The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improved treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Combining the strengths of global optimization and data assimilation
Abstract
Hydrologic models use relatively simple mathematical equations to conceptualize and aggregate the complex, spatially distributed, and highly interrelated water, energy, and vegetation processes in a watershed. A consequence of process aggregation is that the model parameters often do not represent directly measurable entities and must therefore be estimated using measurements of the system inputs and outputs. During this process, known as model calibration, the parameters are adjusted so that the behavior of the model approximates, as closely and consistently as possible, the observed response of the hydrologic system over some historical period of time. In practice, however, because of errors in the model structure and the input (forcing) and output data, this has proven to be difficult, leading to considerable uncertainty in the model predictions. This paper surveys the limitations of current model calibration methodologies, which treat the uncertainty in the input‐output relationship as being primarily attributable to uncertainty in the parameters and presents a simultaneous optimization and data assimilation (SODA) method, which improves the treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling. The usefulness and applicability of SODA is demonstrated by means of a pilot study using data from the Leaf River watershed in Mississippi and a simple hydrologic model with typical conceptual components.
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
Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. (1953) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.1699114 · Cited by 37,192
Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications.
Hastings, W. K. (1970) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 · Cited by 15,195
Evensen, G. (1994) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans · doi:10.1029/94jc00572 · Cited by 5,371
Cited by
Multiscale parameter regionalization of a grid‐based hydrologic model at the mesoscale
Samaniego, L., Kumar, R., & Attinger, S. (2010) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2008wr007327 · Cited by 836
Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe Basin in China
Yang, J., Reichert, P., Abbaspour, K. C., Xia, J., & Yang, H. (2008) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.05.012 · Cited by 800
Ajami, N. K., Duan, Q., & Sorooshian, S. (2007) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2005wr004745 · Cited by 597
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-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Vrugt, J. A., Diks, C. G. H., Gupta, H. V., Bouten, W., & Verstraten, J. M.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W1667160246
- Cited by
- 582
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 35.68
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improved treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Combining the strengths of global optimization and data assimilation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2004wr003059
- The paper
- Vrugt, J. A., Diks, C. G. H., Gupta, H. V., Bouten, W., & Verstraten, J. M. (2005). Improved treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Combining the strengths of global optimization and data assimilation. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004wr003059
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.