Evidence Synthesis in Probabilistic Extreme Event Attribution: From Attribution Measures to Model Parameters

Axel B\"ucher; Erik Haufs; Jonas Schr\"oter

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 18 references

Evidence Synthesis in Probabilistic Extreme Event Attribution: From Attribution Measures to Model Parameters

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Extreme event attribution should synthesize the parameters of the underlying nonstationary extreme-value models across data sources, not the attribution measures derived from them.

desk verdict Solid methodological critique and a promising parameter-level alternative, but the headline bias advantage is only demonstrated inside the PL model family; the limitations are honestly flagged, so the paper deserves serious review with revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19516 v2 pith:UVZFEWY3 submitted 2026-07-21 stat.ME stat.AP

Erik Haufs , Axel Bücher , Jonas Schröter This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.MEstat.AP MSC 62G3262F4062P12

keywords extremeeventattributionevidencesynthesisdistributionalregressiongeneralizedvaluerandom-effectsmeta-analysisprobabilityratioStormBorisnonstationaryGEV

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

The paper targets how probabilistic extreme event attribution combines evidence across observational products and climate-model ensembles. The current practice estimates an attribution measure, such as a probability ratio, separately for each data source and then meta-analyzes those measures; the authors argue this measure-level synthesis is statistically wasteful, can be badly biased, and often produces infinite estimates. They propose instead to synthesize the parameters of the fitted nonstationary GEV regression models — shape, location, scale, and the GMST trend — using a random-effects generalized least squares combination, and only then evaluate the attribution measure from the pooled parameter vector. In simulations calibrated to a real heavy-rainfall event, the parameter-level estimator has squared bias roughly ten times smaller than the benchmark measure-level estimators (1.06 versus 9.95–14.8 in units of 10^-3) and avoids the infinite probability-ratio estimates that occur in about 39% of benchmark runs. A modified measure-level procedure also improves substantially, but only parameter-level synthesis yields one common model from which attribution statements can be read off across any event threshold and any counterfactual climate. The case study of Storm Boris (September 2024) shows the practical stakes: parameter-level and modified measure-level synthesis find a statistically significant anthropogenic contribution where the original benchmark does not.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the nonstationary GEV distributional regression with scale link f_scale(ϑ,g) = (γ, μ e^{αg}, σ e^{αg}) for annual-maximum precipitation, where g is the GMST anomaly; attribution measures such as the probability ratio are deterministic functions T(ϑ) of the parameter vector. The synthesis mechanism is a multivariate random-effects model: each source's estimate decomposes as ϑ̂_j = ϑ + ε_j + δ_j with centered representation error ε_j and estimation error δ_j, and the feasible generalized least squares estimator — a precision-weighted average — pools them. This identity, synthesize parameters first and derive the measure second, is what enables inference across thresholds

What would settle it

Generate synthetic data from a deliberately misspecified model — for example, GEV with shape parameter increasing with GMST, or a log-normal distribution instead of a GEV tail — and compare the parameter-level estimator's bias and coverage against the measure-level estimators; the claimed bias advantage would be expected to shrink or reverse. A cheaper check: rerun the Storm Boris synthesis with only one of the two observational products and see whether the significant attribution result survives the implied change in representation-error estimation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that evidence in extreme event attribution should be combined at the level of the distributional regression parameters before any attribution measure is computed. Each data source is assumed to have its own ground-truth parameter vector centered around a common value by representation errors, and the synthesis is a feasible generalized least squares precision-weighted average of the estimated parameter vectors, with between-source covariance estimated by a multivariate method of moments and within-source covariance by bootstrap. Any attribution measure, such as the log probability ratio, is then evaluated on the pooled parameter vector. In Monte Carlo simulations designe

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction presumes that the same GEV-with-scale-link family correctly describes every data source and that representation errors are centered at zero; if the parametric family is misspecified or the errors are systematically biased, the pooled parameter estimate and the attribution measures computed from it are biased in ways the paper does not control.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Operational attribution centers could switch from measure-level to parameter-level synthesis and obtain point estimates with far smaller bias and confidence intervals much closer to nominal coverage.
A single synthesized model yields probability-ratio curves over a continuum of event thresholds and counterfactual GMST values, rather than only at one pre-specified point.
Avoiding infinite probability-ratio estimates removes the need for ad hoc truncation of upper confidence bounds in synthesis workflows.
The modified measure-level synthesis offers a quick improvement to existing procedures even for teams that do not adopt parameter-level synthesis.
For the Storm Boris event, the choice of synthesis method determines whether the analysis reports a statistically significant anthropogenic influence on the event's probability.

Reading between the lines

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

If the parameter-level approach generalizes, attribution statements could become portable: the same synthesized model can be queried for any event threshold and any counterfactual climate, making rapid-attribution reports easier to compare across events.
The claimed bias advantage likely depends on how close the true data-generating process is to the assumed GEV scale-link family; testing under misspecification, such as a shape parameter that varies with GMST, would reveal whether the advantage persists.
The framework could be extended to jointly synthesize multiple variables or spatial locations by enlarging the parameter vector, potentially enabling spatial fields of attribution statements.
With only two observational products, the centered representation-error assumption is hard to verify; a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis would show how much the synthesis leans on that assumption.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague —

Bottom line: this is a legitimate and mostly careful addition to the EEA methods literature. It does two real things. First, it takes the WWA synthesis (Otto et al. 2024) apart: the variance identities, the factor-2 inflation in eq. (3.14), the m^{-1/2} scaling for the model-synthesis interval, and the reconstruction of the R implementation. The corrections look right, and the authors are careful to distinguish population parameters from estimators, which the original paper blurs. Second, it proposes parameter-level synthesis — multivariate random-effects meta-analysis on the GEV parameter vector — and shows it can avoid the infinite-estimate problem and give joint inference across thresholds and counterfactual climates. The simulation study is large (N=1000), transparent, and the authors ship code. That is real.

The soft spot is the one they acknowledge themselves: the simulation generates data inside the fitted GEV-scale family with centered parameter-level representation errors. That is the PL model, so the comparison is structurally favorable to PL. The paper checks one component — Jensen bias from the nonlinear measure — and finds it small, which is honest. But the load-bearing claim, that PL has far lower squared bias (1.06 vs 9.95–14.8), comes from a correctly specified world. If the parametric family or link is misspecified, or if shared model biases make E[ϑ_j−ϑ] ≠ 0, the advantage is not guaranteed. The stress-test note is right: PL's MSE (31.7) is actually slightly worse than mWWA(2) (29.1), so the 'statistically preferable' statement rests on bias alone. Also, gPar undercovers (87.9%) unless you use the hybrid bootstrap, which is a caveat for anyone using the group bootstrap.

None of this is fatal. The authors flag the limitation in Sections 4.1 and 7 and defer misspecification to future work. But that means the general claims in the abstract and conclusion overstate what is currently shown. The case study is illustrative, not confirmatory.

Who should read it: anyone doing operational WWA-style attribution, and methodologies working on multivariate meta-analysis. It deserves a serious referee — the corrections to a published benchmark plus a new synthesis method are worth the referee time. I would accept it with major revision required to temper the comparison claims and add at least one misspecification simulation.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a statistical framework for evidence synthesis in probabilistic extreme event attribution (EEA). It first formalizes the current World Weather Attribution (WWA) approach, which synthesizes attribution measures such as probability ratios, and identifies two specific problems: the WWA variance estimator overestimates the sampling variance of the synthesized estimate, and the full-synthesis confidence interval is inflated by a factor of two even in the symmetric case. The authors propose modified WWA versions that correct these issues. They then introduce a fundamentally different parameter-level (PL) synthesis method that combines estimates of the underlying nonstationary GEV regression parameters via a multivariate random-effects model and GLS, from which arbitrary attribution measures can be derived. The methods are compared in a large simulation study (N=1000) and in a case study on Storm Boris in September 2024. The simulation shows that the modified WWA procedures improve on the original WWA, and that PL synthesis has substantially smaller squared bias than WWA-based methods, though not uniformly smaller MSE. The case study illustrates that the choice of synthesis method can affect the statistical significance of the attribution statement.

Significance. If the results hold, this is the first systematic statistical evaluation of the WWA synthesis protocol and a potentially important methodological contribution: PL synthesis enables coherent inference across event thresholds and counterfactual climates, avoids infinite probability-ratio estimates by working on the parameter level, and has a clear bias advantage in the scenarios considered. The paper is also strong in its derivations: the variance overestimation in Section 3.1 and the factor-2 inflation in Section 3.3 are carefully demonstrated, and the simulation study is large and reproducible, with code and data explicitly provided. However, the central empirical claim rests on a simulation design that is closely aligned with the PL model assumptions, and PL is not uniformly superior even in that design. The paper is honest about several limitations, but the load-bearing bias advantage is not yet demonstrated outside a correctly specified world.

major comments (3)

[§5.1–5.2, Eq. (5.1)] The simulation generates data exactly from the PL model family: (X|G=g) ~ GEV(f_scale(ϑ0, g)) and ϑ_j ~ N(ϑ0, Ξ). This is acknowledged in Section 5.2 and Section 7, but it is a load-bearing limitation. The headline result in Table 1 — PL squared bias 1.06 vs 9.95–14.8 ×10^-3 for WWA-based methods — is obtained only when the fitted GEV scale-link model is the true generator. A shared misspecification (e.g., shape parameter varying with GMST, a non-log-linear link, or a common bias across data products) would violate the Section 4.1 assumption that all conditional distributions are 'adequately represented' by {H_{f(ϑ,g)}}, and could reverse the ranking. Because Section 7 defers misspecification to future work, the claim that PL is 'statistically preferable' is currently unverified in the settings that matter most for operational attribution. I recommend adding a misspecification simulation
[§5.4, Table 1] The PL estimator has larger MSE (31.7 ×10^-3) than mWW A(2) (29.1 ×10^-3), and its variance (30.6) is substantially larger than that of mWW A(2) (18.4). Thus PL is not uniformly superior even in the correctly specified design. The paper's phrase 'competitive overall performance' in the abstract is appropriate, but the conclusion in Section 5.4 that PL provides 'the clearest reduction in squared bias' may be read as overall superiority. Please state explicitly that the demonstrated advantage of PL is confined to squared bias and to flexibility across thresholds and counterfactual climates, while mWW A(2) has better MSE and interval score in the scenarios studied.
[§3.3, Eqs. (3.10), (3.16)] The proposed modified WWA confidence intervals rely on two heuristics: the m^{-1/2} scaling in (3.10) and the factor-1/2 correction in (3.16). The factor-1/2 correction is derived in the symmetric normal case; in the asymmetric case, the factor-2 inflation identified in (3.14) does not hold exactly, so (3.16) is an approximation. The simulation results are encouraging, but the manuscript should state clearly that these corrections are heuristic outside the symmetric case, and ideally provide a small analytical or simulation-based justification for the asymmetric case.

minor comments (4)

[§5.4, Table 1 text] In the paragraph after Table 1, 'both attaining coverage of (close to9100%' appears to be a typo for 'close to 100%'. Please correct.
[Figure 4] The right panel is described in the text as showing 'log cPR(x0, gfact, gcntr)', but the y-axis label in the figure reads 'PR'. Clarify whether the plotted quantity is the probability ratio or its logarithm.
[Appendix C.3] The finite-surrogate replacement for infinite WWA model estimates is applied only to WWA-based methods, not to PL. This is a reasonable design choice, but it means that the comparison in the model-synthesis results (Table D.1) conditions on a truncated set of extreme runs. The paper reports this, but it would help to add a sentence on how this asymmetry might affect the relative ranking.
[Section 5.2] The argument that the simulation comparison is 'reasonably fair' because E[T(ϑ_j)] deviates from T0 by only 1.7×10^-4 and 8.3×10^-4 does not fully address the stronger concern: the DGP is still inside the PL model family, so the PL representation errors are centered by construction. The quantitative check is useful, but it does not speak to the more serious shared-misspecification scenario.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain; the disclosed simulation alignment is an external-validity limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The PL derivation is self-contained. Section 4.1 states explicit random-effects assumptions (ε_j = ϑ_j − ϑ centered, δ_j centered) and (4.1)–(4.2) derive the GLS oracle estimator from the Gauss–Markov theorem; (4.3)–(4.4) provide noncircular method-of-moments estimators for Σ and Ξ. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation occurs; the benchmark (Otto et al., 2024) is external and is critiqued, not imported as evidence. The simulation does generate data inside the GEV scale-link family with ϑ_j ~ N(ϑ_0, Ξ) (Sections 5.1.1–5.1.3), which is the PL model assumption; however, Section 5.2 explicitly discloses this ('For PL synthesis, these variables coincide with the parameter effects specified in the simulation design: ε_j := ϑ_j − ϑ_0 is centered by construction') and quantifies the AML centeredness violation as too small (≈1.7×10^−4 and 8.3×10^−4 vs observed squared bias ≈10^−2) to explain the bias difference. Section 7 defers model misspecification to future work. This is an honest, stated limitation on external validity, not a reduction of the paper's derivation to its inputs. Score 1 reflects the mild self-alignment in the simulation evidence; there is no circularity in the statistical derivation itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proposed method rests on standard random-effects assumptions plus a strong correct-specification premise for the GEV-scale family. The simulation study contributes several calibrated design parameters (ground truth ϑ_0, Ξ_obs, Ξ_mod, ρ, GMST noise) taken from the case study or chosen by hand. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

κ (eigenvalue truncation threshold) = 10^{-12}
Chosen by hand in Section 4.1 to force positive semidefiniteness of estimated covariance matrices; numerically negligible but an ad hoc tuning constant.
Simulation ground-truth parameter ϑ_0 = (γ0, μ0, σ0, α0) = (0.1, 10, 2, 0.1)
Section 5.1.1 sets ϑ_0 'close to the estimated parameter in the case study', i.e., calibrated to real data. It defines the true attribution measure in the simulations.
Copula correlation ρ for observational products = 0.98
Section 5.1.2: chosen by hand to mimic strong dependence between data products; affects the finite-sample performance of the observational synthesis.
GMST perturbation variance = 1/750
Section 5.1.3: noise variance for synthetic model GMST trajectories, chosen by hand to reproduce spread of model GMSTs.
Ground-truth Ξ_obs (observational representation covariance) = ≈10^{-5} matrix (E.1)
Section 5.1.2 uses the case-study estimate Ξ̂_obs as the data-generating covariance for ϑ_j. The performance comparison depends on this choice.
Ground-truth Ξ_mod (model representation covariance) = ≈10^{-5} matrix (E.1)
Section 5.1.3 uses the case-study estimate Ξ̂_mod; scale roughly two orders larger than Ξ_obs, driving the heterogeneity between models.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Random-effects decomposition: T̂_j = T_0 + δ_j + ε_j with E[ε_j]=0, E[δ_j]=0, ε_j iid, δ_j centered (possibly dependent).
Section 3.1-3.2 (equations (3.5) and preceding). Central to the claim that the WWA synthesis is conservative and correctable; not empirically testable with m small.
domain assumption Parameter-level centered representation errors: E[ϑ_j - ϑ] = 0 with finite covariance Ξ.
Section 4.1, equations above (4.1). Stronger than the measure-level centeredness; the authors flag that a systematic shared misspecification would not be captured.
domain assumption The true conditional distributions lie in the GEV family with scale link: (X|G=g) ~ GEV(f_scale(ϑ, g)) in (2.4).
Used throughout Sections 4-6 and in the simulation design (5.1). If wrong (e.g., shape varies with GMST), the synthesized parameter vector targets a misspecified model.
domain assumption Independence of observational and model-based synthesized estimators in the full synthesis (4.8).
Section 4.3: the final GLS combination assumes ϑ̂_sobs and ϑ̂_smod are independent; in practice both use GMST as covariate though from disjoint physical systems.
ad hoc to paper Between-model covariance structure Σ_j = |J_j|^{-1} Σ_ref.
Section 4.2: introduced to correct weighting bias in the estimated covariance; justified by an asymptotic proportionality argument but not verified against the case-study data.
domain assumption GMST anomaly is the relevant covariate for anthropogenic forcing; g_cntr = g_fact − 1.3°C approximates the pre-industrial climate.
Section 2 and case study Section 6; standard in EEA but load-bearing for the attribution statement.
standard math Large-sample bootstrap validity for estimating within-source covariance matrices Σ_j and Σ.
Sections 4.1-4.2; standard bootstrap asymptotic theory (Davison and Hinkley 1997) underlies the plug-in GLS estimators.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence Synthesis in Probabilistic Extreme Event Attribution: From Attribution Measures to Model Parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVZFEWY3

@misc{pith2026260719516,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence Synthesis in Probabilistic Extreme Event Attribution: From Attribution Measures to Model Parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVZFEWY3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19516}
}

read the original abstract

Probabilistic extreme event attribution aims to quantify how anthropogenic climate change has altered the likelihood or intensity of a class of extreme events. Existing studies commonly combine evidence from observational products and climate-model ensembles by first estimating attribution measures, such as probability ratios or intensity changes, for each data source and then synthesizing the resulting estimates. We critically assess this approach, identify potential shortcomings of a respective benchmark procedure from the literature, and propose both targeted modifications and a new parameter-level synthesis method. The latter combines estimates of the underlying nonstationary distributional regression parameters, thereby enabling inference across multiple event thresholds and counterfactual climate conditions. In controlled simulation studies, the proposed modifications substantially improve upon the benchmark procedure, while parameter-level synthesis provides competitive overall performance. The practical usefulness is illustrated through a case study of the heavy precipitation associated with Storm Boris in September 2024.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19516 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Forest plot of log-probability ratio estimates obtained from individual observational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Estimated probability ratio PR( c x0, gfact, gcntr) as a function of the counterfactual GMST gcntr, with x0 = 28.1 and gfact = 1.13 ◦C fixed (left), and as a function of the event threshold x0, with gfact = 1.13 ◦C and gcntr = gfact − 1.3 ◦C fixed (right). yield estimates only at the specific values considered in that analysis. The curves should nevertheless be interpreted only for GMST values reasonably close to t… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references

[1]

J., SOBIE, S

CANNON, A. J., SOBIE, S. R. and MURDOCK, T. Q. (2015). Bias Correction of GCM Precipitation by Quan- tile Mapping: How Well Do Methods Preserve Changes in Quantiles and Extremes?Journal of Climate28 6938–6959. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-14-00754.1

doi:10.1175/jcli-d-14-00754.1 2015
[2]

CHEN, H., MANNING, A. K. and DUPUIS, J. (2012). A Method of Moments Estimator for Random Effect Multivariate Meta-Analysis.Biometrics681278–1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01761.x

arXiv 2012
[3]

COCHRAN, W. G. (1954). The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments.Biometrics10101. https: //doi.org/10.2307/3001666

doi:10.2307/3001666 1954
[4]

DAVISON, A. C. and HINKLEY, D. V. (1997).Bootstrap Methods and their Application. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511802843

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802843 1997
[5]

and LAIRD, N

DERSIMONIAN, R. and LAIRD, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials.Controlled Clinical Trials7177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 1986
[6]

GLASS, G. (1976). Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research.Educational Researcher53–8. https: //doi.org/10.3102/0013189x005010003

doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 1976
[7]

and RAFTERY, A

GNEITING, T. and RAFTERY, A. E. (2007). Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation.Journal of the American Statistical Association102359–378. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000001437

doi:10.1198/016214506000001437 2007
[8]

HARDY, R. J. and THOMPSON, S. G. (1998). Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis.Statistics in Medicine17841–856. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<841::aid-sim781>3.0.co; 2-d

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430)17:8 1998

Show all 18 references

[9]

HOSKING, J. R. M., WALLIS, J. R. and WOOD, E. F. (1985). Estimation of the Generalized Extreme-Value Distribution by the Method of Probability-Weighted Moments.Technometrics27251–261. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00401706.1985.10488049

1985
[10]

and WHITE, I

JACKSON, D., RILEY, R. and WHITE, I. R. (2011). Multivariate meta-analysis: potential and promise.Stat. Med. 302481–2498. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4172 MR2843472

2011 doi
[11]

KACKER, R. (2004). Combining information from interlaboratory evaluations using a random effects model. Metrologia41132–136. https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/41/3/004 42

2004 doi
[12]

KNAPP, G., BIGGERSTAFF, B. J. and HARTUNG, J. (2006). Assessing the Amount of Heterogeneity in Random- Effects Meta-Analysis.Biometrical Journal48271–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200510175

2006 doi
[13]

OTTO, F., BARNES, C., PHILIP, S. et al. (2024). Formally combining different lines of evidence in extreme- event attribution.Advances in Statistical Climatology, Meteorology and Oceanography10159–171. https: //doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-10-159-2024

2024 doi
[14]

PAULE, R. C. and MANDEL, J. (1982). Consensus Values and Weighting Factors.Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards87377. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.087.022

1982 doi
[15]

W., BECKER, B

RAUDENBUSH, S. W., BECKER, B. J. and KALAIAN, H. (1988). Modeling multivariate effect sizes.Psycholog- ical Bulletin103111–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.111

1988 doi
[16]

VANAERT, R. C. M. and JACKSON, D. (2018). Multistep estimators of the between-study variance: The relation- ship with the Paule-Mandel estimator.Statistics in Medicine372616–2629. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7665

2018 doi
[17]

C., ARENDS, L

VANHOUWELINGEN, H. C., ARENDS, L. R. and STIJNEN, T. (2002). Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression.Statistics in Medicine21589–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim. 1040

2002 doi
[18]

A., JACKSON, D., VIECHTBAUER, W

VERONIKI, A. A., JACKSON, D., VIECHTBAUER, W. et al. (2015). Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis.Research Synthesis Methods755–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jrsm.1164

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J., SOBIE, S

CANNON, A. J., SOBIE, S. R. and MURDOCK, T. Q. (2015). Bias Correction of GCM Precipitation by Quan- tile Mapping: How Well Do Methods Preserve Changes in Quantiles and Extremes?Journal of Climate28 6938–6959. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-14-00754.1

doi:10.1175/jcli-d-14-00754.1 2015

[2] [2]

CHEN, H., MANNING, A. K. and DUPUIS, J. (2012). A Method of Moments Estimator for Random Effect Multivariate Meta-Analysis.Biometrics681278–1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01761.x

arXiv 2012

[3] [3]

COCHRAN, W. G. (1954). The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments.Biometrics10101. https: //doi.org/10.2307/3001666

doi:10.2307/3001666 1954

[4] [4]

DAVISON, A. C. and HINKLEY, D. V. (1997).Bootstrap Methods and their Application. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511802843

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802843 1997

[5] [5]

and LAIRD, N

DERSIMONIAN, R. and LAIRD, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials.Controlled Clinical Trials7177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 1986

[6] [6]

GLASS, G. (1976). Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research.Educational Researcher53–8. https: //doi.org/10.3102/0013189x005010003

doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 1976

[7] [7]

and RAFTERY, A

GNEITING, T. and RAFTERY, A. E. (2007). Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation.Journal of the American Statistical Association102359–378. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000001437

doi:10.1198/016214506000001437 2007

[8] [8]

HARDY, R. J. and THOMPSON, S. G. (1998). Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis.Statistics in Medicine17841–856. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<841::aid-sim781>3.0.co; 2-d

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430)17:8 1998