References

HESS

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences

HESS

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

1607-7938

Copernicus Publications

Göttingen, Germany

10.5194/hess-11-1797-2007

Soft combination of local models in a multi-objective framework

Fenicia

¹ ² Solomatine

D. P.

³ Savenije

H. H. G.

² Matgen

Public Research Center – Gabriel Lippmann, Luxembourg

Water Resources Section, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft Univ. of Technology, The Netherlands

UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands

22 11 2007

11 6 1797 1809

2007

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/11/1797/2007/hess-11-1797-2007.html

The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/11/1797/2007/hess-11-1797-2007.pdf

Conceptual hydrologic models are useful tools as they provide an interpretable representation of the hydrologic behaviour of a catchment. Their representation of catchment's hydrological processes and physical characteristics, however, implies a simplification of the complexity and heterogeneity of reality. As a result, these models may show a lack of flexibility in reproducing the vast spectrum of catchment responses. Hence, the accuracy in reproducing certain aspects of the system behaviour may be paid in terms of a lack of accuracy in the representation of other aspects. <br><br> By acknowledging the structural limitations of these models, we propose a modular approach to hydrological simulation. Instead of using a single model to reproduce the full range of catchment responses, multiple models are used, each of them assigned to a specific task. While a modular approach has been previously used in the development of data driven models, in this study we show an application to conceptual models. <br><br> The approach is here demonstrated in the case where the different models are associated with different parameter realizations within a fixed model structure. We show that using a "composite" model, obtained by a combination of individual "local" models, the accuracy of the simulation is improved. We argue that this approach can be useful because it partially overcomes the structural limitations that a conceptual model may exhibit. The approach is shown in application to the discharge simulation of the experimental Alzette River basin in Luxembourg, with a conceptual model that follows the structure of the HBV model.

References 1

Abrahart, R. J. and See, L.: Comparing neural network and autoregressive moving average techniques for the provision of continuous river flow forecasts in two contrasting catchments, Hydrol. Process., 14, 2157–2172, 2000.

Abrahart, R. J. and See, L. M.: Multi-model data fusion for river flow forecasting: an evaluation of six alternative methods based on two contrasting catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 655–670, 2002.

Ajami, N. K., Duan, Q., Gao, X. and Sorooshian, S.: Multi-model combination techniques for hydrological forecasting: Application to Distributed Model Intercomparison Project results, J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 755–768, 2006.

Ajami, N. K., Duan, Q. and Sorooshian, S.: An Integrated Hydrologic Bayesian Multi-Model Combination Framework: Confronting Input, Parameter and Model Structural Uncertainty in Hydrologic Prediction, Water Resour. Res., 43, W01403, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004745, 2007.

Beven, K. J.: Prophesy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modelling, Adv. Water Resour., 16, 41–51, 1993.

Beven, K. and Freer, J.: Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology, J. Hydrol., 249, 11–29, 2001.

Boyle, D. P., Gupta H. V., and Sorooshian S.: Towards improved calibration of hydrologic models: combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods, Water Resour. Res., 36, 3663–3674, 2000.

Corzo, G. and Solomatine, D. P.: Baseflow separation techniques for modular artificial neural network modelling in flow forecasting, Hydrol. Sci. J.,52 , 491–507, 2007.

Dooge, J. C. I.: Bringing it all together, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 3–14, 2005.

Duan, Q., Ajami, N. K., Gao, X., and Sorooshian, S.: Multi-Model Ensemble Hydrologic Prediction Using Bayesian Model Averaging, Adv. Water Resour., 30 , 1371–1386, 2007.

Fenicia, F., Savenije, H. H. G., Matgen, P., and Pfister, L.: A comparison of alternative multiobjective calibration strategies for hydrological modeling, Water Resour. Res., 43, W03434, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005098, 2007.

Georgakakos, K. P., Seo, D. J., Gupta, H., Schaake, J., and Butts, M. B.: Towards the characterization of streamflow simulation uncertainty through multimodel ensembles, J. Hydrol, 298, 222–241, 2004.

Gupta H. V., Sorooshian, S., and Yapo, P. O.: Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: multiple and noncommesurable measures of information, Water Resour. Res., 34, 751–763, 1998.

Hsu, K. L., Gupta, H. V., Gao, X., Sorooshian, S., and Imam, B., Self-organizing linear output map (SOLO): an artificial neural network suitable for hydrologic modeling and analysis, Water Resour. Res., 38, 1302, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000795, 2002.

Hu, T. S., Lam, K. C., and Ng, S. T.: River flow time series prediction with a range-dependent neural network, Hydrol. Sci. J., 46, 729–745, 2001.

Jain, A. and Srinivasulu, S.: Integrated approach to model decomposed flow hydrograph using artificial neural network and conceptual techniques, J. Hydrol., 317, 291–306, 2006.

Jordan, M. I. and Jacobs, R. A.: Hierarchical mixture of experts and the EM algorithm, Neural Comput. 6, 181–214, 1994

Lindström, G., Johansson, B., Persson, M., Gardelin, M., and Bergström, S.: Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model, J. Hydrol., 201, 272–288, 1997.

Marshall, L., Nott, D., and Sharma, A.: Towards dynamic catchment modelling: a Bayesian hierarchical mixtures of experts framework, Hydrol. Process., 21, 847–861, 2007.

Marshall, L., Sharma, A., and Nott, D.: Modeling the catchment via mixtures: Issues of model specification and validation, Water Resour. Res., 42, W11409, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004613, 2006.

McIntyre, N., Lee, H., Wheater, H., Young, A., and Wagener, T.: Ensemble predictions of runoff in ungauged catchments, Water Resour. Res., 41, W12434, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004289, 2005.

Monteith, J. L.: Evaporation and the environment, Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol., 19, 205–234, 1965.

Savenije, H. H. G.: Equifinality, a blessing in disguise?, Hydrol. Process., 15, 2835–2838, 2001.

See, L. and Openshaw, S.: A hybrid multi-model approach to river level forecasting, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 45, 523–536, 2000.

Shamseldin, A. Y., O'Connor, K. M., and Liang, G. C.: Methods for Combining the Output of Different Rainfall-Runoff Models, J. Hydrol., 197, 203–229, 1997.

Shamseldin, A. Y., O'Connor, K. M. and Nasr, A. E.: A comparative study of three neural network forecast combination methods for simulated river flows of different rainfall–runoff models, Hydrol. Sci. J., 52, 896–916, 2007.

Sivapalan, M.: Process complexity at hillslope scale, process simplicity at the watershed scale: is there a connection?, Hydrol. Process., 17, 1037–1041, 2003.

Solomatine D. P. and Xue, Y.: M5 model trees compared to neural networks: application to flood forecasting in the upper reach of the Huai River in China, J. Hydr. Eng., 6, 491–501, 2004.

Solomatine D. P.: Optimal modularization of learning models in forecasting environmental variables, Proc. of the iEMSs 3rd Biennial Meeting: "Summit on Environmental Modelling and Software", edited by: Voinov, A., Jakeman, A., Rizzoli, A., et al., Burlington, USA, July, CD ROM, http://www.iemss.org/iemss2006/sessions/all.html, 2006, 2006.

Vrugt, J. A., Gupta, H. V., Bastidas, L. A., Bouten, W., and Sorooshian, S.: Effective and efficient algorithm for multiobjective optimization of hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1214, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001746, 2003.

Vrugt, J. A. and Robinson, B. A.: Treatment of uncertainty using ensemble methods: Comparison of sequential data assimilation and Bayesian model averaging, Water Resour. Res., 43(1), W01411, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004838, 2007.

Wagener, T., McIntyre, N., Lees, M. J., Wheater, H. S., and Gupta, H. V.: Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modeling: dynamic identifiability analysis, Hydrol. Process., 17, 455–476, 2003.

Wang, W., van Gelder, P., Vrijling, J. K., and Ma, J.: Forecasting daily streamflow using hybrid ANN models, J. Hydrol., 324(1–4), 383–399, 2006.

Xiong, L., Shamseldin, A. Y., and O'Connor, K. M.: A nonlinear combination of the forecasts of rainfall-runoff models by the first-order Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy system, J. Hydrol., 245(1), 196–217, 2001.

Yapo, P. O., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: Multi-Objective Global Optimization for Hydrologic Models, J. Hydrol., 204, 83–97, 1998.

Zhang, B. and Govindaraju, R. S.: Prediction of watershed runoff using Bayesian concepts and modular neural networks, Water Resour. Res., 36 , 753–762, 2000.