Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 565

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A formal likelihood function for parameter and predictive inference of hydrologic models with correlated, heteroscedastic, and non‐Gaussian errors

Open access
Schoups, Gerrit, Vrugt, Jasper A.·2010·Water Resources Research

Abstract

Estimation of parameter and predictive uncertainty of hydrologic models has traditionally relied on several simplifying assumptions. Residual errors are often assumed to be independent and to be adequately described by a Gaussian probability distribution with a mean of zero and a constant variance. Here we investigate to what extent estimates of parameter and predictive uncertainty are affected when these assumptions are relaxed. A formal generalized likelihood function is presented, which extends the applicability of previously used likelihood functions to situations where residual errors are correlated, heteroscedastic, and non‐Gaussian with varying degrees of kurtosis and skewness. The approach focuses on a correct statistical description of the data and the total model residuals, without separating out various error sources. Application to Bayesian uncertainty analysis of a conceptual rainfall‐runoff model simultaneously identifies the hydrologic model parameters and the appropriate statistical distribution of the residual errors. When applied to daily rainfall‐runoff data from a humid basin we find that (1) residual errors are much better described by a heteroscedastic, first‐order, auto‐correlated error model with a Laplacian distribution function characterized by heavier tails than a Gaussian distribution; and (2) compared to a standard least‐squares approach, proper representation of the statistical distribution of residual errors yields tighter predictive uncertainty bands and different parameter uncertainty estimates that are less sensitive to the particular time period used for inference. Application to daily rainfall‐runoff data from a semiarid basin with more significant residual errors and systematic underprediction of peak flows shows that (1) multiplicative bias factors can be used to compensate for some of the largest errors and (2) a skewed error distribution yields improved estimates of predictive uncertainty in this semiarid basin with near‐zero flows. We conclude that the presented methodology provides improved estimates of parameter and total prediction uncertainty and should be useful for handling complex residual errors in other hydrologic regression models as well.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2009wr008933

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 565

Metadata

Authors
Schoups, G., & Vrugt, J. A.
Venue
Water Resources Research
Published
2010-10
Volume
46
Issue
10
ISSN
  • 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7973
OpenAlex
W2123677000
Cited by
565
References
3
FWCI
28.95
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: A formal likelihood function for parameter and predictive inference of hydrologic models with correlated, heteroscedastic, and non‐Gaussian errors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2009wr008933
The paper
Schoups, G., & Vrugt, J. A. (2010). A formal likelihood function for parameter and predictive inference of hydrologic models with correlated, heteroscedastic, and non‐Gaussian errors. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009wr008933

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.