The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analyzing input and structural uncertainty of nonlinear dynamic models with stochastic, time‐dependent parameters
Open accessAbstract
A recently developed technique for identifying continuous‐time, time‐dependent, stochastic model parameters is embedded in a general framework for identifying causes of bias and reducing bias in dynamic models. In contrast to the usual approach of considering bias in model output with an autoregressive error model or a stochastic process, we make the attempt to correct for bias within the model or even in model input. This increases the potential of learning about the causes of bias and of subsequently correcting deficits of the deterministic model structure. The time‐dependent parameters as formulated in our approach can also consistently be used for adding stochasticity to the model without losing precise fulfilment of conservation laws used for deriving the model equations. An additional advantage of the suggested procedure is that it makes it possible to derive more realistic uncertainty bounds of internal model variables than is the case when bias is only considered for measured model output. This is important for mechanistic models in which internal variables have a direct physical meaning. The concept is illustrated by an application to a simple eight‐parameter conceptual hydrological model. This application demonstrates the feasibility of the proposed approach and gives an impression of its potential for application to a large class of nonlinear, dynamic models.
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
Bayesian calibration of computer models
Kennedy, M. C., & O'Hagan, A. (2001) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00294 · Cited by 4,222
Beven, K., & Freer, J. (2001) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(01)00421-8 · Cited by 2,189
Estimating Uncertain Flow and Transport Parameters Using a Sequential Uncertainty Fitting Procedure
Abbaspour, K. C., Johnson, C. A., & van Genuchten, M. T. (2004) · Vadose Zone Journal · doi:10.2136/vzj2004.1340 · Cited by 1,153
Cited by
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
Kamariotis, A., Vlachas, K., Ntertimanis, V., Koune, I., Cicirello, A., & Chatzi, E. (2025) · ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part B: Mechanical Engineering · doi:10.1115/1.4067140 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Reichert, P., & Mieleitner, J.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 10
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W1916457060
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.91
- 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: Analyzing input and structural uncertainty of nonlinear dynamic models with stochastic, time‐dependent parameters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2009wr007814
- The paper
- Reichert, P., & Mieleitner, J. (2009). Analyzing input and structural uncertainty of nonlinear dynamic models with stochastic, time‐dependent parameters. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009wr007814
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.