Proceedings of IAHS
Proceedings of IAHS
PIAHS
Articles | Volume 385
Articles | Volume 385
https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-181-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-181-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 385
Post-conference publication
 | 
18 Apr 2024
Post-conference publication |  | 18 Apr 2024

Pros and cons of various efficiency criteria for hydrological model performance evaluation

Charles Onyutha

Cited articles

Alexander, D. L. J., Tropsha, A., and Winkler, D. A.: Beware of R2: simple, unambiguous assessment of the prediction accuracy of QSAR and QSPR models, J. Chem. Info. Mod., 55, 1316–1322, 2015. 
Beven, J. K.: Rainfall-Runoff Modelling – The Primer, 2nd Edition, Wiley-Blackwell, 488 pp., ISBN 978-0-470-71459-1, 2012. 
Beven, K. J. and Binley, A. M.: The future role of distributed models: model calibration and predictive uncertainty, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298, 1992. 
Blöschl, G., Bierkens, F. P., Chambel, A., et al.: Twenty-three unsolved problems in hydrology (UPH) – a community perspective, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 64, 1141–1158, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1620507, 2019. 
Cameron, S.: Why is the R squared adjusted reported?, J. Quant. Econ., 9, 183–186, 1993. 
More articles (17)
Download
Short summary
The choice of a calibration method is known to be one of sources of uncertainty in hydrological modeling. However, this study showed that the choice of an objective function for calibrating a model is another sub-source of uncertainty related to model calibration. Thus, a modeler should make use of several efficiency criteria to judge a model’s quality. Pros and cons of various efficiency criteria are documented to guide modelers in making hydrological predictions.
Read more
Share