Distributed evaluation of local sensitivity analysis (DELSA), with application to hydrologic models

Water Resources Research

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 409-426

  Rakovec, O ^a,b   Hill, M C ^c   Clark, M P ^d   Weerts, A H ^a,e   Teuling, A J ^a   Uijlenhoet, R ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^c U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

^d NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^e DELTARES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

DELSA; FUSE; hydrology; multimodel; parameter sensitivity analysis; Sobol'

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL REQUIREMENTS; DELSA; DISTRIBUTED EVALUATION; LOCAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; MULTI-MODEL; PARAMETER SENSITIVITIES; PARAMETER SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOBOL;

CATCHMENTS; ELECTRIC FUSES; HYDROLOGY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; TIME DELAY;

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

CATCHMENT; DATA ACQUISITION; FLOW MODELING; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; PARAMETERIZATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; VARIANCE ANALYSIS;

BELGIUM;

EID: 84896728515     PISSN: 00431397     EISSN: 19447973     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/2013WR014063     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Anderman, E. R., M. C. Hill, and, E. P. Poeter, (1996), Two-dimensional advective transport in ground-water flow parameter estimation, Groundwater, 34 (6), 1001-1009.
2. Archer, G., A. Saltelli, and, I. Sobol, (1997), Sensitivity measures, ANOVA-like techniques and the use of bootstrap, J. Stat. Comput. Simul., 58 (2), 99-120, doi: 10.1080/00949659708811825.
3. Aster, R. C., B. Borchers, and, C. H. Thurber, (2013), Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems, Academic, Amsterdam.
4. Aubinet, M., B. Chermanne, M. Vandenhaute, B. Longdoz, M. Yernaux, and, E. Laitat, (2001), Long term carbon dioxide exchange above a mixed forest in the Belgian Ardennes, Agric. For. Meteorol., 108, 293-315.
5. Bedford, T., (1998), Sensitivity indices for (tree-) dependent variables, in Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output (SAMO98), edited by K. Chan, S. Tarantola, and F. Campolongo, pp. 17-20, EUR Report.
6. Borgonovo, E., (2006), Measuring uncertainty importance: Investigation and comparison of alternative approaches, Risk Anal., 26 (5), 1349-1361, doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00806.x.
7. Borgonovo, E., (2007), A new uncertainty importance measure, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 92 (6), 771-784, doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2006.04.015.
8. Box, G. E. P., and, G. C. Tiao, (1992), Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis, Wiley, New York.
9. Bratley, P., and, B. Fox, (1988), Implementing Sobol's quasirandom sequence generator, ACM Trans. Math. Software, 14 (1), 88-100, doi: 10.1145/42288.214372.
10. Chun, M.-H., S.-J. Han, and, N.-I. Tak, (2000), An uncertainty importance measure using a distance metric for the change in a cumulative distribution function, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 70 (3), 313-321, doi: 10.1016/S0951- 8320(00)00068-5.
11. Clapp, R. B., and, G. M. Hornberger, (1978), Empirical equations for some soil hydraulic properties, Water Resour. Res., 14 (4), 601-604.
12. Clark, M., and, D. Kavetski, (2010), Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Fidelity and efficiency of time stepping schemes, Water Resour. Res., 46, W10510, doi: 10.1029/2009WR008894.
13. Clark, M. P., A. G. Slater, D. E. Rupp, R. A. Woods, J. A. Vrugt, H. V. Gupta, T. Wagener, and, L. E. Hay, (2008), Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B02, doi: 10.1029/2007WR006735.
14. Clark, M. P., H. K. McMillan, D. B. G. Collins, D. Kavetski, and, R. A. Woods, (2011), Hydrological field data from a modeller's perspective: Part 2: Process-based evaluation of model hypotheses, Hydrol. Processes, 25 (4), 523-543, doi: 10.1002/hyp.7902.
15. Cloke, H. L., F. Pappenberger, and, J.-P. Renaud, (2007), Multi-Method Global Sensitivity Analysis (MMGSA) for modelling floodplain hydrological processes, Hydrol. Processes, 22 (11), 1660-1674, doi: 10.1002/hyp.6734.
16. Cook, R. D., and, S. Weisberg, (1982), Residuals and Influence in Regression, Chapman and Hall, New York.
17. Cukier, R. I., C. M. Fortuin, K. E. Shuler, A. G. Petschek, and, J. H. Schaibly, (1973), Study of the sensitivity of coupled reaction systems to uncertainties in rate coefficients. I. Theory, J. Chem. Phys., 59 (8), 3873-3878, doi: 10.1063/1.1680571.
18. Cukier, R. I., J. H. Schaibly, and, K. E. Shuler, (1975), Study of the sensitivity of coupled reaction systems to uncertainties in rate coefficients. III. Analysis of the approximations, J. Chem. Phys., 63 (3), 1140-1149, doi: 10.1063/1.431440.
19. Cukier, R. I., H. B. Levine, and, K. E. Shuler, (1978), Nonlinear sensitivity analysis of multiparameter model systems, J. Comput. Phys., 26 (1), 1-42, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(78)90097-9.
20. D'Agnese, F. A., C. C. Faunt, M. C. Hill, and, A. Keith Turner, (1999), Death valley regional ground-water flow model calibration using optimal parameter estimation methods and geoscientific information systems, Adv. Water Resour., 22 (8), 777-790.
21. Delenne, C., B. Cappelaere, and, V. Guinot, (2012), Uncertainty analysis of river flooding and dam failure risks using local sensitivity computations, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 107, 171-183, doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2012.04.007.
22. Doherty, J., and, D. Welter, (2010), A short exploration of structural noise, Water Resour. Res., 46, W05525, doi: 10.1029/2009WR008377.
23. Draper, N. R., and, H. Smith, (1998), Applied Regression Analysis, Wiley, New York.
24. Driessen, T. L. A., R. T. W. L. Hurkmans, W. Terink, P. Hazenberg, P. J. J. F. Torfs, and, R. Uijlenhoet, (2010), The hydrological response of the Ourthe catchment to climate change as modelled by the HBV model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14 (4), 651-665, doi: 10.5194/hess-14-651-2010.
25. Efron, B., and, R. J. Tibshirani, (1993), An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman and Hall, New York.
26. Fienen, M. N., J. E. Doherty, R. J. Hunt, and, H. W. Reeves, (2010), Using prediction uncertainty analysis to design hydrologic monitoring networks: Example applications from the great lakes water availability pilot project, U.S. Geol. Surv. Sci. Invest. Rep. 2010-5159, 44 pp.
27. Foglia, L., S. W. Mehl, M. C. Hill, P. Perona, and, P. Burlando, (2007), Testing alternative ground water models using cross-validation and other methods, Groundwater, 45 (5), 627-641, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2007.00341.x.
28. Foglia, L., M. C. Hill, S. W. Mehl, and, P. Burlando, (2009), Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and testing of a distributed hydrological model using error-based weighting and one objective function, Water Resour. Res., 45, W06427, doi: 10.1029/2008WR007255.
29. Foglia, L., M. C. Hill, S. W. Mehl, and, P. Burlando, (2013), Evaluating model structure adequacy: The case of the Maggia Valley groundwater system, Southern Switzerland, Water Resour. Res., 49, 1-13, doi: 10.1029/2011WR011779.
30. Freer, J., K. Beven, and, B. Ambroise, (1996), Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: An application of the GLUE approach, Water Resour. Res., 32 (7), 2161-2173, doi: 10.1029/95WR03723.
31. Göhler, M., J. Mai, and, M. Cuntz, (2013), Use of eigendecomposition in a parameter sensitivity analysis of the Community Land Model, J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci., 118, 904-921, doi: 10.1002/jgrg.20072.
32. Gupta, H. V., M. P. Clark, J. A. Vrugt, G. Abramowitz, and, M. Ye, (2012), Towards a comprehensive assessment of model structural adequacy, Water Resour. Res., 48, W08301, doi: 10.1029/2011WR011044.
33. Hamm, N. A. S., J. W. Hall, and, M. G. Anderson, (2006), Variance-based sensitivity analysis of the probability of hydrologically induced slope instability, Comput. Geosci., 32 (6), 803-817, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2005.10.007.
34. Hazenberg, P., H. Leijnse, and, R. Uijlenhoet, (2011), Radar rainfall estimation of stratiform winter precipitation in the Belgian Ardennes, Water Resour. Res., 47, W02507, doi: 10.1029/2010WR009068.
35. Helton, J. C., (1993), Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for use in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 42 (2-3), 327-367, doi: 10.1016/0951-8320(93)90097-I.
36. Herman, J. D., P. M. Reed, and, T. Wagener, (2013a), Time-varying sensitivity analysis clarifies the effects of watershed model formulation on model behavior, Water Resour. Res., 49, 1400-1414, doi: 10.1002/wrcr.20124.
37. Herman, J. D., J. B. Kollat, P. M. Reed, and, T. Wagener, (2013b), Technical note: Method of Morris effectively reduces the computational demands of global sensitivity analysis for distributed watershed models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2893-2903, doi: 10.5194/hessd-10-4275-2013.
38. Hill, M. C., and, C. R. Tiedeman, (2007), Effective Groundwater Model Calibration: With Analysis of Data, Sensitivities, Prediction and Uncertainty, 455 pp., Wiley, Hoboken, N. J.
39. Homma, T., and, A. Saltelli, (1996), Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 52 (1), 1-17, doi: 10.1016/0951-8320(96)00002-6.
40. Hornberger, G., and, R. Spear, (1981), An approach to the preliminary analysis of environmental systems, J. Environ. Manage., 12 (1), 7-18.
41. Katz, R. W., (1999), Extreme value theory for precipitation: Sensitivity analysis for climate change, Adv. Water Resour., 23 (2), 133-139, doi: 10.1016/S0309-1708(99)00017-2.
42. Kavetski, D., and, M. Clark, (2010), Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual hydrological modeling: 2. Impact of time stepping schemes on model analysis and prediction, Water Resour. Res., 46, W10510, doi: 10.1029/2009WR008896.
43. Kavetski, D., and, G. Kuczera, (2007), Model smoothing strategies to remove microscale discontinuities and spurious secondary optima in objective functions in hydrological calibration, Water Resour. Res., 43, W03411, doi: 10.1029/2006WR005195.
44. Kleijnen, J. P. C., and, J. C. Helton, (1999), Statistical analysis of scatterplots to identify important factors in large-scale simulations, 1: Review and comparison techniquest, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 65 (2), 147-185.
45. Kucherenko, S., M. Rodriguez-Fernandez, C. Pantelides, and, N. Shah, (2009), Monte Carlo evaluation of derivative-based global sensitivity measures, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 94 (7), 1135-1148, doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2008.05.006.
46. Kucherenko, S., S. Tarantola, and, P. Annoni, (2012), Estimation of global sensitivity indices for models with dependent variables, Comput. Phys. Commun., 183 (4), 937-946, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2011.12.020.
47. Kunstmann, H., W. Kinzelbach, and, T. Siegfried, (2002), Conditional first-order second-moment method and its application to the quantification of uncertainty in groundwater modeling, Water Resour. Res., 38 (4), doi: 10.1029/2000WR000022.
48. Li, J., Q. Y. Duan, W. Gong, A. Ye, Y. Dai, C. Miao, Z. Di, C. Tong, and, Y. Sun, (2013), Assessing parameter importance of the Common Land Model based on qualitative and quantitative sensitivity analysis, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17 (8), 3279-3293, doi: 10.5194/hess-17-3279-2013.
49. Lu, D., M. Ye, and, M. C. Hill, (2012), Analysis of regression confidence intervals and Bayesian credible intervals for uncertainty quantification, Water Resour. Res., 48, W09521, doi: 10.1029/2011WR011289.
50. Massmann, C., and, H. Holzmann, (2012), Analysis of the behavior of a rainfall-runoff model using three global sensitivity analysis methods evaluated at different temporal scales, J. Hydrol., 475, 97-110, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol. 2012.09.026.
51. Mehl, S. W., and, M. C. Hill, (2001), A comparison of solute-transport solution techniques and their effect on sensitivity analysis and inverse modeling results, Groundwater, 39 (2), 300-307.
52. Menke, W., (1989), Geophysical Data Analysis, Discrete Inverse Theory, Int. Geophys. Ser., vol. 45, Academic, New York.
53. Mood, A. M., F. A. Graybill, and, D. C. Boes, (1974), Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
54. Morris, M. D., (1991), Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments, Technometrics, 33 (2), 161-174.
55. Musters, P. A. D., and, W. Bouten, (2000), A method for identifying optimum strategies of measuring soil water contents for calibrating a root water uptake model, J. Hydrol., 227, 273-286.
56. Nossent, J., P. Elsen, and, W. Bauwens, (2011), Sobol' sensitivity analysis of a complex environmental model, Environ. Modell. Software, 26 (12), 1515-1525, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.08.010.
57. Oakley, J. E., and, A. O'Hagan, (2004), Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of complex models: A Bayesian approach, J. R. Stat. Soc., Ser. B, 66 (3), 751-769, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2004.05304.x.
58. Oliver, D. S., A. C. Reynolds, and, N. Liu, (2008), Inverse Theory for Petroleum Reservoir Characterization and History Matching, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, N. Y.
59. Papale, D., et al. (2006), Towards a standardized processing of Net Ecosystem Exchange measured with eddy covariance technique: Algorithms and uncertainty estimation, Biogeosciences, 3 (4), 571-583, doi: 10.5194/bg-3-571-2006.
60. Pappenberger, F., P. Matgen, K. J. Beven, J. B. Henry, L. Pfister, and, P. Fraipont, (2006), Influence of uncertain boundary conditions and model structure on flood inundation predictions, Adv. Water Resour., 29 (10), 1430-1449.
61. Pappenberger, F., K. J. Beven, M. Ratto, and, P. Matgen, (2008), Multi-method global sensitivity analysis of flood inundation models, Adv. Water Resour., 31 (1), 1-14, doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.04.009.
62. Park, C. K., and, K.-I. Ahn, (1994), A new approach for measuring uncertainty importance and distributional sensitivity in probabilistic safety assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 46 (3), 253-261, doi: 10.1016/0951-8320(94)90119-8.
63. Plischke, E., E. Borgonovo, and, C. L. Smith, (2013), Global sensitivity measures from given data, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 226 (3), 536-550, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.11.047.
64. Rakovec, O., A. H. Weerts, P. Hazenberg, P. J. J. F. Torfs, and, R. Uijlenhoet, (2012), State updating of a distributed hydrological model with Ensemble Kalman Filtering: Effects of updating frequency and observation network density on forecast accuracy, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3435-3449, doi: 10.5194/hess-16-3435-2012.
65. Reichstein, M., et al. (2005), On the separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and ecosystem respiration: Review and improved algorithm, Global Change Biol., 11 (9), 1424-1439, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486. 2005.001002.x.
66. Rosolem, R., H. V. Gupta, W. J. Shuttleworth, X. Zeng, and, L. G. G. De Gonçalves, (2012), A fully multiple-criteria implementation of the Sobol' method for parameter sensitivity analysis, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 117, D07103, doi: 10.1029/2011JD016355.
67. Saltelli, A., (2002), Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices, Comput. Phys. Commun., 145 (2), 280-297, doi: 10.1016/S0010-4655(02)00280-1.
68. Saltelli, A., S. Tarantola, and, K. P.-S. Chan, (1999), A quantitative model-independent method for global sensitivity analysis of model output, Technometrics, 41 (1), 39-56.
69. Saltelli, A., S. Tarantola, F. Campolongo, and, M. Ratto, (2004), Sensitivity Analysis in Practice, Wiley, New York.
70. Saltelli, A., M. Ratto, T. Andres, F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, D. Gatelli, M. Saisana, and, S. Tarantola, (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley, West Sussex, U. K.
71. Seber, G. A. F., and, C. J. Wild, (1989), Nonlinear Regression, Wiley, New York.
72. Sobol', I. M., (2001), Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates, Math. Comput. Simul., 55 (1-3), 271-280, doi: 10.1016/S0378-4754(00)00270-6.
73. Sobol', I. M., and, S. Kucherenko, (2009), Derivative based global sensitivity measures and their link with global sensitivity indices, Math. Comput. Simul., 79 (10), 3009-3017, doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2009.01.023.
74. Sobol', I. M., and, S. Kucherenko, (2010), A new derivative based importance criterion for groups of variables and its link with the global sensitivity indices, Comput. Phys. Commun., 181, 1212-1217.
75. Tang, Y., P. Reed, T. Wagener, and, K. van Werkhoven, (2007), Comparing sensitivity analysis methods to advance lumped watershed model identification and evaluation, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11 (2), 793-817, doi: 10.5194/hess-11-793-2007.
76. Tarantola, A., (2005), Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation, Soc. for Ind. and Appl. Math., Philadelphia, Pa.
77. Tiedeman, C. R., M. C. Hill, F. A. D'Agnese, and, C. C. Faunt, (2003), Methods for using groundwater model predictions to guide hydrogeologic data collection, with application to the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system, Water Resour. Res., 39 (1), 1010, doi: 10.1029/2001WR001255.
78. Tiedeman, C. R., D. M. Ely, M. C. Hill, and, G. M. O'Brien, (2004), A method for evaluating the importance of system state observations to model predictions, with application to the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system, Water Resour. Res., 40, W12411, doi: 10.1029/2004WR003313.
79. Tonkin, M. J., C. R. Tiedeman, D. M. Ely, and, M. C. Hill, (2007), OPR-PPR, A computer program for assessing data importance to model predictions using linear statistics, U.S. Geol. Surv. Tech. and Methods Rep. TM-6E2, 115 pp.
80. van Griensven, A., T. Meixner, S. Grunwald, T. Bishop, M. Diluzio, and, R. Srinivasan, (2006), A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models, J. Hydrol., 324 (1-4), 10-23, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.09.008.
81. Van Werkhoven, K., T. Wagener, P. Reed, and, Y. Tang, (2008), Characterization of watershed model behavior across a hydroclimatic gradient, Water Resour. Res., 44, W01429, doi: 10.1029/2007WR006271.
82. Vrugt, J., W. Bouten, and, A. Weerts, (2001), Information content of data for identifying soil hydraulic parameters from outflow experiments, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 65 (1), 19-27.
83. Wagener, T., N. McIntyre, M. J. Lees, H. S. Wheater, and, H. V. Gupta, (2003), Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: Dynamic identifiability analysis, Hydrol. Processes, 17 (2), 455-476, doi: 10.1002/hyp.1135.
84. Weerts, A., J. Huisman, and, W. Bouten, (2001), Information content of time domain reflectometry waveforms, Water Resour. Res., 37 (5), 1291-1299, doi: 10.1029/2000WR900381.
85. Xu, C., and, G. Z. Gertner, (2011), Reliability of global sensitivity indices, J. Stat. Comput. Simul., 81 (12), 1939-1969, doi: 10.1080/00949655. 2010.509317.
86. Ye, M., K. F. Pohlmann, J. B. Chapman, G. M. Pohll, and, D. M. Reeves, (2010), A model-averaging method for assessing groundwater conceptual model uncertainty, Groundwater, 48 (5), 716-728, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00633. x.
87. Zambrano-Bigiarini, M., and, R. Rojas, (2013), A model-independent Particle Swarm Optimisation software for model calibration, Environ. Modell. Software, 43, 5-25, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.01.004.
88. Zhan, C.-S., X.-M. Song, J. Xia, and, C. Tong, (2013), An efficient integrated approach for global sensitivity analysis of hydrological model parameters, Environ. Modell. Software, 41, 39-52, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012. 10.009.
89. Zuniga, M. M., S. Kucherenko, and, N. Shah, (2013), Metamodelling with independent and dependent inputs, Comput. Phys. Commun., 184 (6), 1570-1580, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.02.005.