Use of soft information to describe the relative uncertainty of calibration data in hydrologic models

[1] The impact of inaccurate or unreliable hydrological data on model calibration can be significant. A special case is when calibration data are from different sources with varying accuracy, e.g., missing streamflow measurements that have been supplemented by interpolation or extrapolation. Since the relative accuracy of data is commonly defined subjectively, model calibration with data of varying uncertainty is difficult. In this work, a framework using the method of order of importance is presented to incorporate soft information to describe the relative accuracy of calibration data. A numerical example using synthetic data is presented to demonstrate the validity of the methodology. The applicability of the framework is demonstrated for the Fishtrap Creek Catchment of Washington State, where the short streamflow record with significant gaps was reconstructed using support vector machines (SVM). Incorporation of this educated judgment about the relative accuracy of the calibration data resulted in identification of faulty model calibration as well as errors in the SVM prediction of extreme streamflow events, which would have been undetected otherwise. The methodology was further applied to two management scenarios involving flood frequency analysis and satisfying legally established in-stream flow requirements.

[1]  J. Stedinger,et al.  Water resource systems planning and analysis , 1981 .

[2]  Shie-Yui Liong,et al.  FLOOD STAGE FORECASTING WITH SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES 1 , 2002 .

[3]  Q. J. Wang The Genetic Algorithm and Its Application to Calibrating Conceptual Rainfall-Runoff Models , 1991 .

[4]  Chuntian Cheng,et al.  Combining a fuzzy optimal model with a genetic algorithm to solve multi-objective rainfall–runoff model calibration , 2002 .

[5]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models , 1998 .

[6]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data , 1996 .

[7]  J. Seibert Multi-criteria calibration of a conceptual runoff model using a genetic algorithm , 2000 .

[8]  Keith Beven,et al.  The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. , 1992 .

[9]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[10]  S. Kazama,et al.  Regionalization of lumped water balance model parameters based on multiple regression , 2001 .

[11]  S. Samanta,et al.  Flexible automated parameterization of hydrologic models using fuzzy logic , 2003 .

[12]  Göran Lindström,et al.  Multi‐variable parameter estimation to increase confidence in hydrological modelling , 2002 .

[13]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[14]  Jeffrey J. McDonnell,et al.  On the dialog between experimentalist and modeler in catchment hydrology: Use of soft data for multicriteria model calibration , 2002 .

[15]  Ferenc Szidarovszky,et al.  Multi-attribute decision making: dominance with respect to an importance order of the attributes , 1993 .

[16]  A. Jakeman,et al.  How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall‐runoff model? , 1993 .

[17]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .

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

[19]  C. V. Anderson,et al.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) , 2002 .

[20]  H. L. Penman Evaporation: an introductory survey , 1956 .

[21]  Nello Cristianini,et al.  An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-based Learning Methods , 2000 .

[22]  K. Beven,et al.  Bayesian Estimation of Uncertainty in Runoff Prediction and the Value of Data: An Application of the GLUE Approach , 1996 .

[23]  Peter C. Young,et al.  Data-based mechanistic modelling and the rainfall-flow non-linearity. , 1994 .

[24]  Henrik Madsen,et al.  Comparison of different automated strategies for calibration of rainfall-runoff models , 2002 .

[25]  D. Legates,et al.  Evaluating the use of “goodness‐of‐fit” Measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation , 1999 .

[26]  Hubert H. G. Savenije,et al.  Equifinality, a blessing in disguise? , 2001 .

[27]  Bryson C. Bates,et al.  Calibration of a modified SFB model for twenty-five Australian catchments using simulated annealing , 1997 .

[28]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[29]  W. J. Shuttleworth,et al.  Parameter estimation of a land surface scheme using multicriteria methods , 1999 .

[30]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information , 1998 .

[31]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall‐runoff models , 1992 .

[32]  C. Perrin,et al.  Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments , 2001 .

[33]  Keith Beven,et al.  Dalton Medal Lecture: How far can we go in distributed hydrological modelling? , 2001 .

[34]  George Kuczera,et al.  The quest for more powerful validation of conceptual catchment models , 1997 .