Statistics for sample splitting for the calibration and validation of hydrological models

Hydrological models have been widely applied in flood forecasting, water resource management and other environmental sciences. Most hydrological models calibrate and validate parameters with available records. However, the first step of hydrological simulation is always to quantitatively and objecti...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment 2018-11, Vol.32 (11), p.3099-3116
Hauptverfasser: Liu, Dedi, Guo, Shenglian, Wang, Zhaoli, Liu, Pan, Yu, Xixuan, Zhao, Qin, Zou, Hui
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3116
container_issue 11
container_start_page 3099
container_title Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment
container_volume 32
creator Liu, Dedi
Guo, Shenglian
Wang, Zhaoli
Liu, Pan
Yu, Xixuan
Zhao, Qin
Zou, Hui
description Hydrological models have been widely applied in flood forecasting, water resource management and other environmental sciences. Most hydrological models calibrate and validate parameters with available records. However, the first step of hydrological simulation is always to quantitatively and objectively split samples for use in calibration and validation. In this paper, we have proposed a framework to address this issue through a combination of a hierarchical scheme through trial and error method, for systematic testing of hydrological models, and hypothesis testing to check the statistical significance of goodness-of-fit indices. That is, the framework evaluates the performance of a hydrological model using sample splitting for calibration and validation, and assesses the statistical significance of the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index ( E f ), which is commonly used to assess the performance of hydrological models. The sample splitting scheme used is judged as acceptable if the E f values exceed the threshold of hypothesis testing. According to the requirements of the hierarchical scheme for systematic testing of hydrological models, cross calibration and validation will help to increase the reliability of the splitting scheme, and reduce the effective range of sample sizes for both calibration and validation. It is illustrated that the threshold of E f is dependent on the significance level, evaluation criteria (both regarded as the population), distribution type, and sample size. The performance rating of E f is largely dependent on the evaluation criteria. Three types of distributions, which are based on an approximately standard normal distribution, a Chi square distribution, and a bootstrap method, are used to investigate their effects on the thresholds, with two commonly used significance levels. The highest threshold is from the bootstrap method, the middle one is from the approximately standard normal distribution, and the lowest is from the Chi square distribution. It was found that the smaller the sample size, the higher the threshold values are. Sample splitting was improved by providing more records. In addition, outliers with a large bias between the simulation and the observation can affect the sample values of E f , and hence the output of the sample splitting scheme. Physical hydrology processes and the purpose of the model should be carefully considered when assessing outliers. The proposed framework in this paper cannot guarantee the bes
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00477-018-1539-8
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2023257532</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2023257532</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-9d6a6e14d361dcd093fd33680ca2fa15c3c98e42a2c0b5c910d3e340b7479a603</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1PAyEQhonRxKb2B3gj8YwOsMvuHk3jR5MmHtSDJ8IC22K2ywrUpP9e6ho9eYKZPO_APAhdUrimANVNBCiqigCtCS15Q-oTNKMFF4Szsjn9vRdwjhYxujZnMtZQmKG356SSi8npiDsfcFS7sbc4jr1LyQ2b72baWqxV79qQWT9gNRj8mWszlb7D24MJvvcblzG888b28QKddaqPdvFzztHr_d3L8pGsnx5Wy9s10ZyKRBojlLC0MFxQow00vDOcixq0Yp2ipea6qW3BFNPQljp_2nDLC2iromqUAD5HV9PcMfiPvY1Jvvt9GPKTkgHLBvKuLFN0onTwMQbbyTG4nQoHSUEeJcpJoswS5VGirHOGTZmY2WFjw9_k_0Nfrl11IA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2023257532</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Statistics for sample splitting for the calibration and validation of hydrological models</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Liu, Dedi ; Guo, Shenglian ; Wang, Zhaoli ; Liu, Pan ; Yu, Xixuan ; Zhao, Qin ; Zou, Hui</creator><creatorcontrib>Liu, Dedi ; Guo, Shenglian ; Wang, Zhaoli ; Liu, Pan ; Yu, Xixuan ; Zhao, Qin ; Zou, Hui</creatorcontrib><description>Hydrological models have been widely applied in flood forecasting, water resource management and other environmental sciences. Most hydrological models calibrate and validate parameters with available records. However, the first step of hydrological simulation is always to quantitatively and objectively split samples for use in calibration and validation. In this paper, we have proposed a framework to address this issue through a combination of a hierarchical scheme through trial and error method, for systematic testing of hydrological models, and hypothesis testing to check the statistical significance of goodness-of-fit indices. That is, the framework evaluates the performance of a hydrological model using sample splitting for calibration and validation, and assesses the statistical significance of the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index ( E f ), which is commonly used to assess the performance of hydrological models. The sample splitting scheme used is judged as acceptable if the E f values exceed the threshold of hypothesis testing. According to the requirements of the hierarchical scheme for systematic testing of hydrological models, cross calibration and validation will help to increase the reliability of the splitting scheme, and reduce the effective range of sample sizes for both calibration and validation. It is illustrated that the threshold of E f is dependent on the significance level, evaluation criteria (both regarded as the population), distribution type, and sample size. The performance rating of E f is largely dependent on the evaluation criteria. Three types of distributions, which are based on an approximately standard normal distribution, a Chi square distribution, and a bootstrap method, are used to investigate their effects on the thresholds, with two commonly used significance levels. The highest threshold is from the bootstrap method, the middle one is from the approximately standard normal distribution, and the lowest is from the Chi square distribution. It was found that the smaller the sample size, the higher the threshold values are. Sample splitting was improved by providing more records. In addition, outliers with a large bias between the simulation and the observation can affect the sample values of E f , and hence the output of the sample splitting scheme. Physical hydrology processes and the purpose of the model should be carefully considered when assessing outliers. The proposed framework in this paper cannot guarantee the best splitting scheme, but the results show the necessary conditions for splitting schemes to calibrate and validate hydrological models from a statistical point of view.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1436-3240</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1436-3259</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00477-018-1539-8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Aquatic Pollution ; Calibration ; Chemistry and Earth Sciences ; Chi-square test ; Computational Intelligence ; Computer Science ; Computer simulation ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Earth Sciences ; Environment ; Environmental management ; Environmental science ; Flood forecasting ; Flood management ; Goodness of fit ; Hydrologic models ; Hydrology ; Hypotheses ; Math. Appl. in Environmental Science ; Mathematical models ; Normal distribution ; Original Paper ; Outliers (statistics) ; Performance assessment ; Performance rating ; Physics ; Population (statistical) ; Probability Theory and Stochastic Processes ; Resource management ; Splitting ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical methods ; Statistical significance ; Statistics for Engineering ; Test procedures ; Waste Water Technology ; Water Management ; Water Pollution Control ; Water resources management</subject><ispartof>Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment, 2018-11, Vol.32 (11), p.3099-3116</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018</rights><rights>Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-9d6a6e14d361dcd093fd33680ca2fa15c3c98e42a2c0b5c910d3e340b7479a603</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-9d6a6e14d361dcd093fd33680ca2fa15c3c98e42a2c0b5c910d3e340b7479a603</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00477-018-1539-8$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00477-018-1539-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Liu, Dedi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Shenglian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Zhaoli</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Pan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Xixuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Qin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zou, Hui</creatorcontrib><title>Statistics for sample splitting for the calibration and validation of hydrological models</title><title>Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment</title><addtitle>Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess</addtitle><description>Hydrological models have been widely applied in flood forecasting, water resource management and other environmental sciences. Most hydrological models calibrate and validate parameters with available records. However, the first step of hydrological simulation is always to quantitatively and objectively split samples for use in calibration and validation. In this paper, we have proposed a framework to address this issue through a combination of a hierarchical scheme through trial and error method, for systematic testing of hydrological models, and hypothesis testing to check the statistical significance of goodness-of-fit indices. That is, the framework evaluates the performance of a hydrological model using sample splitting for calibration and validation, and assesses the statistical significance of the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index ( E f ), which is commonly used to assess the performance of hydrological models. The sample splitting scheme used is judged as acceptable if the E f values exceed the threshold of hypothesis testing. According to the requirements of the hierarchical scheme for systematic testing of hydrological models, cross calibration and validation will help to increase the reliability of the splitting scheme, and reduce the effective range of sample sizes for both calibration and validation. It is illustrated that the threshold of E f is dependent on the significance level, evaluation criteria (both regarded as the population), distribution type, and sample size. The performance rating of E f is largely dependent on the evaluation criteria. Three types of distributions, which are based on an approximately standard normal distribution, a Chi square distribution, and a bootstrap method, are used to investigate their effects on the thresholds, with two commonly used significance levels. The highest threshold is from the bootstrap method, the middle one is from the approximately standard normal distribution, and the lowest is from the Chi square distribution. It was found that the smaller the sample size, the higher the threshold values are. Sample splitting was improved by providing more records. In addition, outliers with a large bias between the simulation and the observation can affect the sample values of E f , and hence the output of the sample splitting scheme. Physical hydrology processes and the purpose of the model should be carefully considered when assessing outliers. The proposed framework in this paper cannot guarantee the best splitting scheme, but the results show the necessary conditions for splitting schemes to calibrate and validate hydrological models from a statistical point of view.</description><subject>Aquatic Pollution</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Chemistry and Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Chi-square test</subject><subject>Computational Intelligence</subject><subject>Computer Science</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental management</subject><subject>Environmental science</subject><subject>Flood forecasting</subject><subject>Flood management</subject><subject>Goodness of fit</subject><subject>Hydrologic models</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Math. Appl. in Environmental Science</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Normal distribution</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Outliers (statistics)</subject><subject>Performance assessment</subject><subject>Performance rating</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Population (statistical)</subject><subject>Probability Theory and Stochastic Processes</subject><subject>Resource management</subject><subject>Splitting</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Statistical significance</subject><subject>Statistics for Engineering</subject><subject>Test procedures</subject><subject>Waste Water Technology</subject><subject>Water Management</subject><subject>Water Pollution Control</subject><subject>Water resources management</subject><issn>1436-3240</issn><issn>1436-3259</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1PAyEQhonRxKb2B3gj8YwOsMvuHk3jR5MmHtSDJ8IC22K2ywrUpP9e6ho9eYKZPO_APAhdUrimANVNBCiqigCtCS15Q-oTNKMFF4Szsjn9vRdwjhYxujZnMtZQmKG356SSi8npiDsfcFS7sbc4jr1LyQ2b72baWqxV79qQWT9gNRj8mWszlb7D24MJvvcblzG888b28QKddaqPdvFzztHr_d3L8pGsnx5Wy9s10ZyKRBojlLC0MFxQow00vDOcixq0Yp2ipea6qW3BFNPQljp_2nDLC2iromqUAD5HV9PcMfiPvY1Jvvt9GPKTkgHLBvKuLFN0onTwMQbbyTG4nQoHSUEeJcpJoswS5VGirHOGTZmY2WFjw9_k_0Nfrl11IA</recordid><startdate>20181101</startdate><enddate>20181101</enddate><creator>Liu, Dedi</creator><creator>Guo, Shenglian</creator><creator>Wang, Zhaoli</creator><creator>Liu, Pan</creator><creator>Yu, Xixuan</creator><creator>Zhao, Qin</creator><creator>Zou, Hui</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0W</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181101</creationdate><title>Statistics for sample splitting for the calibration and validation of hydrological models</title><author>Liu, Dedi ; Guo, Shenglian ; Wang, Zhaoli ; Liu, Pan ; Yu, Xixuan ; Zhao, Qin ; Zou, Hui</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-9d6a6e14d361dcd093fd33680ca2fa15c3c98e42a2c0b5c910d3e340b7479a603</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Aquatic Pollution</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Chemistry and Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Chi-square test</topic><topic>Computational Intelligence</topic><topic>Computer Science</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental management</topic><topic>Environmental science</topic><topic>Flood forecasting</topic><topic>Flood management</topic><topic>Goodness of fit</topic><topic>Hydrologic models</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Math. Appl. in Environmental Science</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Normal distribution</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Outliers (statistics)</topic><topic>Performance assessment</topic><topic>Performance rating</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Population (statistical)</topic><topic>Probability Theory and Stochastic Processes</topic><topic>Resource management</topic><topic>Splitting</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Statistical significance</topic><topic>Statistics for Engineering</topic><topic>Test procedures</topic><topic>Waste Water Technology</topic><topic>Water Management</topic><topic>Water Pollution Control</topic><topic>Water resources management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Liu, Dedi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Shenglian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Zhaoli</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Pan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Xixuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Qin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zou, Hui</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>DELNET Engineering &amp; Technology Collection</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Liu, Dedi</au><au>Guo, Shenglian</au><au>Wang, Zhaoli</au><au>Liu, Pan</au><au>Yu, Xixuan</au><au>Zhao, Qin</au><au>Zou, Hui</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Statistics for sample splitting for the calibration and validation of hydrological models</atitle><jtitle>Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment</jtitle><stitle>Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess</stitle><date>2018-11-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>3099</spage><epage>3116</epage><pages>3099-3116</pages><issn>1436-3240</issn><eissn>1436-3259</eissn><abstract>Hydrological models have been widely applied in flood forecasting, water resource management and other environmental sciences. Most hydrological models calibrate and validate parameters with available records. However, the first step of hydrological simulation is always to quantitatively and objectively split samples for use in calibration and validation. In this paper, we have proposed a framework to address this issue through a combination of a hierarchical scheme through trial and error method, for systematic testing of hydrological models, and hypothesis testing to check the statistical significance of goodness-of-fit indices. That is, the framework evaluates the performance of a hydrological model using sample splitting for calibration and validation, and assesses the statistical significance of the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index ( E f ), which is commonly used to assess the performance of hydrological models. The sample splitting scheme used is judged as acceptable if the E f values exceed the threshold of hypothesis testing. According to the requirements of the hierarchical scheme for systematic testing of hydrological models, cross calibration and validation will help to increase the reliability of the splitting scheme, and reduce the effective range of sample sizes for both calibration and validation. It is illustrated that the threshold of E f is dependent on the significance level, evaluation criteria (both regarded as the population), distribution type, and sample size. The performance rating of E f is largely dependent on the evaluation criteria. Three types of distributions, which are based on an approximately standard normal distribution, a Chi square distribution, and a bootstrap method, are used to investigate their effects on the thresholds, with two commonly used significance levels. The highest threshold is from the bootstrap method, the middle one is from the approximately standard normal distribution, and the lowest is from the Chi square distribution. It was found that the smaller the sample size, the higher the threshold values are. Sample splitting was improved by providing more records. In addition, outliers with a large bias between the simulation and the observation can affect the sample values of E f , and hence the output of the sample splitting scheme. Physical hydrology processes and the purpose of the model should be carefully considered when assessing outliers. The proposed framework in this paper cannot guarantee the best splitting scheme, but the results show the necessary conditions for splitting schemes to calibrate and validate hydrological models from a statistical point of view.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s00477-018-1539-8</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1436-3240
ispartof Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment, 2018-11, Vol.32 (11), p.3099-3116
issn 1436-3240
1436-3259
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2023257532
source SpringerNature Journals
subjects Aquatic Pollution
Calibration
Chemistry and Earth Sciences
Chi-square test
Computational Intelligence
Computer Science
Computer simulation
Earth and Environmental Science
Earth Sciences
Environment
Environmental management
Environmental science
Flood forecasting
Flood management
Goodness of fit
Hydrologic models
Hydrology
Hypotheses
Math. Appl. in Environmental Science
Mathematical models
Normal distribution
Original Paper
Outliers (statistics)
Performance assessment
Performance rating
Physics
Population (statistical)
Probability Theory and Stochastic Processes
Resource management
Splitting
Statistical analysis
Statistical methods
Statistical significance
Statistics for Engineering
Test procedures
Waste Water Technology
Water Management
Water Pollution Control
Water resources management
title Statistics for sample splitting for the calibration and validation of hydrological models
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T02%3A30%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Statistics%20for%20sample%20splitting%20for%20the%20calibration%20and%20validation%20of%20hydrological%20models&rft.jtitle=Stochastic%20environmental%20research%20and%20risk%20assessment&rft.au=Liu,%20Dedi&rft.date=2018-11-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=3099&rft.epage=3116&rft.pages=3099-3116&rft.issn=1436-3240&rft.eissn=1436-3259&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00477-018-1539-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2023257532%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2023257532&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true