Improved treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Combining the strengths of global optimization and data assimilation

Hydrologic models use relatively simple mathematical equations to conceptualize and aggregate the complex, spatially distributed, and highly interrelated water, energy, and vegetation processes in a watershed. A consequence of process aggregation is that the model parameters often do not represent directly measurable entities and must therefore be estimated using measurements of the system inputs and outputs. During this process, known as model calibration, the parameters are adjusted so that the behavior of the model approximates, as closely and consistently as possible, the observed response of the hydrologic system over some historical period of time. In practice, however, because of errors in the model structure and the input (forcing) and output data, this has proven to be difficult, leading to considerable uncertainty in the model predictions. This paper surveys the limitations of current model calibration methodologies, which treat the uncertainty in the input‐output relationship as being primarily attributable to uncertainty in the parameters and presents a simultaneous optimization and data assimilation (SODA) method, which improves the treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling. The usefulness and applicability of SODA is demonstrated by means of a pilot study using data from the Leaf River watershed in Mississippi and a simple hydrologic model with typical conceptual components.

[1]  N. Metropolis,et al.  Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines , 1953, Resonance.

[2]  E. Lorenz.  Deterministic nonperiodic flow , 1963 .

[3]  W. K. Hastings,et al.  Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications , 1970 .

[4]  P. Young,et al.  Time series analysis, forecasting and control , 1972, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[5]  G. C. Tiao,et al.  Bayesian inference in statistical analysis , 1973 .

[6]  Peter C. Young,et al.  The modelling and control of water quality in a river system , 1974, Autom..

[7]  M. B. Beck,et al.  A dynamic model for DO—BOD relationships in a non-tidal stream , 1975 .

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

[9]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Stochastic parameter estimation procedures for hydrologie rainfall‐runoff models: Correlated and heteroscedastic error cases , 1980 .

[10]  Peter K. Kitanidis,et al.  Real‐time forecasting with a conceptual hydrologic model: 1. Analysis of uncertainty , 1980 .

[11]  Peter K. Kitanidis,et al.  Adaptive filtering through detection of isolated transient errors in rainfall‐runoff models , 1980 .

[12]  J. Rice.  Bandwidth Choice for Nonparametric Regression , 1984 .

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

[14]  M. B. Beck.  Lake eutrophication: Identification of tributary nutrient loading and sediment resuspension dynamics , 1985 .

[15]  Eric F. Wood,et al.  Partitioned state and parameter estimation for real-time flood forecasting , 1985 .

[16]  Peter C. Young,et al.  Time-Series Methods and Recursive Estimation in Hydrological Systems Analysis , 1986 .

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

[18]  Karel J. Keesman,et al.  Membership-set estimation using random scanning and principal componet analysis , 1990 .

[19]  P. Hall,et al.  Asymptotically optimal difference-based estimation of variance in nonparametric regression , 1990 .

[20]  Karel J. Keesman,et al.  Uncertainty propagation and speculation in projective forecasts of environmental change - a lake eutrophication example. , 1991 .

[21]  H. Scholten,et al.  Prediction Uncertainty in an Ecological Model of the Oosterschelde Estuary , 1991 .

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

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

[24]  G. Evensen.  Using the Extended Kalman Filter with a Multilayer Quasi-Geostrophic Ocean Model , 1992 .

[25]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .

[26]  T. Gasser,et al.  Nonparametric estimation of residual variance revisited , 1993 .

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

[28]  Michael Ghil,et al.  Advanced data assimilation in strongly nonlinear dynamical systems , 1994 .

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

[30]  G. Evensen,et al.  Assimilation of Geosat altimeter data for the Agulhas current using the ensemble Kalman filter with , 1996 .

[31]  Geir Evensen,et al.  Advanced Data Assimilation for Strongly Nonlinear Dynamics , 1997 .

[32]  G. Evensen,et al.  Analysis Scheme in the Ensemble Kalman Filter , 1998 .

[33]  Holger Dette,et al.  Estimating the variance in nonparametric regression—what is a reasonable choice? , 1998 .

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

[35]  P. Houtekamer,et al.  Data Assimilation Using an Ensemble Kalman Filter Technique , 1998 .

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

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

[38]  Pierre FJ Lermusiaux.  Data Assimilation via Error Subspace Statistical Estimation. , 1999 .

[39]  H. Madsen,et al.  Comparison of extended and ensemble Kalman filters for data assimilation in coastal area modelling , 1999 .

[40]  Christian L. Keppenne,et al.  Data Assimilation into a Primitive-Equation Model with a Parallel Ensemble Kalman Filter , 2000 .

[41]  G. Evensen,et al.  An ensemble Kalman smoother for nonlinear dynamics , 2000 .

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

[43]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Toward improved identifiability of hydrologic model parameters: The information content of experimental data , 2002 .

[44]  Willem Bouten,et al.  Information content of data for identifying soil hydraulic parameters from outflow experiments , 2001 .

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

[46]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  A Shuffled Complex Evolution Metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters , 2002 .

[47]  Peter C Young,et al.  Advances in real–time flood forecasting , 2002, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

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

[49]  D. McLaughlin,et al.  Hydrologic Data Assimilation with the Ensemble Kalman Filter , 2002 .

[50]  Feyzan Misirli Baysal.  Improving efficiency and effectiveness of Bayesian recursive parameter estimation for hydrologic models , 2003 .

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

[52]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Reply to comment by K. Beven and P. Young on “Bayesian recursive parameter estimation for hydrologic models” , 2003 .

[53]  S. Dekker,et al.  Identification of rainfall interception model parameters from measurements of throughfall and forest canopy storage , 2003 .

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