MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Uncertainty Quantification Framework for Simulation-based Flood Frequency Analysis

2025· article· W4417280464 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jonathan Romero-Cuéllar, James R. Craig, Bryan A. Tolson, Rezgar Arabzadeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythUncertainty analysisQuantileRisk managementFlood risk managementUncertainty quantification

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flood frequency analysis (FFA) is essential for flood risk management and infrastructure design, yet the uncertainty associated with flood quantile estimates is often poorly characterized or disregarded—especially under data-scarce conditions. Existing uncertainty quantification methods are frequently subjective, overly complex, or impractical for routine engineering use. We introduce a simulation-based uncertainty quantification framework—UQ-flood—that integrates a process-based hydrologic model, a stochastic weather generator, and a residual error model (REM). Designed for annual maxima, the REM accounts for model bias and residual variability, enabling the generation of probabilistic streamflow ensembles tailored to extreme event analysis. We apply UQ-flood to three Canadian watersheds with long streamflow records and contrasting hydroclimatic conditions. We compare its performance against traditional statistical FFA using the Generalized Extreme Value distribution and Bayesian inference. UQ-flood yields flood quantile estimates consistent with long-record statistical methods but with substantially narrower uncertainty bounds. Under short-record conditions (e.g., 30 years), UQ-flood maintains statistically consistent estimates, while statistical FFA produces wide, often impractical uncertainty intervals. Additional experiments reveal that omitting the REM introduces systematic bias in flood magnitude estimates. UQ-flood avoids parametric assumptions about flow distributions, circumvents hydrologic model biases, and is adaptable to data-limited conditions. By explicitly propagating uncertainty from hydrologic simulation to flood quantiles, UQ-flood offers a practical alternative for robust flood risk management, including applications in infrastructure design and floodplain mapping. We recommended integrating residual error models into continuous simulation frameworks to improve bias correction and uncertainty quantification in flood risk estimation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207