Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Vrugt, J.A.; Braak, ter, C.J.F.; Gupta, H.V.; Robinson, B.A. (2009)
Languages: English
Types: Article
In recent years, a strong debate has emerged in the hydrologic literature regarding what constitutes an appropriate framework for uncertainty estimation. Particularly, there is strong disagreement whether an uncertainty framework should have its roots within a proper statistical (Bayesian) context, or whether such a framework should be based on a different philosophy and implement informal measures and weaker inference to summarize parameter and predictive distributions. In this paper, we compare a formal Bayesian approach using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) with generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) for assessing uncertainty in conceptual watershed modeling. Our formal Bayesian approach is implemented using the recently developed differential evolution adaptive metropolis (DREAM) MCMC scheme with a likelihood function that explicitly considers model structural, input and parameter uncertainty. Our results demonstrate that DREAM and GLUE can generate very similar estimates of total streamflow uncertainty. This suggests that formal and informal Bayesian approaches have more common ground than the hydrologic literature and ongoing debate might suggest. The main advantage of formal approaches is, however, that they attempt to disentangle the effect of forcing, parameter and model structural error on total predictive uncertainty. This is key to improving hydrologic theory and to better understand and predict the flow of water through catchments
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Aronica G, Bates PD, Horritt MS (2002) Assessing the uncertainty in distributed model predictions using observed binary pattern information within GLUE. Hydrol Proc 16:2001-2016
    • Bates BC, Campbell EP (2001) A Markov chain Monte Carlo scheme for parameter estimation and inference in conceptual rainfallrunoff modeling. Water Resour Res 37(4):937-948
    • Beven KJ (1989) Changing ideas in hydrology. The case of physically based models. J Hydrol 105:157-172
    • Beven KJ (1993) Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modeling. Adv Water Res 16(1):41-51
    • Beven K (2006) A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. J Hydrol 320:18-36. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007
    • Beven KJ, Binley AM (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Proc 6:279-298
    • Beven K, Smith PJ, Freer JE (2008) So why would a modeller choose to be incoherent? J Hydrol 354:15-32. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol. 2008.02.007
    • Blasone RS, Vrugt JA, Madsen H, Rosbjerg D, Zyvoloski GA, Robinson BA (2008) Generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) using adaptive Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling. Adv Water Res 31:630-648. doi:10.1016/j.advwatres. 2007.12.003
    • Box GEP, Cox DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Ser B 26:211-246
    • Boyle DP (2000) Multicriteria calibration of hydrologic models. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson
    • Brazier RE, Beven KJ, Anthony SG, Rowan JS (2001) Implications of model uncertainty for the mapping of hillslope-scale soil erosion predictions. Earth Surf Proc Land 26:1333-1352
    • Christensen S (2004) A synthetic groundwater modeling study of the accuracy of GLUE uncertainty intervals. Nordic Hydrol 35:45- 59
    • Duan Q, Gupta VK, Sorooshian S (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Res 28:1015-1031
    • Engeland K, Gottschalk L (2002) Bayesian estimation of parameters in a regional hydrological model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 6(5):883-898
    • Feyen L, Beven KJ, De Smedt F, Freer JE (2001) Stochastic capture zone delineation within the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation methodology: conditioning on head observations. Water Resour Res 37(3):625-638
    • Franks SW, Beven KJ, Quinn PF, Wright IR (1997) On the sensitivity of soil-vegetation-atmosphere transfer (SVAT) schemes: equifinality and the problem of robust calibration. Agric For Met 86:63-75
    • Freer JE, Beven K, Ambroise B (1996) Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: an application of the GLUE approach. Water Resour Res 32(7):2161-2173
    • Gelman A, Rubin DB (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 7:457-472
    • Hankin BG, Hardy R, Kettle H, Beven KJ (2001) Using CFD in a GLUE framework to model the flow and dispersion characteristics of a natural fluvial dead zone. Earth Surf Proc Land 26:667-687
    • Hansson K, Lundin C (2006) Equifinality and sensitivity in freezing and thawing simulations of laboratory and in situ data. Cold Reg Sci Tech 44:20-37
    • Hornberger GM, Spear RC (1981) An approach to the preliminary analysis of environmental systems. J Env Manag 12:7-18
    • Iorgulescu I, Beven K, Musy A (2005) Data-based modelling of runoff and chemical tracer concentrations in the Haute-Mentue research catchment (Switzerland). Hydrol Proc 19:2557-2573. doi:10.1002/hyp.5731
    • Jensen JB (2003) Parameter and uncertainty estimation in groundwater modelling. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Series Paper No. 23
    • Kavetski D, Kuczera G, Franks SW (2006a) Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: theory. Water Resour Res 42:W03407. doi:10.1029/2005WR004368
    • Kavetski D, Kuczera G, Franks SW (2006b) Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: application. Water Resour Res 42:W03408. doi:10.1029/2005WR004376
    • Kuczera G, Parent E (1998) Monte Carlo assessment of parameter uncertainty in conceptual catchment models: the metropolis algorithm. J Hydrol 211:69-85
    • Lamb R, Beven K, Myrabø S (1998) Use of spatially distributed water table observations to constrain uncertainty in a rainfall-runoff model. Adv Water Res 22(4):305-317
    • Liu Y, Gupta HV (2007) Uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: toward an integrated data assimilation framework. Water Resour Res 43:W07401. doi:10.1029/2006WR005756
    • Mantovan P, Todini E (2006) Hydrological forecasting uncertainty assessment: incoherence of the GLUE methodology. J Hydrol 330:368-381. doi:10.1016/j.hydrol.2006.04.046
    • Marshall L, Nott D, Sharma A (2004) A comparative study of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for conceptual rainfall-runoff modeling. Water Resour Res 40:W02501. doi:10.1029/ 2003WR002378
    • McMichael CE, Hope AS, Loaiciga HA (2006) Distributed hydrological modeling in California semi-arid shrublands: MIKE SHE model calibration and uncertainty estimation. J Hydrol 317:307- 324
    • Mertens J, Madsen H, Feyen L, Jacques D, Feyen J (2004) Including prior information in the estimation of effective soil parameters in unsaturated zone modelling. J Hydrol 294(4):251-269
    • Misirli F, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Thiemann M (2003) Bayesian recursive estimation of parameter and output uncertainty for watershed models. In: Duan et al (eds) Calibration of watershed models, Water Sci. Appl. Ser., vol 6. AGU, Washington, pp 113- 124
    • Montanari A (2005) Large sample behaviors of the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) in assessing the uncertainty of rainfall-runoff simulations. Water Resour Res 41:W08406. doi:10.1029/2004WR003826
    • Montanari A (2007) What do we mean by uncertainty? The need for a consistent wording about uncertainty assessment in hydrology. Hydrol Proc 21(6):841-845. doi:10.1002/hyp.6623
    • Muleta MK, Nicklow JW (2005) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis coupled with automatic calibration for a distributed watershed model. J Hydrol 306:127-145
    • Romanowicz RJ, Beven KJ, Tawn J (1996) Bayesian calibration of flood inundation models. In: Anderson MG, Walling DE (eds) Floodplain processes. Wiley, Chichester, pp 333-360
    • Sorooshian S, Dracup JA (1980) Stochastic parameter estimation procedures for hydrologic rainfall-runoff models: correlated and heteroscedastic error cases. Water Resour Res 16(2):430-442
    • Tadesse A, Anagnostou EN (2005) A statistical approach to ground radar-rainfall estimation. J Atm Ocean Tech 22(11):1055-1071
    • Villarini G, Krajewski WF (2008) Empirically-based modeling of spatial sampling uncetainties associated with rainfall measurements by rain gauges. Adv Water Resour 31(7):1015-1023. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.04.007
    • Vogel RM, Stedinger JR, Batchelder R, Lee SU (2008) Appraisal of the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) method. Water Resour Res (in review)
    • Vrugt JA, Gupta HV, Bouten W, Sorooshian S (2003) A Shuffled Complex Evolution Metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters. Water Resour Res 39(8):1201. doi:10.1029/2002WR001642
    • Vrugt JA, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Wagener T, Bouten W (2006) Application of stochastic parameter optimization to the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model. J Hydrol 325(1-4):288- 307. doi:10.1016/j.hydrol.2005.10.041
    • Vrugt JA, ter Braak CJF, Diks CGH, Robinson BA, Hyman JM, Higdon D (2008a) Accelerating Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation by self-adaptive differential evolution with randomized subspace sampling. Water Resour Res (in review)
    • Vrugt JA, ter Braak CJF, Clark MP, Hyman JM, Robinson BA (2008b) Treatment of input uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: doing hydrology nackwards with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. Water Resour Res (in press)
    • Wagener T, Boyle DP, Lees MJ, Wheater HS, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (2001) A framework for development and application of hydrologic models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 5(1):13-26
    • Wang X, He X, Williams JR, Izaurralde RC, Atwood JD (2005) Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of crop yields and soil organic carbon simulated with EPIC. Trans Am Soc Agr Eng 48(3):1041-1054
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article

Collected from