2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.103407
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A dynamic data-driven method for dealing with model structural error in soil moisture data assimilation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
29
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
0
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, they are good candidates to statistically characterize the model structural error. In this study, we further integrate the hybrid data assimilation approach (Zhang et al, 2019) into our previous sequential data-worth analysis framework (Wang et al, 2018). Once the potential predictions are obtained, data-worth analysis is implemented to quantify the worth of alternative monitoring strategy (in terms of observation location, frequency, data type, etc.).…”
Section: Core Ideasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, they are good candidates to statistically characterize the model structural error. In this study, we further integrate the hybrid data assimilation approach (Zhang et al, 2019) into our previous sequential data-worth analysis framework (Wang et al, 2018). Once the potential predictions are obtained, data-worth analysis is implemented to quantify the worth of alternative monitoring strategy (in terms of observation location, frequency, data type, etc.).…”
Section: Core Ideasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using multiple summary metrics that measure relevant parts of system behavior, we can gain information about how and where the model may be improved (Sadegh et al, 2015;Vrugt & Sadegh, 2013). In future works, we can simultaneously consider the surrogate and the model structural errors by combining the approach proposed in this work with methods that address model structural inadequacy (e.g., Duan et al, 2007;Madadgar & Moradkhani, 2014;Xu et al, 2017;Xu & Valocchi, 2015;Ye et al, 2010;Zeng et al, 2016;Zeng et al, 2018;Zhang et al, 2019).…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In many cases, however, only one-dimensional heterogeneity can be considered in parameter estimation based on information from local measurement profiles. For example, Zha, Zhu, Zhang, Mao, and Shi (2019) directly estimated a one-dimensional parameter field, and Brandhorst, Erdal, and Neuweiler (2017), Erdal, Neuweiler, and Wollschläger (2014), and Zhang et al (2019) estimated an additional bias to the state to consider model structural error, which can also stem from unresolved small-scale heterogeneity.…”
Section: Core Ideasmentioning
confidence: 99%