Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 173

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bayesian updating of flood inundation likelihoods conditioned on flood extent data

Bates, Paul D., Horritt, Matthew S., Aronica, Giuseppe, Beven, Keith·2004·Hydrological Processes

Abstract

Previously we have detailed an application of the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) procedure to estimate spatially distributed uncertainty in models conditioned against binary pattern data contained in flood inundation maps. This method was applied to two sites where a single consistent synoptic image of inundation extent was available to test the simulation performance of the method. In this paper, we extend this to examine the predictive performance of the method for a reach of the River Severn, west‐central England. Uniquely for this reach, consistent inundation images of two major floods have been acquired from spaceborne synthetic aperture radars, as well as a high‐resolution digital elevation model derived using laser altimetry. These data thus allow rigorous split sample testing of the previous GLUE application. To achieve this, Monte Carlo analyses of parameter uncertainty within the GLUE framework are conducted for a typical hydraulic model applied to each flood event. The best 10% of parameter sets identified in each analysis are then used to map uncertainty in flood extent predictions using the method previously proposed for both an independent validation data set and a design flood. Finally, methods for combining the likelihood information derived from each Monte Carlo ensemble are examined to determine whether this has the potential to reduce uncertainty in spatially distributed measures of flood risk for a design flood. The results show that for this reach and these events, the method previously established is able to produce sharply defined flood risk maps that compare well with observed inundation extent. More generally, we show that even single, poor‐quality inundation extent images are useful in constraining hydraulic model calibrations and that values of effective friction parameters are broadly stationary between the two events simulated, most probably reflecting their similar hydraulics. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hyp.1499

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 173

Metadata

Authors
Bates, P. D., Horritt, M. S., Aronica, G., & Beven, K.
Venue
Hydrological Processes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-08-23
Volume
18
Issue
17
Pages
3347-3370
ISSN
  • 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1085
OpenAlex
W2078483723
Cited by
173
References
1
FWCI
3.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.