• search hit 4 of 5
Back to Result List

On trend detection

  • A main obstacle to trend detection in time series occurs when they are autocorrelated. By reducing the effective sample size of a series, autocorrelation leads to decreased trend significance. Numerous recipes attempt to mitigate the effect of autocorrelation, either by adjusting for the reduced effective sample size or by removing the autocorrelated components of a series. This short note deals with the latter, also called prewhitening (PW). It is known that removal of autocorrelation also removes part of the trend, which may affect the signal-to-noise ratio. Two popular methods have dealt with this problem, the trend-free prewhitening (TFPW) and the iterative prewhitening. Although it is generally accepted that both methods reduce the adverse effects of PW on the trend magnitude, corresponding effects on statistical significance have not been clearly stated for TFPW. Using a Monte Carlo approach, it is demonstrated that both methods entail quite different Type-I error rates. The iterative prewhitening produces rates that areA main obstacle to trend detection in time series occurs when they are autocorrelated. By reducing the effective sample size of a series, autocorrelation leads to decreased trend significance. Numerous recipes attempt to mitigate the effect of autocorrelation, either by adjusting for the reduced effective sample size or by removing the autocorrelated components of a series. This short note deals with the latter, also called prewhitening (PW). It is known that removal of autocorrelation also removes part of the trend, which may affect the signal-to-noise ratio. Two popular methods have dealt with this problem, the trend-free prewhitening (TFPW) and the iterative prewhitening. Although it is generally accepted that both methods reduce the adverse effects of PW on the trend magnitude, corresponding effects on statistical significance have not been clearly stated for TFPW. Using a Monte Carlo approach, it is demonstrated that both methods entail quite different Type-I error rates. The iterative prewhitening produces rates that are generally close to the nominal significance level. The TFPW, however, shows very high Type-I error rates with increasing autocorrelation. The corresponding rate of false trend detections is unacceptable for applications, so that published trends based on TFPW need to be reassessed.show moreshow less

Export metadata

Additional Services

Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author details:Gerhard Bürger
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11280
ISSN:0885-6087
ISSN:1099-1085
Title of parent work (English):Hydrological processes
Publisher:Wiley
Place of publishing:Hoboken
Publication type:Article
Language:English
Year of first publication:2017
Publication year:2017
Release date:2020/04/20
Tag:Type-I error; autocorrelation; trend significance
Volume:31
Number of pages:4
First page:4039
Last Page:4042
Organizational units:Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Institut für Geowissenschaften
Peer review:Referiert
Institution name at the time of the publication:Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Institut für Erd- und Umweltwissenschaften
Accept ✔
This website uses technically necessary session cookies. By continuing to use the website, you agree to this. You can find our privacy policy here.