Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
P. Young (1989)
Recursive Estimation, Forecasting, and Adaptive ControlControl and dynamic systems, 30
K. Beven, J. Freer, B. Hankin, K. Schulz (2000)
The use of generalised likelihood measures for uncertainty estimation in high order models of environmental systems
K. Beven (2002)
Towards an alternative blueprint for a physically based digitally simulated hydrologic response modelling systemHydrological Processes, 16
M. Anderson, P. Bates (2001)
Model Validation - Perspectives in Hydrological Science
K. Beven, J. Freer (2001)
Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodologyJournal of Hydrology, 249
Peter Young (2001)
Data-based Mechanistic Modelling and Validation of Rainfall-flow Processes
K. Beven (2001)
Dalton Medal Lecture: How far can we go in distributed hydrological modelling?
H. Gupta, S. Sorooshian, Patrice Yapo (1998)
Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of informationWater Resources Research, 34
Beven Beven (2001)
How far can we go in distributed hydrological modelling?Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 5
T. Ghezzehei, D. Or (2003)
Stress‐induced volume reduction of isolated pores in wet soilWater Resources Research, 39
(1996)
Bayesian calibration of flood inundation models, in Floodplain Processes, edited
P. Young (1984)
Alternative Recursive Approaches to Time-Series Analysis
K. Beven (2002)
Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environmentProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 458
(2002)
Modelling the Leaf River data
K. Beven (2000)
Uniqueness of place and process representations in hydrological modellingHydrology and Earth System Sciences, 4
Kennedy Kennedy, O'Hagan O'Hagan (2001)
Bayesian calibration of mathematical modelsJ. R. Stat. Soc., Ser. B, 63
Beven Beven, Freer Freer (2001)
Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systemsJ. Hydrol., 249
A. Minns, M. Hall (2004)
Rainfall-Runoff Modelling
P. Young (1984)
Recursive Estimation and Time Series Analysis, 149
Patrice Yapo, H. Gupta, S. Sorooshian (1998)
Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic modelsJournal of Hydrology, 204
P. Young (1998)
Data-based mechanistic modelling of environmental, ecological, economic and engineering systems.Environmental Modelling and Software, 13
G. Kitagawa (1996)
Monte Carlo Filter and Smoother for Non-Gaussian Nonlinear State Space ModelsJournal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 5
K. Beven (2002)
Towards a coherent philosophy for environmental modelling.
P. Young (2001)
The Identification and Estimation of Nonlinear Stochastic Systems
(1994)
Evaluation of predictive uncertainty in non-linear hydrological models using a Bayesian approach, in Statistics for the Environment II: Water Related Issues
M. Thiemann, M. Trosset, H. Gupta, S. Sorooshian (2001)
Bayesian recursive parameter estimation for hydrologic modelsWater Resources Research, 37
A. Jakeman, I. Littlewood, P. Whitehead (1990)
Computation of the instantaneous unit hydrograph and identifiable component flows with application to two small upland catchmentsJournal of Hydrology, 117
M. Kennedy, A. O’Hagan (2001)
Bayesian calibration of computer modelsJournal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 63
Beven Beven (2001)
Comment on M Kennedy and A O'Hagan, Bayesian calibration of computer modelsJ. R. Stat. Soc., Ser. B, 63
P. Young (2002)
Advances in real–time flood forecastingPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360
We believe that the paper by [2001] (hereinafter referred to as TTGS), while formally correct within the limitations of the underlying assumptions of their analysis, does not lead to sensible results in respect of the uncertainties normally associated with the parameters of hydrological models. Moreover, we feel that where these assumptions are reasonable, there may be more effective ways of achieving the same ends. In effect, the BARE methodology and the GLUE approach that they contrast it with, represent two extreme positions in a spectrum of possible Bayesian approaches to the problem. For instance, the results presented in the paper suggest that, in the BARE algorithm as implemented by TTGS , all of the error is treated as if it were “measurement error” and the estimated model parameters are obtained without any appreciable uncertainty. In other words, the estimated model appears, from the TTGS results, to be an almost deterministic, or true, representation of the system. In GLUE, on the other hand, the sources of error are treated implicitly in weighting the predictions of multiple (non‐error free) models, without strong assumptions about a measurement error model (which might indeed vary from model realization to model realization). However, both
Water Resources Research – Wiley
Published: May 1, 2003
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.