Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > On hypothesis testing in hydrology

Electronic data

  • Beven Hypothesis Testing

    Rights statement: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Beven KJ. On hypothesis testing in hydrology: Why falsification of models is still a really good idea. WIREs Water. 2018;5:e1278. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1278 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wat2.1278 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.

    Accepted author manuscript, 575 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

On hypothesis testing in hydrology: why falsification of models is still a really good idea

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

On hypothesis testing in hydrology : why falsification of models is still a really good idea. / Beven, Keith John.

In: WIREs WATER , Vol. 5, No. 3, e1278, 05.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{41a048f58dd64b689c70d7c5f8b38d12,
title = "On hypothesis testing in hydrology: why falsification of models is still a really good idea",
abstract = "This opinion piece argues that in respect of testing models as hypotheses about how catchments function, there is no existing methodology that adequately deals with the potential for epistemic uncertainties about data and hydrological processes in the modelling processes. A rejectionist framework is suggested as a way ahead, wherein assessments of uncertainties in the input and evaluation data are used to define limits of acceptability prior to any model simulations being made. The limits of acceptability might also depend on the purpose of the modelling so that we can be more rigorous about whether a model is actually fit-for-purpose. Different model structures and parameter sets can be evaluated in this framework, albeit that subjective elements necessarily remain, given the epistemic nature of the uncertainties in the modelling process. One of the most effective ways of reducing the impacts of epistemic uncertainties, and allow more rigorous hypothesis testing, would be to commission better observational methods. Model rejection is a good thing in that it requires us to be better, resulting in advancement of the science. ",
keywords = "data uncertainty, exploratory hydrology, model evaluation, model rejection , observation techniques",
author = "Beven, {Keith John}",
note = "This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Beven KJ. On hypothesis testing in hydrology: Why falsification of models is still a really good idea. WIREs Water. 2018;5:e1278. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1278 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wat2.1278 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.",
year = "2018",
month = may,
doi = "10.1002/wat2.1278",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "WIREs WATER ",
issn = "2049-1948",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - On hypothesis testing in hydrology

T2 - why falsification of models is still a really good idea

AU - Beven, Keith John

N1 - This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Beven KJ. On hypothesis testing in hydrology: Why falsification of models is still a really good idea. WIREs Water. 2018;5:e1278. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1278 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wat2.1278 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.

PY - 2018/5

Y1 - 2018/5

N2 - This opinion piece argues that in respect of testing models as hypotheses about how catchments function, there is no existing methodology that adequately deals with the potential for epistemic uncertainties about data and hydrological processes in the modelling processes. A rejectionist framework is suggested as a way ahead, wherein assessments of uncertainties in the input and evaluation data are used to define limits of acceptability prior to any model simulations being made. The limits of acceptability might also depend on the purpose of the modelling so that we can be more rigorous about whether a model is actually fit-for-purpose. Different model structures and parameter sets can be evaluated in this framework, albeit that subjective elements necessarily remain, given the epistemic nature of the uncertainties in the modelling process. One of the most effective ways of reducing the impacts of epistemic uncertainties, and allow more rigorous hypothesis testing, would be to commission better observational methods. Model rejection is a good thing in that it requires us to be better, resulting in advancement of the science.

AB - This opinion piece argues that in respect of testing models as hypotheses about how catchments function, there is no existing methodology that adequately deals with the potential for epistemic uncertainties about data and hydrological processes in the modelling processes. A rejectionist framework is suggested as a way ahead, wherein assessments of uncertainties in the input and evaluation data are used to define limits of acceptability prior to any model simulations being made. The limits of acceptability might also depend on the purpose of the modelling so that we can be more rigorous about whether a model is actually fit-for-purpose. Different model structures and parameter sets can be evaluated in this framework, albeit that subjective elements necessarily remain, given the epistemic nature of the uncertainties in the modelling process. One of the most effective ways of reducing the impacts of epistemic uncertainties, and allow more rigorous hypothesis testing, would be to commission better observational methods. Model rejection is a good thing in that it requires us to be better, resulting in advancement of the science.

KW - data uncertainty

KW - exploratory hydrology

KW - model evaluation

KW - model rejection

KW - observation techniques

U2 - 10.1002/wat2.1278

DO - 10.1002/wat2.1278

M3 - Journal article

VL - 5

JO - WIREs WATER

JF - WIREs WATER

SN - 2049-1948

IS - 3

M1 - e1278

ER -