The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reconciling theory with observations: elements of a diagnostic approach to model evaluation
Abstract
This paper discusses the need for a well‐considered approach to reconciling environmental theory with observations that has clear and compelling diagnostic power. This need is well recognized by the scientific community in the context of the ‘Predictions in Ungaged Basins’ initiative and the National Science Foundation sponsored ‘Environmental Observatories’ initiative, among others. It is suggested that many current strategies for confronting environmental process models with observational data are inadequate in the face of the highly complex and high order models becoming central to modern environmental science, and steps are proposed towards the development of a robust and powerful ‘Theory of Evaluation’. This paper presents the concept of a diagnostic evaluation approach rooted in information theory and employing the notion of signature indices that measure theoretically relevant system process behaviours. The signature‐based approach addresses the issue of degree of system complexity resolvable by a model. Further, it can be placed in the context of Bayesian inference to facilitate uncertainty analysis, and can be readily applied to the problem of process evaluation leading to improved predictions in ungaged basins. Copyright © 2008 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
Cites
A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems
Kalman, R. E. (1960) · Journal of Basic Engineering · doi:10.1115/1.3662552 · Cited by 31,751
Evensen, G. (1994) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans · doi:10.1029/94jc00572 · Cited by 5,371
Cited by
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., & Martinez, G. F. (2009) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003 · Cited by 6,758
Self-citation(2019) · doi:10.5194/hess-23-5089-2019 · Cited by 1,223
Benchmarking observational uncertainties for hydrology: rainfall, river discharge and water quality
McMillan, H., Krueger, T., & Freer, J. (2012) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.9384 · Cited by 522
Towards a comprehensive assessment of model structural adequacy
Gupta, H. V., Clark, M. P., Vrugt, J. A., Abramowitz, G., & Ye, M. (2012) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2011wr011044 · Cited by 466
Self-citationA framework for global river flood risk assessments
Winsemius, H. C., Van Beek, L. P. H., Jongman, B., Ward, P. J., & Bouwman, A. (2013) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-17-1871-2013 · Cited by 448
Metadata
- Authors
- Gupta, H. V., Wagener, T., & Liu, Y.
- Venue
- Hydrological Processes
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-03-11
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 3802-3813
- ISSN
- 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1085
- OpenAlex
- W2117546666
- Cited by
- 644
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 30.79
- 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.