Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Stability Analysis and Local Influence Diagnostics for an Extreme-Value Regression Model of Anomalous Wind Gusts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that conformal-normal-curvature diagnostics, derived in closed form for extreme-value Birnbaum-Saunders regression, identify the single storm that dominates a wind-gust sample; removing that flagged storm shifts the…

desk verdict Solid subfield contribution: new local-influence curvature formulas for log-EVBS regression plus a convincing case study, but the general diagnostic claim rests on an openly unproved MLE-regularity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22967 v1 pith:JE4H6QKA submitted 2025-07-30 stat.ME physics.app-phphysics.data-anstat.AP

José I. C. Lima , Raydonal Ospina , Michelli Barros , Antônio M. S. Macêdo This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEphysics.app-phphysics.data-anstat.AP MSC 62G3262J2062F12
keywords conformalnormalcurvatureextremevaluetheoryBirnbaum-Saundersdistributionlocalinfluencediagnosticsregressionstabilitywindgustextremesinfluentialobservations
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

Extreme-value models are often fitted to data containing rare, physically extreme events, so a single anomalous observation can quietly control the fitted tail behavior. The paper develops a local-influence diagnostic for the extreme-value Birnbaum-Saunders (EVBS) regression model, built from the conformal normal curvature of the log-likelihood, that identifies which observations disproportionately move the parameter estimates. In an application to monthly maximum wind gusts from a Brazilian weather station, the method flags a single documented catastrophic storm as highly influential; deleting that point changes the tail-shape estimate $\hat{\gamma}$ from $-0.155$ to $-0.269$, a swing of about 73.67%, while leaving the regression coefficients nearly unchanged. The authors argue that this provides a practical stability check for researchers who use EVBS or related extreme-value regressions to quantify wind, weather, and climate risk.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conformal normal curvature $B_l$ of the likelihood-displacement surface, a normalized curvature that lies in $[0,1]$ and is invariant under conformal reparameterization. The diagnostic reduces to an eigenvalue problem on the matrix $\Delta^\top(-\ddot{L}^{-1})\Delta$, where $\Delta = (\partial^2\ell(\theta\mid\omega)/\partial\theta_i\partial\omega_j)$ is the perturbation matrix and $\ddot{L}$ is the Hessian of the log-likelihood at the maximum-likelihood estimate; eigenvectors of this matrix whose normalized eigenvalues satisfy $\lambda_i^* \geq q/\sqrt{n}$ are declared $q$-influential. The paper derives $\Delta$ explicitly for case weighting, response perturbation, and explanatory-variable perturbation, and uses an aggregate contribution statistic to rank how much each individual observation contributes to the influential directions.

What would settle it

Simulate 5,000 datasets from the fitted model ($\alpha \approx 0.186$, $\gamma \approx -0.155$, $n=124$) with no planted anomaly and apply the case-weighting CNC benchmark: if any point crosses the $q/\sqrt{n}$ threshold in a large fraction of replications, the threshold does not control false positives. A complementary check would run the same diagnostic on a second weather station from the same network that has no documented catastrophic storm; if a single observation is still flagged as clearly influential, the method is responding to ordinary leverage rather than to physical extremity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that local influence diagnostics can be derived in closed form for the log-EVBS regression model and that, when applied through the conformal normal curvature of the likelihood surface, they reliably separate observations that genuinely drive the fit from those that do not. For three perturbation schemes—case weighting, additive perturbation of the response, and additive perturbation of a covariate—the paper computes the perturbation matrix $\Delta$ whose entries are second derivatives of the perturbed log-likelihood, and combines it with the inverse Hessian to obtain normalized curvatures whose eigenvectors point along directions of maximum sensitivity. On 124 monthly maximum wind-gust values, the case-weighting scheme identifies observation #82, recorded on 26 April 2017, as the only $q$-influential direction at the $q=7$ level; that date corresponds to a severe storm documented in local emergency reports. Removing that observation changes the estimate of the tail-shape parameter $\gamma$ by $-73.67\%$, while $\beta_0$, $\beta_1$, and $\alpha$ move by only a few percent, which the paper presents as evidence that the diagnostic pinpoints the physical event that dominates the model's tail behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The entire diagnostic machinery assumes the maximum-likelihood estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal with an invertible Hessian, even though the support of the log-EVBS distribution depends on the parameter values; Section 3.1 explicitly sets this regularity question aside, so if that premise fails the inverse Hessian and the curvature thresholds lose their nominal interpretation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fitting an EVBS regression no longer requires case-deletion recomputation: the closed-form $\Delta$ matrices let a practitioner screen all $n$ observations for influence in a single pass.
  • A single verified extreme event can dominate the fitted tail: removing the flagged Itajaí storm changes $\hat{\gamma}$ by roughly 74%, so tail-shape and return-level conclusions drawn from the full sample hinge on that one point.
  • The CNC ranking separates physically meaningful influence from marginal influence, because observation #82 meets the $q/\sqrt{n}$ reference threshold while the marginally flagged observation does not produce a comparable parameter shift.
  • The same diagnostic structure applies to any future dataset fit with the EVBS regression, and to new perturbation schemes built from the same log-likelihood, because the $\Delta$ and Hessian expressions are scheme-specific but transferable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $q/\sqrt{n}$ threshold is a geometric reference value, not a calibrated false-discovery rate; a natural extension would be to simulate from the fitted model and measure how often an ordinary observation is classified as influential under each perturbation scheme.
  • Because $\gamma$ controls tail weight, the 73.67% shift implies that estimated return levels for extreme wind speeds would move substantially when the storm is included versus excluded; the paper does not report those return-level changes, but they follow directly from the reported parameter swing.
  • The same $\Delta$-matrix construction should transfer to nonstationary GEV regressions with covariates on all three parameters, giving extreme-value practitioners a screening tool for time series with known catastrophic events.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops local influence diagnostics for an extreme-value Birnbaum-Saunders (EVBS) regression model. It derives the score function and Hessian of the log-likelihood, proposes conformal normal curvature diagnostics under case-weighting, response-perturbation, and explanatory-variable-perturbation schemes, examines MLE performance through simulations for three gamma values, and applies the case-weighting diagnostic to monthly maximum wind gust data from Itajaí, Brazil. The analysis identifies observation 82 as strongly influential; removing it changes the tail-shape estimate gamma from -0.1551 to -0.2694, a change of about 73.67%, and the observation corresponds to a documented severe storm with casualties.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, the paper would provide a useful diagnostic toolkit for a regression model that is increasingly used in environmental and physical applications. The case-weighting application is a genuine strength: the flagged observation is supported by a large change in gamma, and the documented storm is used only as external confirmation rather than as a tuning target, so the analysis is not circular. The paper is also clearly written in its exposition of Cook/Poon-Poon influence methodology. However, the broader significance is currently limited by three issues: the claimed regularity conditions cover a non-regular parameter range without proof, the response- and explanatory-perturbation formulas in the general gamma case appear to contain sign and ratio errors, and the simulation study does not evaluate the diagnostic itself. These issues do not necessarily invalidate the case-weighting application, whose fitted gamma lies in the regular region, but they do prevent the paper from supporting its general claim to rigorous identification of influential observations.

major comments (3)
  1. The diagnostic machinery presupposes standard MLE asymptotics, but the paper explicitly declines to establish them. Section 3.1 states that the support of the log-EVBS distribution depends on the parameters and that verifying the regularity conditions 'is a problem that deserves to be investigated, but it is far from the objective of this work.' Section 5.2 then assumes gamma > -1 and gamma < 1/4. This admitted parameter range includes gamma in (-1, -1/2], the known non-regular regime for GEV-type likelihoods, where the MLE is not asymptotically normal at the usual n^{-1/2} rate and the inverse observed Hessian does not have its customary covariance interpretation. The Poon-Poon threshold q/sqrt(n) and the curvature formulas in Eqs. (21) and (24) therefore lack their nominal justification over the stated parameter space. The Section 4 simulations cover only gamma in {-0.2, 0, 0.2}, all in the regular region, so they provide no empirical support for the problematic range. The application's fitted gamma = -0.155 is plausibly regular, so the headline Itajaí finding may well be sound, but the paper's general claim to 'rigorous identification' is not established as written. The authors should either restrict the claimed validity to the regular range (e.g., gamma > -1/2 under the cited GEV conditions), prove the needed regularity for log-EVBS, or provide simulation evidence covering the non-regular range.
  2. The response-perturbation formulas for gamma != 0 appear to be incorrect. Differentiating the individual score term dL/dbeta_j from Eq. (17) with respect to omega_i under y_iw = y_i + omega_i s_y gives, at omega = 0, a quantity proportional to (xi_{i2}/xi_{i1})^2 - 1 + (xi_{i2}/(1+gamma*xi_{i2}))*(1+gamma - (1+gamma*xi_{i2})^{-1/gamma}) + (1+gamma)*(xi_{i1}/(1+gamma*xi_{i2}))^2*((1+gamma*xi_{i2})^{-1/gamma} - gamma). Equation (38), however, prints 1 - xi_{i1wr}^2/xi_{i2wr}^2 and gives the opposite signs to the last two terms. The same inversion and sign pattern reappears in Eqs. (39)-(40) and in the explanatory-variable formulas (45)-(47). These two perturbation schemes therefore do not implement the curvature formula (24) as claimed, and any influence classification based on them would not be reliable as printed. The case-weighting formulas in Eqs. (31)-(33) are consistent with the score functions, and since the application uses only case-weighting, this error does not by itself invalidate the Itajaí result, but the paper's general methodological claim covers all three schemes and must be corrected.
  3. The simulation study evaluates only the bias, RMSE, and coverage probability of the maximum likelihood estimators. The paper's central claim, however, concerns the local influence diagnostic: that the CNC eigenvalues and the aggregate contribution in Eq. (26) reliably identify influential observations. No simulation perturbs a known observation or measures whether the q-influential eigenvectors and the quantities B_j(q) recover the intended observation. Without such a study, the operating characteristics of the diagnostic are unverified even in the regular parameter region. The authors should add a simulation for the diagnostic procedure itself, for example by contaminating one or more observations with known perturbations and reporting the true-positive rate of the proposed threshold, or they should substantially temper the language of 'rigorous identification' in the abstract and conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. In the gamma = 0 case, the log-likelihood should begin with -n log 2, not +n log 2, because the density is f(y) = (1/2)*xi_1*exp(-xi_2 - exp(-xi_2)). The score functions in Eq. (18) are unaffected, but the displayed log-likelihood is inconsistent with the density in Eq. (6).
  2. There are several typographical artifacts: 'e' should be 'and' in expressions such as 'i = 0, 1, ..., p e j = 1, 2, ..., n', and 'senh' should be 'sinh' throughout the perturbation formulas.
  3. In the gamma = 0 explanatory-variable perturbation, the term xi_{j2wc}/xi_{j2wc} appears to be a typo for xi_{j2wc}/xi_{j1wc}; as printed it is identically 1 and cannot be the intended derivative term.
  4. The symbol q is used both for the dimension of the perturbation vector ('we assume q = n') and for the integer threshold in the q-influential criterion. This overloading should be resolved to avoid confusion.
  5. The manuscript provides a link to the data but not to the R code used for the simulations and the application. Given the complexity of the Hessian and perturbation formulas, providing code would substantially improve reproducibility and would help readers verify the corrected formulas.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the local-influence diagnostics are derived from the fitted log-likelihood via standard Cook/Poon-Poon curvature formulas, and the documented storm enters only as post-hoc external confirmation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained algebraic applications of Cook's local-influence framework and Poon-Poon conformal normal curvature to the log-EVBS log-likelihood. The Delta matrices and Hessian blocks in Sections 5.2 and Appendix B are computed directly from the perturbed log-likelihood functions (equations 27, 30, 34, 37, 41, 44); no parameter is fitted to reproduce the Itajaí storm. The storm observation #82 is identified by the eigenvalue/aggregate-contribution criterion and only afterwards matched to external records (Section 6), which is legitimate confirmatory use, not circular prediction. The cited EVBS distribution and regression model are due to Ferreira/Gomes/Leiva and Leiva et al., not to the present authors, so no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. The explicit caveat in Section 3.1 that MLE regularity for support-dependent GEV/log-EVBS models is 'far from the objective of this work' is a genuine correctness-risk caveat, but it does not make the diagnostic derivation circular: the influence measures are defined from the fitted likelihood surface regardless of whether the asymptotic normal interpretation holds. The simulations in Section 4 cover only γ in {-0.2, 0, 0.2}, so the non-regular range γ in (-1,-1/2] is unsupported, but this is a coverage/validity limitation, not an input-output equivalence. Overall, no step in the derivation reduces by construction to a fitted target or to an imported uniqueness claim.

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

The method introduces no new physical entities or ad hoc physical constants. The main load-bearing inputs are the regularity assumptions for a non-regular likelihood, the distributional model, and the user-chosen influence threshold and scale factors.

free parameters (2)
  • q influence threshold = 7
    Chosen by the authors to declare q-influential eigenvectors in the wind data application. Changing q changes which observations are flagged.
  • scale factors s_y and s_x = sample standard deviations
    User-chosen scale factors for response and explanatory variable perturbation schemes. They affect the magnitude of the curvature entries.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The GEV/log-EVBS distributional properties and the transformation from GEV are correct as given in Section 2, based on Ferreira et al. (2012) and Leiva et al. (2016).
    The paper's likelihood and score equations rely on these distributional identities and transformations.
  • domain assumption Maximum likelihood regularity holds for the log-EVBS regression despite the support depending on parameters.
    Section 3.1 explicitly says verification of consistency and asymptotic normality is far from the objective and assumes the monotonic transformation does not relax the GEV regularity conditions.
  • domain assumption For the diagnostics, the parameters satisfy gamma greater than -1, alpha less than 2, and gamma less than 1/4.
    Section 5.2 imposes these conditions to justify MLE consistency, uniqueness of solutions, and finite Fisher information.
  • domain assumption The monthly maximum wind speed observations are independent and follow the postulated log-EVBS regression model.
    Section 6 uses a block-maxima approach, checks the autocorrelation function, and validates residuals. The adequacy of this specification is load-bearing for the influence analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stability Analysis and Local Influence Diagnostics for an Extreme-Value Regression Model of Anomalous Wind Gusts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JE4H6QKA

@misc{pith2026250722967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stability Analysis and Local Influence Diagnostics for an Extreme-Value Regression Model of Anomalous Wind Gusts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JE4H6QKA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22967}
}
read the original abstract

Extreme events in complex physical systems, such as anomalous wind gusts, often cause significant material and human damage. Their modeling is crucial for risk assessment and understanding the underlying dynamics. In this work, we introduce a local influence analysis to assess the stability of a class of extreme-value Birnbaum-Saunders regression models, which are particularly suited for analyzing such data. The proposed approach uses the conformal normal curvature (CNC) of the log-likelihood function to diagnose the influence of individual observations on the postulated model. By examining the eigenvalues and eigenvectors associated with the CNC, we identify influential data points-physical events that disproportionately affect the model's parameters. We illustrate the methodology through a simulation study and apply it to a time series of wind gust data from Itajai, Brazil, where a severe event caused multiple damages and casualties. Our approach successfully pinpoints this specific event as a highly influential observation and quantifies its impact on the fitted model. This work provides a valuable diagnostic tool for physicists and data scientists working with extreme-value models of complex natural phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22967 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) presents graphs of density functions associated with EVBS distributions with heavy tails and an infinite upper support limit. There is positive asymmetric behavior and strong signs of unimodality. Furthermore, an increase in the flattening of the density curve can be seen as parameter α grows. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graphics of the pdf of a log-EVBS for α ∈ {0.25, 0.50, 2, 4}, η = 0, and γ = 0 (a) and for α = 1, η = 0 and γ ∈ {−1.05, −0.5, 0.5, 1.05} (b). Proposition 4. Let T be a random variable such that T ∼ EVBS(α, β, γ). Then, the following affirmations are valid: E(T) < ∞, if and only if γ < 1 2 . (7) E(T 2 ) < ∞, if and only if γ < 1 4 . (8) Proof. By developing the square present in equation (2) and using some properties… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scatter-plot of data (a) and the sample autocorrelation function of the monthly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normal probability plot with envelope for quantile residuals (a) and index plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized eigenvalues (a); aggregate contribution of the basic perturbation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatter-plot and the fitted model of the monthly maximum wind speed in Itaja´ı [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. R. Solli, C. Ropers, P. Koonath, and B. Jalali. Optical rogue waves. Nature, 450(7172):1054–1057, 2007

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Dudley, Go¨ ery Genty, and Benjamin J

    John M. Dudley, Go¨ ery Genty, and Benjamin J. Eggleton. Harnessing and control of optical rogue waves in supercontinuum generation. Optics Express , 16(6):3644–3651, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Lima, Pablo I

    Bismarck C. Lima, Pablo I. R. Pincheira, Ernesto P. Raposo, Leonardo de S. Menezes, Cid B. de Ara´ ujo, Anderson S. L. Gomes, and Raman Kashyap. Extreme-value statis- tics of intensities in a cw-pumped random fiber laser. Phys. Rev. A , 96:013834, Jul 2017. 40

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Emergence of rogue waves from optical turbulence

    Kamal Hammani, Bertrand Kibler, Christophe Finot, and Antonio Picozzi. Emergence of rogue waves from optical turbulence. Physics Letters A , 374(34):3585–3589, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    J. M. Dudley, F. Dias, M. Erkintalo, and G. Genty. Instabilities, breathers and rogue waves in optics. Nature Photonics, 8(10):755–764, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Onorato, S

    M. Onorato, S. Residori, U. Bortolozzo, A. Montina, and F. T. Arecchi. Rogue waves and their generating mechanisms in different physical contexts. Physics Reports, 528(2):47–89, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    J. F. Muzy, E. Bacry, and A. Kozhemyak. Extreme values and fat tails of multifractal fluctuations. Phys. Rev. E , 73:066114, Jun 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Multifractal stationary random measures and multifractal random walks with log infinitely divisible scaling laws

    Jean-Fran¸ cois Muzy and Emmanuel Bacry. Multifractal stationary random measures and multifractal random walks with log infinitely divisible scaling laws. Phys. Rev. E , 66:056121, Nov 2002

    work page 2002

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Hueso and A

    R. Hueso and A. S´ anchez-Lavega. Methane storms on saturn’s moon titan. Nature, 442(7101):428–431, 2006

    2006

  2. [10]

    Hector Lobeto, Melisa Menendez, and I˜ nigo J. Losada. Future behavior of wind wave extremes due to climate change. Scientific Reports, 11(1):7869, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting

    Remi Lam, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Matthew Willson, Peter Wirnsberger, Meire Fortunato, Ferran Alet, Suman Ravuri, Timo Ewalds, Zach Eaton-Rosen, Weihua Hu, et al. Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting. Science, 382(6677):1416–1421, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Onorato, A

    M. Onorato, A. R. Osborne, M. Serio, and S. Bertone. Freak waves in random oceanic sea states. Physical Review Letters, 86(25):5831–5834, 2001

    2001

  5. [13]

    Peter A. E. M. Janssen. Nonlinear four-wave interactions and freak waves. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 33(4):863–884, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    Chabchoub, N

    A. Chabchoub, N. P. Hoffmann, and N. Akhmediev. Rogue wave observation in a water wave tank. Physical Review Letters, 106(20):204502, 2011. 41

    2011

  7. [15]

    How Xenopus laevis replicates dna reliably even though its origins of replication are located and initiated stochastically

    John Bechhoefer and Brandon Marshall. How Xenopus laevis replicates dna reliably even though its origins of replication are located and initiated stochastically. Physical Review Letters, 98(9):098105, 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences: Chaos, Fractals, Selforgani- zation and Disorder: Concepts and Tools

    Didier Sornette. Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences: Chaos, Fractals, Selforgani- zation and Disorder: Concepts and Tools . Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Heidelberg, second edition, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    Sosa-Correa, R

    W. Sosa-Correa, R. M. Pereira, A. M. S. Macˆ edo, E. P. Raposo, D. S. P. Salazar, and G. L. Vasconcelos. Emergence of skewed non-Gaussian distributions of velocity increments in isotropic turbulence. Physical Review Fluids , 4(6):064602, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Moloney and J¨ orn Davidsen

    Nicholas R. Moloney and J¨ orn Davidsen. Extreme value statistics in the solar wind: An application to correlated l´ evy processes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 115(A10):A10114, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    Extreme value and record statistics in heavy-tailed processes with long-range memory

    Aicko Yves Schumann, Nicholas Moloney, and Joern Davidsen. Extreme value and record statistics in heavy-tailed processes with long-range memory. AGU Geophysical Monograph 192: Extreme Events and Natural Hazards - The Complexity Perspective , pages 315–, 01 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Statistics of Extremes: Theory and Applications

    Jan Beirlant, Yuri Goegebeur, Jozef Teugels, and Johan Segers. Statistics of Extremes: Theory and Applications . John Wiley & Sons, 2004

    2004

  13. [21]

    An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values

    Stuart Coles. An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values . Springer, London, 2001

    2001

  14. [23]

    Ferreira, M

    M. Ferreira, M. I. Gomes, and V ´ ıctor Leiva. On an extreme value version of the Birnbaum-Saunders distribution. REVSTAT - Statistical Journal, 10(2):181–210, 2012

    2012

  15. [24]

    Ivette Gomes, and Camilo Lillo

    V ´ ıctor Leiva, Marta Ferreira, M. Ivette Gomes, and Camilo Lillo. Extreme value Birnbaum-Saunders regression models applied to environmental data. Stochastic En- vironmental Research and Risk Assessment , 30(3):1045–1058, 2016. 42

    2016

  16. [25]

    Z. W. Birnbaum and S. C. Saunders. A new family of life distributions. Journal of Applied Probability, 6(2):319–327, 1969

    1969

  17. [26]

    Dennis Cook

    R. Dennis Cook. Assessment of local influence. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 48(2):133–155, 1986

    1986

  18. [28]

    Conformal normal curvature and assessment of local influence

    Yat-Sum Poon and Wai-Yin Poon. Conformal normal curvature and assessment of local influence. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 61(1):51–61, 1999

    1999

  19. [29]

    Resnick, and Gennady Samorodnitsky

    Paul Embrechts, Sidney I. Resnick, and Gennady Samorodnitsky. Extreme value theory as a risk management tool. North American Actuarial Journal , 3(2):30–41, 1999

    1999

  20. [30]

    Dey and Jun Yan, editors

    Dipak K. Dey and Jun Yan, editors. Extreme Value Modeling and Risk Analysis: Methods and Applications . CRC Press, 2016

    2016

  21. [31]

    Ivette Gomes and Armelle Guillou

    M. Ivette Gomes and Armelle Guillou. Extreme value theory and statistics of univariate extremes: a review. International Statistical Review , 83(2):263–292, 2015

    2015

  22. [32]

    Katz and Barbara G

    Richard W. Katz and Barbara G. Brown. Extreme events in a changing climate: variability is more important than averages. Climatic Change , 21(3):289–302, 1992

    1992

  23. [33]

    Martin Leclerc and Taha B. M. J. Ouarda. Non-stationary regional flood frequency analysis at ungauged sites. Journal of Hydrology , 343(3-4):254–265, 2007

    2007

  24. [34]

    Extreme value analysis and the study of climate change

    Daniel Cooley. Extreme value analysis and the study of climate change. Climatic Change, 97(1-2):77–83, 2009

    2009

  25. [35]

    von Mises

    R. von Mises. La distribution de la plus grande de n valeurs. Revue Math´ ematique de l’Union Interbalkanique, 1:141–160, 1936

    1936

  26. [36]

    Jenkinson

    Arthur F. Jenkinson. The frequency distribution of the annual maximum (or minimum) values of meteorological elements. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Soci- ety, 81(348):158–171, 1955. 43

    1955

  27. [37]

    R. A. Fisher and L. H. C. Tippett. Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest or smallest member of a sample. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, volume 24, pages 180–190. Cambridge University Press, 1928

    1928

  28. [38]

    Existence and consistency of the maximum likelihood estimators for the extreme value index within the block maxima framework.Bernoulli, 21(1):420–436, 2015

    Cl´ ement Dombry. Existence and consistency of the maximum likelihood estimators for the extreme value index within the block maxima framework.Bernoulli, 21(1):420–436, 2015

    2015

  29. [39]

    Bucher and J

    A. Bucher and J. Segers. On the maximum likelihood estimator for the generalized extreme-value distribution. Extremes, 20(4):839–872, 2017

    2017

  30. [40]

    Maximum likelihood estimators based on the block maxima method

    Cl´ ement Dombry and Ana Ferreira. Maximum likelihood estimators based on the block maxima method. Bernoulli, 25(3):1690–1723, 2019

    2019

  31. [41]

    Rieck and Jerry R

    James R. Rieck and Jerry R. Nedelman. A log-linear model for the Birnbaum-Saunders distribution. Technometrics, 33(1):51–60, 1991

    1991

  32. [42]

    Application of Elementary Differential Geometry to Influence Analysis

    Yat-Sun Poon and Wai-Yin Poon. Application of Elementary Differential Geometry to Influence Analysis. Higher Education Press, Beijing, 2010

    2010

  33. [43]

    Jonathan Asher Pachter, Ying-Jen Yang, and Ken A. Dill. Entropy, irreversibility and inference at the foundations of statistical physics. Nature Reviews Physics , 6(6):382– 393, 2024

    2024

  34. [44]

    Chau Nguyen, Riccardo Zecchina, and Johannes Berg

    H. Chau Nguyen, Riccardo Zecchina, and Johannes Berg. Inverse statistical problems: from the inverse Ising problem to data science. Advances in Physics , 66(3):197–261, 2017

    2017

  35. [45]

    Stochastic Processes for Physicists: Understanding Noisy Systems

    Kurt Jacobs. Stochastic Processes for Physicists: Understanding Noisy Systems . Cam- bridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  36. [46]

    Kobylych and L

    K. Kobylych and L. Sakhno. Point processes subordinated to compound Poisson pro- cesses. Theory of Probability and Mathematical Statistics , 94:89–96, 2017

    2017

  37. [47]

    Kozubowski and Krzysztof Podg´ orski

    Tomasz J. Kozubowski and Krzysztof Podg´ orski. Distributional properties of the nega- tive binomial L´ evy process.Probability and Mathematical Statistics, 29(1):43–71, 2009

    2009

  38. [48]

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing . R Founda- tion for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2025. 44

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.