Functional classification and evaluation of hydrographs based on Multicomponent Mapping (Mx)

51 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.

Catchments as simple dynamical systems: A case study on methods and data requirements for parameter identification (2014, result): “The third column of this table shows the percentage of calibrations that have a NSE exceeding 0.6, which is considered to be a lower boundary for reasonable model results [Pappenberger and Beven, 2004].”
Comparing expert judgement and numerical criteria for hydrograph evaluation (2015, methodology): “…technique (Rykiel 1996) and many authors advise combining visual inspection along with other qualitative evaluations with quantitative evaluation techniques (Chiew and McMahon 1993, Mayer and Butler 1993, Houghton-Carr 1999, Pappenberger and Beven 2004, Moriasi et al. 2007, Bennett et al. 2013).”
Influence of uncertain boundary conditions and model structure on flood inundation predictions. (2006, methodology): “The approach is a modified version of the Multicomponent Mapping by Pappenberger and Beven [ 72 ] in which data uncertainty has been expressed by pyramidal frustrums.”
Series distance – an intuitive metric to quantify hydrograph similarity in terms of occurrence, amplitude and timing of hydrological events (2011, unknown): “A notable recent exception is the Multicomponent Mapping approach proposed by Pappenberger and Beven (2004), where the distance of two hydrographs is measured by the fuzzy degree of membership in boxes placed around one hydrograph which are intersected by the other.”