Piecewise-linear modeling of multivariate geometric extremes

Jennifer Wadsworth; Ryan Campbell

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Piecewise-linear modeling of multivariate geometric extremes

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that a piecewise-linear gauge function, with parameters placed at reference angles and linear interpolation across a triangulated simplex, delivers semiparametric inference for multivariate geometric extremes with accuracy…

desk verdict Deserves a serious referee: the piecewise-linear gauge with explicit volume formula is a genuine, well-tested contribution, and the main open question is whether the d=4 application stretches the fixed-shape gamma assumption past what the tau=0.95 simulations justify. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05195 v3 pith:U63WEOUB submitted 2024-12-06 stat.ME

Ryan Campbell , Jennifer Wadsworth This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.ME MSC 62G3262G05

keywords geometricextremesgaugefunctionpiecewise-linearapproximationmultivariatesemiparametricinferencelimitsetsextremaldependenceradial-angulardecomposition

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 proposes a semiparametric estimator of the gauge function that governs the geometry of multivariate extremes, built from a piecewise-linear surface with parameters at selected reference angles on the unit sphere. The claim is that this simple, interpretable estimator reproduces the accuracy of parametric inference that uses the true gauge function, while requiring no knowledge of the underlying distribution and costing little to compute. On simulated data in dimensions two and three, the fitted piecewise-linear model yields extremal probability estimates comparable to the parametric benchmark across logistic, Gaussian, inverted logistic, asymmetric logistic, and mixture dependence structures. The method also scales to a four-dimensional air-pollution application, where it captures simultaneous extremes of all four pollutants and estimates return periods and extremal coefficients.

What carries the argument

The central object is the piecewise-linear gauge function $g_{\mathrm{pwl}}(x;\theta)$, defined by placing reference angles $w^\star$ on $S^{d-1}$, assigning a parameter $\theta_k = 1/g_{\mathrm{pwl}}(w^\star_k)$ equal to the distance from the origin to the limit-set boundary along that ray, and linearly interpolating across a Delaunay triangulation. It carries the argument in three roles: as the rate function of the truncated gamma model for large radii, as the generator of the angular density $f_W(w) = g(w)^{-d}/\{d\,\mathrm{vol}(G)\}$ with explicit normalizing constant, and as an object whose gradients are available in closed form, enabling a penalized likelihood that smooths neighboring-cell gradients.

What would settle it

Fit the piecewise-linear truncated-gamma model with shape $d$ to $n=5000$ simulated observations from a $d=3$ distribution whose exact conditional radial density is a gamma with shape that varies strongly with $w$ (for example a multivariate $t$ copula or a skew-normal with heavy tail), estimate $\Pr(X\in B)$ for $B$ beyond the data range, and compare with a high-accuracy Monte Carlo estimate of the same probability; bias that grows with the shape variation would show the fixed-shape assumption fails at finite thresholds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the limit set of a light-tailed multivariate distribution can be approximated well enough by a gauge function $g_{\mathrm{pwl}}$ that is linear on each cell of a Delaunay triangulation of the simplex, with one distance parameter per reference angle (Eq. 5). Because the gauge appears as the rate in the asymptotic truncated gamma density $f_{R\mid W}(r\mid w) \propto r^{d-1}\exp\{-r g(w)\}$, the parameters can be estimated by maximum likelihood from pseudo-polar coordinates above a high radial threshold, and the same $g_{\mathrm{pwl}}$ supplies an angular density $f_W(w) = g(w)^{-d}/\{d\,\mathrm{vol}(G)\}$ whose normalizing volume is an explicit sum of determinants. The paper argues that this construction makes semiparametric inference for geometric extremes both flexible and cheap, and demonstrates parity with parametric inference using the true gauge in probability estimation for $d=2,3$, with an extension to $d=4$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the asymptotic density approximation $f_{R\mid W}(r\mid w) \propto r^{d-1}\exp\{-r g(w)\}$ can be used as an exact truncated gamma model with shape parameter fixed at $d$; if the true shape varies substantially with direction at the thresholds used ($\tau=0.95$ in simulation, $0.70$ in the application), the likelihood is misspecified and probability estimates could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Practitioners get a default, interpretable tool for geometric extremes in $d=2,3$ that does not require choosing a parametric copula or a neural-network specification.
Extremal probabilities, return-level sets, and extremal coefficients $\chi_C(u)$ can be produced by simulation from the fitted radial-angular model, with the angular model replacing the empirical angle distribution.
The explicit volume formula makes the angular likelihood cheap enough to maximize, whereas competing semiparametric angular models require numerical integration or latent-variable estimation.
The kernel-density radial quantile estimator evaluates $r_\tau(w)$ at every angle on the simplex, removing empty-bin failures of empirical binning in higher dimensions.
Dimension 4 becomes feasible with a sparse choice of reference angles, as demonstrated on four pollutants.

Reading between the lines

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

If the fixed-shape gamma approximation is as benign in practice as the simulations suggest, the piecewise-linear gauge could serve as a screening tool for tail dependence structure before committing to a parametric model; this extends the paper's claim beyond the copulas it tests.
The gradient penalty suggests an adaptive-knot variant in which reference angles are added where neighboring gradients differ most, which could extend the method beyond the reported $d=4$--$5$ range; the authors note that unreported $d=5$ fits faced difficulties with angle selection.
A natural next test is to apply the estimator to negatively dependent data in Laplace margins, where the paper supplies a bivariate construction but leaves the $d>2$ triangulation of the signed $\ell^1$ sphere open.
The return-level and $\chi_C$ diagnostics provide a template for validating gauge estimates against empirical quantities, which could be turned into a formal goodness-of-fit test for geometric extreme models.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

This one deserves a serious referee. The piecewise-linear gauge construction, and especially the explicit volume formula in Proposition 1, is a genuine step forward for geometric extremes: it gives the angular model's normalizing constant in closed form, which is exactly the part that forces the competing INLA-based approach into numerical integration at every evaluation. The KDE-based radial quantile estimator in Section 3 is a practical addition, and the d=4 pollution application demonstrates something the existing semiparametric methods cannot do, since they effectively top out at d=3. There is public code on GitHub, which strengthens the empirical claims.

The simulations back the headline claim. Across the seven dependence structures, the piecewise-linear method's RMSE on log-probability estimates is within a factor of roughly 1-3 of a parametric fit that is handed the true gauge, and it wins in several cells. The paper is also honest about where it fails: the joint SS5/SS6 fits are biased, and the concluding remarks admit that d=5 did not work well. That candor is credible.

The stress-test note has the right target: the fixed-shape truncated gamma likelihood in Eq. (2) is load-bearing, and the paper's own Section 1.1 concedes that Gaussian dependence has angle-dependent shape. The simulations run at tau=0.95 while the application drops to tau=0.70, with no d=4 simulation backstop, and the Section 4.1 claim that estimating the shape parameter made little difference is stated without the supporting experiment. Still, the Gaussian case is distribution (III), and PWL handles it fine at tau=0.95, so this is a concern about an unexamined regime rather than evidence that the construction is unsound. A sensitivity analysis that varies tau or fits the shape parameter would settle it.

Two smaller points. There is no head-to-head simulation against Simpson-Tawn or the INLA approach, so the advantage over those competitors is asserted rather than shown. And several hyperparameters (bandwidths, reference-angle count, penalty strengths) are tuned on simulation medians and then fixed in the application; the cross-validation for lambda mitigates this, so it is a modest complaint.

This paper is for researchers working in geometric extremes or multivariate tail inference, and it gives the field a cheap, interpretable default gauge model. I would accept it for peer review: the construction is sound, the simulations support the central claim in the regime actually tested, and the concerns raised are revision-level rather than rejection-level.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a semiparametric estimator of the gauge function in multivariate geometric extremes. The gauge is piecewise-linear on a Delaunay triangulation of the simplex (Eq. 5), with an explicit limit-set volume formula (Proposition 1), a KDE-based radial quantile estimator (Section 3), and penalized maximum likelihood fitting (Section 4). Simulation studies in Section 5 compare six model-fitting settings against parametric estimation that uses the true gauge for d = 2, 3, and Section 6 applies the method to four air pollutants. The central claim is that the semiparametric piecewise-linear approach is comparable in accuracy to parametric methods while requiring no knowledge of the underlying distribution.

Significance. If the inferential claim holds, this is a practical and interpretable default tool for geometric extremes in d = 2, 3, with a credible d = 4 application. The construction is elegant: the piecewise-linear gauge is continuous and 1-homogeneous, the volume of its unit level set is computed exactly through determinants, and optimization is inexpensive. The paper provides reproducible code, detailed supplementary comparisons across logistic, Gaussian, inverted logistic, asymmetric logistic, and mixture dependence structures, and reports probability estimates against true values in simulations. The mathematical core, including Proposition 1 and the triangulation construction, is clean; the main uncertainties concern the finite-sample validity of the truncated-gamma likelihood used for inference, not the piecewise-linear construction itself.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.1, Eq. (2)] The fixed-shape truncated-gamma likelihood is load-bearing for every downstream probability estimate, but its validity at the application's operating point is not demonstrated. The paper notes in Section 1.1 that for Gaussian dependence the gamma shape parameter also depends on w, and Section 4.1 states that estimating the shape "lead to little difference in terms of bias" without reporting the supporting experiment. The simulations that support the headline claim use tau = 0.95 and d = 2, 3, whereas the application in Section 6 uses tau = 0.70 and d = 4, where asymptotic shape stabilization is weaker and no simulation evidence is provided. Please report the shape-parameter experiment and add a sensitivity analysis at tau = 0.70 (and, if feasible, in d = 4) comparing fixed-shape and estimated-shape fits; otherwise the extrapolation bias remains uncontrolled.
[Section 5, Tables S.2 and S.3] The claim that the semiparametric approach is "comparable" to the parametric method is not uniformly supported by the reported RMSEs. For example, in Table S.3, distribution (V), region B1, the parametric RMSE is 0.4718 while SS4 reports 2.0826, a factor of about 4.4; in Table S.2, distribution (II), region B1, the parametric RMSE is 0.2524 versus 1.008 for SS4. These settings show substantially larger log-probability errors. The text should either define "comparable" quantitatively (e.g., within a factor of 2 in RMSE) and discuss the settings where that definition fails, or qualify the headline claim accordingly.
[Section 6, Figures 11 and S.28-S.30] The application diagnostics are in-sample and largely reflect behavior near or above the threshold, so they do not sharply test extrapolation bias induced by the truncated-gamma approximation. The chi_C(u) curves, return-period checks, and PP/QQ plots all use the same data that informed the fitted gauge and angular model, and their agreement with empirical values at moderate u does not directly validate probability estimates far beyond the threshold. Please add a threshold-stability check (e.g., refitting at tau = 0.80 and 0.90 and comparing estimated probabilities or return periods) or a genuinely out-of-sample temporal validation, and report whether the conclusions change.

minor comments (6)

[Section 4.4] The phrase "weather or not" should be "whether or not".
[Section 5] The sentence "A similar conclusion can me made" should read "A similar conclusion can be made."
[Figure 11 caption] The word "bootsrap" should be "bootstrap".
[Section 4.2.1] The choices N = 11 for d = 2 and N = 28 for d = 3 are stated without a sensitivity analysis; a brief discussion of how results vary with N would help readers understand the bias-variance trade-off in practice.
[Supplement C] The KDE quantile estimator uses no boundary correction on the simplex, and the application uses a larger bandwidth h_W = 0.075; a sentence quantifying the resulting boundary bias for the radial threshold would be useful.
[Supplement D, Algorithm 1] The notation w^star_{1,...,N\i}^j in Algorithm 1 is hard to read; please define the index sets involved more explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the piecewise-linear gauge is a genuine semiparametric approximation, and its central claims are benchmarked against known true probabilities in simulation.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The piecewise-linear gauge gpwl in Eq. (5) is a genuine approximation constructed from reference angles and parameters, and it is fitted by maximum likelihood using the truncated gamma and angular likelihoods stated in Section 4.1. The asymptotic basis in Eq. (2) is an established result from prior work by the same authors, but it is not redefined in terms of the paper's output; moreover, the paper explicitly acknowledges the Gaussian shape-parameter caveat and reports that estimating the shape made little difference. The headline claim that the semiparametric approach is comparable to a parametric method using the true gauge is tested in Section 5 against true probabilities for seven known distributions, which are external benchmarks rather than fitted values, so the comparison is falsifiable. The application diagnostics are in-sample model checks, but they are not used to derive the main claim, and the extremal probability estimates for sets outside the observed range are genuine extrapolations. The self-citations to Wadsworth and Campbell (2024) supply the baseline modeling framework and are not load-bearing in a way that reduces the new result to its inputs. Concerns about the lower application threshold tau = 0.70 and possible shape misspecification are correctness or extrapolation risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proposed model introduces no new physical or probabilistic entities; all parameters are fitted to data. The main cost is the set of manually chosen hyperparameters (N, bandwidths, λ, τ) and the modeling assumptions that the truncated gamma approximation and homothetic angular density hold at the working threshold. These are the entries above.

free parameters (5)

Per-reference-angle boundary distances θ_k
The N parameters define the distance from the origin to the approximate limit-set boundary at the chosen reference angles; they are fitted by maximum likelihood (Section 4.1) and are the core unknowns of the piecewise-linear gauge.
Number and location of reference angles N = N=11 (d=2), N=28 (d=3), N=39 (d=4), N=15 (Laplace example)
Chosen by hand via regular grids (Section 4.2.1); the approximation accuracy and number of parameters depend directly on this choice.
KDE bandwidths h_R and h_W = h_R=0.05, h_W=0.05 (simulations); h_W=0.075 (application)
Chosen by hand based on simulation scores (Supplement C); not selected per dataset automatically.
Gradient penalty strength λ = λ=1 (radial/joint), λ=20 (angular)
Selected via K-fold CV in Supplement F on simulated datasets and then fixed for all later fits including the application.
Radial threshold level τ = τ=0.95 (simulations), τ=0.70 (application)
Chosen by user; affects the set of exceedances used to fit the truncated gamma model.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The random vector X has light-tailed margins satisfying a von Mises condition, and the scaled sample cloud converges to a limit set G with continuous gauge g (Eq. 1).
Invoked throughout Section 1.1 to justify the geometric framework; the paper transforms margins to standard exponential (Section 4.1) and relies on gauge existence.
domain assumption Truncated gamma approximation: for large r, fR|W(r|w) ∝ r^{d-1} exp(-r g(w)), with shape parameter exactly d (Eq. 2).
Section 1.1; this is the likelihood used for all inference. The paper notes it is not exact for Gaussian dependence where shape depends on w, so the fixed-shape version is an approximation.
domain assumption Angular density fW(w)=g(w)^{-d}/(d vol(G)) is a valid model for W | R>rτ(W).
Exact for homothetic densities; used as a flexible model even when approximation is poor, with gauge possibly separate from radial gauge. If this density is far from the true angular distribution, the joint fits (SS5/6) show increased bias (Section 5).
standard math Delaunay triangulation of the reference angles yields a partition of S^{d-1} into M simplices such that gpwl is continuous and 1-homogeneous (Eq. 5).
Standard computational geometry result (Delaunay 1934, Ber et al. 2008); used to define the piecewise-linear interpolation in d≥3.
standard math Kernel density estimates with Gaussian kernels and fixed bandwidths provide consistent estimates of the conditional quantile rτ(w) (Eq. 6-8).
Standard KDE consistency; no boundary correction is applied (Supplement C), which is acknowledged to be imperfect near simplex boundaries.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Piecewise-linear modeling of multivariate geometric extremes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U63WEOUB

@misc{pith2026241205195,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Piecewise-linear modeling of multivariate geometric extremes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U63WEOUB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05195}
}

read the original abstract

A recent development in extreme value modeling uses the geometry of the dataset to perform inference on the multivariate tail. A key quantity in this inference is the gauge function, whose values define this geometry. Methodology proposed to date for capturing the gauge function either lacks flexibility due to parametric specifications, or relies on complex neural network specifications in dimensions greater than three. We propose a semiparametric gauge function that is piecewise-linear, making it simple to interpret and provides a good approximation for the true underlying gauge function. This linearity also makes optimization tasks computationally inexpensive. The piecewise-linear gauge function can be used to define both a radial and an angular model, allowing for the joint fitting of extremal pseudo-polar coordinates, a key aspect of this geometric framework. We further expand the toolkit for geometric extremal modeling through the estimation of high radial quantiles at given angular values via kernel density estimation. We apply the new methodology to air pollution data, which exhibits a complex extremal dependence structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05195 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** log n-scaled bivariate Gaussian data in standard exponential margins, with true limit set boundary given by the solid line. The piecewise-linear limit set boundary is given by the dashed line using 5, 7, and 9 reference angles (left to right). 1.2 Semiparametric estimation of the gauge function For dimensions d ≥ 3 in particular, the current suite of parametric models employed in Wadsworth and Campbell (2024) may no… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** d = 2 gauge function construction illustration. Left: Coplanar vectors are displayed by the arrows. Right: Limit set at chosen parameter values. Solid line indicates the unit level set of the piecewise-linear gauge function at the chosen parameter and reference angle values. Dashed lines indicate the distances dictated by the parameter values. In order to select the best hyperparameters for high quantile estimation… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: d = 3 model construction illustration. Left to right: Delaunay triangulation based on N = 4 chosen reference angles; the resulting coplanar vectors; limit set boundary. vector n (k) ∈ R d to the plane defined by vertices θ (k) 1 w⋆(k),1 , . . . , θ(k) d w⋆(k),d is n (k…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left: Histogram of exceedance angles from bivariate Gaussian data, with fitted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Left: d = 2 fitted unit level set of gpwl using N = 11 equally-spaced reference angles on a dataset generated from distribution (I). The first panel has no penalty; the second panel uses the gradient penalty with λ = 1 and is bounded using Algorithm 1 in Supplement D. …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Top row: 200 estimates of the gauge function unit level sets (in grey) on data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: d = 2 simulation study probability estimates associated with distributions (I)– (IV) (top to bottom) across replicated model fits. “Par” refers to modeling with knowledge of the true parametric gauge function, “PWL” is semiparametric modeling using the piecewise-linea…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: d = 3 extremal probability estimates associated with distributions (V)–(VII) (top to bottom) across replicated model fits. “Par” refers to modeling with knowledge of the true parametric gauge function, “PWL” is semiparametric modeling using the piecewiselinear approac…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Projections of the estimated unit level set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Model-based and empirical χC(u) plots with C = {1, 2}, {1, 2, 3}, and {1, 2, 3, 4} for the pollution dataset. Solid lines are empirical values, and dashed lines are estimated using the piecewise-linear model. Shaded regions represent 7-day 95% block bootsrap confidenc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Flood risk estimation via geometric extremal graphical models
stat.AP 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Using block-graph gauge functions, the paper fits the first geometric extremal graphical model to 10 river gauging stations, enabling single-model estimates of simultaneous flood probabilities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

A. A. Balkema and N. Nolde. Asymptotic independence for unimodal densities. Adv. Appl. Probab., 42 0 (2): 0 411--432, 2010

work page 2010
[2]

A. M. Barlow, E. Mackay, E. Eastoe, and P. Jonathan. A penalised piecewise-linear model for non-stationary extreme value analysis of peaks over threshold. Ocean Engineering, 267: 0 113265, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Beirlant, Y

J. Beirlant, Y. Goegebeur, J. Segers, and J. L. Teugels. Statistics of extremes: theory and applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2006

work page 2006
[4]

M. Ber, O. Cheong, M. Kreveld, and M. Overmars. Delaunay Triangulations, pages 191--218. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008

work page 2008
[5]

R. P. Brent. Algorithms for minimization without derivatives. Courier Corporation, 2013

2013
[6]

S. G. Coles and J. A. Tawn. Modelling extreme multivariate events. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 53 0 (2): 0 377--392, 1991

work page 1991
[7]

R. A. Davis, E. Mulrow, and S. I. Resnick. Almost sure limit sets of random samples in R ^d . Adv. Appl. Probab., 20 0 (3): 0 573--599, 1988. ISSN 00018678

work page 1988
[8]

De Monte, R

L. De Monte, R. Huser, I. Papastathopoulos, and J. Richards. Generative modelling of multivariate geometric extremes using normalising flows. arXiv:2505.02957, 2025

arXiv 2025

Show all 28 references

[9]

Delaunay

B. Delaunay. Sur la sph \`e re vide. À la m \'e moire de G eorges V orono \" . News of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Mathematical series., 0 (6): 0 793--800, 1934

1934
[10]

V. A. Epanechnikov. Non-parametric estimation of a multivariate probability density. Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 14 0 (1): 0 153--158, 1969

1969
[11]

Fasiolo, S

M. Fasiolo, S. N. Wood, M. Zaffran, R. Nedellec, and Y. Goude. Fast calibrated additive quantile regression. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 116 0 (535): 0 1402--1412, 2021

2021
[12]

N. Goix, A. Sabourin, and S. Cl \'e men c on. Sparse representation of multivariate extremes with applications to anomaly detection. J. Multivar. Anal., 161: 0 12--31, 2017

2017
[13]

A. B. Huseby, E. Vanem, and B. Natvig. A new approach to environmental contours for ocean engineering applications based on direct monte carlo simulations. Ocean Engineering, 60: 0 124--135, 2013

2013
[14]

Kinoshita and S

K. Kinoshita and S. I. Resnick. Convergence of scaled random samples in R ^d . The Annals of Probability, pages 1640--1663, 1991

1991
[15]

Koenker and G

R. Koenker and G. Bassett Jr. Regression quantiles. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, pages 33--50, 1978

1978
[16]

Mackay and G

E. Mackay and G. de Hauteclocque. Model-free environmental contours in higher dimensions. Ocean Engineering, 273: 0 113959, 2023

2023
[17]

Mackay and P

E. Mackay and P. Jonathan. Modelling multivariate extremes through angular-radial decomposition of the density function. arXiv:2310.12711, 2023

2023 arXiv
[18]

Majumder, B

R. Majumder, B. Shaby, B. Reich, and D. Cooley. Semiparametric estimation of the shape of the limiting bivariate point cloud. Bayesian Anal., pages 1--27, 01 2025

2025
[19]

C. J. R. Murphy-Barltrop, R. Majumder, and J. Richards. Deep learning of multivariate extremes via a geometric representation. arXiv:2406.19936, 2024

2024 arXiv
[20]

N. Nolde. Geometric interpretation of the residual dependence coefficient. J. Multivar. Anal., 123: 0 85--95, 2014

2014
[21]

Nolde and J

N. Nolde and J. L. Wadsworth. Linking representations for multivariate extremes via a limit set. Adv. Appl. Probab., 54 0 (3): 0 688–717, 2022

2022
[22]

Papastathopoulos, L

I. Papastathopoulos, L. de Monte, R. Campbell, and H. Rue. Statistical inference for radial generalized P areto distributions and return sets in geometric extremes. arXiv:2310.06130, 2025

2025 arXiv
[23]

E. S. Simpson and J. A. Tawn. Estimating the limiting shape of bivariate scaled sample clouds: with additional benefits of self-consistent inference for existing extremal dependence properties. Electron. J. Stat., 18 0 (2): 0 4582 -- 4611, 2024 a

2024
[24]

E. S. Simpson and J. A. Tawn. Inference for new environmental contours using extreme value analysis. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat., pages 1--25, 2024 b

2024
[25]

E. S. Simpson, J. L. Wadsworth, and J. A. Tawn. Determining the dependence structure of multivariate extremes. Biometrika, 107 0 (3): 0 513--532, 2020

2020
[26]

P. Stein. A note on the volume of a simplex. The American Mathematical Monthly, 73 0 (3): 0 299--301, 1966

1966
[27]

J. L. Wadsworth and R. Campbell. Statistical inference for multivariate extremes via a geometric approach . J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 86 0 (5): 0 1243--1265, 2024

2024
[28]

S. R. Winterstein, T. C. Ude, C. A. Cornell, P. Bjerager, and S. Haver. Environmental parameters for extreme response: Inverse form with omission factors. Proceedings of the ICOSSAR-93, Innsbruck, Austria, pages 551--557, 1993

1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A. A. Balkema and N. Nolde. Asymptotic independence for unimodal densities. Adv. Appl. Probab., 42 0 (2): 0 411--432, 2010

work page 2010

[2] [2]

A. M. Barlow, E. Mackay, E. Eastoe, and P. Jonathan. A penalised piecewise-linear model for non-stationary extreme value analysis of peaks over threshold. Ocean Engineering, 267: 0 113265, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Beirlant, Y

J. Beirlant, Y. Goegebeur, J. Segers, and J. L. Teugels. Statistics of extremes: theory and applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2006

work page 2006

[4] [4]

M. Ber, O. Cheong, M. Kreveld, and M. Overmars. Delaunay Triangulations, pages 191--218. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008

work page 2008

[5] [5]

R. P. Brent. Algorithms for minimization without derivatives. Courier Corporation, 2013

2013

[6] [6]

S. G. Coles and J. A. Tawn. Modelling extreme multivariate events. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 53 0 (2): 0 377--392, 1991

work page 1991

[7] [7]

R. A. Davis, E. Mulrow, and S. I. Resnick. Almost sure limit sets of random samples in R ^d . Adv. Appl. Probab., 20 0 (3): 0 573--599, 1988. ISSN 00018678

work page 1988

[8] [8]

De Monte, R

L. De Monte, R. Huser, I. Papastathopoulos, and J. Richards. Generative modelling of multivariate geometric extremes using normalising flows. arXiv:2505.02957, 2025

arXiv 2025