- https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/ocean-engineering
Final published version

Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

In: Ocean Engineering, Vol. 207, 107406, 01.07.2020.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Mackay, E & Jonathan, P 2020, 'Assessment of return value estimates from stationary and non-stationary extreme value models', *Ocean Engineering*, vol. 207, 107406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107406

Mackay, E., & Jonathan, P. (2020). Assessment of return value estimates from stationary and non-stationary extreme value models. *Ocean Engineering*, *207*, Article 107406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107406

Mackay E, Jonathan P. Assessment of return value estimates from stationary and non-stationary extreme value models. Ocean Engineering. 2020 Jul 1;207:107406. Epub 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107406

@article{a9b702c75a2d4bdfa36478a7d96c0ddd,

title = "Assessment of return value estimates from stationary and non-stationary extreme value models",

abstract = "This article compares the accuracy of return value estimates from stationary and non-stationary extreme value models when the data exhibits covariate dependence. The non-stationary covariate representation used is a penalised piecewise-constant (PPC) model, in which the data are partitioned into bins defined by covariates and the extreme value distribution is assumed to be homogeneous within each bin. A generalised Pareto model is assumed, where the scale parameter can vary between bins but is penalised for the variance across bins, and the shape parameter is assumed constant over all covariate bins. The number and sizes of covariate bins must be defined by the user based on physical considerations. Numerical simulations are conducted to compare the performance of stationary and non-stationary models for various case studies, in terms of quality of estimation of the -year return value over the full covariate domain. It is shown that a non-stationary model can give improved estimates of return values, provided that model assumptions are consistent with the data. When the data exhibits non-stationarity in the generalised Pareto tail shape, the use of non-stationary model assuming a constant shape parameter can produce biases in return values. In such cases, a stationary model can give a more accurate estimate of return value over the full covariate domain as only the most extreme observations (regardless of covariate) are used to estimate tail shape. In other cases, the assumption of a stationary model will ignore key features of the data and be less reliable than a non-stationary model. For example, if a relatively benign covariate interval exhibits a long (or heavy) tail, extreme values from this interval may influence the T-year return value for very large T. However the sample of peaks over threshold, with high threshold, used to estimate a stationary model in this case may not include sufficient observations from this interval to estimate the return value adequately.",

keywords = "Covariate, Extreme, Generalised Pareto, Metocean, Significant wave height, Non-stationary",

author = "E. Mackay and P. Jonathan",

year = "2020",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107406",

language = "English",

volume = "207",

journal = "Ocean Engineering",

issn = "0029-8018",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of return value estimates from stationary and non-stationary extreme value models

AU - Mackay, E.

AU - Jonathan, P.

PY - 2020/7/1

Y1 - 2020/7/1

N2 - This article compares the accuracy of return value estimates from stationary and non-stationary extreme value models when the data exhibits covariate dependence. The non-stationary covariate representation used is a penalised piecewise-constant (PPC) model, in which the data are partitioned into bins defined by covariates and the extreme value distribution is assumed to be homogeneous within each bin. A generalised Pareto model is assumed, where the scale parameter can vary between bins but is penalised for the variance across bins, and the shape parameter is assumed constant over all covariate bins. The number and sizes of covariate bins must be defined by the user based on physical considerations. Numerical simulations are conducted to compare the performance of stationary and non-stationary models for various case studies, in terms of quality of estimation of the -year return value over the full covariate domain. It is shown that a non-stationary model can give improved estimates of return values, provided that model assumptions are consistent with the data. When the data exhibits non-stationarity in the generalised Pareto tail shape, the use of non-stationary model assuming a constant shape parameter can produce biases in return values. In such cases, a stationary model can give a more accurate estimate of return value over the full covariate domain as only the most extreme observations (regardless of covariate) are used to estimate tail shape. In other cases, the assumption of a stationary model will ignore key features of the data and be less reliable than a non-stationary model. For example, if a relatively benign covariate interval exhibits a long (or heavy) tail, extreme values from this interval may influence the T-year return value for very large T. However the sample of peaks over threshold, with high threshold, used to estimate a stationary model in this case may not include sufficient observations from this interval to estimate the return value adequately.

AB - This article compares the accuracy of return value estimates from stationary and non-stationary extreme value models when the data exhibits covariate dependence. The non-stationary covariate representation used is a penalised piecewise-constant (PPC) model, in which the data are partitioned into bins defined by covariates and the extreme value distribution is assumed to be homogeneous within each bin. A generalised Pareto model is assumed, where the scale parameter can vary between bins but is penalised for the variance across bins, and the shape parameter is assumed constant over all covariate bins. The number and sizes of covariate bins must be defined by the user based on physical considerations. Numerical simulations are conducted to compare the performance of stationary and non-stationary models for various case studies, in terms of quality of estimation of the -year return value over the full covariate domain. It is shown that a non-stationary model can give improved estimates of return values, provided that model assumptions are consistent with the data. When the data exhibits non-stationarity in the generalised Pareto tail shape, the use of non-stationary model assuming a constant shape parameter can produce biases in return values. In such cases, a stationary model can give a more accurate estimate of return value over the full covariate domain as only the most extreme observations (regardless of covariate) are used to estimate tail shape. In other cases, the assumption of a stationary model will ignore key features of the data and be less reliable than a non-stationary model. For example, if a relatively benign covariate interval exhibits a long (or heavy) tail, extreme values from this interval may influence the T-year return value for very large T. However the sample of peaks over threshold, with high threshold, used to estimate a stationary model in this case may not include sufficient observations from this interval to estimate the return value adequately.

KW - Covariate

KW - Extreme

KW - Generalised Pareto

KW - Metocean

KW - Significant wave height

KW - Non-stationary

U2 - 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107406

DO - 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107406

M3 - Journal article

VL - 207

JO - Ocean Engineering

JF - Ocean Engineering

SN - 0029-8018

M1 - 107406

ER -