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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Beven, K., & Freer, J. (2001) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(01)00421-8 · Cited by 2,189
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
Self-citationAppraisal of the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) method
Stedinger, J. R., Vogel, R. M., Lee, S. U., & Batchelder, R. (2008) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2008wr006822 · Cited by 386
Cited by
Characterising performance of environmental models
Bennett, N. D., Croke, B. F. W., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J. H. A., Hamilton, S. H., Jakeman, A. J., Marsili-Libelli, S., Newham, L. T. H., Norton, J. P., Perrin, C., et al. (2013) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.011 · Cited by 1,536
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
Parameter identification of the STICS crop model, using an accelerated formal MCMC approach
Dumont, B., Leemans, V., Mansouri, M., Bodson, B., Destain, J.-P., & Destain, M.-F. (2014) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.10.022 · Cited by 78
Irarrazaval, I., Werder, M. A., Linde, N., Irving, J., Herman, F., & Mariethoz, G. (2019) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface · doi:10.1029/2018jf004921 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Schoups, G., & Vrugt, J. A.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- 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.