Spatial Bayesian hierarchical modeling of precipitation extremes over a large domain
Extracted source text · arXiv 1512.08560
% !TEX TS-program = LuaLaTeX
% !TEX encoding = UTF-8 Unicode
\documentclass[11pt, oneside]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{geometry}
\usepackage[parfill]{parskip}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{palatino}
%\usepackage{outlines}
\usepackage{natbib}
\bibliographystyle{agu}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
\DeclareMathOperator{\s}{\mathbf{s}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\w}{\mathbf{w}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\GP}{\mathrm{\mathbf{GP}}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\mvn}{\mathrm{MVN}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\gev}{\mathrm{GEV}}
\begin{document}
\textbf{Spatial Bayesian hierarchical modeling of precipitation extremes over a large domain}
Cameron Bracken, Balaji Rajagopalan, Linyin Cheng, Will Kleiber and Subhrendu Gangopadhyay
\begin{quote}
\textbf{Abstract}
We propose a Bayesian hierarchical model for spatial extremes on a large domain. In the data layer a Gaussian elliptical copula having generalized extreme value (GEV) marginals is applied. Spatial dependence in the GEV parameters are captured with a latent spatial regression with spatially varying coefficients. Using a composite likelihood approach, we are able to efficiently incorporate a large precipitation dataset, which includes stations with missing data. The model is demonstrated by application to fall precipitation extremes at approximately 2600 stations covering the western United States, $-125$E to $-100$E longitude and $30$N to $50$N latitude. The hierarchical model provides GEV parameters on a $1/8$th degree grid and consequently maps of return levels and associated uncertainty. The model results indicate that return levels vary coherently both spatially and across seasons, providing information about the space-time variations of risk of extreme precipitation in the western US, helpful for infrastructure planning.
\end{quote}
\section{Introduction}
Engineering design of infrastructure such as flood protection, dams, and management of water supply and flood control require robust estimates of return levels and associated errors of precipitation extremes. Spatial modeling of precipitation extremes not only can capture spatial dependence between stations but also reduce the overall uncertainty in at-site return level estimates by borrowing strength across spatial locations \citep{Cooley:2012ck}. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling of extremes precipitation was first introduced by \citep{Cooley:2012ck} and since has been widely discussed in the literature \citep{Cooley:2010cma,Aryal:2010bw,Atyeo:2012hr,Davison:2012if,Ghosh:2011ec,Reich:2012hc,Sang:2010bt,Sang:2009ii,Apputhurai:2013fv,Dyrrdal:2014bt}. Hierarchical modeling is an alternative to regional frequency analysis providing gridded or pointwise estimates of return levels within a study region \citep{Renard:2011ho}.
Bayesian hierarchical models for spatial extremes have typically been limited to small geographic regions that include on the order 100 stations covering areas on the order of 100,000 km$^2$. Large geographic regions with many stations present a computational challenge for hierarchical Bayesian models, specifically when computing the likelihood of Gaussian processes (GPs), which for $n$ data points requires solving a linear system of $n$ equations, an $O(n^3)$ operation. Several approaches exist for speeding up GP likelihood computations such as low-rank approximations \citep{Banerjee:2008hc}, composite likelihood methods \citep{Lindsay:1988vt,Heagerty:1998cy,Caragea:2007ib,Varin:2011ug}, spectral methods \citep{Fuentes:2007ew}, restricted likelihoods \citep{Stein:2004fm} and Laplace approximations \citep{Rue:2009fl}. The use of a composite likelihood approach is explored here because we not only wish to estimate covariance parameters but to also produce maps of return levels with small credible intervals.
%Thus computation time increases nonlinearly with the addition of new stations. present a method for estimating Gaussian processes for large data sets using Gaussian predictive processes (GPPs). In a GPP, knots are placed throughout the spatial domain, and the gaussian process is estimated at only the knot locations. The gaussian field is then kriged to the station locations. This simplification allows for the incorporation of large datasets without substantially increasing computation time.
Some attempts have been made to model extremes in large regions and with large datasets in a Bayesian hierarchical context. \cite{Reich:2012hc} use a hierarchical max-stable model with climate model output in the east coast to examine spatially varying GEV parameters, with a max-stable process for the data dependence level. \citep{Ghosh:2011ec} model gridded precipitation data over the entire US, for annual maxima at a 5x5 degree resolution (43 grid cells) and copula for data dependence, incorporating spatial dependence directly in a spatial model on the data, not parameters. \citep{Cooley:2010cma} and \citep{Sang:2009ii} model over 1000 grid cells of climate model output using spatial autoregressive models which take advantage of data on a regular lattice to simplify computations.
%In the western US, extremes behave differently in each season and between regions due to complex topography and climate interactions \citep{Kunkel:1999iw,Kunkel:2003gf,Kunkel:2003dp} (Bracken et al. 2015). The NOAA Atlas 14 is the foremost guide for precipitation return levels in the western US \citep{NOAA:2004vj}. Despite its comprehensive database of return levels at a multitude of return periods, the NOAA only provides information about annual extremes. Modeling annual maxima alone masks the seasonal variability of risk in this dynamic region. A seasonal analysis helps to pinpoint when during the year extremes may occur and quantifies the associated risk.
The research contributions of this study are as follows. A Bayesian hierarchical model is proposed which is capable of incorporating thousands of observation locations by utilizing a composite likelihood method. The GEV shape parameter is modeled spatially in order to capture the detailed behavior of extremes in the western US. In addition the model is capable of incorporating stations with missing data with little additional computational overhead. The model is applied to observed precipitation extremes in each season, providing estimated seasonal return levels for the western US.
In section 2 the general model structure is described. Section 3 describes details of the application to seasonal extreme precipitation in the western US. Results are discussed in Section 4 and Discussion and conclusions are given in Section 5.
%Contributions:
%\begin{itemize}
%\item separate seasonal models
%\item Large dataset, typically applications include <100 sites
%\item spatial shape parameter
%\item comparison with poor mans spatial model
%\end{itemize}
%\subsection{Max-stable prrocess}
\section{Model structure}
The joint distribution of the $m$ stations in each year is modeled as a realization from a Gaussian elliptical copula with generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution marginals. The copula is characterized by pairwise dependence matrix $\Sigma$. Spatial dependence is further captured through spatial processes on the location $\mu(\mathbf{s})$, scale $\sigma(\mathbf{s})$ and $\xi(\mathbf{s})$ parameters. We assume the parameters can be described through a latent spatial regression where the residual component $w_\gamma(\mathbf{s})$ follows a mean 0, stationary, isotropic Gaussian process (GP) with covariance function $C_\gamma(\mathbf{s},\mathbf{s}^\prime)$ where $\gamma$ represents any GEV parameter ($\mu$, $\sigma$, $\xi$). The corresponding covariance matrix is $C_\gamma(\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma)=[C_\gamma(\mathbf{s}_i,\mathbf{s}_j;\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma)]_{i,j=1}^m$ where $\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma$ represents the covariance parameters. The first layer of the hierarchical model structure is:
%Let $\mathbf{Y}_t=\{Y(\s_i,t)\}$ for spatial locations $\s_i,i=1,\ldots,m$.
\begin{equation}
(Y(\mathbf{s}_1,t),\ldots,Y(\mathbf{s}_m,t))\sim Gcop_m[\Sigma;\{\mu(\mathbf{s}),\sigma(\mathbf{s}),\xi(\mathbf{s})\}]
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
Y(\mathbf{s},t) \sim \text{GEV}[\mu(\mathbf{s}),\sigma(\mathbf{s}),\xi(\mathbf{s})]
\end{equation}
%
where $Y(\mathbf{s},t)$ is the response at site $\mathbf{s}$ and time $t$ and $Gcop_m$ stands for ``m-dimensional Gaussian elliptical copula'' with dependence matrix $\Sigma$. The spatial data layer processes in each year are assumed independent and identically distributed. Alternatives to using a copula to construct the joint distribution are an assumption of conditional independence \citep{Cooley:2012ck} and max-stability \citep{Smith:1990va,Schlather:2002eoa,Cooley:2006uj,Shang:2011kr,Padoan:2012it,Sang:a56cidqM}. Marginally, observations are assumed to have a generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution.
The second layer of the hierarchy, also known as the process layer, involves spatial models for the GEV parameters
\begin{equation}
\mu(\mathbf{s}) = \beta_{\mu,0} + \mathbf{x}_\mu^T(\mathbf{s})\boldsymbol{\beta}_\mu(\mathbf{s})+w_\mu(\mathbf{s})
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\mathbf{s}) = \beta_{\sigma,0} + \mathbf{x}_\sigma^T(\mathbf{s})\boldsymbol{\beta}_\sigma(\mathbf{s})+w_\sigma(\mathbf{s})
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\xi(\mathbf{s}) = \beta_{\xi,0} + \mathbf{x}_\xi^T(\mathbf{s})\boldsymbol{\beta}_\xi(\mathbf{s})+ w_\xi(\mathbf{s})
\end{equation}
Where $\beta_{\gamma,0}$ are spatially independent intercept terms, $\mathbf{x}_\gamma^T(\mathbf{s}_i)$ is a vector of $p$ spatially varying predictors and $\boldsymbol{\beta}_\gamma(\mathbf{s})$ is a vector of $p$ spatially varying regression coefficients. %For the shape parameter we use a constant but unknown mean $\mu_\xi$, equivalent to including only an intercept term in the regression.
Covariates will be discussed in Section \ref{sec:covariates}.
The shape parameter $\xi$ is notoriously difficult to estimate, its value determining the support of the GEV distribution. Positive values of $\xi$ indicate a lower bound to the distribution, negative values indicate an upper bound and zero indicates no bounds. In many studies, $\xi$ is modeled as a single value per study area or per region within the study area \citep{Cooley:2012ck,Renard:2011ho,Atyeo:2012hr,Apputhurai:2013fv}. As in \citep{Cooley:2010cma}, we cannot assume that this parameter is constant over the large study region and so it is modeled spatially along with the other GEV parameters.
For large regions we cannot assume that a constant spatial regression holds for the entire domain and thus must introduce spatial variation in the regression coefficients. The third layer of the hierarchy involves a spatial model for these regression coefficients
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\beta}_\mu(\mathbf{s}) = \sum_{i=1}^k{}c^\mu_i\eta_i^\mu(\mathbf{s})\label{eqn:beta-mu}
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\beta}_\sigma(\mathbf{s}) = \sum_{i=1}^k{}c_i^\sigma\eta_i^\sigma(\mathbf{s})\label{eqn:beta-sigma}
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\beta}_\xi(\mathbf{s}) = \sum_{i=1}^k{}c_i^\xi\eta_i^\xi(\mathbf{s})\label{eqn:beta-xi}
\end{equation}
where the $c_i$'s are weights for $k$ basis functions, the $\eta_i$'s, which are distributed throughout the domain. More details are given in section \ref{sec:spatial_reg}.
\subsection{Elliptical copula for data dependence}
Elliptical copulas are a flexible tool for modeling multivariate data \citep{Renard:2011ho,Sang:2010bt,Ghosh:2011ec,Renard:2007fd}. This class of copulas can represent spatial data with any marginal distribution, a particularly attractive feature for extremal data. The Gaussian copula constructs the joint pdf of a random vector ($Y_1,...Y_m$) as
\begin{equation}
F_{Gaussian}(y_1,\ldots,y_m) = \Phi_\Sigma(u_1,....u_m)
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_\Sigma(u_1,....u_m)$ is the joint cdf of an $m$-dimensional multivariate normal distribution with covariance matrix $\Sigma$, $u_i=\phi^{-1}(F_i[y_i])$, $\phi$ is the cdf of the standard normal distribution and $F_i$ is the marginal GEV cdf at site $i$. The corresponding joint pdf is
\begin{equation}
f_{Gaussian}(y_1,\ldots,y_m) = \frac{\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^mf_i[y_i]}{\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^m\psi[u_i]}\Psi_\Sigma(u_1,....u_m)
\end{equation}
where $f_i$ is the marginal GEV pdf at site $i$, $\psi$ is the standard normal pdf and $\Phi_\Sigma$ is the joint pdf of an $m$-dimensional multivariate normal distribution.
The dependence between sites is assumed to be a function of distance \citep{Renard:2011ho}. The dependence matrix is constructed with a simple exponential model
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(i,j) = \exp(-||\mathbf{s}_i-\mathbf{s}_j||/a_0)
\end{equation}
where $a_0$ is the copula range parameter. Note that the values in this dependence matrix are not covariances, so by analogy with the variogram, the dependence model is termed the dependogram \citep{Renard:2011ho}.
\subsection{Spatial regression model}\label{sec:spatial_reg}
For large regions, spatial regression relationships may not hold constant for the entire domain. In this case it is necessary to allow for spatial variation in the spatial regressions for each GEV parameter. Each regression coefficient is represented as a weighted sum of radial basis functions basis functions (Equations \ref{eqn:beta-mu}-\ref{eqn:beta-xi}). The form of these basis functions are
\begin{equation}
\eta_i(\mathbf{s}) = \exp\left(-||\mathbf{s}-\mathbf{s}_i||^2/a_i^2\right)
\end{equation}
where $a_i^2$ is a range parameter determining the spatial extent of the basis function. These basis functions, also known as Gaussian kernels, are placed at points throughout the domain, known as knots, allowing the regression coefficients to vary smoothly in space.
The knots are placed according to a space-filling design \citep{Johnson:1990du,Nychka:1998gp}. For each GEV parameter, we use 10 knots (Figure \ref{fig:knots}) since based on the author's experience, regression relationships in the western US region tend to hold for regions of a few square degrees. For simplicity, the same knot locations were used for each GEV parameter and the copula but this is not required.
%\subsection{Gaussian predictive process}
%The main computational bottleneck in fitting gaussian processes to large spatial datasets in a Baysian framework is inverting the $n\times n$ covariance matrix at each MCMC step in order to calculate the multivariate normal data likelihood \citep{Banerjee:2008hc}. In our model construction, this is required for each GEV parameter. Gaussian predictive processes (GPPs) can be used to estimate the spatial process at a set of $k$ points in the spatial domain known as knots. Since hopefully $k \ll n$, we greatly reduce the size of the covariance matrix to $k\times k$ and the computational burden of inverting it. We can also add more observation locations without requiring a larger covariance matrix. Knots can be placed at any location within the spatial domain and need not correspond to locations of observations. Knot placement is discussed in section \ref{sec:knot-placement}.
%Following \cite{Banerjee:2008hc}, let $S^*=\{\s_1^*,...,\s_k^*\}$ represent the set of $k$ knots where $\widetilde{w}_\gamma^*$ is the estimated latent GP for the parameter with correlation matrix $C^*_\gamma(\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma)$. The number of knots and knot locations can be different for each latent parameter process but for notational simplicity we will assume the same knots are used for each latent process. Let $\w_\gamma^*$ be a vector of estimated GP values at each knot, that is $\w_\gamma^*=[\widetilde{w}_\gamma^*(\s_j^*)]_{j=1}^k$. The predictive process is interpolated (using kriging) to station locations using $\widetilde{w}_\gamma(\s_0)=\mathbf{c}_\gamma^TC_\gamma^{*-1}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma)\w_\gamma^*$, where $\mathbf{c}_\gamma(\s_0;\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma)=[C(\s_0,\s^*_j;\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma)]_{j=1}^k$. In the model specification, the predictive process $\widetilde{w}_\gamma^*$ is substituted for the actual process $w_\gamma^*$ and $C^*_\gamma(\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma)$ is substituted for the full correlation matrix $C_\gamma(\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma)$. Note that $\w^*_\gamma$ is unknown and must be estimated in the MCMC sampling.
%In a latent process model, values of the GEV parameters are unknown, and themselves are
%A GPP is an approximation of the true Gaussian process, which will incur some smoothing. While this smoothing may not be appropriate for some observed data processes, the residual latent processes are expected to be smooth compared to observed data, making GPPs attractive. %GPPs also have the added benefit of drastically reducing the number of parameters to estimate in the model.
\subsection{Missing Data}
Stations with missing data can be easily incorporated in the model. When the GEV likelihood is computed, years with missing data are simply skipped. With at least 30 years of data at each station, the GEV parameters can be estimated adequately based on only the available data. For simplicity, the copula was fit to only stations with complete data, though missing data could be incorporated by varying the size of the covariance matrix for each year.
\subsection{Likelihood and priors}
%The full parameter set is $\Omega=(\boldsymbol{\beta}_\mu,\boldsymbol{\beta}_\sigma,\boldsymbol{\beta}_\xi,\boldsymbol{\theta}_\mu,\boldsymbol{\theta}_\sigma,\boldsymbol{\theta}_\xi, \w^*_\mu, \w^*_\sigma , \w^*_\xi)$ and using Bayes' rule the posterior is
%\begin{align}
%p(\Omega|Y)
%%
%\propto &\, p(Y(\s_i)|\boldsymbol{\beta}_\mu,\boldsymbol{\beta}_\sigma,\boldsymbol{\beta}_\xi,\boldsymbol{\theta}_\mu,\boldsymbol{\theta}_\sigma, \boldsymbol{\theta}_\xi, \w^*_\mu, \w^*_\sigma ,\w^*_\xi,\mathbf{x}_\mu^T(\s),\mathbf{x}_\sigma^T(\s),\mathbf{x}_\xi^T(\s))\,
%\cdot\nonumber\\&\,p(\boldsymbol{\beta}_\mu,\boldsymbol{\beta}_\sigma,\boldsymbol{\beta}_\xi,\boldsymbol{\theta}_\mu,\boldsymbol{\theta}_\sigma,\boldsymbol{\theta}_\xi, \w^*_\mu, \w^*_\sigma ,\w^*_\xi|\mathbf{x}_\mu^T(\s),\mathbf{x}_\sigma^T(\s),\mathbf{x}_\xi^T(\s))\nonumber\\
%%
%=&\,p(Y(\s_i)|\boldsymbol{\beta}_\mu,\boldsymbol{\beta}_\sigma,\boldsymbol{\beta}_\xi,\mathbf{x}_\mu^T(\s),\mathbf{x}_\sigma^T(\s),\mathbf{x}_\xi^T(\s))\, p(\boldsymbol{\beta}_\mu, \boldsymbol{\beta}_\sigma, \boldsymbol{\beta}_\xi) \, p(\w^*_\mu, \w^*_\sigma,\w^*_\xi)\nonumber\\
%
%=&\,p(Y(\s_i)|\boldsymbol{\beta}_\mu,\boldsymbol{\beta}_\sigma,\boldsymbol{\beta}_\xi,\mathbf{x}_\mu^T(\s),\mathbf{x}_\sigma^T(\s),\mathbf{x}_\xi^T(\s))\, p(\boldsymbol{\beta}_\mu)\, p( \boldsymbol{\beta}_\sigma)\, p(\boldsymbol{\beta}_\xi)\, p(\w^*_\mu | \boldsymbol{\theta}_\mu)\cdot \nonumber\\
%&\, p ( \w^*_\sigma | \boldsymbol{\theta}_\sigma) \,p(\w^*_\xi| \boldsymbol{\theta}_\xi) \, p(\boldsymbol{\theta}_\mu) \, p(\boldsymbol{\theta}_\sigma) \, p(\boldsymbol{\theta}_\xi).
%\end{align}
The marginal distribution of $Y(\mathbf{s}_i,t)$ is $\mathrm{GEV}(y(\mathbf{s}_i,t)|\mu(\mathbf{s}_i),\sigma(\mathbf{s}_i),\xi(\mathbf{s}_i))$ where the log-likelihood for some data point $y$ is:
\begin{equation}
%p[Y(\s_i)|\boldsymbol{\beta}_\mu,\boldsymbol{\beta}_\sigma,\w^*_\xi,\mathbf{x}^T(\s)] =
\log\mathrm{GEV}(y|\mu,\sigma,\xi)=-\log(\sigma) - (1 + 1/\xi)\log(b) - b^{-1/\xi}
\end{equation}
where $b = 1 + \xi(y- \mu)/\sigma$.
Let $\gamma$ represent any of the GEV parameters ($\mu,\sigma,\xi$). The residual Gaussian processes likelihood $p(\mathbf{w}_\gamma | \boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma)$ is obtained from the multivariate normal density function $\mathbf{w}_\gamma| \boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma\sim\mathrm{MVN}(\mathbf{0},\Sigma_\gamma)$, where $\Sigma_\gamma=C(\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma)$. We use an exponential covariance function with parameters $\delta^2_\gamma$ (the partial sill or marginal variance), $a_\gamma$ (the range) and $\tau^2_\gamma$ (the nugget), so $\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma=(\delta^2_\gamma,a_\gamma,\tau^2_\gamma)$. The parametric form of the covariance function is
%\[
%\begin{cases}
%C(\mathbf{s}_i,\mathbf{s}_j;\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma) =
%\begin{cases}
% \delta^2_\gamma\exp(-||\mathbf{s}_i-\mathbf{s}_j||/a_\gamma) & i \neq j \\
% \delta^2 + \tau^2 & \text{otherwise} \\
%\end{cases}
%\]
$$
C(\mathbf{s}_i,\mathbf{s}_j;\boldsymbol{\theta}_\gamma)
=
\begin{cases}
\delta^2_\gamma\exp(-||\mathbf{s}_i-\mathbf{s}_j||/a_\gamma) & i\neq j \\
\delta_\gamma^2 + \tau_\gamma^2 & i = j
\end{cases}
$$
We use weakly informative normal priors centered at 0, with a standard deviations as follows:
0.1 ($\delta^2_\xi, \tau^2_\xi$ ),
1 ($\delta^2_\mu, \delta^2_\sigma, \tau^2_\mu, \tau^2_\sigma, \beta_0^\xi, c_i^\mu, c_i^\sigma, c_i^\xi; i=1,\ldots,n$),
10 ($\beta_0^\mu, \beta_0^\sigma$),
1000 ($a_\mu, a_\sigma, a_\xi, a_0, a_i; i=1,\ldots,n$). For $\xi$ we restrict values to the range $[-0.5,0.5]$, motivated by the typical ranges seen in precipitation data \citep{Cooley:2010cma}.
\section{Estimation}
\subsection{Composite likelihood}
Composite likelihood for spatial data is a method in which the full likelihood is approximated by a set of conditional or marginal likelihoods; see \cite{Varin:2011ug} for a recent review. Conditional approaches construct the composite likelihood as a product of conditional likelihoods for each observation given neighboring observations \citep{Vecchia:1988iv, Stein:2004fm}. Marginal approaches construct the conditional likelihood as a product of joint densities of groups of observations of two or more. The case when a group consists of one observation is known as the independence likelihood, which precludes the computation of spatial dependence parameters \citep{Varin:2011ug}. Composite likelihood methods have also been applied to max-stable spatial processes; see \cite{Sang:a56cidqM} for a recent review.
In our approach, the stations are broken up into $G$ groups each with $n_g$ stations. The marginal composite likelihood estimator ($L_c$) is constructed as a product of the group likelihoods
\begin{equation}
L_{c}(\boldsymbol\theta|\mathbf{y}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{y}_G) = \prod_{g=1}^GL_g(\boldsymbol\theta|\mathbf{y}_g)
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol\theta$ contains covariance parameters and $\mathbf{y}_g$ contains observations from group $g$. This approach is similar to the ``small blocks'' approach from \cite{Caragea:2006wza,Caragea:2007ib}. Approximating the likelihood in this way requires $O(Gn_g^3)$ computations as opposed to $O(n^3)$. An assumption in this approach is that each group is independent, which is expected to introduce some loss of statistical efficiency. As $n_g$ increases (and $G$ decreases) the composite likelihood estimator approaches the true likelihood at the cost of increased computation time \citep{Caragea:2007ib}. The choice of $n_g$ must be a balance between computation time and accuracy. Along these lines, \cite{Caragea:2007ib} suggest that computational efficiency is maximized when $n_g$ is between $m^{1/2}$ and $m^{2/3}$, where $m$ is the total number of stations. In this application, the composite likelihood approximation is applied to compute the copula likelihood as well as each of the latent GEV parameter residuals.
%\subsection{A useful parameterization}
%Latent residual spatial processes, $w(\mathbf{s})$, are somewhat abstract, and as such it can be difficult to set reasonable priors for these parameters. Reparameterizing in terms of the GEV parameters directly makes setting priors much more natural; for example, we can set priors that are centered at their respective maximum likelihood estimates. The likelihood for the $\mu$ latent parameter process is subsequently computed as $\boldsymbol{\mu}\sim\mathrm{MVN}(X_\mu\boldsymbol{\beta}_\mu,\Sigma_\mu)$, where $\boldsymbol{\mu} = [\mu(\mathbf{s}_i)]_{i=1}^k$ and $X_\mu = [\mathbf{x}_\mu(\mathbf{s}_i)^T]_{i=1}^k$. This parameterization is used analogously for $\sigma$ and $\xi$. In the authors' experience, this parameterization speeds up sampling and requires less post processing.
\subsection{Composite likelihood group size and distribution}
In order to use a composite likelihood approach we must decide how many stations to use in each group ($n_g$). The number of stations in each group should be small enough so as not to incur substantial computational cost but large enough so that the covariance parameters can be adequately estimated. We used 30 stations per group or approximately 1\% of the total number of stations. The consequences of this choice are explored in Section \ref{sec:group-size-selection}.
We must also choose how stations are to be grouped. Several approaches come to mind such as selecting groups based on climatological regions, elevation bands or a course grid. We chose to group stations randomly, expecting that groups will have a mixture of stations with a range of spatial proximities, allowing for estimation of both small and large scale behavior.
What remains in the model are a few application specific details: selection of the knot locations and the selection of covariates. These are described in the next sections.
\section{Application to the Western US}
\subsection{Precipitation Data}
Daily precipitation data was obtained from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). We use all available stations in the western US which contain more than 30 years of data from 1950-2013. 3-day maxima were computed fall (SON). For a season to be included for a particular year, we require no more than 25\% of the days be missing. The number of stations included (with the number of complete stations in parentheses) was 2618 (848). Figure \ref{fig:knots} shows the station locations, with solid black points indicating stations with complete data and filled grey points indicating stations with incomplete data. Red asterisks indicate the centers (knots) for the radial basis functions.
%Total:
%1 fall 2290
%2 spring 2286
%3 summer 2288
%4 winter 2326
%
%Complete:
%1 spring 774
%2 winter 932
%3 fall 791
%4 summer 794
\subsection{Covariates}\label{sec:covariates}
For all GEV parameters the same covariates are used, i.e., $\mathbf{x}_\mu(\mathbf{s})=\mathbf{x}_\sigma(\mathbf{s})=\mathbf{x}_\xi(\mathbf{s})=\mathbf{x}(\mathbf{s})$.
%We model the shape parameter without any covariates but an interecept, representing a constant but unknown mean (ordinary kriging) so $\mathbf{x}_\xi^T(\s)=1$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}_\xi=\beta_\xi$.
The covariates are elevation and mean seasonal precipitation. Typically, latitude and longitude are used as well but the spatially variation of the regression coefficients precludes this. Covariates were obtained at knot locations, station locations and at a 1/8th degree grid throughout the study area. Elevation data was obtained from the NASA Land Data Assimilation Systems (NLDAS) website \footnote{http://ldas.gsfc.nasa.gov/nldas/NLDASelevation.php} \citep{Xia:2012cg,Xia:2012jn}. Mean seasonal precipitation was computed from the Maurer dataset \citep{Maurer2002}.
%\subsection{Regional shape parameter}
%In most applications, the shape parameter is not modeled spatially, but regionally. We also estimate this parameter regionally but given our large spatial domain we use 8 predefined regions, each with its own shape parameter. As opposed to estimating a third latent spatial process for the shape parameter, we estimate it regionally as $\xi_j$ for $j$ spatial regions. The regions are predetermined using an extreme value clustering method. The method was developed by \citep{Bernard:2013wq} and adapted by [Bracken et. al., submitted] for large geographic regions. Regions are shown in Figure \ref{fig:regions}.
%\begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{regions}
% \caption{Regions used for regional shape parameter.}
% \label{fig:regions}
%\end{figure}
%\subsection{Knot placement}\label{sec:knot-placement}
%Knots are typically placed in a grid throughout the region \citep{Banerjee:2008hc,Reich:2012hc}. We place knots according to a space-filling design \citep{Johnson:1990du,Nychka:1998gp}. For each GEV parameter, we use 50 knots in winter, fall and spring (Figure \ref{fig:knots}). In summer we use 25 knots due to computational time constraints. The number of knots is a balance between resolution and computation time. For simplicity, the same knot locations were used for each GEV parameter and for each season but this is not required.
\begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5in]{stations_with_knots}
\caption{Station locations with complete data (black solid dots) and station locations with incomplete data (grey filled dots). Red asterisks are knot locations for the spatially varying regression coefficients. }
\label{fig:knots}
\end{figure}
%\subsection{Inter seasonal dependence}
%We set out originally to develop a linked model which included all four seasons. Upon further investigation we did not find significant dependence between extremes across any season, leading us to build and independent model for each season.
\subsection{Implementation}
The model was implemented in the Stan modeling language \citep{stan-software:2015} using the RStan interface \citep{rstan-software:2015}. Stan uses the No-U-Turn Sampler (NUTS), an implementation of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) \citep{betancourt:2013,hoffman-gelman:2013}. The NUTS sampler deals well with highly correlated parameters, tends to need very few warmup iterations and typically produces nearly uncorrelated samples. For these reasons, very long chains are usually not needed, nor is thinning. The tradeoff in using the NUTS sampler in this application was much longer computation time per sample compared to a traditional Metropolis-Hastings or Gibbs sampler.
Three chains of length 3,000 were run, with the first 1000 iterations discarded as warmup, resulting in 6,000 samples for each parameter in each season. To assess convergence, we compute the $\hat{R}$ statistic to ensure it is below 1.1, as well as visually inspect trace plots.
\subsection{Computation of gridded return levels}
After computing $\boldsymbol{\mu}=[\mu_i]^n_{i=1},\boldsymbol{\sigma}=[\sigma_i]^n_{i=1}$ and $\boldsymbol{\xi}=[\xi_i]^n_{i=1}$ distributions of each GEV parameter are obtained at each 1/8th degree grid cell via conditional simulation. The gridded parameter values are used to compute return levels at each grid cell using the GEV return level formula
$$
z_i(r) = \mu_i + \sigma_i ((-\log (1-1/r))^{-\xi_i} - 1)/\xi_i,
$$
where $r$ is the return period in years (100 years for example).
\section{Results}
\subsection{Testing the validity of the Gaussian copula}
An implication of the Gaussian copula is that marginal distributions are asymptotically independent, or $P(F_x(X)>p|F_y(Y)>p)\rightarrow0$ as $p\rightarrow1$ \citep{Renard:2007fd}. To test this we conducted asymptotic independence tests
\citep{Reiss:2007wv}
for all pairs of stations. The null hypothesis of this test is dependence, so setting a significance level of 99\% ensures that stations passing the test exhibit strong asymtotic dependence. At the 99\% significance level, 0.15\% of pairwise stations exhibited dependence, less that the 1\% expected from chance. In addition we examined plots of the station locations when dependence was indicted by the test. These plots did not show any discernible spatial pattern of dependence, for example dependent stations did not tend to fall near each other.
\subsection{Group size selection}\label{sec:group-size-selection}
To demonstrate that the selection of group size has little effect on return levels, a small experiment is conducted. We run the model for a region encompassing most of the state of Oregon, using 4 knots. The group size is set to be 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 stations representing approximately 1\%, 2\%, 4\%, 6\%, 8\% and 13\% of the total number of stations respectively. The same 240 stations (60 complete, 180 incomplete) are used in each model run.
Figure \ref{fig:rl-group-size} shows the median return level for each model run. The results are nearly identical for this range of group sizes, indicating that median return levels are not sensitive to the choice of group size. Credible intervals of return levels (not shown) were quite similar as well, with credible intervals decreasing as group size is increased indicating that a larger group size yields more accurate results, as expected. In light of this we chose a group size of 30 for the large domain which provides both a diversity in the distribution of stations within a group but is small enough to not significantly hider computation.
\begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{group_size_q50}
\caption{Median return levels using a group sizes of 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30. Note the logarithmic color scale.}
\label{fig:rl-group-size}
\end{figure}
%\subsection{Main results}
%Figure \ref{fig:rl-fall} shows the median return level and the associated width of the 90\% credible interval at each grid cell. Note the logarithmic color scales. The largest credible intervals are present in coastal mountain ranges due to the strong positive correlation between $\mu$ and $\sigma$.
%The highest return levels are present in high elevation regions, as expect. Some other notable patterns include higher return levels inland in spring, compared to other seasons, and low return levels along Idaho's Snake River Plain and Washington's Columbia Basin in spring and fall, compared to winter. Perhaps unexpectedly, summer displays quite different spatial patterns than the other seasons. This is likely due to the convective mechanisms that typically generate extreme precipitation in summer in the western US. Notably, there is a well defined area of southern California with a near or exactly zero median 100-year return level.
\subsection{Gridded return levels}
Figure \ref{fig:shape} shows the median of the GEV parameters after interpolation by conditional simulation. The location and shape fields are highly correlated; locations with higher average extreme precipitation tend to have more variability in these extremes. Values of $\xi$ are always positive, indicating a heavy upper tail. The southern coastal region in California in the summer indicates a very heavy upper tail.
%Figure \ref{fig:ci-ratio-fall} shows the ratio of the median return level to the width of the 90\% CI indicating the largest relative uncertainties actually occur mostly in southern California, where the GEV tail is the fattest. The dot pattern is
\begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{return_level_ci_fall}
\caption{Median 100-year return levels for fall (left) and width of corresponding 95\% credible interval (right). Note the logarithmic color scale.}
\label{fig:rl-fall}
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=.85\textwidth]{return_level_ci_winter}
% \caption{Median 100-year return levels for winter (left) and width of corresponding 95\% credible interval (right). Note the logarithmic color scale.}
% \label{fig:rl-winter}
%\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=.85\textwidth]{return_level_ci_spring}
% \caption{Median 100-year return levels for spring (left) and width of corresponding 95\% credible interval (right). Note the logarithmic color scale.}
% \label{fig:rl-spring}
%\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=.85\textwidth]{return_level_ci_summer}
% \caption{Median 100-year return levels for summer (left) and width of corresponding 95\% credible interval (right). Grid cells return levels of less than 1 mm are colored gray. Note the logarithmic color scale.}
% \label{fig:rl-summer}
%\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{shape_fall}
% %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{shape_winter}
% %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{shape_spring}
% %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{shape_summer}
% \caption{Median of underlying shape ($\xi$) parameter field for fall (top left), winter (top right), spring (bottom left) and summer (bottom right).}
% \label{fig:shape}
%\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{gev_pars_q50_fall}
\caption{Median of underlying GEV parameters, location ($\mu$), scale ($\sigma$) and shape ($\xi$).}
\label{fig:shape}
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[!h] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{ci_ratio_fall}
% %\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{ci_ratio_fall_validation}
% \caption{Ratio of 50th percentile return level and 90\% credible interval width.}
% \label{fig:ci-ratio-fall}
%\end{figure}
\subsection{Validation}
Cross validation was conducted by dropping 885 stations or approximately 35\% of the total stations. Gridded return levels were computed for this subset of data. Figure \ref{fig:rl-diff} shows the difference between the median return level for the full data and subset data. The differnce map shows some spatial coherence but none that indicates any strong bias in a single region (states for example). The largest differences occur in areas in the northwest where influential stations were dropped randomly.
\begin{figure}[!h] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{validation_diff}
\caption{Difference between 50th percentile return levels from the full model and the validation model dropping 35\% of the data.}
\label{fig:rl-diff}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A case for composite likelihood}\label{sec:gpp}
To highlight the usefulness of the composite likelihood approach for this application we present results using a Gaussian predictive process (GPP) model \citep{Banerjee:2008hc} for the latent GEV parameter processes (Figure \ref{fig:gpp}). A Gaussian predictive process model approximates the likelihood at a small set of knots to reduce the dimension of the covariance matrix and the computational burden of inverting it. We originally set out using GPPs for this application but switched to a composite likelihood approach when we realized the uncertainty was unacceptably large away from knot locations.
The median return levels with the GPP approach were nearly identical to those from the composite likelihood method (Figure \ref{fig:rl-fall}) but large differences are apparent when looking at the credible intervals of the return levels. Clear artifacts are present at the locations of knots, where uncertainty is greatly reduced. Uncertainty away from knot locations
is typically large, rendering this method much less useful than the composite likelihood approach.
\begin{figure}[!h] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{return_level_ci_fall_gpp.pdf}
\caption{Return levels maps produced using latent gaussian predictive processes.}
\label{fig:gpp}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
We describe a general Bayesian hierarchical model for extreme data observed over space and time. The data is assumed to originate from a Gaussian elliptical copula having generalized extreme value (GEV) marginal distributions. Spatial dependence is further captured by Gaussian processes on the three GEV parameters (location, scale and shape). Using a composite likelihood approach, we are able to incorporate 2595 observation locations with 54 years of data. With spatially varying regression coefficients, the model can be applied to arbitrarily large regions. The model was applied to extreme 3-day precipitation in fall in the western United States, a climatologically and geographically diverse region. The model was fit using a standard Bayesian methodology, implicitly capturing uncertainty in the parameter estimates and spatial predictions.
%Some artifacts of the low-rank approximation of the latent GEV parameter processes can be seen in the credible interval figures.
In Section \ref{sec:gpp} we briefly examine results for the same region using a Gaussian predictive process (GPP) model for the latent GEV parameters. In this application, GPPs produced unreasonably large posterior credible intervals when moving away from knot locations. In light of this we recommend a composite likelihood approach for regions of equal or larger size than the western US.
A crux of this model is the use of appropriate spatial covariates. Mean seasonal precipitation (MSP) had a correlation of 95\% with the MLE estimates of $\mu$ and 75\% with the MLE estimates of $\sigma$. Even with spatially varying regression coefficients, appropriate covariates are key. The covariates here helped in generating realistic spatial variability and helped to reveal a complex spatial pattern for the shape parameter, $\xi$. The strongest covariate for $\xi$ was elevation. The spatial variability in $\xi$ shows that it is inappropriate to model without spatial variation for anything but the smallest regions.
A number of extensions can be made to this framework. The most obvious extension is to allow temporal variation in the GEV parameters by including temporal covariates. While this extension remains infeasible for the size of the current study region, it may be feasible for smaller regions, say a single state or moderate sized river basin. Additional spatial covariates could be included; for example, seasonal temperature, winds or evapo-transpiration. A model such as the one presented here can be used to investigate changes in risk under specific climate regimes (i.e. ENSO); one would simply include the mean seasonal precipitation field from strong El Ni\~no or La Ni\~na years. Because we incorporate a data layer, this model could be used to simulate realistic fields of extremes under specific climate regimes. Finally, we plan to explore the linking of streamflow data into the hierarchy, so that streamflow extremes can be simultaneously estimated.
\section{Acknowledgments}
Funding for this research by a Science and Technology grant from Bureau of Reclamation is gratefully acknowledged. Kleiber’s portion was supported by NSF DMS-1406536. This work utilized the Janus supercomputer, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (award number CNS-0821794) and the University of Colorado Boulder. The Janus supercomputer is a joint effort of the University of Colorado Boulder, the University of Colorado Denver and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The authors are thankful for support from the Janus supercomputer staff at the University of Colorado.
Pre- and postprocesseing analysis was conducted using the R language \citep{Team:wf}.
Data is available at: \url{http://bechtel.colorado.edu/~bracken/spatial_extremes/}.
\bibliography{references}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{40}
\providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax
\providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi:\discretionary{}{}{}#1}\else
\providecommand{\doi}{doi:\discretionary{}{}{}\begingroup
\urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi
\bibitem[{\textit{Apputhurai and Stephenson}(2013)}]{Apputhurai:2013fv}
Apputhurai, P., and A.~G. Stephenson, {Spatiotemporal hierarchical modelling of
extreme precipitation in Western Australia using anisotropic Gaussian random
fields}, \textit{Environmental and Ecological Statistics}, \textit{20}(4),
667--677, 2013.
\bibitem[{\textit{Aryal et~al.}(2010)\textit{Aryal, Bates, Campbell, Li,
Palmer, and Viney}}]{Aryal:2010bw}
Aryal, S.~K., B.~C. Bates, E.~P. Campbell, Y.~Li, M.~J. Palmer, and N.~R.
Viney, {Characterizing and Modeling Temporal and Spatial Trends in Rainfall
Extremes}, \textit{dx.doi.org}, \textit{10}(1), 241--253, 2010.
\bibitem[{\textit{Atyeo and Walshaw}(2012)}]{Atyeo:2012hr}
Atyeo, J., and D.~Walshaw, {A region-based hierarchical model for extreme
rainfall over the UK, incorporating spatial dependence and temporal trend},
\textit{Environmetrics}, \textit{23}(6), 509--521, 2012.
\bibitem[{\textit{Banerjee et~al.}(2008)\textit{Banerjee, Gelfand, Finley, and
Sang}}]{Banerjee:2008hc}
Banerjee, S., A.~E. Gelfand, A.~O. Finley, and H.~Sang, {Gaussian predictive
process models for large spatial data sets}, \textit{Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society}, 2008.
\bibitem[{\textit{Betancourt}(2013)}]{betancourt:2013}
Betancourt, M.~J., {Generalizing the No-U-Turn Sampler to Riemannian
Manifolds}, \textit{arXiv}, \textit{1304}(1920), 2013.
\bibitem[{\textit{Caragea and Smith}(2006)}]{Caragea:2006wza}
Caragea, P.~C., and R.~L. Smith, {Approximate Likelihoods for Spatial
Processes}, in \textit{Joint Statistical Meetings}, 2006.
\bibitem[{\textit{Caragea and Smith}(2007)}]{Caragea:2007ib}
Caragea, P.~C., and R.~L. Smith, {Asymptotic properties of computationally
efficient alternative estimators for a class of multivariate normal models},
\textit{Journal of Multivariate Analysis}, \textit{98}(7), 1417--1440, 2007.
\bibitem[{\textit{Cooley and Sain}(2010)}]{Cooley:2010cma}
Cooley, D., and S.~R. Sain, {Spatial Hierarchical Modeling of Precipitation
Extremes From a Regional Climate Model}, \textit{Journal of Agricultural,
Biological, and Environmental Statistics}, \textit{15}(3), 381--402, 2010.
\bibitem[{\textit{Cooley et~al.}(2006)\textit{Cooley, Naveau, and
Poncet}}]{Cooley:2006uj}
Cooley, D., P.~Naveau, and P.~Poncet, {Variograms for spatial max-stable random
fields}, \textit{Dependence in probability and statistics}, 2006.
\bibitem[{\textit{Cooley et~al.}(2007)\textit{Cooley, Nychka, and
Naveau}}]{Cooley:2012ck}
Cooley, D., D.~Nychka, and P.~Naveau, {Bayesian spatial modeling of extreme
precipitation return levels}, \textit{Journal of the American Statistical
Association}, 2007.
\bibitem[{\textit{Davison et~al.}(2012)\textit{Davison, Padoan, and
Ribatet}}]{Davison:2012if}
Davison, A.~C., S.~A. Padoan, and M.~Ribatet, {Statistical Modeling of Spatial
Extremes}, \textit{Statistical Science}, \textit{27}(2), 161--186, 2012.
\bibitem[{\textit{Dyrrdal et~al.}(2014)\textit{Dyrrdal, Lenkoski,
Thorarinsdottir, and Stordal}}]{Dyrrdal:2014bt}
Dyrrdal, A.~V., A.~Lenkoski, T.~L. Thorarinsdottir, and F.~Stordal, {Bayesian
hierarchical modeling of extreme hourly precipitation in Norway},
\textit{Environmetrics}, 2014.
\bibitem[{\textit{Fuentes}(2007)}]{Fuentes:2007ew}
Fuentes, M., {Approximate Likelihood for Large Irregularly Spaced Spatial
Data}, \textit{Journal of the American Statistical Association},
\textit{102}(477), 321--331, 2007.
\bibitem[{\textit{Ghosh and Mallick}(2011)}]{Ghosh:2011ec}
Ghosh, S., and B.~K. Mallick, {A hierarchical Bayesian spatio-temporal model
for extreme precipitation events}, \textit{Environmetrics}, \textit{22}(2),
192--204, 2011.
\bibitem[{\textit{Heagerty and Lele}(1998)}]{Heagerty:1998cy}
Heagerty, P.~J., and S.~R. Lele, {A Composite Likelihood Approach to Binary
Spatial Data}, \textit{Journal of the American Statistical Association},
\textit{93}(443), 1099, 1998.
\bibitem[{\textit{Hoffman and Gelman}(2014)}]{hoffman-gelman:2013}
Hoffman, M.~D., and A.~Gelman, {The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path
Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo}, \textit{Journal of Machine Learning
Research}, \textit{15}(Apr), 1593--1623, 2014.
\bibitem[{\textit{Johnson et~al.}(1990)\textit{Johnson, Moore, and
Ylvisaker}}]{Johnson:1990du}
Johnson, M.~E., L.~M. Moore, and D.~Ylvisaker, {Minimax and maximin distance
designs}, \textit{Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference},
\textit{26}(2), 131--148, 1990.
\bibitem[{\textit{Lindsay}(1988)}]{Lindsay:1988vt}
Lindsay, B.~G., {Composite Likelihood Methods}, \textit{Comtemporary
Mathematics}, \textit{80}, 221--239, 1988.
\bibitem[{\textit{Maurer et~al.}(2002)\textit{Maurer, Wood, Adam, Lettenmaier,
and Nijssen}}]{Maurer2002}
Maurer, E.~P., A.~W. Wood, J.~C. Adam, D.~P. Lettenmaier, and B.~Nijssen, {A
Long-Term Hydrologically Based Dataset of Land Surface Fluxes and States for
the Conterminous United States}, \textit{Journal of Climate},
\textit{15(22)}(22), 3237--3251, 2002.
\bibitem[{\textit{Nychka and Saltzman}(1998)}]{Nychka:1998gp}
Nychka, D., and N.~Saltzman, {Design of Air-Quality Monitoring Networks}, in
\textit{Case Studies in Environmental Statistics}, pp. 51--76, Springer US,
New York, NY, 1998.
\bibitem[{\textit{Padoan et~al.}(2010)\textit{Padoan, Ribatet, and
Sisson}}]{Padoan:2012it}
Padoan, S.~A., M.~Ribatet, and S.~A. Sisson, {Likelihood-Based Inference for
Max-Stable Processes}, \textit{dx.doi.org}, \textit{105}(489), 263--277,
2010.
\bibitem[{\textit{{R Core Team}}(2014)}]{Team:wf}
{R Core Team}, \textit{{R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing}}, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2014.
\bibitem[{\textit{Reich and Shaby}(2012)}]{Reich:2012hc}
Reich, B.~J., and B.~Shaby, {A hierarchical max-stable spatial model for
extreme precipitation}, \textit{The annals of applied statistics},
\textit{6}(4), 1430--1451, 2012.
\bibitem[{\textit{Reiss and Thomas}(2007)}]{Reiss:2007wv}
Reiss, R.-D., and M.~Thomas, \textit{{Statistical Analysis of Extreme Values:
with Applications to Insurance, Finance, Hydrology and Other Fields }}, 3rd
edition ed., Birkh{\"a}user, 2007.
\bibitem[{\textit{Renard}(2011)}]{Renard:2011ho}
Renard, B., {A Bayesian hierarchical approach to regional frequency analysis},
\textit{Water Resources Research}, 2011.
\bibitem[{\textit{Renard and Lang}(2007)}]{Renard:2007fd}
Renard, B., and M.~Lang, {Use of a Gaussian copula for multivariate extreme
value analysis: Some case studies in hydrology}, \textit{Advances in Water
Resources}, \textit{30}(4), 897--912, 2007.
\bibitem[{\textit{Rue et~al.}(2009)\textit{Rue, Martino, and
Chopin}}]{Rue:2009fl}
Rue, H., S.~Martino, and N.~Chopin, {Approximate Bayesian inference for latent
Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations},
\textit{Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical
Methodology)}, \textit{71}(2), 319--392, 2009.
\bibitem[{\textit{Sang}(2015)}]{Sang:a56cidqM}
Sang, H., {Composite Likelihood for Extreme Values}, in \textit{Extreme Value
Modeling and Risk Analysis Methods and Applications}, Chapman Hall/CRC, 2015.
\bibitem[{\textit{Sang and Gelfand}(2009)}]{Sang:2009ii}
Sang, H., and A.~E. Gelfand, {Hierarchical modeling for extreme values observed
over space and time}, \textit{Environmental and Ecological Statistics},
\textit{16}(3), 407--426, 2009.
\bibitem[{\textit{Sang and Gelfand}(2010)}]{Sang:2010bt}
Sang, H., and A.~E. Gelfand, {Continuous Spatial Process Models for Spatial
Extreme Values}, \textit{Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and
Environmental Statistics}, \textit{15}(1), 49--65, 2010.
\bibitem[{\textit{Schlather}(2002)}]{Schlather:2002eoa}
Schlather, M., {Models for Stationary Max-Stable Random Fields},
\textit{Extremes}, \textit{5}(1), 33--44, 2002.
\bibitem[{\textit{Shang et~al.}(2011)\textit{Shang, Yan, and
Zhang}}]{Shang:2011kr}
Shang, H., J.~Yan, and X.~Zhang, {El Ni{\~n}o{\textendash}Southern Oscillation
influence on winter maximum daily precipitation in California in a spatial
model}, \textit{Water Resources Research}, \textit{47}(11), n/a--n/a, 2011.
\bibitem[{\textit{Smith}(1990)}]{Smith:1990va}
Smith, R.~L., {Max-stable processes and spatial extremes}, \textit{Unpublished
manuscript}, 1990.
\bibitem[{\textit{{Stan Development
Team}}(2015{\natexlab{a}})}]{rstan-software:2015}
{Stan Development Team}, \textit{{RStan: the R interface to Stan, Version
2.7.0}}, 2015{\natexlab{a}}.
\bibitem[{\textit{{Stan Development
Team}}(2015{\natexlab{b}})}]{stan-software:2015}
{Stan Development Team}, {Stan: A C++ Library for Probability and Sampling,
Version 2.7.0 }, 2015{\natexlab{b}}.
\bibitem[{\textit{Stein et~al.}(2004)\textit{Stein, Chi, and
Welty}}]{Stein:2004fm}
Stein, M.~L., Z.~Chi, and L.~J. Welty, {Approximating likelihoods for large
spatial data sets}, \textit{Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series
B (Statistical Methodology)}, \textit{66}(2), 275--296, 2004.
\bibitem[{\textit{Varin et~al.}(2011)\textit{Varin, Reid, and
Firth}}]{Varin:2011ug}
Varin, C., N.~Reid, and D.~Firth, {An overview of composite likelihood
methods}, \textit{Statist. Sinica}, pp. 5--42, 2011.
\bibitem[{\textit{Vecchia}(1988)}]{Vecchia:1988iv}
Vecchia, V., {Estimation and Model Identification of Continuous Spatial
Processes }, \textit{Journal of the Royal Statististical Society B},
\textit{50}(2), 297--312, 1988.
\bibitem[{\textit{Xia et~al.}(2012{\natexlab{a}})}]{Xia:2012cg}
Xia, Y., et~al., {Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and
validation for North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2
(NLDAS-2): 2. Validation of model-simulated streamflow}, \textit{J. Geophys.
Res.}, \textit{117}(D3), D03,110, 2012{\natexlab{a}}.
\bibitem[{\textit{Xia et~al.}(2012{\natexlab{b}})}]{Xia:2012jn}
Xia, Y., et~al., {Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and
validation for the North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase
2 (NLDAS-2): 1. Intercomparison and application of model products},
\textit{J. Geophys. Res.}, \textit{117}(D3), D03,109, 2012{\natexlab{b}}.
\end{thebibliography}