Incorporating observational errors in multivariate hydrologic model calibration: the value in known unknowns

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Approach ◽  
Model Calibration ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Hydrologic Model ◽  
Calibration Data ◽  
Quality Model ◽  
Area Index ◽  
Multi Objective ◽  
Observational Errors ◽  
Hydrologic Model Calibration

<div> <p>The latest generation of integrated hydrologic models provides new opportunities to better understand and hypothesize about the connections between hydrological, ecological and energy transfer processes across a range of scales. Parallel to this has been unprecedented growth in new technologies to observe components of Earth’s biophysical system through satellite remote sensing or on-the-ground instruments. However, along with growth in available data and advanced modelling platforms comes a challenge to ensure models are representative of catchment systems and are not unrealistically confident in their predictions. Many hydrologic and ecosystem variables are measured infrequently, measured with significant error, or are measured at a scale different to their representation in a model. In fact, the modelled variable of interest is frequently not directly observed but inferred from surrogate measurements. This introduces errors in model calibration that will affect whether our models are representative of the systems we seek to understand.</p> </div><div> <p>In recent years, Bayesian inference has emerged as a powerful tool in the environmental modeler’s toolbox, providing a convenient framework in which to model parameter and observational uncertainties. The Bayesian approach is ideal for multivariate model calibration, by defining proper prior distributions that can be considered analogous to the weighting often prescribed in traditional multi-objective calibration. </p> </div><div> <p>In this study, we develop a multi-objective Bayesian approach to hydrologic model inference that explicitly capitalises on a priori knowledge of observational errors to improve parameter estimation and uncertainty estimation. We introduce a novel error model, which partitions observation and model residual error according to prior knowledge of the estimated uncertainty in the calibration data. We demonstrate our approach in two case studies: an ecohydrologic model where we make use of the known uncertainty in satellite retrievals of Leaf Area Index (LAI), and a water quality model using turbidity as a proxy for Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Overall, we aim to demonstrate the need to properly account for known observational errors in proper hydrologic model calibration.</p> </div>

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

2006 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Tang ◽  
P. Reed ◽  
T. Wagener
Keyword(s):  
Model Calibration ◽  
Standardized Test ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Hydrologic Model ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Significant Trial ◽  
Computationally Intensive ◽  
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 (ε-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. ε-NSGAII appears to be superior to MOSCEM-UA and competitive with SPEA2 for hydrologic model calibration. ε-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 ε-NSGAII.

Targeted hydrologic model calibration to improve prediction of ecologically-relevant flow metrics

2019 ◽  
Vol 573 ◽  
pp. 546-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah R. Parker ◽  
Stephen K. Adams ◽  
Roderick W. Lammers ◽  
Eric D. Stein ◽  
Brian P. Bledsoe
Keyword(s):  
Model Calibration ◽  
Hydrologic Model ◽  
Hydrologic Model Calibration

Multi-objective Optimization of Catchment Reforestation Robust to Uncertainty in Bayesian-Calibrated Watershed Model Parameters

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared Smith ◽  
Laurence Lin ◽  
Julianne Quinn ◽  
Lawrence Band
Keyword(s):  
Computational Cost ◽  
Bayesian Framework ◽  
Hydrologic Model ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Critical Parameters ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Calibration Data ◽  
Baltimore County ◽  
True Parameter ◽  
Multi Objective

<p>Urban land expansion is expected for our changing world, which unmitigated will result in increased flooding and nutrient exports that already wreak havoc on the wellbeing of coupled human-natural systems worldwide. Reforestation of urbanized catchments is one green infrastructure strategy to reduce stormwater volumes and nutrient exports. Reforestation designs must balance the benefits of flood flow reduction against the costs of implementation and the chance to exacerbate droughts via reduction in recharge that supplies low flows. Optimal locations and numbers of trees depend on the spatial distribution of runoff and streamflow in a catchment; however, calibration data are often only available at the catchment outlet. Equifinal model parameterizations for the outlet can result in uncertainty in the locations and magnitudes of streamflows across the catchment, which can lead to different optimal reforestation designs for different parameterizations.</p><p>Multi-objective robust optimization (MORO) has been proposed to discover reforestation designs that are robust to such parametric model uncertainty. However, it has not been shown that this actually results in better decisions than optimizing to a single, most likely parameter set, which would be less computationally expensive. In this work, the utility of MORO is assessed by comparing reforestation designs optimized using these two approaches with reforestation designs optimized to a synthetic true set of hydrologic model parameters. The spatially-distributed RHESSys ecohydrological model is employed for this study of a suburban-forested catchment in Baltimore County, Maryland, USA. Calibration of the model’s critical parameters is completed using a Bayesian framework to estimate the joint posterior distribution of the parameters. The Bayesian framework estimates the probability that different parameterizations generated the synthetic streamflow data, allowing the MORO process to evaluate reforestation portfolios across a probability-weighted sample of parameter sets in search of solutions that are robust to this uncertainty.</p><p>Reforestation portfolios are designed to minimize flooding, low flow intensity, and construction costs (number of trees). Comparing the Pareto front obtained from using MORO with the Pareto fronts obtained from optimizing to the estimated maximum a posteriori (MAP) parameter set and the synthetic true parameter set, we find that MORO solutions are closer to the synthetic solutions than are MAP solutions. This illustrates the value of considering parametric uncertainty in designing robust water systems despite the additional computational cost.</p>

scholarly journals Testing alternative uses of electromagnetic data to reduce the prediction error of groundwater models

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 1925-1946 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaj Kruse Christensen ◽  
Steen Christensen ◽  
Ty Paul A. Ferre
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Resistivity ◽  
Hydraulic Conductivity ◽  
Prediction Error ◽  
Model Calibration ◽  
Hydrologic Model ◽  
Geophysical Data ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Calibration Data ◽  
Groundwater Model ◽  
And Inversion

Abstract. In spite of geophysics being used increasingly, it is often unclear how and when the integration of geophysical data and models can best improve the construction and predictive capability of groundwater models. This paper uses a newly developed HYdrogeophysical TEst-Bench (HYTEB) that is a collection of geological, groundwater and geophysical modeling and inversion software to demonstrate alternative uses of electromagnetic (EM) data for groundwater modeling in a hydrogeological environment consisting of various types of glacial deposits with typical hydraulic conductivities and electrical resistivities covering impermeable bedrock with low resistivity (clay). The synthetic 3-D reference system is designed so that there is a perfect relationship between hydraulic conductivity and electrical resistivity. For this system it is investigated to what extent groundwater model calibration and, often more importantly, model predictions can be improved by including in the calibration process electrical resistivity estimates obtained from TEM data. In all calibration cases, the hydraulic conductivity field is highly parameterized and the estimation is stabilized by (in most cases) geophysics-based regularization. For the studied system and inversion approaches it is found that resistivities estimated by sequential hydrogeophysical inversion (SHI) or joint hydrogeophysical inversion (JHI) should be used with caution as estimators of hydraulic conductivity or as regularization means for subsequent hydrological inversion. The limited groundwater model improvement obtained by using the geophysical data probably mainly arises from the way these data are used here: the alternative inversion approaches propagate geophysical estimation errors into the hydrologic model parameters. It was expected that JHI would compensate for this, but the hydrologic data were apparently insufficient to secure such compensation. With respect to reducing model prediction error, it depends on the type of prediction whether it has value to include geophysics in a joint or sequential hydrogeophysical model calibration. It is found that all calibrated models are good predictors of hydraulic head. When the stress situation is changed from that of the hydrologic calibration data, then all models make biased predictions of head change. All calibrated models turn out to be very poor predictors of the pumping well's recharge area and groundwater age. The reason for this is that distributed recharge is parameterized as depending on estimated hydraulic conductivity of the upper model layer, which tends to be underestimated. Another important insight from our analysis is thus that either recharge should be parameterized and estimated in a different way, or other types of data should be added to better constrain the recharge estimates.

scholarly journals The Applicability of SWOT’s Non-Uniform Space–Time Sampling in Hydrologic Model Calibration

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 3241
Author(s):  
Cassandra Nickles ◽  
Edward Beighley ◽  
Dongmei Feng
Keyword(s):  
Surface Water ◽  
Model Calibration ◽  
Optimal Parameter ◽  
Uniform Space ◽  
Hydrologic Model ◽  
Space Time ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Time Sampling ◽  
Hydrologic Model Calibration

The Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) satellite mission, expected to launch in 2022, will enable near global river discharge estimation from surface water extents and elevations. However, SWOT’s orbit specifications provide non-uniform space–time sampling. Previous studies have demonstrated that SWOT’s unique spatiotemporal sampling has a minimal impact on derived discharge frequency distributions, baseflow magnitudes, and annual discharge characteristics. In this study, we aim to extend the analysis of SWOT’s added value in the context of hydrologic model calibration. We calibrate a hydrologic model using previously derived synthetic SWOT discharges across 39 gauges in the Ohio River Basin. Three discharge timeseries are used for calibration: daily observations, SWOT temporally sampled, and SWOT temporally sampled including estimated uncertainty. Using 10,000 model iterations to explore predefined parameter ranges, each discharge timeseries results in similar optimal model parameters. We find that the annual mean and peak flow values at each gauge location from the optimal parameter sets derived from each discharge timeseries differ by less than 10% percent on average. Our findings suggest that hydrologic models calibrated using discharges derived from SWOT’s non-uniform space–time sampling are likely to achieve results similar to those based on calibrating with in situ daily observations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document