Hydrological model selection: A Bayesian alternative

[1] The evaluation and comparison of hydrological models has long been a challenge to the practicing hydrological community. No single model can be identified as ideal over the range of possible hydrological situations. With the variety of models available, hydrologic modelers are faced with the problem of determining which model is best applied to a catchment for a particular modeling exercise. The model selection problem is well documented in hydrologic studies, but a broadly applicable as well as theoretically and practically sound method for comparing model performance does not exist in the literature. Bayesian statistical inference, with computations carried out via Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, offers an attractive alternative to conventional model selection methods allowing for the combination of any preexisting knowledge about individual models and their respective parameters with the available catchment data to assess both parameter and model uncertainty. The aim of this study is to present a method by which hydrological models may be compared in a Bayesian framework. The study builds on previous work (Marshall et al., 2004) in which a Bayesian approach implemented using MCMC algorithms was presented as a simple and efficient basis for assessing parameter uncertainty in hydrological models. In this study, a model selection framework is developed in which an adaptive Metropolis algorithm is used to calculate the model's posterior odds. The model used to illustrate our approach is a version of the Australian Water Balance Model (Boughton, 1993) reformulated such that it can have a flexible number of soil moisture storages. To assess the model selection method in a controlled setting, artificial runoff data were created corresponding to a known model configuration. These data were used to evaluate the accuracy of the model selection method and its sensitivity to the size of the sample being used. An application of the Bayesian model identification methodology to 11 years of daily streamflow data from the Murrumbidgee River at Mittagang Crossing in southeastern Australia concludes our study.

[1]  G. Kuczera.  Improved parameter inference in catchment models: 1. Evaluating parameter uncertainty , 1983 .

[2]  Walter C. Boughton,et al.  Systematic Procedure for Evaluating Partial Areas of Watershed Runoff , 1990 .

[3]  A. Jakeman,et al.  How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall‐runoff model? , 1993 .

[4]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods for Computing Bayes Factors , 2001 .

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

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

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

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

[9]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Performance of conceptual rainfall‐runoff models in low‐yielding ephemeral catchments , 1997 .

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

[11]  S. Chib,et al.  Marginal Likelihood From the Metropolis–Hastings Output , 2001 .

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

[13]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

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

[15]  Michael J. Stewardson,et al.  Comparison of six rainfall-runoff modelling approaches , 1993 .

[16]  P. Green.  Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination , 1995 .

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

[18]  G. Schwarz.  Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[19]  M. Franchini,et al.  Comparative analysis of several conceptual rainfall-runoff models , 1991 .

[20]  George Kuczera,et al.  Assessment of hydrologic parameter uncertainty and the worth of multiresponse data , 1998 .

[21]  R. Allan Freeze,et al.  A Comparison of Rainfall-Runoff Modeling Techniques on Small Upland Catchments , 1985 .

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

[23]  R. Moore,et al.  Hierarchical testing of three rainfall-runoff models in small forested catchments , 1999 .

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

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

[26]  Murugesu Sivapalan,et al.  Climate, soil, and vegetation controls upon the variability of water balance in temperate and semiarid landscapes: Downward approach to water balance analysis , 2003 .

[27]  D. Lindley.  A STATISTICAL PARADOX , 1957 .

[28]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Comparison of simple versus complex distributed runoff models on a midsized semiarid watershed , 1994 .

[29]  James O. Berger,et al.  Objective Bayesian Methods for Model Selection: Introduction and Comparison , 2001 .

[30]  J. Refsgaard,et al.  Operational Validation and Intercomparison of Different Types of Hydrological Models , 1996 .