Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > UPH Problem 20 – reducing uncertainty in model ...

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

UPH Problem 20 – reducing uncertainty in model prediction: a model invalidation approach based on a Turing-like test

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

UPH Problem 20 – reducing uncertainty in model prediction: a model invalidation approach based on a Turing-like test. / Beven, Keith; Page, Trevor; Smith, Paul et al.
In: Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Vol. 385, 18.04.2024, p. 129-134.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Beven K, Page T, Smith P, Kretzschmar A, Hankin B, Chappell N. UPH Problem 20 – reducing uncertainty in model prediction: a model invalidation approach based on a Turing-like test. Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences. 2024 Apr 18;385:129-134. doi: 10.5194/piahs-385-129-2024

Author

Beven, Keith ; Page, Trevor ; Smith, Paul et al. / UPH Problem 20 – reducing uncertainty in model prediction: a model invalidation approach based on a Turing-like test. In: Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences. 2024 ; Vol. 385. pp. 129-134.

Bibtex

@article{ea8e188e7e72420fb3275611bfbe535b,
title = "UPH Problem 20 – reducing uncertainty in model prediction: a model invalidation approach based on a Turing-like test",
abstract = "This study proposes using a Turing-like test for model evaluations and invalidations based on evidence of epistemic uncertainties in event runoff coefficients. Applying the consequent “limits of acceptability” results in all the 100 000 model parameter sets being rejected. However, applying the limits, together with an allowance for timing errors, to time steps ranked by discharge, results in an ensemble of 2064 models that can be retained for predicting discharge peaks. These do not include any of the models with the highest (> 0.9) efficiencies. The analysis raises questions about the impact of epistemic errors on model simulations, and the need for both better observed data and better models.",
author = "Keith Beven and Trevor Page and Paul Smith and Ann Kretzschmar and Barry Hankin and Nick Chappell",
year = "2024",
month = apr,
day = "18",
doi = "10.5194/piahs-385-129-2024",
language = "English",
volume = "385",
pages = "129--134",
journal = "Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences",
issn = "2199-899X",
publisher = "Copernicus GmbH",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - UPH Problem 20 – reducing uncertainty in model prediction: a model invalidation approach based on a Turing-like test

AU - Beven, Keith

AU - Page, Trevor

AU - Smith, Paul

AU - Kretzschmar, Ann

AU - Hankin, Barry

AU - Chappell, Nick

PY - 2024/4/18

Y1 - 2024/4/18

N2 - This study proposes using a Turing-like test for model evaluations and invalidations based on evidence of epistemic uncertainties in event runoff coefficients. Applying the consequent “limits of acceptability” results in all the 100 000 model parameter sets being rejected. However, applying the limits, together with an allowance for timing errors, to time steps ranked by discharge, results in an ensemble of 2064 models that can be retained for predicting discharge peaks. These do not include any of the models with the highest (> 0.9) efficiencies. The analysis raises questions about the impact of epistemic errors on model simulations, and the need for both better observed data and better models.

AB - This study proposes using a Turing-like test for model evaluations and invalidations based on evidence of epistemic uncertainties in event runoff coefficients. Applying the consequent “limits of acceptability” results in all the 100 000 model parameter sets being rejected. However, applying the limits, together with an allowance for timing errors, to time steps ranked by discharge, results in an ensemble of 2064 models that can be retained for predicting discharge peaks. These do not include any of the models with the highest (> 0.9) efficiencies. The analysis raises questions about the impact of epistemic errors on model simulations, and the need for both better observed data and better models.

U2 - 10.5194/piahs-385-129-2024

DO - 10.5194/piahs-385-129-2024

M3 - Journal article

VL - 385

SP - 129

EP - 134

JO - Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences

JF - Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences

SN - 2199-899X

ER -