The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of Maximum Likelihood Parameter estimation techniques for conceptual rainfall‐runoff models: Influence of calibration data variability and length on model credibility
Abstract
The success of an automatic calibration procedure is highly dependent on the choice of the objective function and the nature (quantity and quality) of the data used. The objective function should be selected on the basis of the stochastic properties of the errors present in the data and in the model. Also, the data should be chosen so as to contain as much valuable information about the process as possible. In this paper we compare the performance of two maximum likelihood estimators, the AMLE, which assumes the presence of first lag autocorrelated homogeneous variance errors, and the HMLE, which assumes the presence of uncorrelated inhomogeneous variance errors, to the commonly used simple least squares criterion, SLS. The model calibrated was the soil moisture accounting model of the U.S. National Weather Service's river forecast system (SMA‐NWSRFS). The results indicate that a properly chosen objective function can enhance the possibility of obtaining unique and conceptually realistic parameter estimates. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the estimation results to various characteristics of the calibration data, such as hydrologic variability and length, are substantially reduced.
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
Cited by
The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction
Beven, K., & Binley, A. (1992) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.3360060305 · Cited by 4,527
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
Physically based modeling in catchment hydrology at 50: Survey and outlook
Paniconi, C., & Putti, M. (2015) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1002/2015wr017780 · Cited by 374
Metadata
- Authors
- Sorooshian, S., Gupta, V. K., & Fulton, J. L.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1983-02
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 251-259
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2015887535
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.43
- 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: Evaluation of Maximum Likelihood Parameter estimation techniques for conceptual rainfall‐runoff models: Influence of calibration data variability and length on model credibility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/wr019i001p00251
- The paper
- Sorooshian, S., Gupta, V. K., & Fulton, J. L. (1983). Evaluation of Maximum Likelihood Parameter estimation techniques for conceptual rainfall‐runoff models: Influence of calibration data variability and length on model credibility. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/wr019i001p00251
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.