How effective and efficient are multiobjective evolutionary algorithms at hydrologic model calibration

Abstract. This study provides a comprehensive assessment of state-of-the-art evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) tools' relative effectiveness in calibrating hydrologic models. The relative computational efficiency, accuracy, and ease-of-use of the following EMO algorithms are tested: Epsilon Dominance Nondominated Sorted Genetic Algorithm-II (e-NSGAII), the Multiobjective Shuffled Complex Evolution Metropolis algorithm (MOSCEM-UA), and the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm 2 (SPEA2). This study uses three test cases to compare the algorithms' performances: (1) a standardized test function suite from the computer science literature, (2) a benchmark hydrologic calibration test case for the Leaf River near Collins, Mississippi, and (3) a computationally intensive integrated surface-subsurface model application in the Shale Hills watershed in Pennsylvania. One challenge and contribution of this work is the development of a methodology for comprehensively comparing EMO algorithms that have different search operators and randomization techniques. Overall, SPEA2 attained competitive to superior results for most of the problems tested in this study. The primary strengths of the SPEA2 algorithm lie in its search reliability and its diversity preservation operator. The biggest challenge in maximizing the performance of SPEA2 lies in specifying an effective archive size without a priori knowledge of the Pareto set. In practice, this would require significant trial-and-error analysis, which is problematic for more complex, computationally intensive calibration applications. e-NSGAII appears to be superior to MOSCEM-UA and competitive with SPEA2 for hydrologic model calibration. e-NSGAII's primary strength lies in its ease-of-use due to its dynamic population sizing and archiving which lead to rapid convergence to very high quality solutions with minimal user input. MOSCEM-UA is best suited for hydrologic model calibration applications that have small parameter sets and small model evaluation times. In general, it would be expected that MOSCEM-UA's performance would be met or exceeded by either SPEA2 or e-NSGAII.

[1]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization , 1993 .

[2]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems , 2002, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Combining Convergence and Diversity in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  Ernst Hairer,et al.  Implementing Radau IIA Methods for Stiff Delay Differential Equations , 2001, Computing.

[6]  Misgana K. Muleta,et al.  Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis coupled with automatic calibration for a distributed watershed model , 2005 .

[7]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data , 1996 .

[8]  J. Seibert.  Multi-criteria calibration of a conceptual runoff model using a genetic algorithm , 2000 .

[9]  Henry Lin,et al.  Soil moisture patterns in a forested catchment: A hydropedological perspective , 2006 .

[10]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[11]  S R Ranjithan,et al.  Application of Genetic Algorithms for the Design of Ozone Control Strategies , 2000, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[12]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Scalable multi-objective optimization test problems , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[13]  Dimitri P. Solomatine,et al.  Adaptive cluster covering and evolutionary approach: comparison, differences and similarities , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  Henrik Madsen,et al.  Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model using multiple objectives. , 2000 .

[15]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[16]  D. Goldberg,et al.  A multiobjective approach to cost effective long-term groundwater monitoring using an elitist nondominated sorted genetic algorithm with historical data , 2001 .

[17]  J. D. Schaffer,et al.  Some experiments in machine learning using vector evaluated genetic algorithms (artificial intelligence, optimization, adaptation, pattern recognition) , 1984 .

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

[19]  Henrik Madsen,et al.  Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using automatic calibration with multiple objectives , 2003 .

[20]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  A Tutorial on the Performance Assessment of Stochastic Multiobjective Optimizers , 2006 .

[21]  Jeffrey Horn,et al.  Multi-objective optimal design of groundwater remediation systems: application of the niched Pareto genetic algorithm (NPGA) , 2002 .

[22]  David J. Groggel,et al.  Practical Nonparametric Statistics , 2000, Technometrics.

[23]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[24]  E. Hairer,et al.  Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II: Stiff and Differential-Algebraic Problems , 2010 .

[25]  Henrik Madsen,et al.  Comparison of different automated strategies for calibration of rainfall-runoff models , 2002 .

[26]  Misgana K. Muleta,et al.  Decision Support for Watershed Management Using Evolutionary Algorithms , 2005 .

[27]  Dragan Savic,et al.  WATER NETWORK REHABILITATION WITH STRUCTURED MESSY GENETIC ALGORITHM , 1997 .

[28]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  The Design of Innovation: Lessons from and for Competent Genetic Algorithms , 2002 .

[29]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Calibration of a semi-distributed hydrologic model for streamflow estimation along a river system , 2004, Journal of Hydrology.

[30]  Vijay P. Singh,et al.  The NWS River Forecast System - catchment modeling. , 1995 .

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

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

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

[34]  James Smith,et al.  A tutorial for competent memetic algorithms: model, taxonomy, and design issues , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[35]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  Comparing state-of-the-art evolutionary multi-objective algorithms for long-term groundwater monitoring design , 2005 .

[36]  S. Ranjithan,et al.  Using genetic algorithms to solve a multiple objective groundwater pollution containment problem , 1994 .

[37]  R. Carsel,et al.  Developing joint probability distributions of soil water retention characteristics , 1988 .

[38]  G. Kuczera.  Efficient subspace probabilistic parameter optimization for catchment models , 1997 .

[39]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Calibration of rainfall‐runoff models: Application of global optimization to the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting Model , 1993 .

[40]  D. Solomatine.  Genetic and other global optimization algorithms - comparison and use in calibration problems , 1998 .

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

[42]  F. Krogh,et al.  Solving Ordinary Differential Equations , 2019, Programming for Computations - Python.

[43]  Christopher J. Duffy,et al.  A TWO-STATE INTEGRAL-BALANCE MODEL FOR SOIL MOISTURE AND GROUNDWATER DYNAMICS IN COMPLEX TERRAIN , 1996 .

[44]  D. P. Solomatine,et al.  Two Strategies of Adaptive Cluster Covering with Descent and Their Comparison to Other Algorithms , 1999, J. Glob. Optim..

[45]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  Model identification for hydrological forecasting under uncertainty , 2005 .

[46]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review , 2003, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

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

[48]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Simplifying multiobjective optimization: An automated design methodology for the nondominated sorted genetic algorithm‐II , 2003 .

[49]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  Striking the Balance: Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Design for Conflicting Objectives , 2004 .

[50]  T. Gan,et al.  Automatic Calibration of Conceptual Rainfall-Runoff Models: Optimization Algorithms, Catchment Conditions, and Model Structure , 1996 .

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

[52]  Wesley W. Wallender,et al.  Inverse modeling of large-scale spatially distributed vadose zone properties using global optimization / W06503, doi:10.1029/2003WR002706 , 2004 .

[53]  J. Eheart,et al.  Using Genetic Algorithms to Solve a Multiobjective Groundwater Monitoring Problem , 1995 .

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

[55]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm , 2001 .