# On the Uncertainty and Changeability of the Estimates of Seasonal Maximum Flows

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Case Study

^{3}/s), and for winter peak flows it was 213 (m

^{3}/s), while the variation coefficient Cv was 0.718 and 0.569, respectively.

## 3. Materials and Methods

#### 3.1. Model Selection Procedures

- 1.
- The AIC criterion (Akaike information criterion) is based on the likelihood function of distribution maximized with respect to the parameter values, also taking into account the number of distribution parameters $k$. The ${\mathrm{AIC}}_{i}$ selection statistic is defined by Equation (1) for the i-th distribution of the probability density function ${f}_{i}$ from among m alternative distributions and for $i=1,..,m$ [41]:$${\mathrm{AIC}}_{i}=2k-2\xb7\underset{\widehat{\theta}}{\mathrm{max}}\left[{{\displaystyle \sum}}_{j=1}^{N}\mathrm{ln}{f}_{i}\left({\widehat{\theta}}_{i},{x}_{j}\right)\right]$$

- 2.
- The QK (Quesenberry–Kent) procedure is based on the density function modified to the form given by Equation (2), which is invariant under a scale transformation of the data [45]:$${\mathrm{S}}_{i}=-\mathrm{ln}\left\{{{\displaystyle \int}}_{0}^{\infty}{f}_{i}\left(\lambda {x}_{1},\dots ,\lambda {x}_{N}\right){\lambda}^{N-1}d\lambda \right\}$$

- 3.
- The KS (Kolmogorov–Smirnov) goodness of fit test is based on the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistics defined by Equation (3) [46,47]:$${\mathrm{D}}_{i}^{\mathrm{max}}=\underset{j=1,\dots ,N}{\mathrm{max}}\left|{p}_{i}\left({x}_{j:N}\right)-{\widehat{p}}_{j:N}\right|$$

- 4.
- The R (range) procedure has two variants. The first variant, R
^{1}, is based on the distance between the estimate of the 1% quantile from the maximum likelihood method and its value from the method of moments, and it is calculated using Equation (4) [49]:$${\mathrm{R}}_{i}^{1}=\left|{\widehat{x}}_{1\%\left(i\right)}^{\mathrm{MLM}}-{\widehat{x}}_{1\%\left(i\right)}^{\mathrm{MOM}}\right|$$

#### 3.2. Models Aggregation

## 4. Results

#### 4.1. Models for Seasonal Maximum Flows of Polish Data

#### 4.2. Distribution Identification and Its Parameter Estimation: Comparative Study

#### 4.2.1. Estimation of Quantiles of the Maximum Flow Distribution

#### 4.2.2. Uncertainty of Distribution Selection

^{1}procedure. The GE distribution also turns out to be the best fit to the data among all competitive PDFs, after which the LN and LL are placed. The GE distribution also turns out to be the best fit to the data among all competitive PDFs, when QK procedure or KS test along with MOM method of estimation are applied. In both cases, the second and third place are occupied by Ga and LN distributions, respectively. For the KS test with the LMM estimation method, the best distribution was IG, followed by GE and LN, while with the MLM estimation method, surprisingly, the best was the LL distribution, followed by LN and GE, respectively. Finally, according to the R

^{2}selection procedure, first place was taken by the Ga distribution, followed by We and GE.

^{1}procedures. The IG and LL distributions occupied first place when the KS test was applied, together with the LMM and MLM estimation methods, respectively. Except for the case of the R

^{1}procedure, in all variants of the model selection procedure with an estimation method, the LN distribution was in second place.

#### 4.3. Aggregation of Quantiles

#### 4.3.1. Instability of High Quantile Estimates with Increasing Length of Data Series

#### 4.3.2. Case Study of Model Aggregation

#### 4.3.3. Impact of Competitive Distributions on Aggregated Quantiles

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

**Table A1.**Basic characteristics of the seasonal peak flows of 37 gauging stations at Polish rivers analyzed in paper.

No | Gauging Station | River | Observation Period | Mean of Summer Peak Flows (m^{3}/s) | Mean of Winter Peak Flows (m^{3}/s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Jawiszowice | Wisła | 1951–2016 | 153 | 68 |

2 | Tyniec | 1951–1990 | 642 | 378 | |

3 | Jagodniki | 1921–2016 | 990 | 621 | |

4 | Szczucin | 1921–2016 | 1700 | 1018 | |

5 | Sandomierz | 1921–2016 | 2010 | 1443 | |

6 | Zawichost | 1951–2016 | 2727 | 2074 | |

7 | Puławy | 1951–2016 | 2432 | 1960 | |

8 | Warszawa | 1921–2016 | 2225 | 2302 | |

9 | Kępa | 1921–2016 | 2545 | 3305 | |

10 | Toruń | 1921–2016 | 2532 | 3334 | |

11 | Tczew | 1921–2016 | 2400 | 3383 | |

12 | Żywiec | Sola | 1956–2016 | 330 | 160 |

13 | Sucha | Skawa | 1951–2016 | 148 | 66 |

14 | Wadowice | 1951–2016 | 253 | 117 | |

15 | Rudze | Wieprzówka | 1961–2016 | 61 | 22 |

16 | Stróża | Raba | 1956–2016 | 202 | 93 |

17 | Proszówki | 1951–2016 | 433 | 213 | |

18 | Kowaniec | Dunajec | 1951–2016 | 240 | 87 |

19 | Krościenko | 1951–2016 | 427 | 161 | |

20 | Nowy Sącz | 1946–2016 | 887 | 366 | |

21 | Żabno | 1956–2016 | 1010 | 444 | |

22 | Nowy Targ | Czarny Dunajec | 1961–2016 | 160 | 56 |

23 | Zakopane | Biały Dunajec | 1961–2016 | 40 | 9 |

24 | Muszyna | Poprad | 1951–2016 | 214 | 120 |

25 | Stary Sącz | 1951–2016 | 278 | 171 | |

26 | Koszyce Wlk. | Biała | 1951–2016 | 240 | 121 |

27 | Jarosław | San | 1951–2016 | 469 | 465 |

28 | Radomyśl | 1951–2016 | 435 | 657 | |

29 | Tryńcza | Wisłok | 1951–2016 | 158 | 178 |

30 | Żółków | Wisłoka | 1951–2016 | 152 | 99 |

31 | Mielec | 1951–2016 | 419 | 331 | |

32 | Klęczany | Ropa | 1951–2016 | 129 | 55 |

33 | Wyszków | Bug | 1921–2016 | 272 | 587 |

34 | Konin | Warta | 1921–1991 | 122 | 238 |

35 | Poznań | 1822–2016 | 156 | 404 | |

36 | Skwierzyna | 1921–2016 | 184 | 362 | |

37 | Gorzów | 1921–2016 | 276 | 494 |

## References

- Gumbel, E.J. The return period of flood flows. Ann. Math. Stat.
**1941**, 12, 163–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moran, P.A.P. The statistical treatment of flood flows. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union
**1957**, 38, 519–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cunnane, C. Operational Hydrology Report No. 33: Statistical Distributions for Flood Frequency Analysis; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1989; ISBN 9789263107183. [Google Scholar]
- FEH. Flood Estimation Handbook 3: Statistical Procedures for Flood Frequency Estimation; Institute of Hydrology: Wallingford, UK, 1999; ISBN 9781906698003. [Google Scholar]
- Rao, A.R.; Hamed, K.H. Flood Frequency Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; ISBN 9780849300837. [Google Scholar]
- Griffis, V.W.; Stedinger, J.R. Evolution of flood frequency analysis with Bulletin 17. J. Hydrol. Eng.
**2007**, 12, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rowiński, P.M.; Strupczewski, W.G.; Singh, V.P. A note on the applicability of log-Gumbel and log-logistic probability distributions in hydrological analyses: I. Known pdf. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**2002**, 47, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Węglarczyk, S.; Strupczewski, W.G.; Singh, V.P. A note on the applicability of log-Gumbel and log-logistic probability distributions in hydrological analyses: II. Assumed pdf. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**2002**, 47, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Strupczewski, W.G.; Kochanek, K.; Markiewicz, I.; Bogdanowicz, E.; Weglarczyk, S.; Singh, V.P. On the tails of distributions of annual peak flow. Hydrol. Res.
**2011**, 42, 171–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Salinas, J.L.; Castellarin, A.; Viglione, A.; Kohnová, S.; Kjeldsen, T.R. Regional parent flood frequency distributions in Europe—Part 1: Is the GEV model suitable as a pan-European parent? Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2014**, 18, 4381–4389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Rizwan, M.; Guo, S.; Xiong, F.; Yin, J. Evaluation of various probability distributions for deriving design flood featuring right-tail events in Pakistan. Water
**2018**, 10, 1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Kuczera, G. Robust flood frequency models. Water Resour. Res.
**1982**, 18, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Strupczewski, W.G.; Singh, V.P.; Węglarczyk, S. Impulse response of linear diffusion analogy model as a flood frequency probability density function. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**2001**, 46, 761–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gupta, R.D.; Kundu, D. Generalized exponential distributions. Aust. N. Z. J. Stat.
**1999**, 41, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gupta, R.D.; Kundu, D. Discriminating between gamma and generalized exponential distributions. J. Stat. Comput. Sim.
**2004**, 74, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gupta, R.D.; Kundu, D. Discriminating between the Weibull and the GE distributions. Comput. Stat. Data Anal.
**2003**, 43, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kundu, D.; Gupta, R.D.; Manglick, A. Discriminating between the log-normal and generalized exponential distribution. J. Stat. Plan. Infer.
**2005**, 127, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brzeziński, J. Zastosowanie uogólnionego rozkładu wykładniczego w analizie sezonowych przepływów maksymalnych rocznych [Application of generalized exponential distribution in seasonal maximum annual flow analysis]. In Hydrologia w Inżynierii i Gospodarce Wodnej, Tom 1; Więzik, B., Ed.; Polska Akademia Nauk, Komitet Inżynierii Środowiska: Warsaw, Poland, 2010; Volume 68, pp. 71–82. ISBN 9788389293930. [Google Scholar]
- Markiewicz, I.; Strupczewski, W.G.; Bogdanowicz, E.; Kochanek, K. Generalized exponential distribution in flood frequency analysis for Polish rivers. PLoS ONE
**2015**, 10, e0143965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ouarda, T.B.M.J.; Charron, C.; Chebana, F. Review of criteria for the selection of probability distributions for wind speed data and introduction of the moment and L-moment ratio diagram methods, with a case study. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2016**, 124, 247–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Rahman, A.S.; Rahman, A.; Zaman, M.; Haddad, K.; Ahsan, A.; Imteaz, M.A. A study on selection of probability distributions for at-site flood frequency analysis in Australia. Nat. Hazards
**2013**, 69, 1803–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ouarda, T.B.M.J.; Charron, C. Changes in the distribution of hydro-climatic extremes in a non-stationary framework. Sci. Rep.
**2019**, 9, 8104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Hosking, J.R.M. L-moments: Analysis and estimation of distributions using linear combination of order statistics. J. R. Stat. Soc. B
**1990**, 52, 105–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - El Adlouni, S.; Ouarda, T.B.M.J.; Bobée, B. Orthogonal projection L-moment estimators for three-parameter distributions. Adv. Appl. Stat.
**2007**, 7, 193–209. [Google Scholar] - Hall, J.; Blöschl, G. Spatial patterns and characteristics of flood seasonality in Europe. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2018**, 22, 3883–3901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Parajka, J.; Kohnová, S.; Merz, R.; Szolgay, J.; Hlavčová, K.; Blöschl, G. Comparative analysis of the seasonality of hydrological characteristics in Slovakia and Austria. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**2009**, 54, 456–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hasson, S.; Lucarini, V.; Pascale, S.; Böhner, J. Seasonality of the hydrological cycle in major South and Southeast Asian river basins as simulated by PCMDI/CMIP3 experiments. Earth Syst. Dyn.
**2014**, 5, 67–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Blösch, G.; Hall, J.; Viglione, A.; Perdigăo, R.A.P.; Parajka, J.; Merz, B.; Lun, D.; Arheimer, B.; Aronica, G.T.; Bilibashi, A.; et al. Changing climate both increases and decreases European river floods. Nature
**2019**, 573, 108–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Blösch, G.; Hall, J.; Parajka, J.; Perdigao, R.A.P.; Merz, B.; Arheimer, B.; Kjeldsen, T. Changing climate shifts timing of European floods. Science
**2017**, 357, 588–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Wilson, D.; Hisdal, H.; Lawrence, D. Has streamflow changed in the Nordic countries? Recent trends and comparisons to hydrological projection. J. Hydrol.
**2010**, 394, 334–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Stramska, M.; Kowalewska-Kalkowska, H.; Swirgon, M. Seasonal variability in the Baltic Sea level. Oceanologia
**2013**, 55, 787–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Strupczewski, W.G.; Kochanek, K.; Bogdanowicz, E.; Markiewicz, I. On seasonal approach to flood frequency modelling. Part I: Two-component distribution revisited. Hydrol. Process.
**2012**, 26, 705–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kochanek, K.; Strupczewski, W.G.; Bogdanowicz, E. On seasonal approach to flood frequency modelling. Part II: Flood frequency analysis of Polish rivers. Hydrol. Process.
**2012**, 26, 717–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Strupczewski, W. Częstość wielkich wód [Frequency of peak waters]. Przegląd Geofiz. X (XVIII)
**1965**, 1, 83–93. [Google Scholar] - Ozga-Zielinska, M.; Brzezinski, J.; Ozga-Zielinski, B. Guidelines for Flood Frequency Analysis. In Long Measurement Series of River Discharge; WMO HOMS Component I81.3.01; Institute of Meteorology and Water Management: Warsaw, Poland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Ozga-Zielińska, M.; Brzeziński, J.; Ozga-Zieliński, B. Zasady obliczania największych przepływów rocznych o określonym prawdopodobieństwie przewyższenia przy projektowaniu obiektów budownictwa hydrotechnicznego. Długie ciągi pomiarowe przepływów. [Guidelines for the determining the annual maximum flows with a certain probability of exceedance in the design of hydrotechnical structures. Long data series of flows]. In Materiały Badawcze, Seria: Hydrologia i Oceanologia; IMGW: Warszawa, Poland, 1999; p. 27. [Google Scholar]
- Węglarczyk, S. Metoda alternatywy zdarzeń identyfikacji rozkładu prawdopodobieństwa przepływów maksymalnych w roku—Analiza krytyczna [The method of alternative events identifying the probability distribution of maximum flows in a year—Critical analysis]. Gospod. Wodna
**2007**, 5, 185–190. [Google Scholar] - Debele, S.E.; Bogdanowicz, E.; Strupczewski, W.G. The impact of seasonal flood peak dependence on annual maxima design quantiles. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**2017**, 62, 1603–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Salvadori, G.; De Michele, C. Frequency analysis via copulas: Theoretical aspects and applications to hydrological events. Water Resour. Res.
**2004**, 40, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bogdanowicz, E. Podejście wielomodelowe w zagadnieniach estymacji kwantyli rozkładu wartości maksymalnych [Multimodel approach to estimation of extreme value distribution quantiles]. In Hydrologia w Inżynierii i Gospodarce Wodnej, Tom 1; Więzik, B., Ed.; Polska Akademia Nauk, Komitet Inżynierii Środowiska: Warsaw, Poland, 2010; Volume 68, pp. 57–70. ISBN 9788389293930. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
**1974**, 19, 716–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kendall, M.G.; Stuart, A. The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 1. Distribution Theory; Charles Griffin and Company Limited: London, UK, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Hosking, J.R.M.; Wallis, J.R. Regional Frequency Analysis. An Approach Based on L-Moment; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Kendall, M.G.; Stuart, A. The Advanced Theory of Statistics. Vol. 2. Inference and Relationship; Charles Griffin and Company Limited: London, UK, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Quesenberry, C.P.; Kent, J. Selecting among probability distributions used in reliability. Technometrics
**1982**, 24, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kolmogorov, A. Sulla determinazione empirica di una legge di distribuzione [On the empirical determination of a distribution law]. G. Inst. Ital. Attuari
**1933**, 4, 83–91. [Google Scholar] - Kaczmarek, Z. Statistical Methods in Hydrology and Meteorology; Published for the Geological Survey, US Department of the Interior and the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, by the Foreign Scientific Publications Department of the National Centre for Scientific, Technical and Economic Information; Foreign Scientific Publications Department of the National Center for Scientific, Technical and Economic Information: Warsaw, Poland, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Chakravarti, I.M.; Laha, R.G.; Roy, J. Handbook of Methods of Applied Statistics, Vol. 1; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Mitosek, H.T.; Strupczewski, W.G.; Singh, V.P. Three procedures for selection of annual flood peak distribution. J. Hydrol.
**2006**, 323, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kim, J.S.; Yum, B.J. Selection between Weibull and lognormal distributions: A comparative simulation study. Comput. Stat. Data Anal.
**2008**, 53, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dey, A.K.; Kundu, D. Discriminating among the log-normal, Weibull, and generalized exponential Distributions. IEEE Trans. Reliab.
**2009**, 58, 416–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Strupczewski, W.G.; Kochanek, K.; Singh, V.P.; Weglarczyk, S. Are Parsimonious Flood Frequency Models More Reliable than the True Ones? I. Accuracy of Quantiles and Moments Estimation (AQME)—Method of Assessment. Acta Geophys. Pol.
**2005**, 53, 419–436. [Google Scholar] - Kochanek, K.; Strupczewski, W.G.; Singh, V.P.; Weglarczyk, S. Are Parsimonious Flood Frequency Models More Reliable than the True Ones? II. Comparative assessment of the perfor-mance of simple models versus the parent distribution. Acta Geophys. Pol.
**2005**, 53, 437–457. [Google Scholar] - Strupczewski, W.G.; Kochanek, K.; Weglarczyk, S.; Singh, V.P. On robustness of large quantile estimates to largest elements of the observation series. Hydrol. Process.
**2007**, 21, 1328–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Strupczewski, W.G.; Singh, V.P.; Mitosek, H.T. Non-stationary approach to at-site flood frequency modelling. III. Flood analysis of Polish rivers. J. Hydrol.
**2001**, 248, 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 2.**Regulated (red color) and unregulated (blue color) peak flows at the Proszówki gauging station along with the trends in their average values for the (

**a**) summer season; (

**b**) winter season.

**Figure 3.**Skewness coefficient versus variation coefficient for two-parameter distributions and Polish data of summer (red color) and winter (blue color) peak flows for 37 gauging stations: (

**a**) conventional moment ratio diagrams of Cs vs. Cv; (

**b**) linear moment ratio diagrams of LCs vs. LCv. Key to the distributions: Ga—gamma, We—Weibull, GE—generalized exponential, IG—inverse Gaussian, LN—log-normal, LL—log-logistic, LG—log-Gumbel, Exp—exponential.

**Figure 4.**Estimates of the 1% quantile of maximum flows at Proszówki Station along with the best matching distributions for: (

**a**) summer season; (

**b**) winter season. Distributions: Ga—gamma, We—Weibull, GE—generalized exponential, IG—inverse Gaussian, LN—log-normal.

**Figure 5.**Estimates of the 1% quantile of maximum flows along with the best matching distributions by the Akaike information criterion (AIC) for the stations: (

**a**) Jagodniki [3]*; (

**b**) Koszyce Wielkie [26]; (

**c**) Mielec [31]; (

**d**) Wyszków [33]. Distributions: Ga—gamma, We—Weibull, GE—generalized exponential, IG—inverse Gaussian, LN—log-normal, LG—log-Gumbel. * The number of the station in Table A1.

**Figure 6.**The estimates of the 1% quantile of (

**a**) summer and (

**b**) winter peak flows for the Proszówki gauging station on the Raba River obtained by the method of selecting the best fit distribution and by the aggregation method with variants of the candidate distributions.

Distribution | Probability Density Function (PDF) |
---|---|

Gamma (Ga) | $f\left(x\right)=\frac{{\alpha}^{k}}{\mathsf{\Gamma}\left(k\right)}{x}^{k-1}{e}^{-\alpha x};k0$ |

Weibull (We) | $f\left(x\right)=\frac{k}{\alpha}{\left(\frac{x}{\alpha}\right)}^{k-1}\mathrm{exp}\left[-{\left(\frac{x}{\alpha}\right)}^{k}\right];k0$ |

Inverse Gaussian (IG) | $f\left(x\right)=\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{\pi {x}^{3}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[-{\left(\alpha -\frac{k}{\alpha}x\right)}^{2}/x\right];k0$ |

Generalized exponential (GE) | $f\left(x\right)=\alpha k{\left(1-{e}^{-\alpha x}\right)}^{\left(k-1\right)}{e}^{-\alpha x};k0$ |

Log-normal (LN) | $f\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{xk\sqrt{2\pi}}\mathrm{exp}\left[-\frac{{\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(x\right)-\alpha \right)}^{2}}{2{k}^{2}}\right];k0$ |

Log-logistic (LL) | $f\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\alpha}{\left[-\frac{kx}{\alpha}\right]}^{\frac{1}{k}-1}{\left[1+{\left\{-\frac{kx}{\alpha}\right\}}^{\frac{1}{k}}\right]}^{-2};k0$ |

Log-Gumbel (LG) | $f\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\alpha}{\left[-\frac{kx}{\alpha}\right]}^{\frac{1}{k}-1}\mathrm{exp}\left\{-{\left[-\frac{kx}{\alpha}\right]}^{\frac{1}{k}}\right\};k0$ |

**Table 2.**Estimates of the 1% quantile of seasonal maximum flows (m

^{3}/s) from the period 1951–2016 at the Proszówki gauging station and assuming selected two-parameter distributions along with the standard deviation $\left(\sigma \right)$ of estimates.

Season | Estimation Method | Probability Distribution | σ | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Ga | We | GE | IG | LN | LL | LG | |||

Summer | MOM | 1457 | 1403 | 1482 | 1570 | 1577 | 1533 | 1530 | 63.26 |

LMM | 1477 | 1391 | 1515 | 1718 | 1760 | 1965 | 2247 | 302.36 | |

MLM | 1435 | 1348 | 1468 | 1941 | 1983 | 2528 | 10760 | 3417.87 | |

Winter | MOM | 590 | 554 | 609 | 630 | 676 | 642 | 656 | 41.54 |

LMM | 585 | 535 | 613 | 653 | 755 | 739 | 858 | 112.54 | |

MLM | 566 | 539 | 596 | 671 | 780 | 803 | 2063 | 540.33 |

**Table 3.**The results of the model selection procedures for the two-parameter distributions being fitted to the seasonal maximum flows in 1951–2016 at the Proszówki gauging station.

Season | Model Selection Procedure | Estimation Method | Probability Distribution | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Ga | We | GE | IG | LN | LL | LG | |||

Summer | AIC criterion | MOM | 921.1 | 923.1 | 920.7 | 934.3 | 927.9 | 936.6 | 2933 |

LMM | 921.3 | 923.0 | 920.9 | 928.9 | 923.8 | 925.2 | 1128 | ||

MLM | 921.0 | 922.8 | 920.7 | 926.5 | 923.0 | 923.6 | 942.5 | ||

QK procedure | MLM | 460.0 | 461.0 | 459.9 | 462.7 | 460.9 | 461.3 | 470.6 | |

KS test | MOM | 0.063 | 0.074 | 0.058 | 0.069 | 0.066 | 0.122 | 0.224 | |

LMM | 0.061 | 0.075 | 0.055 | 0.054 | 0.056 | 0.084 | 0.117 | ||

MLM | 0.073 | 0.084 | 0.059 | 0.088 | 0.051 | 0.048 | 0.110 | ||

R procedure | R^{1} | 22 | 56 | 14 | 371 | 407 | 995 | 9230 | |

R^{2} | 42 | 44 | 47 | 222 | 223 | 562 | 8512 | ||

Winter | AIC criterion | MOM | 804.2 | 808.7 | 802.9 | 804.8 | 803.9 | 807.0 | 1171 |

LMM | 804.1 | 808.5 | 803.0 | 804.1 | 803.3 | 803.7 | 878.6 | ||

MLM | 803.8 | 808.5 | 802.8 | 804.0 | 803.3 | 803.5 | 818.2 | ||

QK procedure | MLM | 401.7 | 404.1 | 401.2 | 401.8 | 401.4 | 401.5 | 454.6 | |

KS test | MOM | 0.089 | 0.111 | 0.077 | 0.058 | 0.060 | 0.083 | 0.147 | |

LMM | 0.089 | 0.115 | 0.077 | 0.055 | 0.056 | 0.058 | 0.095 | ||

MLM | 0.091 | 0.119 | 0.076 | 0.066 | 0.058 | 0.053 | 0.113 | ||

R procedure | R^{1} | 24 | 15 | 13 | 41 | 45 | 162 | 1407 | |

R^{2} | 19 | 4 | 17 | 19 | 16 | 64 | 1206 |

**Table 4.**Data for the aggregation of the 1% quantile for individual candidate distributions of seasonal maximum flows from 1951–2016 at Proszówki Station.

Season | Probability Distribution | AIC | ${\mathit{w}}_{\mathit{i}}$ | ${\widehat{\mathit{Q}}}_{\mathbf{max}1\mathit{\%}}\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}({\mathbf{m}}^{3}/\mathbf{s})$ | ${\overline{\mathit{Q}}}_{\mathbf{max}1\mathit{\%}}\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}({\mathbf{m}}^{3}/\mathbf{s})$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Summer | Ga | 921.0 | 0.310 | 1420 | 1591 |

We | 922.8 | 0.125 | 1348 | ||

GE | 920.7 | 0.352 | 1467 | ||

IG | 926.5 | 0.019 | 1941 | ||

LN | 923.0 | 0.112 | 1983 | ||

LL | 923.6 | 0.082 | 2528 | ||

LG | 942.5 | 0.000 | 10758 | ||

Winter | Ga | 803.8 | 0.184 | 566 | 642 |

We | 808.5 | 0.018 | 539 | ||

GE | 802.8 | 0.305 | 596 | ||

IG | 804.0 | 0.171 | 671 | ||

LN | 803.2 | 0.247 | 679 | ||

LL | 805.6 | 0.075 | 853 | ||

LG | 818.2 | 0.000 | 2063 |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Markiewicz, I.; Bogdanowicz, E.; Kochanek, K.
On the Uncertainty and Changeability of the Estimates of Seasonal Maximum Flows. *Water* **2020**, *12*, 704.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030704

**AMA Style**

Markiewicz I, Bogdanowicz E, Kochanek K.
On the Uncertainty and Changeability of the Estimates of Seasonal Maximum Flows. *Water*. 2020; 12(3):704.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030704

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Markiewicz, Iwona, Ewa Bogdanowicz, and Krzysztof Kochanek.
2020. "On the Uncertainty and Changeability of the Estimates of Seasonal Maximum Flows" *Water* 12, no. 3: 704.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030704