comparison of different approaches to quantify the reliability of hydrological simulations

Clicks: 97
ID: 254257
2007
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #60 of 65 articles by views in journal of the medical library association

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The focus of this study was to compare different uncertainty estimation approaches to evaluate their ability to predict the total amount of uncertainty in hydrological model predictions. Three different approaches have been compared. Two of them were based on Monte-Carlo sampling and the third approach was based on fitting a probability model to the error series of an optimized simulation. These approaches have been applied to a lumped and a semi-distributed model variant, to investigate the effects of changes in the model structure on the uncertainty assessment. The probability model was not able to predict the total amount of uncertainty when compared with the Monte-Carlo based approaches. The uncertainty related to the simulation of flood events was systematically underestimated.
Reference Key
gattke2007advancescomparison Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;C. Gattke;A. Schumann
Journal journal of the medical library association
Year 2007
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://www.adv-geosci.net/11/15/2007/adgeo-11-15-2007.pdf
Keywords
sciencegeologydynamic and structural geology

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.