the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A tempered fractional Hawkes framework for finite-memory drought dynamics
Abstract.
- Preprint
(8622 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6142 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5401', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jan 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5401', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Mar 2026
This manuscript introduces a novel Tempered Fractional Hawkes Process (TFHP) to model meteorological drought dynamics, offering an interesting intersection of fractional calculus, point-process theory, and climate dynamics. While the theoretical framework has potential value, the paper suffers from several critical issues that significantly affect its scientific rigor and interpretability. I recommend major revisions to address the following key points:
- The parameter α is interpreted inconsistently throughout the paper. As noted by another reviewer, the mathematical definition (3) shows that ϕ(t) ∝ t^(α-1), meaning smaller α corresponds to faster memory decay (not slower, as the authors claim in Section 4). This fundamental misinterpretation renders the entire spatial analysis of memory persistence problematic.
- The authors also fail to properly implement TFHP in the numerical analysis, relying exclusively on untempered fractional Hawkes models while only post-hoc calculating a tempering parameter θ_eff: from Section 3.4 (line 260) where the authors explicitly state that they inferred the parameters (μ, κ, α) by maximizing the log-likelihood of the (untempered) fractional Hawkes model without any reference to θ. In Section 3.5 (line 265), they further explain that direct joint estimation of (μ, κ, α, θ) from the tempered kernel can be unstable and instead derived an effective tempering rate θ_eff from the subcriticality condition using the pre-set η = 0.9, which is not based on the observed data. Furthermore, in Section 4.3 (line 325-330), they simulate "tempered" results using a fixed θ = 0.06 that was not optimized for any location or time period, demonstrating that the tempering component was not actually calibrated to the data. This disconnect between theory and methodology undermines the core contribution of the paper.
- The paper lacks sufficient model validation and comparison. While the authors briefly claim that the untempered fractional Hawkes model "outperforms" other formulations (in section 3.6, line 280), they fail to provide robust quantitative evidence for this assertion. The manuscript should include more comprehensive validation metrics such as AIC/BIC values, quantitative comparisons of waiting time distributions, and statistical significance tests. Additionally, the paper does not adequately explore model sensitivity or test the model's robustness against alternative formulations (e.g., different memory kernels or damping functions), which is essential for establishing the method's reliability and superiority.
- The authors claim that (μ, κ, α, θ) have "clear physical meaning" (line 5), but fail to provide any rigorous connection between these parameters and known hydroclimatic processes. For example, the study does not investigate how α relates to actual soil moisture dynamics or atmospheric circulation patterns, nor does it validate whether the derived τm (memory horizon) corresponds to observable physical time scales in the climate system. The "dynamically fragile" regions (line 360) identified are presented without clear physical justification, weakening the paper's conceptual contribution.
- While the authors apply the framework to Chile, they provide no clear discussion of where this model might not apply (e.g., for extremely short- or long-duration droughts) or how climate change might alter parameter values. A critical analysis of the method's sensitivity to data length, spatial resolution, and other factors is missing, as is any exploration of how the approach could be adapted to other climatic contexts. The paper also does not sufficiently address how this model might integrate with existing climate prediction frameworks, which is essential for its practical application in risk assessment and water resource management.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5401-RC2
Data sets
Precipitation records (ERA5 reanalysis, 1980 to 2022) from 460 spatial locations very close to meteorological stations in the territory of Chile (latitude -17.5 to -56.0; longitude -76.0 to -66.0) Mauricio Herrera-Marín https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IBZRJO
Model code and software
Python notebook implementing the Tempered Fractional Hawkes Process and generating all figures Mauricio Herrera-Marín https://github.com/mauricio-herrera/tempered-fractional-hawkes-drought-persistence
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 223 | 112 | 24 | 359 | 43 | 72 | 96 |
- HTML: 223
- PDF: 112
- XML: 24
- Total: 359
- Supplement: 43
- BibTeX: 72
- EndNote: 96
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
For a detailed report oon the article, see the document attached.
The article introduces tempered and untempered fractional Hawks processes which are self-exiting point processes with decaying memory, and derives a mean field formulation of the intensity λ(t). Given rainfall data from Chile, a log-likihood maximization is performed to fit the parameters of an untempered fractional Hawkes process to the occurrence of drought periods. Based on these parameters, the temperedness parameter θ is derived and the results are compared.
While tempered fractional calculus is established elsewhere, the tempered factional Hawkes process (TFHP) is to the best of my knowledge new. The introduction of the TFHP contains multiple mathematical inaccuracies and inconsistencies that are listed in the document provided. In particular, the interpretation of the parameter α seems reversed, thus making the interpretation of the results problematic. Additionally, the newly introduced TFHP is effectively not used in the numerical method, which almost exclusively relies on untempered fractional Hawkes processes.
Overall, these problems result in inconsistencies in both the theory and the application part of the article. The theoretical issues are certainly fixable, even though this would require rewriting most of Section 2. The problem that the TFHP is not actually used in the numerical method is a more fundamental weakness of the article. In view of the improvable methodology, the results do not seem to provide a very clear interpretation, in particular with the inconsistencies regarding the parameter α (see comment (I) in the provided document).