Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Application of Levy Processes in Modelling (Geodetic) Time Series With Mixed Spectra

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Residual GNSS time series decompose into white noise, colored noise, and one of three Lévy processes, identifiable by a one-year length-variation rule.

desk verdict The decomposition is new and worth discussing, but the abstract's clean three-class claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11736 v1 pith:7UWIAZD2 submitted 2019-08-08 stat.ME stat.AP

J.P. Montillet , X. He , K. Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.AP MSC 62M1060G5160G52
keywords LévyprocessesmixedspectrumcolourednoiseGNSStimeseriesfractionalBrownianmotionalpha-stabledistributionlength-variationmethod
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

After the usual geophysical signals are removed from daily GNSS position time series, what remains is usually treated as a mixture of white and colored noise. This paper argues that the residual should instead be modeled as a sum of three random variables: white noise, colored noise, and a third component that belongs to the family of Lévy processes. Using simulations and three real stations, the authors claim the third component falls into one of three identifiable classes: Gaussian Lévy (short-memory), fractional Lévy (long-memory and self-similar, an alternative to fractional Brownian motion), or stable Lévy (heavy-tailed, with large or infinite variance). They propose a practical N-step rule based on how estimated parameters change when the time-series length is extended over one year, with thresholds of 3% and 20%. If the rule works, geodesists would have a simple way to choose between ARMA and FARIMA noise models and would be alerted when missing geophysical signals are contaminating the residuals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the N-step length-variation method. The time series is truncated or extended in fractions of a year (0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.8, 1), and at each step the stochastic model parameters (amplitudes of white and colored noise plus power-law index) and the functional model parameters (trend, seasonal harmonics) are re-estimated; the percentage variation between the first and N-th step is then compared with two thresholds. Variations below roughly 3% label the third random variable as Gaussian Lévy, variations between 3% and 20% label it fractional Lévy, and variations above 20% label it stable Lévy. The classification is anchored to the Lévy-stable machinery: the characteristic exponent α and Hurst parameter H determine which ARMA/FARIMA model should be used, and the variance formulas for residual trend and seasonal signals separate the finite-variance cases from the infinite-variance stable case.

What would settle it

Simulate a residual time series whose third component is a genuine symmetric α-stable Lévy motion with known parameters (e.g., α=1.5), add it to white plus power-law noise, then run the N-step procedure with the PL+WN model and check whether the percentage variations exceed 20% in both the stochastic and functional models; if they do not, the rule mislabels a true stable Lévy process as fractional.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the residual time series obtained after subtracting the deterministic tectonic rate and seasonal signals from GNSS observations is not just white plus colored noise, but contains a third random variable that is a Lévy process. Depending on the memory and tail properties of the residual, this third variable is one of three kinds: a Gaussian Lévy process when short-memory ARMA dynamics dominate, a fractional Lévy process when the series is self-similar with long-range dependence (reducing to fractional Brownian motion at α=2), or a stable Lévy process when heavy tails and an effectively infinite variance point to a misfit between the chosen functional model and the observations. The paper tests this trichotomy on simulated mixed-spectrum time series and on real GNSS stations, reporting that the residual distribution is consistent with a Gaussian or fractional Lévy class for ordinary stations, while the station affected by slow-slip events shows the large parameter variation associated with the stable class.

Load-bearing premise

The classification rule depends on the untested premise that percentage changes in the estimated stochastic and functional model parameters over one-year extensions faithfully mirror the true type of the third random variable, with thresholds of 3% and 20%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A geodesist can classify the residual noise of a real station by re-estimating the noise model on one-year-extended windows and applying the 3%/20% thresholds, without needing additional data types.
  • When the fractional Lévy class is identified, FARIMA becomes the appropriate residual model, and the Hurst exponent can be read off the fractional differencing parameter d via H = d + 0.5.
  • When the stable Lévy class is identified, it is a warning that the functional model is missing geophysical signals (or contains undetected offsets), and the residual variance is genuinely unbounded rather than a numerical artifact.
  • For ordinary GNSS stations whose residuals are Gaussian, the existing white-plus-power-law noise model remains sufficient, and the Lévy process reduces to the Brownian motion case.
  • The derived variance formulas imply that a residual linear trend grows quadratically with series length, which is why the stable Lévy case must be reserved for genuinely heavy-tailed residuals.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 3% and 20% thresholds are justified only by simulation experience, not by a formal statistical test; a natural next step is to derive a likelihood-ratio or information-criterion comparison between the three Lévy classes on the same one-year sliding windows.
  • If the functional model absorbs a substantial part of the colored noise, the N-step rule may systematically over-label fractional Lévy cases, so the method's false-positive rate should be measured on synthetic series where the true third r.v. is a known α-stable motion.
  • The same three-term decomposition could be useful for other long-memory geophysical or financial records with mixed spectra, such as river discharge or sea-level time series, where the stable-Lévy flag would signal missing forcing terms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper models residual GNSS position time series as the sum of three random variables: white noise, coloured noise, and a third variable assumed to belong to the family of Levy processes. To identify the type of the third variable, the manuscript proposes an N-step method in which the length of the time series is extended in steps of 0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.8, and 1 year; the percentage variations in estimated functional and stochastic model parameters are then compared with thresholds of 3% and 20%. Table 1 labels the third variable as Gaussian Levy, fractional Levy, or stable Levy according to these thresholds. The method is applied to simulated white-plus-power-law noise time series at three coloured-noise amplitudes and to three real GNSS stations (DRAO, ASCO, ALBH). The paper concludes that fractional Levy processes offer an alternative to fractional Brownian motion and that stable Levy processes appear when heavy-tailed residuals arise from functional-model misfit.

Significance. If the proposed classification were validated, the N-step method would give geodesy practitioners a practical heuristic for selecting among noise models. The paper is clearly structured, connects Levy processes to established geodetic noise models, provides closed-form variance derivations in the appendices, and uses standard software (Hector). However, the central three-class claim is not yet established: the classifier is never tested against time series with a known Levy component, and its thresholds are introduced without justification or sensitivity analysis. As a result, the reported identification of Gaussian, fractional, and stable Levy processes is currently a plausible hypothesis rather than a demonstrated result.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.1 and Table 1] The N-step classifier is never validated against time series with a known Levy component. The simulations in §3.3.1 generate only white noise plus power-law noise (PL+WN); the third random variable is absent by construction. Consequently, the labels 'Gaussian Levy', 'fractional Levy' and 'stable Levy' assigned in Fig. 1 and Tables 2–3 are not compared with ground truth. The statement in §3.3.1 that 'it is much more difficult to discriminate between the fractional Levy and the stable Levy' is an acknowledgement that the load-bearing assumption—that percentage variation of estimated parameters is a faithful proxy for the Levy type—is unvalidated. The authors should simulate series with injected Levy processes (e.g., Brownian motion, fractional Levy stable motion, and alpha-stable motion) and quantify classification accuracy.
  2. [§3.2, Table 1] The classification thresholds of 3% and 20% are introduced without justification or sensitivity analysis. Because the definition of the three classes in Table 1 is itself based on these thresholds, the subsequent identification of Gaussian, fractional, and stable Levy in simulations is partly a restatement of the definitions. The thresholds should be derived from a loss function, calibrated on simulations, or at minimum varied in a sensitivity analysis to show that the conclusions in §3.3 are not threshold-dependent. As it stands, changing these two numbers to, say, 5% and 15% could change the labels assigned to real stations.
  3. [§3.3.1, Table 3] The reported correlations do not provide evidence for the three-way distinction. For all scenarios, Corr. Normal and Corr. Levy are within mutual uncertainties (e.g., case C, beta=1.1: 0.89±0.50 vs 0.96±0.18; case B, beta=1.1: 0.92±0.21 vs 0.94±0.14), so the residual distribution fits both families almost equally well. The paper's own text concedes the difficulty of separating fractional from stable Levy. Without a statistical test (e.g., a likelihood-ratio test that accounts for the Gaussian case being nested in the alpha-stable family) or classification-error rates, the claim that three classes are identifiable is not supported.
  4. [§3.3.2, Fig. 2] The classification of the real stations is not robust to the choice of stochastic noise model. The authors state that 'there is a strong dependence with the selected noise model' and that the results depend on whether PL+WN or FN+WN is used. Because the paper selects the noise model a priori using information criteria and does not show that the resulting Levy class is invariant to that choice, the assignment of DRAO and ASCO to the fractional Levy class is conditional on an unverified modeling decision. A sensitivity check over both noise models, and ideally over the Up coordinate, is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §3.4] The phrase 'imply potential anxiety' is unclear; consider 'may indicate uncertainty' or 'may signal model inadequacy'. The term 'anxiety' is used in several places to mean functional-model misfit, but it is not standard statistical terminology and should be defined or replaced.
  2. [§3.2] The symbols ≜, ≃, ∼, and ⁄= are defined by reference to 3% and 20% variation, but the set of parameters over which the variation is computed is not specified, and it is unclear how absolute differences are normalized when parameters have different units. Please state the formula for the percentage variation explicitly.
  3. [§3.3.1] The text refers to 'Figure 1a, 1b, 1c' while the caption uses (A), (B), and (C); please make the cross-referencing consistent.
  4. [§3.4, Eq. (7)] The derivation assumes uncorrelatedness between the residual trend and the noise, and the authors later state that the resulting sigma^2 should be seen as an upper bound. This caveat should appear at the point of the derivation rather than only after Eq. (9).
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (14)] The approximation sign in Eq. (14) is introduced without showing how the cross terms are handled; a short derivation step for the cross term would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The three-class Levy identification is defined by the Table 1 thresholds, and the simulations used to 'support' the classes contain no Levy component, so the central identification reduces to the classification rule itself.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Table 1 (N Steps Process)]
    "Now specifically, the symbol ≃ means that there are little differences (less than 3%) between the estimated parameters of the stochastic model associated with the first and the N-th iteration. The symbol∼ means that we allow bigger differences up to 20% . With much larger values, we use the symbol ⁄=."

    The three Levy classes are defined by these percentage-variation thresholds in Table 1: Gaussian Levy corresponds to ≃ (<3%), Fractional Levy to ∼ (up to 20%), and Stable Levy to ⁄= (larger). Applying the N-step method therefore assigns a label by checking which threshold interval the parameter variation falls into. The label 'Gaussian Levy', 'Fractional Levy', or 'Stable Levy' is a restatement of the Table 1 definition, not an inference from an independent property of a Levy process. The paper later makes this explicit when it says that real-data results 'agree with the definition of the fractional Levy process defined in Table 1'.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.3.1 (Simulated Time Series)]
    "We simulate 10 years long time series fixing awh to 1.6 mm, a varying between [1− 3] mm/yr, b equal 0, and (c1,d1) equal to (0.4, 0.2) mm/yr. ... In Hector, we use the PL +WN model (Bos et al., 2013). ... Finally, those three scenarios support ideally the theory where in the case of small amplitude coloured noise, the stochastic noise properties are dominated by the Gaussian noise, hence supporting a third r.v. defined as a Gaussian Levy."

    The simulations are generated with white noise plus power-law noise only (PL+WN); no third Levy random variable is present in the data-generating process. The 'support' for a Gaussian Levy third r.v. is obtained by applying the Table 1 threshold rule to the fitted parameter variations, so the label is produced by the same definition used to name the class. The simulation therefore cannot confirm the Levy-process hypothesis: the outcome is forced by the classification rule rather than by a simulated Levy component. The paper itself concedes the difficulty of separating fractional and stable Levy when the functional model absorbs noise.

full rationale

The central empirical claim — identification of three classes of Levy processes from simulations and real time series — is not independently established. Section 3.2 defines the classes by threshold intervals on parameter variation (Table 1), and classification of any series is the direct application of those thresholds. The supporting simulations in Section 3.3.1 contain only PL+WN noise, so no ground-truth Levy process is ever used to validate the labels. Thus the three-class identification reduces by construction to the threshold rule. The paper is transparent about the thresholds being assumptions and about the difficulty of separating fractional from stable Levy, which limits the severity. There are self-citations (Montillet and Yu 2015; He et al. 2019) but they are not the load-bearing circular step. The variance formulas and ARMA/FARIMA fits are independent statistical content, but the headline Levy-class identification itself is a self-definitional label assignment. Score 6 reflects this partial circularity of the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's classification hinges on hand-set thresholds rather than derived constants, and the core three-random-variable decomposition is an assumption rather than a proven result. No new physical entities are introduced; the Levy process is a modeling construct borrowed from the existing literature.

free parameters (2)
  • variation thresholds for Levy classification = 3% and 20%
    In Section 3.2 and Table 1, the symbol approximately-equal is defined as less than 3% parameter change, the symbol similar-to as less than 20%, and the symbol not-equal as more than 20%. These thresholds are chosen by hand and directly determine which Levy class is assigned.
  • simulation colored-noise amplitude boundaries = 0.1, 1, and 4 mm/yr^(beta/4) for cases A, B, C
    Section 3.3.1 defines weak, intermediate, and strong colored noise scenarios using these hand-picked boundaries. The conclusion that case C corresponds to a stable Levy process depends on these boundaries, which are not derived from data or theory.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Residual GNSS time series can be written as the sum of three random variables, the third of which is a Levy process.
    Postulated in Section 3.1, not derived from data or prior theory. The entire framework depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The Gauss-Markov hypothesis: noise in GNSS time series is Gaussian and wide-sense stationary, with white noise zero-mean Gaussian and colored noise satisfying WSS.
    Section 2.1 states this as a strong assumption standard in GNSS noise modeling. It is load-bearing for the white and colored noise components of the three-variable decomposition.
  • domain assumption The stochastic model parameters estimated by Hector (PL+WN or FN+WN) are correctly identified and stable within the one-year windows used in the N-step method.
    Section 3.2 uses variations in these estimates to classify Levy processes. If the estimates are unstable or model-dependent, the classification is compromised.
  • domain assumption Heavy tails and large variance in residuals indicate a stable Levy process.
    Section 3.1 and Section 3.4 connect large residual variance to the infinite-variance property of stable distributions, but the paper does not prove that other mechanisms, such as unmodeled offsets or transients, cannot produce the same effect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Application of Levy Processes in Modelling (Geodetic) Time Series With Mixed Spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UWIAZD2

@misc{pith2026190811736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Application of Levy Processes in Modelling (Geodetic) Time Series With Mixed Spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UWIAZD2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11736}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, various models have been developed, including the fractional Brownian motion (fBm), to analyse the stochastic properties of geodetic time series, together with the extraction of geophysical signals. The noise spectrum of these time series is generally modeled as a mixed spectrum, with a sum of white and coloured noise. Here, we are interested in modelling the residual time series, after deterministically subtracting geophysical signals from the observations. This residual time series is then assumed to be a sum of three random variables (r.v.), with the last r.v. belonging to the family of Levy processes. This stochastic term models the remaining residual signals and other correlated processes. Via simulations and real time series, we identify three classes of Levy processes: Gaussian, fractional and stable. In the first case, residuals are predominantly constituted of short-memory processes. Fractional Levy process can be an alternative model to the fBm in the presence of long-term correlations and self-similarity property. Stable process is characterized by a large variance, which can be satisfied in the case of heavy-tailed distributions. The application to geodetic time series imply potential anxiety in the functional model selection where missing geophysical information can generate such residual time series.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (2004) On roughness indices for fractional fields, Bernoulli, 10(2), 357-373

    Benassi A., Cohen S., and Istas J. (2004) On roughness indices for fractional fields, Bernoulli, 10(2), 357-373

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Bock Y, Melgar D (2016) Physical applications of GPS geodesy: a review. Rep. Prog. Phys., 79 (10). doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/10/106801

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/10/106801 2016

  3. [3]

    (2013) Fast error analysis of continuous GNSS observations with missing data

    Bos M.S., Fernandes R.M.S., Williams S.D.P., Bastos L. (2013) Fast error analysis of continuous GNSS observations with missing data. J. Geod., 87, 351–360. doi.org/10.1007/s00190-012-0605-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00190-012-0605-0 2013

  4. [4]

    (2011) Interferences of -stable distribution of the underlying noise components in geodetic data

    Botai O.J., Combrinck L., Sivakumar V. (2011) Interferences of -stable distribution of the underlying noise components in geodetic data. South Afr. J. of Geo.. doi:10.2113/gssajg.114.3-4.541

    work page doi:10.2113/gssajg.114.3-4.541 2011

  5. [5]

    (2015) On Time-Variable Seasonal Signals: Comparison of SSA and Kalman Filtering Based Approach

    Chen Q., Weigelt M., Sneeuw N., van Dam T. (2015) On Time-Variable Seasonal Signals: Comparison of SSA and Kalman Filtering Based Approach. In: Sneeuw N., Novak P., Crespi M., Sanso F. (eds) VIII Hotine-Marussi Symposium on Mathematical Geodesy. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 142. Springer, Cham

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    (2004) Financial modelling with jump processes, Chapman & Hall/CRC, ISBN 1-58488-413-4

    Cont R., Tankov P. (2004) Financial modelling with jump processes, Chapman & Hall/CRC, ISBN 1-58488-413-4

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Davis JL, Wernicke BP, Tamisiea ME (2012) On seasonal signals in geodetic time series. J. Geophys. Res., 117 (B01403). doi:10.1029/2011JB008690

    work page doi:10.1029/2011jb008690 2012

  8. [8]

    Dmitrieva K., Segall P., Bradley A. M. (2017) Effects of linear trends on estimation of noise in GNSS position time-series, Geophys. J. Int., 208(1), 281-288, doi:10.1093/gji/ggw391

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggw391 2017

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Granger CW, Joyeux R (1980) An introduction to long-memory time series models and fractional differencing. J. Time Ser. Anal., 1, 15-29

    1980

  2. [10]

    W., Ostini L., Petrie E., Roggero M., Teferle F

    Gazeaux, J., Williams S., King M., Bos M., Dach R., Deo M.,Moore A. W., Ostini L., Petrie E., Roggero M., Teferle F. N., Olivares G., Webb F. H. (2013) Detecting offsets in GPS time series: First results from the detection of offsets in GPS experiment. J. geophys. Res., 118(5)...

    2013

  3. [11]

    fourth edition, Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

    Haykin S (2002) Adaptive Filter Theory. fourth edition, Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

    2002

  4. [12]

    (2017) Review of current GPS methodologies for producing accurate time series and their error sources

    He X., Montillet J.-P., Fernandes R.M.S., Bos M.S., Yu K., Hua X., Jiang W. (2017) Review of current GPS methodologies for producing accurate time series and their error sources. J. Geodyn., 106. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2017.01.004

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    (2018) Investigation of information criteria and noise models for GNSS time series

    He X.,Bos M.S., Montillet J.-P., Fernandes R.M.S. (2018) Investigation of information criteria and noise models for GNSS time series. J. Geod., doi: 10.1007/s00190-019-01244-y

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Herring TA, King RW, McClusky SC (2010) Introduction to GAMIT/GLOBK, report, MIT, Cambridge

    2010

  7. [15]

    Herring TA, King RW, McClusky SC, Floyd M, Wang L, Murray M, Melbourne T,Santillan M, Szeliga W, Phillips D, Puskas C (2016) Plate Boundary Observatory and Related Networks: GPS Data Analysis Methods and Geodetic Products. Rev. Geophys.,54. doi:10.1002/2016RG000529

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    (1995) Discrete simulation of colored noise and stochastic processes and 1/f^ power-law noise generation, Proc

    Kasdin N. (1995) Discrete simulation of colored noise and stochastic processes and 1/f^ power-law noise generation, Proc. IEEE, vol. 83 (1995)

    1995

  9. [17]

    (2018) Detecting time-varying seasonal signal in GPS position time series with different noise levels

    Klos A., Bos M.S., Bogusz J. (2018) Detecting time-varying seasonal signal in GPS position time series with different noise levels. J. GPS Solut, 22 (21), doi:10.1007/s10291-017-0686-6

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Koutrouvelis IA (1980) Regression-type estimation of the parameters of stable laws. J. Am. Statist. Assoc., 75:918-928

    1980

  11. [19]

    (2008) Noise in GPS displacement measurements from Southern California and Southern Nevada, J

    Langbein J. (2008) Noise in GPS displacement measurements from Southern California and Southern Nevada, J. Geophys. Res., 113, B05405, doi:10.1029/2007JB005247

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    Langbein J., Svarc J. L. (2019) Evaluation of Temporally Correlated Noise in Global Navigation Satellite System Time Series: Geodetic Monument Performance, J. Geophys. Res., 124(1), 925-942

    2019

  13. [21]

    Survey and Mapping, 321

    Li Q, Tao B (1982) Theory of Probability and Statistics, and Its Applications to Geodesy. Survey and Mapping, 321

    1982

  14. [22]

    Earth Planet Space, 52:155-162

    Li J, Miyashita K, Kato T, Miyazaki S (2000) GPS time series modeling by autoregressive moving average method: Application to the crustal deformation in central Japan. Earth Planet Space, 52:155-162

    2000

  15. [23]

    (2013) Time Series with Mixed Spectra, CRC Press

    Li T.-H. (2013) Time Series with Mixed Spectra, CRC Press. ISBN 9781584881766

    2013

  16. [24]

    , Sykulski A

    Lilly J.M. , Sykulski A. M., Early J. J., and Olhede S. C. (2017) Fractional Brownian motion, the Mat\'ern process, and stochastic modeling of turbulent dispersion. Nonlin. Processes Geophys. 24, 481–514. doi:10.5194/npg-24-481-2017

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    SIAM Rev., 10(4):422-437

    Mandelbrodt B, Van Ness JW (1968) Fractional Brownian Motions, Fractional Noises and Applications. SIAM Rev., 10(4):422-437

    1968

  18. [26]

    I., Szeliga W

    Melbourne T. I., Szeliga W. M., Miller M., Santillan V. M. (2005) Extent and duration of the 2003 Cascadia slow earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L04301. doi:10.1029/2004GL021790

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Dragert H., Endo E., Freymueller J

    Miller M. M., Dragert H., Endo E., Freymueller J. T., Goldfinger C., Kelsey H. M., et al. (1998) PANGA: Precise measurements help gauge Pacific Northwest’s Earthquake Potential. Eos Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 79(23), 269–275

    1998

  20. [28]

    IEEE Geosci

    Montillet J-P, Tregoning P, McClusky S, Yu K (2013) Extracting white noise statistics in GPS coordinate time series. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., 10(3):563-567. doi:10.1109/LGRS.2012.2213576

    2013

  21. [29]

    (2015) Estimation of offsets in GPS time-series and application to the detection of earthquake deformation in the far-field

    Montillet J.-P., Williams S.D.P., Koulali A., McClusky S.C. (2015) Estimation of offsets in GPS time-series and application to the detection of earthquake deformation in the far-field. Geophys. J. Int., 200(2), 1207-1221. doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggu473

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    Montillet JP, Yu K(2015) Modeling geodetic processes with levy -stable distribution and FARIMA. Math. Geosci., 47(6). doi:10.1007/s11004-014-9574-6

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    (2019) Geodetic Time Series Analysis in Earth Sciences, Springer Geophysics

    Montillet JP, and Bos M.S. (2019) Geodetic Time Series Analysis in Earth Sciences, Springer Geophysics. doi: 0.1007/978-3-030-21718-1

    2019

  24. [32]

    New York, Wiley edition

    Nikias CL, Shao M (1995) Signal processing with Alpha-Stable Distributions and Applications. New York, Wiley edition

    1995

  25. [33]

    Book online: http://www.math.ucla.edu/ biskup/275b.1.13w/PDFs/Nolan.pdf

    Nolan JP (2009) Stable Distributions - Models for heavy tailed data. Book online: http://www.math.ucla.edu/ biskup/275b.1.13w/PDFs/Nolan.pdf

    2009

  26. [34]

    (2016) Model Selection Test for the Heavy-Tailed Distributions under Censored Samples with Application in Financial Data

    Panahi H. (2016) Model Selection Test for the Heavy-Tailed Distributions under Censored Samples with Application in Financial Data. Int. J. of Financial Studiesb(MDPI), 4(4), doi:10.3390/ijfs4040024

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Panas E (2001) Estimating fractal dimension using stable distributions and exploring long memory through ARFIMA models in Athens Stock Exchange. Appl. Fin. Econ., 11(4):395-402

    2001

  28. [36]

    (2002) Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes

    Papoulis A., Unnikrishna Pillai S. (2002) Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes. 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill Series in Electrical and Computer Engineering, the McGraw-Hill companies. ISBN: 0-07-366011-6

    2002

  29. [37]

    Samorodnitsky G., and Taqqu M. S. (1994) Stable Non- Gaussian Random Processes: Stochastic Models with In- finite Variance (Chapman and Hall, London)

    1994

  30. [38]

    Sowell F (1991) Modeling long-run behavior with the fractional ARIMA model. J. Monetary Econ., 29, p.277-302

    1991

  31. [39]

    (2009) Atmospheric effects and spurious signals in GPS analyses

    Tregoning P., Watson C. (2009) Atmospheric effects and spurious signals in GPS analyses. J. Geophys. Res., 114 (B09403). doi:10.1029/2009JB006344

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    Plate Boundary Observatory: The first five years

    UNAVCO (2009). Plate Boundary Observatory: The first five years. Boulder, CO: UNAVCO. Retrieved from https://www.unavco.org/ education/ outreach/pamphlets/2009-PBO/PBO-2009-brochure-first-five-years.pdf

    2009

  33. [41]

    (2008) Ship Detection in SAR Image Based on the Alpha-Stable Distribution

    Wang C., Liao M., Li X. (2008) Ship Detection in SAR Image Based on the Alpha-Stable Distribution. Sensors, 8:4948-4960. doi:10.3390/s8084948

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    (2016) An enhanced singular spectrum analysis method for constructing non-linear model of GPS site movement

    Wang X., Cheng Y., Wu S., Zhang K. (2016) An enhanced singular spectrum analysis method for constructing non-linear model of GPS site movement. J. of Geophys. Res., 121 (3). doi:10.1002/2015JB012573

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    (2005) Complete description of all self-similar models driven by Levy stable noise, Phys

    Weron A., Burnecki K., Mercik S., and Weron K. (2005) Complete description of all self-similar models driven by Levy stable noise, Phys. Rev. E., doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.016113

    2005 doi

  36. [44]

    Williams SDP (2003) The effect of coloured noise on the uncertainties of rates estimated from geodetic time series. J. Geod., 76, p.483-494

    2003

  37. [45]

    (2004) Error analysis of continuous GPS position time series

    Williams, S.D.P., Bock Y., Fang P., Jamason P., Nikolaidis R.M., Prawirodirdjo L., Miller M., Johnson D.J. (2004) Error analysis of continuous GPS position time series. J. Geophys. Res., 109(B03412). doi:10.1029/2003JB002741

    2004 doi

  38. [46]

    First edition, MIT Press, ISBN (13):9780262232586

    Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. First edition, MIT Press, ISBN (13):9780262232586

    2010

  39. [47]

    (1960) Note on the Correlation of First Differences of Averages in a Random Chain

    Working, H. (1960) Note on the Correlation of First Differences of Averages in a Random Chain. Econometrica, 28(4), 916-918. doi:10.2307/1907574

    1960 doi

  40. [48]

    Goode B., J. R. Cary, I. Doxas, and W. Horton (2001) Differentiating between colored random noise and deterministic chaos with the root

    2001

  41. [49]

    Herring TA, King RW, McClusky SC, Floyd M, Wang L, Murray M, Melbourne T,

  42. [50]

    Williams SDP, Bock Y, Fang P, Jamason P, Nikolaidis RM, Prawirodirdjo L, Miller M, Johnson DJ (2004)

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.