Toward diagnostic model calibration and evaluation: Approximate Bayesian computation

The ever increasing pace of computational power, along with continued advances in measurement technologies and improvements in process understanding has stimulated the development of increasingly complex hydrologic models that simulate soil moisture flow, groundwater recharge, surface runoff, root water uptake, and river discharge at different spatial and temporal scales. Reconciling these high‐order system models with perpetually larger volumes of field data is becoming more and more difficult, particularly because classical likelihood‐based fitting methods lack the power to detect and pinpoint deficiencies in the model structure. Gupta et al. (2008) has recently proposed steps (amongst others) toward the development of a more robust and powerful method of model evaluation. Their diagnostic approach uses signature behaviors and patterns observed in the input‐output data to illuminate to what degree a representation of the real world has been adequately achieved and how the model should be improved for the purpose of learning and scientific discovery. In this paper, we introduce approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) as a vehicle for diagnostic model evaluation. This statistical methodology relaxes the need for an explicit likelihood function in favor of one or multiple different summary statistics rooted in hydrologic theory that together have a clearer and more compelling diagnostic power than some average measure of the size of the error residuals. Two illustrative case studies are used to demonstrate that ABC is relatively easy to implement, and readily employs signature based indices to analyze and pinpoint which part of the model is malfunctioning and in need of further improvement.

[1]  J. A. Vrugt,et al.  Approximate Bayesian Computation in hydrologic modeling: equifinality of formal and informal approaches , 2013 .

[2]  Peter C. Young,et al.  Hypothetico‐inductive data‐based mechanistic modeling of hydrological systems , 2013 .

[3]  David J. Nott,et al.  Generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) and approximate Bayesian computation: What's the connection? , 2012 .

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

[5]  P. Reichert,et al.  Linking statistical bias description to multiobjective model calibration , 2012 .

[6]  Arnaud Doucet,et al.  An adaptive sequential Monte Carlo method for approximate Bayesian computation , 2011, Statistics and Computing.

[7]  Brandon M. Turner,et al.  A tutorial on approximate Bayesian computation , 2012 .

[8]  Jasper A. Vrugt,et al.  High‐dimensional posterior exploration of hydrologic models using multiple‐try DREAM(ZS) and high‐performance computing , 2012 .

[9]  M. Gutmann,et al.  Approximate Bayesian Computation , 2012 .

[10]  Martin Frey,et al.  Using discharge data to reduce structural deficits in a hydrological model with a Bayesian inference approach and the implications for the prediction of critical source areas , 2011 .

[11]  M. Sivapalan,et al.  Catchment classification: hydrological analysis of catchment behavior through process-based modeling along a climate gradient , 2011 .

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

[13]  H. Gupta,et al.  Correcting the mathematical structure of a hydrological model via Bayesian data assimilation , 2011 .

[14]  Tyler Smith,et al.  Development of a formal likelihood function for improved Bayesian inference of ephemeral catchments , 2010 .

[15]  Keith Beven,et al.  Calibration of hydrological models using flow-duration curves , 2010 .

[16]  J. Vrugt,et al.  A formal likelihood function for parameter and predictive inference of hydrologic models with correlated, heteroscedastic, and non‐Gaussian errors , 2010 .

[17]  George Kuczera,et al.  Critical evaluation of parameter consistency and predictive uncertainty in hydrological modeling: A case study using Bayesian total error analysis , 2009 .

[18]  K. Beven,et al.  A limits of acceptability approach to model evaluation and uncertainty estimation in flood frequency estimation by continuous simulation: Skalka catchment, Czech Republic , 2009 .

[19]  Peter Reichert,et al.  Analyzing input and structural uncertainty of nonlinear dynamic models with stochastic, time‐dependent parameters , 2009 .

[20]  Christophe Andrieu,et al.  Model criticism based on likelihood-free inference, with an application to protein network evolution , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[22]  Cajo J. F. ter Braak,et al.  Equifinality of formal (DREAM) and informal (GLUE) Bayesian approaches in hydrologic modeling? , 2009 .

[23]  Cajo J. F. ter Braak,et al.  Treatment of input uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Doing hydrology backward with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation , 2008 .

[24]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  A process‐based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model , 2008 .

[25]  Yuqiong Liu,et al.  Reconciling theory with observations: elements of a diagnostic approach to model evaluation , 2008 .

[26]  Paul Marjoram,et al.  Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology Approximately Sufficient Statistics and Bayesian Computation , 2011 .

[27]  C. Robert,et al.  ABC likelihood-free methods for model choice in Gibbs random fields , 2008, 0807.2767.

[28]  Mark M. Tanaka,et al.  Sequential Monte Carlo without likelihoods , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[30]  D. Kavetski,et al.  Towards a Bayesian total error analysis of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: Characterising model error using storm-dependent parameters , 2006 .

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

[32]  Keith Beven,et al.  A manifesto for the equifinality thesis , 2006 .

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

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

[35]  Q. Duana,et al.  Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX): An overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops , 2006 .

[36]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  The role of hydrograph indices in parameter estimation of rainfall–runoff models , 2005 .

[37]  K. Eckhardt How to construct recursive digital filters for baseflow separation , 2005 .

[38]  C. Diks,et al.  Improved treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Combining the strengths of global optimization and data assimilation , 2005 .

[39]  Henrik Madsen,et al.  An evaluation of the impact of model structure on hydrological modelling uncertainty for streamflow simulation , 2004 .

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

[41]  Paul Marjoram,et al.  Markov chain Monte Carlo without likelihoods , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  D. Balding,et al.  Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. , 2002, Genetics.

[43]  H. Haario,et al.  An adaptive Metropolis algorithm , 2001 .

[44]  M. Feldman,et al.  Population growth of human Y chromosomes: a study of Y chromosome microsatellites. , 1999, Molecular biology and evolution.

[45]  Heikki Haario,et al.  Adaptive proposal distribution for random walk Metropolis algorithm , 1999, Comput. Stat..

[46]  J. Arnold,et al.  AUTOMATED METHODS FOR ESTIMATING BASEFLOW AND GROUND WATER RECHARGE FROM STREAMFLOW RECORDS 1 , 1999 .

[47]  P. Diggle,et al.  Monte Carlo Methods of Inference for Implicit Statistical Models , 1984 .

[48]  Van Genuchten,et al.  A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils , 1980 .

[49]  J. K. Searcy Flow-duration curves , 1959 .