An advanced regularization methodology for use in watershed model calibration

A calibration methodology based on an efficient and stable mathematical regularization scheme is described. This scheme is a variant of so-called Tikhonov regularization in which the parameter estimation process is formulated as a constrained minimization problem. Use of the methodology eliminates the need for a modeler to formulate a parsimonious inverse problem in which a handful of parameters are designated for estimation prior to initiating the calibration process. Instead, the level of parameter parsimony required to achieve a stable solution to the inverse problem is determined by the inversion algorithm itself. Where parameters, or combinations of parameters, cannot be uniquely estimated, they are provided with values, or assigned relationships with other parameters, that are decreed to be realistic by the modeler. Conversely, where the information content of a calibration dataset is sufficient to allow estimates to be made of the values of many parameters, the making of such estimates is not precluded by preemptive parsimonizing ahead of the calibration process. White Tikhonov schemes are very attractive and hence widely used, problems with numerical stability can sometimes arise because the strength with which regularization constraints are applied throughout the regularized inversion process cannot be guaranteed to exactly complement inadequacies in the information content of a given calibration dataset. A new technique overcomes this problem by allowing relative regularization weights to be estimated as parameters through the calibration process itself. The technique is applied to the simultaneous calibration of five subwatershed models, and it is demonstrated that the new scheme results in a more efficient inversion, and better enforcement of regularization constraints than traditional Tikhonov regularization methodologies. Moreover, it is argued that a joint calibration exercise of this type results in a more meaningful set of parameters than can be achieved by individual subwatershed model calibration. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[1]  S. Constable,et al.  Occam's inversion to generate smooth, two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data , 1990 .

[2]  K. Mitchell,et al.  Simple water balance model for estimating runoff at different spatial and temporal scales , 1996 .

[3]  J. Doherty,et al.  A hybrid regularized inversion methodology for highly parameterized environmental models , 2005 .

[4]  Clifford H. Thurber,et al.  Parameter estimation and inverse problems , 2005 .

[5]  Eldad Haber,et al.  Numerical strategies for the solution of inverse problems , 1997 .

[6]  G. Kuczera.  Improved parameter inference in catchment models: 1. Evaluating parameter uncertainty , 1983 .

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

[8]  A. N. Tikhonov,et al.  Solutions of ill-posed problems , 1977 .

[9]  Peter A. Troch,et al.  Tikhonov regularization as a tool for assimilating soil moisture data in distributed hydrological models , 2002 .

[10]  G. Marsily,et al.  An Automatic Solution for the Inverse Problem , 1971 .

[11]  G Bruckner,et al.  An inverse problem from 2D ground-water modelling , 1998 .

[12]  J. Doherty,et al.  METHODOLOGIES FOR CALIBRATION AND PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS OF A WATERSHED MODEL 1 , 2003 .

[13]  Samuel D. Conte,et al.  Elementary Numerical Analysis , 1980 .

[14]  Gwilym M. Jenkins,et al.  Time series analysis, forecasting and control , 1972 .

[15]  R. Parker,et al.  Occam's inversion; a practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data , 1987 .

[16]  Michael S. Zhdanov,et al.  Focusing geophysical inversion images , 1999 .

[17]  Richard B. McCammon,et al.  Users manual for an expert system (HSPEXP) for calibration of the hydrological simulation program; Fortran , 1994 .

[18]  Box Ge,et al.  Time series analysis: forecasting and control rev. ed. , 1976 .

[19]  D. Cox,et al.  An Analysis of Transformations , 1964 .

[20]  J. Doherty,et al.  The cost of uniqueness in groundwater model calibration , 2006 .

[21]  T. Skaggs,et al.  Recovering the release history of a groundwater contaminant , 1994 .

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

[23]  V. O. Shanholtz,et al.  Estimating selected parameters for the Kentucky Watershed Model from watershed characteristics , 1976 .

[24]  H. Engl,et al.  Regularization of Inverse Problems , 1996 .

[25]  William M. Alley,et al.  Effective Impervious Area in Urban Runoff Modeling , 1983 .

[26]  J. Doherty,et al.  Role of the calibration process in reducing model predictive error , 2005 .

[27]  B. Bates,et al.  Regionalization of rainfall‐runoff model parameters using Markov Chain Monte Carlo samples , 2001 .

[28]  E. Haber,et al.  On optimization techniques for solving nonlinear inverse problems , 2000 .

[29]  Henrik Madsen,et al.  Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model using multiple objectives. , 2000 .

[30]  W. Menke.  Geophysical data analysis : discrete inverse theory , 1984 .

[31]  B. Bates,et al.  A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Scheme for parameter estimation and inference in conceptual rainfall‐runoff modeling , 2001 .

[32]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control , 1977 .

[33]  John Doherty,et al.  Ground Water Model Calibration Using Pilot Points and Regularization , 2003, Ground water.

[34]  G. Backus,et al.  Numerical Applications of a Formalism for Geophysical Inverse Problems , 1967 .

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