Assessment of a stochastic interpolation based parameter sampling scheme for efficient uncertainty analyses of hydrologic models

This study assesses a stochastic interpolation based parameter sampling scheme for efficient uncertainty analyses of stream flow prediction by hydrologic models. The sampling scheme is evaluated within the generalised likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE; Beven and Binley, 1992) methodology. A primary limitation in using the GLUE method as an uncertainty tool is the prohibitive computational burden imposed by uniform random sampling of the model's parameter distributions. Sampling is improved in the proposed scheme by stochastic modeling of the parameters' response surface that recognizes the inherent non-linear parameter interactions. Uncertainty in discharge prediction (model output) is approximated through a Hermite polynomial chaos approximation of normal random variables that represent the model's parameter (model input) uncertainty. The unknown coefficients of the approximated polynomial are calculated using limited number of model simulation runs. The calibrated Hermite polynomial is then used as a fast-running proxy to the slower-running hydrologic model to predict the degree of representativeness of a randomly sampled model parameter set. An evaluation of the scheme's improvement in sampling is made over a medium-sized watershed in Italy using the TOPMODEL (Beven and Kirkby, 1979). Even for a very high (8) dimensional parameter uncertainty domain the scheme was consistently able to reduce computational burden of uniform sampling for GLUE by at least 15-25%. It was also found to have significantly higher degree of consistency in sampling accuracy than the nearest neighborhood sampling method. The GLUE based on the proposed sampling scheme preserved the essential features of the uncertainty structure in discharge simulation. The scheme demonstrates the potential for increasing efficiency of GLUE uncertainty estimation for rainfall-runoff models as it does not impose any additional structural or distributional assumptions.

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

[2]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Calibration of watershed models , 2003 .

[3]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

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

[5]  Keith Beven,et al.  Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in land surface‐atmosphere flux predictions , 1997 .

[6]  I. Rodríguez‐Iturbe,et al.  Random Functions and Hydrology , 1984 .

[7]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  A chaotic approach to rainfall disaggregation , 2001 .

[8]  Faisal Hossain,et al.  Hydrological model sensitivity to parameter and radar rainfall estimation uncertainty , 2004 .

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

[10]  A. Jayawardena,et al.  Analysis and prediction of chaos in rainfall and stream flow time series , 1994 .

[11]  P. E. O'connell,et al.  An introduction to the European Hydrological System — Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, “SHE”, 1: History and philosophy of a physically-based, distributed modelling system , 1986 .

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

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

[14]  Ronny Berndtsson,et al.  Evidence of chaos in the rainfall-runoff process , 2001 .

[15]  M. D. McKay,et al.  A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code , 2000 .

[16]  Steven C. McCutcheon,et al.  Water Quality Modeling , 2006 .

[17]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77 , 1992 .

[18]  Keith Beven,et al.  Dynamic real-time prediction of flood inundation probabilities , 1998 .

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

[20]  R. Spear.  Eutrophication in peel inlet—II. Identification of critical uncertainties via generalized sensitivity analysis , 1980 .

[21]  Roman Krzysztofowicz,et al.  Hydrologic uncertainty processor for probabilistic river stage forecasting , 2000 .

[22]  Karsten Schulz,et al.  Data‐supported robust parameterisations in land surface–atmosphere flux predictions: towards a top‐down approach , 2003 .

[23]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  An Approach to Sensitivity Analysis of Computer Models: Part II - Ranking of Input Variables, Response Surface Validation, Distribution Effect and Technique Synopsis , 1981 .

[24]  M. Trosset,et al.  Bayesian recursive parameter estimation for hydrologic models , 2001 .

[25]  R. Ghanem,et al.  Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach , 1990 .

[26]  Bellie Sivakumar,et al.  Chaos theory in hydrology: important issues and interpretations , 2000 .

[27]  Keith Beven,et al.  The Predictive Uncertainty of Land Surface Fluxes in Response to Increasing Ambient Carbon Dioxide , 2001 .

[28]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical Recipes: FORTRAN , 1988 .

[29]  Sastry S. Isukapalli,et al.  Computational Methods for the Efficient Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis of Models for Environmental and Biological Systems , 1999 .

[30]  Mircea Grigoriu,et al.  On the accuracy of the polynomial chaos approximation for random variables and stationary stochastic processes. , 2003 .

[31]  L. Devroye.  Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation , 1986 .

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

[33]  K. Beven,et al.  On constraining the predictions of a distributed model: The incorporation of fuzzy estimates of saturated areas into the calibration process , 1998 .

[34]  P. E. O'connell,et al.  An introduction to the European Hydrological System — Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, “SHE”, 2: Structure of a physically-based, distributed modelling system , 1986 .

[35]  James N. Kremer,et al.  Ecological implications of parameter uncertainty in stochastic simulation , 1983 .

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

[37]  Boris Faybishenko,et al.  Nonlinear dynamics in flow through unsaturated fractured porous media: Status and perspectives , 2004 .

[38]  Boris Faybishenko,et al.  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Title Nonlinear dynamics in flow through unsaturated fractured-porous media : Status and perspectives Permalink , 2004 .

[39]  James E. Campbell,et al.  An Approach to Sensitivity Analysis of Computer Models: Part I—Introduction, Input Variable Selection and Preliminary Variable Assessment , 1981 .

[40]  M. B. Beck,et al.  Water quality modeling: A review of the analysis of uncertainty , 1987 .

[41]  V. Singh,et al.  Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology , 1995 .

[42]  Jan Feyen,et al.  Constraining soil hydraulic parameter and output uncertainty of the distributed hydrological MIKE SHE model using the GLUE framework , 2002 .

[43]  N. Wiener.  The Homogeneous Chaos , 1938 .

[44]  Bellie Sivakumar,et al.  Chaos theory in geophysics: past, present and future , 2004 .

[45]  C. T. Haan,et al.  Uncertainty analysis using corrected first‐order approximation method , 2001 .

[46]  K. Beven,et al.  A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology , 1979 .