Model Performance Sensitivity to Objective Function during Automated Calibrations

Journal of Hydrologic Engineering

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 756-767

  Muleta, Misgana K ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Calibration; Efficiency measure; Goodness of fit criteria; Model evaluation; Objective function; Sensitivity analysis

Indexed keywords

ABSOLUTE DEVIATIONS; AUTOMATED CALIBRATION; BASELINE MODELS; CASE II; EFFICIENCY CRITERIA; EFFICIENCY MEASURE; EXPERIMENTAL WATERSHEDS; FIELD DATA; GLOBAL PARAMETERS; GOODNESS OF FIT; GROUP III; HIGH FLOW; INPUT DATAS; INTERANNUAL; LOW FLOW; MODEL EVALUATION; MODEL PERFORMANCE; MODEL PREDICTION; MODEL SIMULATION; OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS; PARAMETER VALUES; WATERSHED MODELS;

CALIBRATION; EFFICIENCY; LANDFORMS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STREAM FLOW; WATERSHEDS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION;

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; AUTOMATION; CALIBRATION; EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FLOW FIELD; FLOW MODELING; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STREAMFLOW;

EID: 84862143928     PISSN: 10840699     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000497     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Arnold J.G. Williams J.R. Srinivasan R. King K.W. 1999, and SWAT: Soil and water assessment tool, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Temple, TX.
2. Criteria for evaluation of watershed models. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 1993, 119(3):429-442. ASCE Task Committee on Definition of Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models of the Watershed Management, Irrigation, and Drainage Division, JIDEDH, 0733-9437, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1993)119:3(429).
3. Bekele E.G. Nicklow J.W. Multi-objective automated calibration of SWAT using NSGA-II. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2007, 341(3-4):165-176. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.05.014.
4. Beven K.J. Freer J. Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modeling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2001, 249(1-4):11-29. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00421-8.
5. Bosch D.D. Little river experimental watershed database. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43(9):W09470. WRERAQ, 0043-1397, 10.1029/2006WR005844.
6. Bosch D.D. Sullivan D.G. Sheridan J.M. Hydrologic impacts of land-use changes in coastal plain watersheds. Trans. ASABE 2006, 49(2):423-432. TARSBB, 0001-2351.
7. Criss R.E. Winston W.E. Do Nash values have value? Discussion and alternate proposals. Hydrol. Processes 2008, 22(14):2723-2725. HYPRE3, 0885-6087, 10.1002/hyp.7072.
8. Efstratiadis A. Koutsoyiannis D. One decade of multi-objective calibration approaches in hydrological modelling: review. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2010, 55(1):58-78. HSJODN, 0262-6667, 10.1080/02626660903526292.
9. Gassman P.W. Reyes M.R. Green C.H. Arnold J.G. The soil and water assessment tool: Historical development, applications, and future research directions. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50(4):1211-1250. TARSBB, 0001-2351.
10. Gupta H.V. Kling H. Yilmaz K.K. Martineza G.F. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modeling. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2009, 377(1-2):80-91. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003.
11. Gupta H.V. Sorooshian S. Yapo P.O. Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information. Water Resour. Res. 1998, 34(4):751-763. WRERAQ, 0043-1397, 10.1029/97WR03495.
12. Jain S.K. Sudheer K.P. Fitting of hydrologic models: close look at the Nash-Sutcliffe index. J. Hydrologic Eng. 2008, 13(10):981-986. JHYEFF, 1084-0699, 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:10(981).
13. Krause P. Boyle D.P. Bäse F. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv. Geosci. 2005, 5:89-97. 69IPIS, 1680-7340, 10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005.
14. Kuczera G. Kavetski D. Franks S. Thyer M. Towards bayesian total error analysis of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: Characterizing model error using storm-dependent parameters. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2006, 331(1-2):161-177. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.05.010.
15. Legates D.R. McCabe G.J. Evaluating the use of "goodness-of-fit" measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model evaluation. Water Resour. Res. 1999, 35(1):233-241. WRERAQ, 0043-1397, 10.1029/1998WR900018.
16. Li H. Sivapalan M. Tian F. Comparative diagnostic analysis of runoff generation processes in Oklahoma DMIP2 basins: The Blue River and the Illinois River. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2012, 418-419:90-109. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.08.005.
17. Madsen H. Automated calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff model using multiple objectives. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2000, 235(3-4):276-288. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00279-1.
18. McCuen R.H. Knight Z. Gillian C.A. Evaluation of the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency index. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006, 11(6):597-602. JHYEFF, 1084-0699, 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2006)11:6(597).
19. Moriasi D.N. Arnold J.G. Liew Van M.W. Bingner R.L. Harmel R.D. Veith T.L. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50(3):885-900. TARSBB, 0001-2351.
20. Muleta M.K. Improving model performance using season based evaluation. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012, 17(1):191-200. JHYEFF, 1084-0699, 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000421.
21. Muleta M.K. Nicklow J.W. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis coupled with automated calibration for distributed watershed model. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2005, 306(1-4):127-145. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.09.005.
22. Nash J.E. Sutcliffe J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I-A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 1970, 10(3):282-290. JHYDA7, 0022-1694.
23. Neitsch S.L. Arnold J.G. Williams J.R. 2005, and Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation-Version 2005, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, TX.
24. Schaefli B. Gupta H.V. Do Nash values have value?. Hydrol. Processes 2007, 21(15):2075-2080. HYPRE3, 0885-6087, 10.1002/hyp.6825.
25. Schaefli B. Hingray B. Musy A. conceptual glaciohydrological model for high mountainous catchments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2005, 9(1-2):95-109. HESSCF, 1027-5606, 10.5194/hess-9-95-2005.
26. Seibert J. On the need for benchmarks in hydrological modeling. Hydrol. Processes 2001, 15(6):1063-1064. HYPRE3, 0885-6087, 10.1002/hyp.446.
27. Sheshukov A. Daggupati P. Lee M.C. Douglas-Mankin K. ArcMap tool for pre-processing SSURGO soil database for ArcSWAT. Proc., 5th Int. SWAT Conf. 2009, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
28. Sobol' I.M. Sensitivity estimates for non-linear mathematical models. Math. Model. Comput. Exp. 1993, 1(4):407-414. MMCEE6.
29. Sorooshian S. Gupta V.K. Fulton J.L. Evaluation of maximum likelihood parameter estimation techniques for conceptual rainfall-runoff models: Influence of calibration data variability and length on model credibility. Water Resour. Res. 1983, 19(1):251-259. WRERAQ, 0043-1397, 10.1029/WR019i001p00251.
30. Little River experimental watershed data. 2010, Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory (SEWRL), (July 2010).
31. Tang Y. Reed P.M. van Werkhoven K. Wagener T. Advancing the identification and evaluation of distributed rainfall-runoff models using global sensitivity analysis. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43(6):W06415. WRERAQ, 0043-1397, 10.1029/2006WR005813.
32. Tang Y. Reed P.M. Wagener T. How effective and efficient are multiobjective evolutionary algorithms at hydrologic model calibration?. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2006, 10(2):289-307. HESSCF, 1027-5606, 10.5194/hess-10-289-2006.
33. Tian F. Li H. Sivapalan M. Model diagnostic analysis of seasonal switching of runoff generation mechanisms in the Blue River basin, Oklahoma. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2012, 418-419:136-149. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.011.
34. Tolson B.A. Shoemaker C.A. Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm for computationally efficient watershed model calibration. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43(1):W01413. WRERAQ, 0043-1397, 10.1029/2005WR004723.
35. Guidance for quality assurance project plans for modeling. 2002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), EPA QA/G-5M. Rep. EPA/240/R-02/007, Washington, DC.
36. van Werkhoven K. Wagener T. Reed P. Tang Y. Rainfall characteristics define the value of streamflow observations for distributed watershed model identification. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35(11):L11403. GPRLAJ, 0094-8276, 10.1029/2008GL034162.
37. Willmott C.J. On the validation of models. Phys. Geogr. 1981, 2:184-194. 0272-3646.
38. Winchell M. Srinivasan R. Di Luzio M. Arnold J. 2008, and ArcSWAT 2.1 Interface for SWAT 2005, User's Guide: Blackland Research Center, Temple, TX.
39. Yan J. Haan C.T. Multiobjective parameter estimation for hydrologic models-Weighting of errors. Trans. ASABE 1991, 34(1):0135-0141. TAPSAY, 0065-9746.
40. Yapo P.O. Gupta H.V. Sorooshian S. Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 1998, 204(1-4):83-97. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00107-8.