Evaluation of Uncertainties in Input Data and Parameters of a Hydrological Model Using a Bayesian Framework: A Case Study of a Snowmelt–Precipitation-Driven Watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, a Bayesian framework is proposed for investigating uncertainties in input data (i.e., temperature and precipitation) and parameters in a distributed hydrological model as well as their effects on the runoff response in the Kaidu watershed (a snowmelt–precipitation-driven watershed). In the Bayesian framework, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is used for providing the basic hydrologic protocols. The Delayed Rejection Adaptive Metropolis (DRAM) algorithm is employed for the inference of uncertainties in input data and model parameters with global and local adaptive strategies. The advanced Bayesian framework can help facilitate the exploration of variation of model parameters due to input data errors, as well as propagation from uncertainties in data and parameters to model outputs in both snow-melting and nonmelting periods. A series of calibration cases corresponding to data errors under different periods are examined. Results show that 1) input data errors can affect the distributions of model parameters as well as parameters’ correlation, implying that data errors could influence the related hydrologic processes as well as their relations; 2) considering input data errors could improve the hydrologic simulation ability for peak streamflows; 3) considering errors of temperature and precipitation data as well as uncertainties of model parameters can provide the best modeling simulation performance in the snow-melting period; and 4) accounting for uncertainties in precipitation data and model parameters can provide the best modeling performance during the nonmelting period. The findings will help enhance hydrological model’s capability for simulating/predicting water resources during different seasons for snowmelt–precipitation-driven watersheds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".