Evaluation of statistical models for forecast errors from the HBV model

62 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Uncertainty estimates by Bayesian method with likelihood of AR (1) plus Normal model and AR (1) plus Multi-Normal model in different time-scales hydrological models (2011, methodology): “Engeland et al. (2010) proposed a hierarchy of all the criteria which are reliability, resolution and efficiency.”
A log‐sinh transformation for data normalization and variance stabilization (2012, unknown): “The Box-Cox transformation has proven to be highly successful for many applications, including hydrological applications [e.g., Kuczera, 1983; Bates and Campbell, 2001; Thyer et al., 2002; Yang et al., 2007; Engeland et al., 2010].”
Hydrological uncertainty processor based on a copula function (2018, methodology): “2009, Engeland et al. 2010, Renard et al. 2010, Evin et al. 2014, Madadgar et al. 2014, Smith et al. 2015) and were used in this study. The interpretation of the predictive QQ plot can be found in Thyer et al. (2009). For the mathematical expressions of α-index and π-index, please refer to the previ”
Evaluation of the subjective factors of the GLUE method and comparison with the formal Bayesian method in uncertainty assessment of hydrological models (2010, unknown): “Engeland et al. (2010) compared three statistical models which are auto-regressive model for Box-Cox transformation, auto-regressive model for NQT-transformation and separate models for the positive and negative errors.”