The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessing the uncertainty in distributed model predictions using observed binary pattern information within GLUE
Abstract
In this paper we extend the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) technique to estimate spatially distributed uncertainty in models conditioned against binary pattern data contained in flood inundation maps. Untransformed binary pattern data already have been used within GLUE to estimate domain‐averaged (zero‐dimensional) likelihoods, yet the pattern information embedded within such sources has not been used to estimate distributed uncertainty. Where pattern information has been used to map distributed uncertainty it has been transformed into a continuous function prior to use, which may introduce additional errors. To solve this problem we use here ‘raw’ binary pattern data to define a zero‐dimensional global performance measure for each simulation in a Monte Carlo ensemble. Thereafter, for each pixel of the distributed model we evaluate the probability that this pixel was inundated. This probability is then weighted by the measure of global model performance, thus taking into account how well a given parameter set performs overall. The result is a distributed uncertainty measure mapped over real space. The advantage of the approach is that it both captures distributed uncertainty and contains information on global likelihood that can be used to condition predictions of further events for which observed data are not available. The technique is applied to the problem of flood inundation prediction at two test sites representing different hydrodynamic conditions. In both cases, the method reveals the spatial structure in simulation uncertainty and simultaneously enables mapping of flood probability predicted by the model. Spatially distributed uncertainty analysis is shown to contain information over and above that available from global performance measures. Overall, the paper highlights the different types of information that may be obtained from mappings of model uncertainty over real and n‐dimensional parameter spaces. Copyright © 2002 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.
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
Cited by
Equifinality of formal (DREAM) and informal (GLUE) Bayesian approaches in hydrologic modeling?
Vrugt, J. A., ter Braak, C. J. F., Gupta, H. V., & Robinson, B. A. (2009) · Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment · doi:10.1007/s00477-008-0274-y · Cited by 455
Montanari, A. (2005) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2004wr003826 · Cited by 231
Bates, P. D., Wilson, M. D., Horritt, M. S., Mason, D. C., Holden, N., & Currie, A. (2006) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.12.028 · Cited by 185
Self-citationAn Operational Method for Flood Directive Implementation in Ungauged Urban Areas
Papaioannou, G., Efstratiadis, A., Vasiliades, L., Loukas, A., Papalexiou, S. M., Koukouvinos, A., Tsoukalas, I., & Kossieris, P. (2018) · Hydrology · doi:10.3390/hydrology5020024 · Cited by 147
Estimating DSSAT Cropping System Cultivar‐Specific Parameters Using Bayesian Techniques
Jones, J. W., He, J., Boote, K. J., Wilkens, P., Porter, C. H., & Hu, Z. (2011) · Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling · doi:10.2134/advagricsystmodel2.c13 · Cited by 129
Metadata
- Authors
- Aronica, G., Bates, P. D., & Horritt, M. S.
- Venue
- Hydrological Processes
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-02-28
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2001-2016
- ISSN
- 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1085
- OpenAlex
- W2089594470
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.77
- 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.