The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1. Theory
Open accessAbstract
Parameter estimation in rainfall‐runoff models is affected by uncertainties in the measured input/output data (typically, rainfall and runoff, respectively), as well as model error. Despite advances in data collection and model construction, we expect input uncertainty to be particularly significant (because of the high spatial and temporal variability of precipitation) and to remain considerable in the foreseeable future. Ignoring this uncertainty compromises hydrological modeling, potentially yielding biased and misleading results. This paper develops a Bayesian total error analysis methodology for hydrological models that allows (indeed, requires) the modeler to directly and transparently incorporate, test, and refine existing understanding of all sources of data uncertainty in a specific application, including both rainfall and runoff uncertainties. The methodology employs additional (latent) variables to filter out the input corruption given the model hypothesis and the observed data. In this study, the input uncertainty is assumed to be multiplicative Gaussian and independent for each storm, but the general framework allows alternative uncertainty models. Several ways of incorporating vague prior knowledge of input corruption are discussed, contrasting Gaussian and inverse gamma assumptions; the latter method avoids degeneracies in the objective function. Although the general methodology is computationally intensive because of the additional latent variables, a range of modern numerical methods, particularly Monte Carlo analysis combined with fast Newton‐type optimization methods and Hessian‐based covariance analysis, can be employed to obtain practical solutions.
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
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
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
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
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
Thyer, M., Renard, B., Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., Franks, S. W., & Srikanthan, S. (2009) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2008wr006825 · Cited by 398
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., & Franks, S. W.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W1588946961
- Cited by
- 580
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 26.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1. Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2005wr004368
- The paper
- Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., & Franks, S. W. (2006). Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1. Theory. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005wr004368
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.