doi:10.1080/02626667.2015.1085988, 2016.
4. D. Koutsoyiannis, and S.M. Papalexiou, Extreme rainfall: Global perspective, Handbook of Applied Hydrology, Second Edition, edited by V.P. Singh, 74.1–74.16, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2017.
5. F. Lombardo, E. Volpi, D. Koutsoyiannis, and F. Serinaldi, A theoretically consistent stochastic cascade for temporal disaggregation of intermittent rainfall, Water Resources Research, 53 (6), 4586–4605, doi:10.1002/2017WR020529, 2017.
6. P. Dimitriadis, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Stochastic synthesis approximating any process dependence and distribution, Stochastic Environmental Research & Risk Assessment, 32 (6), 1493–1515, doi:10.1007/s00477-018-1540-2, 2018.
7. D. Koutsoyiannis, P. Dimitriadis, F. Lombardo, and S. Stevens, From fractals to stochastics: Seeking theoretical consistency in analysis of geophysical data, Advances in Nonlinear Geosciences, edited by A.A. Tsonis, 237–278, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58895-7_14, Springer, 2018.
8. I. Tsoukalas, S.M. Papalexiou, A. Efstratiadis, and C. Makropoulos, A cautionary note on the reproduction of dependencies through linear stochastic models with non-Gaussian white noise, Water, 10 (6), 771, doi:10.3390/w10060771, 2018.
9. I. Tsoukalas, C. Makropoulos, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Simulation of stochastic processes exhibiting any-range dependence and arbitrary marginal distributions, Water Resources Research, 54 (11), 9484–9513, doi:10.1029/2017WR022462, 2018.

Works that cite this document: View on Google Scholar or ResearchGate

Other works that reference this work (this list might be obsolete):

1. Cheng, Q., Generalized binomial multiplicative cascade processes and asymmetrical multifractal distributions, Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 21, 477-487, 10.5194/npg-21-477-2014, 2014.
2. Verrier, S., M. Crépon and S. Thiria, Scaling and stochastic cascade properties of NEMO oceanic simulations and their potential value for GCM evaluation and downscaling, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 10.1002/2014JC009811, 2014.
3. Sassi, M.G., H. Leijnse and R. Uijlenhoet, Sensitivity of power functions to aggregation: Bias and uncertainty in radar rainfall retrieval, Water Resources Research, 50 (10), 8050-8065. 2014.
4. Ariza-Villaverde, A.B., F.J. Jiménez-Hornero and E. Gutiérrez de Ravé, Influence of DEM resolution on drainage network extraction: A multifractal analysis, Geomorphology, 241, 243-254, 2015.
5. Adirosi, E., L. Baldini, L. Lombardo, F. Russo, F. Napolitano, E. Volpi and A. Tokay, Comparison of different fittings of drop spectra for rainfall retrievals, Advances in Water Resources, 83, 55-67, 2015.
6. Poveda, G., and H.D. Salas, Statistical scaling, Shannon entropy, and generalized space-time q-entropy of rainfall fields in tropical South America, Chaos, 25 (7), art. no. 075409, 10.1063/1.4922595, 2015.