Evolution of ensemble data assimilation for uncertainty quantification using the particle filter‐Markov chain Monte Carlo method

[1] Particle filters (PFs) have become popular for assimilation of a wide range of hydrologic variables in recent years. With this increased use, it has become necessary to increase the applicability of this technique for use in complex hydrologic/land surface models and to make these methods more viable for operational probabilistic prediction. To make the PF a more suitable option in these scenarios, it is necessary to improve the reliability of these techniques. Improved reliability in the PF is achieved in this work through an improved parameter search, with the use of variable variance multipliers and Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. Application of these methods to the PF allows for greater search of the posterior distribution, leading to more complete characterization of the posterior distribution and reducing risk of sample impoverishment. This leads to a PF that is more efficient and provides more reliable predictions. This study introduces the theory behind the proposed algorithm, with application on a hydrologic model. Results from both real and synthetic studies suggest that the proposed filter significantly increases the effectiveness of the PF, with marginal increase in the computational demand for hydrologic prediction.

[1]  H. Moradkhani.  Hydrologic Remote Sensing and Land Surface Data Assimilation , 2008, Sensors.

[2]  Fredrik Gustafsson,et al.  On Resampling Algorithms for Particle Filters , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nonlinear Statistical Signal Processing Workshop.

[3]  Tyler Smith,et al.  Bayesian methods in hydrologic modeling: A study of recent advancements in Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques , 2008 .

[4]  George Kuczera,et al.  Toward a reliable decomposition of predictive uncertainty in hydrological modeling: Characterizing rainfall errors using conditional simulation , 2011 .

[5]  J. Zhu,et al.  Simultaneous estimation of land surface scheme states and parameters using the ensemble Kalman filter: identical twin experiments , 2011 .

[6]  Rong Chen,et al.  A Theoretical Framework for Sequential Importance Sampling with Resampling , 2001, Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice.

[7]  George Kuczera,et al.  Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 2. Application , 2006 .

[8]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  General Review of Rainfall-Runoff Modeling: Model Calibration, Data Assimilation, and Uncertainty Analysis , 2009 .

[9]  Ashish Sharma,et al.  Bayesian calibration and uncertainty analysis of hydrological models: A comparison of adaptive Metropolis and sequential Monte Carlo samplers , 2011 .

[10]  Jun S. Liu,et al.  Sequential Monte Carlo methods for dynamic systems , 1997 .

[11]  C. M. DeChant,et al.  Improving the characterization of initial condition for ensemble streamflow prediction using data assimilation , 2011 .

[12]  Hamid Moradkhani,et al.  Towards improved post‐processing of hydrologic forecast ensembles , 2014 .

[13]  H. Moradkhani,et al.  Snow water equivalent prediction using Bayesian data assimilation methods , 2011 .

[14]  R. De Keyser,et al.  Towards the sequential assimilation of SAR-derived water stages into hydraulic models using the Particle Filter: proof of concept , 2010 .

[15]  Peter Jan,et al.  Particle Filtering in Geophysical Systems , 2009 .

[16]  Bailing Li,et al.  Improving estimated soil moisture fields through assimilation of AMSR-E soil moisture retrievals with an ensemble Kalman filter and a mass conservation constraint , 2011 .

[17]  Jasper A. Vrugt,et al.  Hydrologic data assimilation using particle Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation: Theory, concepts and applications (online first) , 2012 .

[18]  Kuolin Hsu,et al.  Uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model states and parameters: Sequential data assimilation using the particle filter , 2005 .

[19]  H. Moradkhani,et al.  Ensemble Streamflow Prediction: Climate signal weighting methods vs. Climate Forecast System Reanalysis , 2012 .

[20]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  How Bayesian data assimilation can be used to estimate the mathematical structure of a model , 2010 .

[21]  P. Bickel,et al.  Obstacles to High-Dimensional Particle Filtering , 2008 .

[22]  Ashish Sharma,et al.  A comparative study of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for conceptual rainfall‐runoff modeling , 2004 .

[23]  Hamid Moradkhani,et al.  Toward reduction of model uncertainty: Integration of Bayesian model averaging and data assimilation , 2012 .

[24]  M. Canty,et al.  Hydraulic parameter estimation by remotely-sensed top soil moisture observations with the particle filter , 2011 .

[25]  C. M. DeChant,et al.  Radiance data assimilation for operational snow and streamflow forecasting , 2011 .

[26]  A. Doucet,et al.  A Tutorial on Particle Filtering and Smoothing: Fifteen years later , 2008 .

[27]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods , 2000 .

[28]  Hamid Moradkhani,et al.  Examining the effectiveness and robustness of sequential data assimilation methods for quantification of uncertainty in hydrologic forecasting , 2012 .

[29]  G. Lannoy,et al.  The importance of parameter resampling for soil moisture data assimilation into hydrologic models using the particle filter , 2011 .

[30]  A. Weerts,et al.  Particle filtering and ensemble Kalman filtering for state updating with hydrological conceptual rainfall‐runoff models , 2006 .

[31]  L. Feyen,et al.  Assessing parameter, precipitation, and predictive uncertainty in a distributed hydrological model using sequential data assimilation with the particle filter , 2009 .

[32]  J. Rosenthal,et al.  Optimal scaling for various Metropolis-Hastings algorithms , 2001 .

[33]  D. McLaughlin,et al.  Assessing the Performance of the Ensemble Kalman Filter for Land Surface Data Assimilation , 2006 .

[34]  Eric Moulines,et al.  Comparison of resampling schemes for particle filtering , 2005, ISPA 2005. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis, 2005..

[35]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Dual state-parameter estimation of hydrological models using ensemble Kalman filter , 2005 .

[36]  D. Higdon,et al.  Accelerating Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation by Differential Evolution with Self-Adaptive Randomized Subspace Sampling , 2009 .

[37]  A. Doucet,et al.  Particle Markov chain Monte Carlo methods , 2010 .

[38]  W. Kinzelbach,et al.  Real‐time groundwater flow modeling with the Ensemble Kalman Filter: Joint estimation of states and parameters and the filter inbreeding problem , 2008 .

[39]  George Kuczera,et al.  Monte Carlo assessment of parameter uncertainty in conceptual catchment models: the Metropolis algorithm , 1998 .

[40]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Investigating the impact of remotely sensed precipitation and hydrologic model uncertainties on the ensemble streamflow forecasting , 2006 .

[41]  Seong Jin Noh,et al.  Advancing data assimilation in operational hydrologic forecasting: progresses, challenges, and emerging opportunities , 2012 .

[42]  H. Moradkhani,et al.  Analyzing the uncertainty of suspended sediment load prediction using sequential data assimilation , 2012 .

[43]  H. Vereecken,et al.  Coupled hydrogeophysical parameter estimation using a sequential Bayesian approach , 2009 .

[44]  Arnaud Doucet,et al.  An overview of sequential Monte Carlo methods for parameter estimation in general state-space models , 2009 .

[45]  George Kuczera,et al.  Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1. Theory , 2006 .