The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Status of Automatic Calibration for Hydrologic Models: Comparison with Multilevel Expert Calibration
Abstract
The usefulness of a hydrologic model depends on how well the model is calibrated. Therefore, the calibration procedure must be conducted carefully to maximize the reliability of the model. In general, manual procedures for calibration can be extremely time-consuming and frustrating, and this has been a major factor inhibiting the widespread use of the more sophisticated and complex hydrologic models. A global optimization algorithm entitled shuffled complex evolution recently was developed that has proved to be consistent, effective, and efficient in locating the globally optimal model parameters of a hydrologic model. In this paper, the capability of the shuffled complex evolution automatic procedure is compared with the interactive multilevel calibration multistage semiautomated method developed for calibration of the Sacramento soil moisture accounting streamflow forecasting model of the U.S. National Weather Service. The results suggest that the state of the art in automatic calibration now can be expected to perform with a level of skill approaching that of a well-trained hydrologist. This enables the hydrologist to take advantage of the power of automated methods to obtain good parameter estimates that are consistent with the historical data and to then use personal judgment to refine these estimates and account for other factors and knowledge not incorporated easily into the automated procedure. The analysis also suggests that simple split-sample testing of model performance is not capable of reliably indicating the existence of model divergence and that more robust performance evaluation criteria are needed.
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
A Simplex Method for Function Minimization
Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R. (1965) · The Computer Journal · doi:10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 · Cited by 28,905
Cited by
Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Liew, M. W. V., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.23153 · Cited by 13,446
Boyle, D. P., Gupta, H. V., & Sorooshian, S. (2000) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2000wr900207 · Cited by 696
Self-citationSediment management modelling in the Blue Nile Basin using SWAT model
Betrie, G. D., Mohamed, Y. A., van Griensven, A., & Srinivasan, R. (2011) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-15-807-2011 · Cited by 419
Emergent vulnerability to climate-driven disturbances in European forests
Forzieri, G., Girardello, M., Ceccherini, G., Spinoni, J., Feyen, L., Hartmann, H., Beck, P. S. A., Camps-Valls, G., Chirici, G., Mauri, A., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21399-7 · Cited by 373
Chen, H., Xu, C.-Y., & Guo, S. (2012) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.040 · Cited by 345
Metadata
- Authors
- Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., & Yapo, P. O.
- Venue
- Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
- Published
- 1999-04
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 135-143
- ISSN
- 1084-0699 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-5584
- DOI
- 10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(1999)4:2(135
- OpenAlex
- W2090137585
- Cited by
- 2,216
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.91
- 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: Status of Automatic Calibration for Hydrologic Models: Comparison with Multilevel Expert Calibration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(1999)4:2(135
- The paper
- Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., & Yapo, P. O. (1999). Status of Automatic Calibration for Hydrologic Models: Comparison with Multilevel Expert Calibration. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(1999)4%3A2(135
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.