The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A multivariate copula‐based framework for dealing with hazard scenarios and failure probabilities
Open accessAbstract
This paper is of methodological nature, and deals with the foundations of Risk Assessment. Several international guidelines have recently recommended to select appropriate/relevant Hazard Scenarios in order to tame the consequences of (extreme) natural phenomena. In particular, the scenarios should be multivariate, i.e., they should take into account the fact that several variables, generally not independent, may be of interest. In this work, it is shown how a Hazard Scenario can be identified in terms of (i) a specific geometry and (ii) a suitable probability level. Several scenarios, as well as a Structural approach, are presented, and due comparisons are carried out. In addition, it is shown how the Hazard Scenario approach illustrated here is well suited to cope with the notion of Failure Probability, a tool traditionally used for design and risk assessment in engineering practice. All the results outlined throughout the work are based on the Copula Theory, which turns out to be a fundamental theoretical apparatus for doing multivariate risk assessment: formulas for the calculation of the probability of Hazard Scenarios in the general multidimensional case ( ) are derived, and worthy analytical relationships among the probabilities of occurrence of Hazard Scenarios are presented. In addition, the Extreme Value and Archimedean special cases are dealt with, relationships between dependence ordering and scenario levels are studied, and a counter‐example concerning Tail Dependence is shown. Suitable indications for the practical application of the techniques outlined in the work are given, and two case studies illustrate the procedures discussed in the paper.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bootstrap Methods and their Application
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802843 · Cited by 7,350
Dependence Modeling with Copulas
Joe, H. (2014) · doi:10.1201/b17116 · Cited by 1,566
Cited by
Future climate risk from compound events
Zscheischler, J., Westra, S., van den Hurk, B. J. J. M., Seneviratne, S. I., Ward, P. J., Pitman, A., AghaKouchak, A., Bresch, D. N., Leonard, M., Wahl, T., et al. (2018) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0156-3 · Cited by 2,527
Future socio-ecosystem productivity threatened by compound drought–heatwave events
Yin, J., Gentine, P., Slater, L., Gu, L., Pokhrel, Y., Hanasaki, N., Guo, S., Xiong, L., & Schlenker, W. (2023) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-022-01024-1 · Cited by 406
Bevacqua, E., Maraun, D., Hobæk Haff, I., Widmann, M., & Vrac, M. (2017) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-21-2701-2017 · Cited by 373
Flood Risk in Urban Areas: Modelling, Management and Adaptation to Climate Change. A Review
Cea, L., & Costabile, P. (2022) · Hydrology · doi:10.3390/hydrology9030050 · Cited by 317
Metadata
- Authors
- Salvadori, G., Durante, F., De Michele, C., Bernardi, M., & Petrella, L.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 3701-3721
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2343155978
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A multivariate copula‐based framework for dealing with hazard scenarios and failure probabilities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/2015wr017225
- The paper
- Salvadori, G., Durante, F., De Michele, C., Bernardi, M., & Petrella, L. (2016). A multivariate copula‐based framework for dealing with hazard scenarios and failure probabilities. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015wr017225
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.