Articles | Volume 385
https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-129-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-129-2024
Post-conference publication
 | 
18 Apr 2024
Post-conference publication |  | 18 Apr 2024

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

Keith Beven, Trevor Page, Paul Smith, Ann Kretzschmar, Barry Hankin, and Nick Chappell

Related authors

The importance of retention times in Natural Flood Management interventions
Elizabeth Follett, Keith Beven, Barry Hankin, David Mindham, and Nick Chappell
Proc. IAHS, 385, 197–201, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-197-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-197-2024, 2024
Short summary
Technical note: The CREDIBLE Uncertainty Estimation (CURE) toolbox: facilitating the communication of epistemic uncertainty
Trevor Page, Paul Smith, Keith Beven, Francesca Pianosi, Fanny Sarrazin, Susana Almeida, Liz Holcombe, Jim Freer, Nick Chappell, and Thorsten Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2523–2534, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2523-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2523-2023, 2023
Short summary
Refining an ensemble of volcanic ash forecasts using satellite retrievals: Raikoke 2019
Antonio Capponi, Natalie J. Harvey, Helen F. Dacre, Keith Beven, Cameron Saint, Cathie Wells, and Mike R. James
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 6115–6134, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6115-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6115-2022, 2022
Short summary
Technical note: Hydrology modelling R packages – a unified analysis of models and practicalities from a user perspective
Paul C. Astagneau, Guillaume Thirel, Olivier Delaigue, Joseph H. A. Guillaume, Juraj Parajka, Claudia C. Brauer, Alberto Viglione, Wouter Buytaert, and Keith J. Beven
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3937–3973, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, 2021
Short summary
The era of infiltration
Keith Beven
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 851–866, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-851-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-851-2021, 2021
Short summary

Cited articles

Beven, K., Smith, P. J., and Wood, A.: On the colour and spin of epistemic error (and what we might do about it), Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 3123–3133, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-3123-2011, 2011. 
Beven, K. J.: EGU Leonardo Lecture: Facets of Hydrology – epistemic error, non-stationarity, likelihood, hypothesis testing, and communication, Hydrol. Sci. J., 61, 1652–1665, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2015.1031761, 2016. 
Beven, K. J.: Towards a methodology for testing models as hypotheses in the inexact sciences, Proceedings Royal Society A, 475, 2224, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2018.0862, 2019. 
Beven, K. J. and Lane, S.: Invalidation of models and fitness-for-purpose: a rejectionist approach, Chapter 5, in: Computer Simulation Validation – Fundamental Concepts, Methodological Frameworks, and Philosophical Perspectives, edited by: Beisbart, C. and Saam, N. J., Cham: Springer, 145–171, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70766-2_6, 2019. 
Beven, K. J. and Lane, S.: On (in)validating environmental models. 1. Principles for formulating a Turing-like Test for determining when a model is fit-for purpose, Hydrological. Process., 36, e14704, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14704, 2022. 
Download
Short summary
This paper presents a method of deciding when a hydrological model might be fit for purpose given the limitations of the data that are available for model evaluation. In this case the purpose is to reproduce the peak flows for an application that is concerned with evaluating the effect of natural flood management measures on flood peaks. It is shown that while all the models fail to pass the test at all time steps, there is an ensemble of models that pass for the hydrograph peaks.