Soft combination of local models in a multi-objective framework

Conceptual hydrologic models are useful tools as they provide an interpretable representation of the hydrologic behaviour of a catchment. Their representation of catchment's hydrological processes and physical characteristics, however, implies a simplification of the complexity and heterogeneity of reality. As a result, these models may show a lack of flexibility in reproducing the vast spectrum of catchment responses. Hence, the accuracy in reproducing certain aspects of the system behaviour may be paid in terms of a lack of accuracy in the representation of other aspects. By acknowledging the structural limitations of these models, we propose a modular approach to hydrological simulation. Instead of using a single model to reproduce the full range of catchment responses, multiple models are used, each of them assigned to a specific task. While a modular approach has been previously used in the development of data driven models, in this study we show an application to conceptual models. The approach is here demonstrated in the case where the different models are associated with different parameter realizations within a fixed model structure. We show that using a "composite" model, obtained by a combination of individual "local" models, the accuracy of the simulation is improved. We argue that this approach can be useful because it partially overcomes the structural limitations that a conceptual model may exhibit. The approach is shown in application to the discharge simulation of the experimental Alzette River basin in Luxembourg, with a conceptual model that follows the structure of the HBV model.

[1]  Keith Beven,et al.  Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology , 2001 .

[2]  P. Gelder,et al.  Forecasting daily streamflow using hybrid ANN models , 2006 .

[3]  Lucy Marshall,et al.  Towards dynamic catchment modelling: a Bayesian hierarchical mixtures of experts framework , 2007 .

[4]  Hyosang Lee,et al.  Ensemble predictions of runoff in ungauged catchments , 2005 .

[5]  Dimitri P. Solomatine,et al.  Baseflow separation techniques for modular artificial neural network modelling in flow forecasting , 2007 .

[6]  James C. I. Dooge,et al.  Bringing it all together , 2004 .

[7]  Robert J. Abrahart,et al.  Multi-model data fusion for river flow forecasting: an evaluation of six alternative methods based on two contrasting catchments , 2002 .

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

[9]  Tiesong Hu,et al.  River flow time series prediction with a range-dependent neural network , 2001 .

[10]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Multi-model ensemble hydrologic prediction using Bayesian model averaging , 2007 .

[11]  M. Sivapalan.  Process complexity at hillslope scale, process simplicity at the watershed scale: is there a connection? , 2003 .

[12]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Multimodel Combination Techniques for Analysis of Hydrological Simulations: Application to Distributed Model Intercomparison Project Results , 2006 .

[13]  Stan Openshaw,et al.  A hybrid multi-model approach to river level forecasting , 2000 .

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

[15]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Hierarchical Mixtures of Experts and the EM Algorithm , 1994 .

[16]  Dimitri P. Solomatine,et al.  Optimal modularization of learning models in forecasting environmental variables , 2006 .

[17]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  A multistep automatic calibration scheme for river forecasting models , 2000 .

[18]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Multi-Model Combination Techniques for Hydrological Forecasting: Application to Distributed Model Intercomparison Project Results , 2005 .

[19]  Neil McIntyre,et al.  Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall‐runoff modelling: dynamic identifiability analysis , 2003 .

[20]  Rao S. Govindaraju,et al.  Prediction of watershed runoff using Bayesian concepts and modular neural networks , 2000 .

[21]  Ashish Sharma,et al.  Modeling the catchment via mixtures: Issues of model specification and validation , 2005 .

[22]  Asaad Y. Shamseldin,et al.  A comparative study of three neural network forecast combination methods for simulated river flows of different rainfall—runoff models , 2007 .

[23]  Keith Beven,et al.  Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modelling , 1993 .

[24]  Qingyun Duan,et al.  An integrated hydrologic Bayesian multimodel combination framework: Confronting input, parameter, and model structural uncertainty in hydrologic prediction , 2006 .

[25]  J. Monteith.  Evaporation and environment. , 1965, Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology.

[26]  Asaad Y. Shamseldin,et al.  A non-linear combination of the forecasts of rainfall-runoff models by the first-order Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy system , 2001 .

[27]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Effective and efficient algorithm for multiobjective optimization of hydrologic models , 2003 .

[28]  Keith Beven,et al.  Distributed Hydrological Modelling , 1998 .

[29]  A. Shamseldin,et al.  Methods for combining the outputs of different rainfall–runoff models , 1997 .

[30]  Hubert H. G. Savenije,et al.  A comparison of alternative multiobjective calibration strategies for hydrological modeling , 2007 .

[31]  Dong-Jun Seo,et al.  Towards the characterization of streamflow simulation uncertainty through multimodel ensembles , 2004 .

[32]  Ashu Jain,et al.  Integrated approach to model decomposed flow hydrograph using artificial neural network and conceptual techniques , 2006 .

[33]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  A framework for development and application of hydrological models , 2001, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.

[34]  Dimitri P. Solomatine,et al.  M5 Model Trees and Neural Networks: Application to Flood Forecasting in the Upper Reach of the Huai River in China , 2004 .

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

[36]  R. Abrahart,et al.  Comparing neural network and autoregressive moving average techniques for the provision of continuous river flow forecasts in two contrasting catchments , 2000 .

[37]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Hierarchical Mixtures of Experts and the EM Algorithm , 1994, Neural Computation.

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

[39]  Bruce A. Robinson,et al.  Treatment of uncertainty using ensemble methods: Comparison of sequential data assimilation and Bayesian model averaging , 2007 .

[40]  K. Lam,et al.  River flow time series prediction with a range-dependent neural network , 2001 .

[41]  Kuolin Hsu,et al.  Self‐organizing linear output map (SOLO): An artificial neural network suitable for hydrologic modeling and analysis , 2002 .

[42]  Göran Lindström,et al.  Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model , 1997 .