A new measure for assessing the efficiency of hydrological data-driven forecasting models;Une nouvelle mesure de l'efficacité des modéles hydrologiques de prévision pilotés par les données

Hydrological Sciences Journal

Volumn 57, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1257-1274

  Hwang, Seok Hwan ^a   Ham, Dae Heon ^a   Kim, Joong Hoon ^b  

^a Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology   (South Korea)

^b Korea University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

autocorrelation; forecasting efficiency; persistence; support vector machine

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL DATA; AUTOCORRELATION COEFFICIENT; CONVENTIONAL METHODS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DATA SETS; EVALUATION MEASURES; EVALUATION METHOD; FORECASTING MODELS; HYDROLOGICAL SIMULATIONS; NASH-SUTCLIFFE COEFFICIENT; PERFORMANCE EVALUATION; PERSISTENCE;

AUTOCORRELATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EFFICIENCY; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES;

FORECASTING;

AUTOCORRELATION; DATA SET; EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT; FORECASTING METHOD; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; HYDROLOGY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; VECTOR;

EID: 84867272604     PISSN: 02626667     EISSN: 21503435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2012.710335     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Anctil, F. 2004. A soil moisture index as an auxiliary ANN input for stream flow forecasting. Journal of Hydrology, 286(1-4): 155-167.
2. 2. The American Statistician, 48: 113-117.
3. Armstrong, J.S. and Collopy, F. 1992. Error measures for generalizing about forecasting methods: empirical comparisons. International Journal of Forecasting, 8: 69-80.
4. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers, Task Committee on Definition of Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models of the Watershed Management Committee, Irrigation and Drainage Division). 1993. Criteria for evaluation of watershed models. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 119(3): 429-442.
5. Bracmort, K.S. 2006. Modeling long-term water quality impact of structural BMPS. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 49(2): 367-384.
6. Cleveland, W.S. 1979. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatter plots. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 14(368): 829-836.
7. Dawson, C.W., Abrahart, R.J. and See, L.M. 2007. HydroTest: a web-based toolbox of evaluation metrics for the standardized assessment of hydrological forecasts. Environmental Modelling and Software, 22(7): 1034-1052.
8. Diskin, M.H. and Simon, E. 1977. A procedure for selection of objective functions for hydrologic simulation models. Journal of Hydrology, 34(1-2): 129-149.
9. Donigian, A.S., Imhoff, J.C. and Bicknel, B.R. 1983. "Predicting water quality resulting from agricultural nonpoint-source pollution via simulation HSPF". In Agricultural management and water quality, 200-249. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
10. Duan, Q.Y., Gupta, V.K. and Sorooshian, S. 1993. Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 76(3): 501-521.
11. Gan, T.Y., Dlamini, E.M. and Biftu, G.F. 1997. Effects of model complexity and structure, data quality, and objective functions on hydrologic modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 192: 81-103.
12. Gupta, H.V., Sorooshian, S. and Yapo, P.O. 1998. Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: multiple and non-commensurable measures of information. Water Resources Research, 34(4): 751-763.
13. Gupta, H.V., Sorooshian, S. and Yapo, P.O. 1999. Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: comparison with multilevel expert calibration. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 4(2): 135-143.
14. Gupta, H.V. 2009. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: implications for improving hydrological modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 377(1-2): 80-91.
15. Hyndman, R.J. and Koehler, A.B. 2006. Another look at measures of forecast accuracy. International Journal of Forecasting, 22(4): 679-688.
16. Kitanidis, P.K. and Bras, R.L. 1980. Real-time forecasting with a conceptual hydrologic model: applications and results. Water Resources Research, 16(6): 1034-1044.
17. Legates, D.R. and McCabe, G.J. 1999. Evaluating the use of "goodness-of-fit" measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resources Research, 35(1): 233-241.
18. McCuen, R.H., Knight, Z. and Cutter, A.G. 2006. Evaluation of the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency index. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 11(6): 597-602.
19. Motovilov, Y.G. 1999. Validation of distributed hydrological model against spatial observations. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 98-99: 257-277.
20. Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe, J.V. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models: Part I-A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10(3): 282-290.
21. Pearson, K. 1896. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution: III. Regression, heredity and panmixia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 187: 253-318.
22. Pebesma, E.J., Switzer, P. and Loague, K. 2005. Error analysis for the evaluation of model performance: rainfall-runoff event times series data. Hydrological Processes, 19(8): 1529-1548.
23. Pelckmans, K. 2003. SVMlab Toolbox User's Guide version1.5, Leuven: KU Leuven.
24. Ramanarayanan, T.S. 1997. Using APEX to identify alternative practices for animal waste management, St Joseph, MI: ASAE. ASAE Paper 972209
25. Saleh, A. 2000. Application of SWAT for the upper North Bosque River watershed. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 43(5): 1077-1087.
26. Santhi, C. 2001. Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37(5): 1169-1188.
27. Schaefli, B. and Gupta, H.V. 2007. Do Nash values have value?. Hydrological Processes, 21(15): 2075-2080.
28. Seibert, J. 2001. On the need for benchmarks in hydrological modeling. Hydrological Processes, 15(6): 1063-1064.
29. Singh, J., Knapp, H.V. and Demissie, M. 2005. Hydrologic modeling of the Iroquois River watershed using HSPF and SWAT. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41(2): 343-360.
30. Suykens, J.A.K. and Vandewalle, J. 1999. Least squares support vector machine classifiers. Neural Processing Letters, 9(3): 293-300.
31. Suykens, J.A.K. 2002. Least squares support vector machines, Singapore: WorldScientific.
32. Van Liew, M.W. 2007. Suitability of SWAT for the conservation effects assessment project: a comparison on USDA-ARS experimental watersheds. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 12(2): 173-189.
33. Vapnik, V. 1995. The nature of statistical learning theory, New York, NY: Springer.
34. Vapnik, V. 1998. Statistical learning theory, New York, NY: Wiley.
35. Xiong, L. and O'Connor, K.M. 2000. Analysis of the response surface of the objective function by the optimum parameter curve: how good can the optimum parameter values be?. Journal of Hydrology, 234(3-4): 187-207.