Detection of structural inadequacy in process‐based hydrological models: A particle‐filtering approach

In recent years, increasing computational power has been used to weight competing hydrological models in a Bayesian framework to improve predictive power. This may suggest that for a given measure of association with the observed data, one hydrological model is superior to another. However, careful analyses of the residuals of the model fit are required to propose further improvements to the model. In this paper we consider an alternative method of analyzing the shortcomings in a hydrological model. The hydrological model parameters are treated as varying in time. Simulation using a particle filter algorithm then reveals the parameter distribution needed at each time to reproduce the observed data. The resulting parameter, and the corresponding model state, distributions can be analyzed to propose improvements to the hydrological model. A demonstrative example is presented using rainfall-runoff data from the Leaf River, United States. This indicates that even when explicitly representing the uncertainty of the observed rainfall and discharge series, the technique shows shortcomings in the model structure.

[1]  Markus Hürzeler,et al.  Monte Carlo Approximations for General State-Space Models , 1998 .

[2]  R. Moore,et al.  A distribution function approach to rainfall runoff modeling , 1981 .

[3]  G. Evensen.  Sequential data assimilation with a nonlinear quasi‐geostrophic model using Monte Carlo methods to forecast error statistics , 1994 .

[4]  Rong Chen,et al.  New sequential Monte Carlo methods for nonlinear dynamic systems , 2005, Stat. Comput..

[5]  R. Moore.  The probability-distributed principle and runoff production at point and basin scales , 1985 .

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

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

[8]  Nando de Freitas,et al.  An Introduction to Sequential Monte Carlo Methods , 2001, Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice.

[9]  L. See,et al.  An evaluation of a traditional and a neural net modelling approach to flood forecasting for an upland catchment , 2002 .

[10]  R. Moore.  The PDM rainfall-runoff model , 2007 .

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

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

[13]  Genshiro Kitagawa,et al.  Signal Extraction Problems in Seismology * , 2001 .

[14]  N. Whalley,et al.  Reliability and uncertainty in flow measurement techniques - some current thinking , 2001 .

[15]  M. Pitt,et al.  Filtering via Simulation: Auxiliary Particle Filters , 1999 .

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

[17]  V. Bell,et al.  Incorporation of groundwater losses and well level data in rainfall-runoff models illustrated using the PDM , 2002 .

[18]  Asaad Y. Shamseldin,et al.  Modification of the probability-distributed interacting storage capacity model , 1999 .

[19]  Jun S. Liu,et al.  Sequential Monte Carlo methods for dynamic systems , 1997 .

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

[21]  Rob Lamb,et al.  Calibration of a conceptual rainfall‐runoff model for flood frequency estimation by continuous simulation , 1999 .

[22]  Kuolin Hsu,et al.  Uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model states and parameters: Sequential data assimilation using the particle filter , 2005 .

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

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

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

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

[27]  Ashish Sharma,et al.  Hydrological model selection: A Bayesian alternative , 2005 .

[28]  Keith Beven,et al.  Modelling hydrologic responses in a small forested catchment (Panola Mountain, Georgia, USA): a comparison of the original and a new dynamic TOPMODEL , 2003 .

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

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

[31]  C. H. Leng,et al.  Aquifer parameter identification using the extended Kalman filter , 2003 .

[32]  Harihar Rajaram,et al.  Recursive parameter estimation of hydrologic models , 1989 .

[33]  H. Madsen,et al.  Data assimilation in hydrodynamic modelling: on the treatment of non-linearity and bias , 2004 .

[34]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Dual state-parameter estimation of hydrological models using ensemble Kalman filter , 2005 .

[35]  Ming Ye,et al.  Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of spatial variability models in unsaturated fractured tuff , 2003 .

[36]  R. E. Kalman,et al.  A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems , 2002 .

[37]  Yen-Chen Huang,et al.  Parameter estimation for leaky aquifers using the extended Kalman filter, and considering model and data measurement uncertainties , 2005 .

[38]  A. Petersen-Øverleir,et al.  Accounting for heteroscedasticity in rating curve estimates , 2004 .

[39]  P. Fearnhead.  Markov chain Monte Carlo, Sufficient Statistics, and Particle Filters , 2002 .

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