A review of foundational methods for checking the structural identifiability of models: Results for rainfall-runoff

Journal of Hydrology

Volumn 520, Issue , 2015, Pages 1-16

  Shin, Mun Ju ^a,b   Guillaume, Joseph H A ^b,c   Croke, Barry F W ^a,b   Jakeman, Anthony J ^b  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Global evolutionary algorithms; Hydromad; Polynomial chaos; Rainfall runoff models; Response surface methods; Structural identifiability

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION ALGORITHMS; EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS; OPTIMIZATION; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; POLYNOMIALS; RAIN; RUNOFF; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURFACE PROPERTIES; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

HYDROMAD; POLYNOMIAL CHAOS; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELS; RESPONSE SURFACE METHOD; STRUCTURAL IDENTIFIABILITY;

MODEL CHECKING;

ALGORITHM; DATA SET; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; LITERATURE REVIEW; NUMERICAL MODEL; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING; TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODELING;

EID: 84911921988     PISSN: 00221694     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.11.040     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Abusam A., Keesman K.J., van Straten G., Spanjers H., Meinema K. Sensitivity analysis in oxidation ditch modelling: the effect of variations in stoichiometric, kinetic and operating parameters on the performance indices. J. Chem. Technol. Biot. 2001, 76(4):430-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jctb.398.
2. Anctil F., Perrin C., Andréassian V. Impact of the length of observed records on the performance of ANN and of conceptual parsimonious rainfall-runoff forecasting models. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2004, 19(4):357-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(03)00135-X.
3. Andréassian V., Le Moine N., Perrin C., Ramos M.-H., Oudin L., Mathevet T., Lerat J., Berthet L. All that glitters is not gold: the case of calibrating hydrological models. Hydrol. Process. 2012, 26(14):2206-2210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9264.
4. Andrews F.T., Croke B.F.W., Jakeman A.J. An open software environment for hydrological model assessment and development. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2011, 26(10):1171-1185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.04.006.
5. Bastin Solai Nazaran J., Selvi K. A covariance matrix adapted evolution strategy based solution to optimal power flow plus transmission charging. Comput. Intell. Inform. Technol. 2011, 250:765-769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25734-6_135.
6. Beck M.B. Water quality modeling: a review of the analysis of uncertainty. Water Resour. Res. 1987, 23(8):1393-1442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR023i008p01393.
7. Bellman R., Åström K.J. On structural identifiability. Math. Biosci. 1970, 7(3-4):329-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(70)90132-X.
8. Bennett N.D., Croke B.F.W., Guariso G., Guillaume J.H.A., Hamilton S.H., Jakeman A.J., Marsili-Libelli S., et al. Characterising performance of environmental models. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2013, 40:1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.011.
9. Beven K. Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modelling. Adv. Water Resour. 1993, 16(1):41-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0309-1708(93)90028-E.
10. Beven K. A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. J. Hydrol. 2006, 320(1-2):18-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007.
11. Blasone R.-S., Madsen H., Rosbjerg D. Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological modelling: comparison of global and local optimisation techniques. Nordic Hydrol. 2007, 38(4-5):451-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/nh.2007.024.
12. Box G.E.P., Draper N.R. Empirical Model-building and Response Surfaces 1987, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
13. Brun R., Reichert P., Künsch H.R. Practical identifiability analysis of large environmental simulation models. Water Resour. Res. 2001, 37(4):1015-1030. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900350.
14. Brunner P., Doherty J., Simmons C.T. Uncertainty assessment and implications for data acquisition in support of integrated hydrologic models. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48(7):W07513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011342.
15. Burnash, R.J.C., Ferral, R.L., McGuire, R.A., 1973. A Generalized Streamflow Simulation System: Conceptual Modeling for Digital Computers. Tech. Rep., U.S. Natl. Weather Serv., Sacramento, Calif.
16. Chiew F.H.S., Peel M.C., Western A.W. Application and testing of the simple rainfall-runoff model SIMHYD. Mathematical Models of Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications 2002, 335-367. Water Resour. Publ, Colorado. V.P. Singh, D.K. Frevert (Eds.).
17. Croke B.F.W., Jakeman A.J. Predictions in catchment hydrology: an Australian perspective. Mar. Freshwater Res. 2001, 52(1):65-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF00045.
18. Croke B.F.W., Jakeman A.J. A catchment moisture deficit module for the IHACRES rainfall-runoff model. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2004, 19(1):1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.09.001.
19. de Paly M., Zell A. Optimal irrigation scheduling with evolutionary algorithms. Lect. Notes. Comput. Sci. 2009, 5484:142-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01129-0_18.
20. Deb K., Pratap A., Agarwal S., Meyarivan T. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput. 2002, 6(2):182-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017.
21. Dochain D., Vanrolleghem P.A., Van Daele M. Structural identifiability of biokinetic models of activated sludge respiration. Water Res. 1995, 29(11):2571-2578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(95)00106-U.
22. Duan Q., Sorooshian S., Gupta V. Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour. Res. 1992, 28(4):1015-1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/91WR02985.
23. Duan Q.Y., Gupta V.K., Sorooshian S. Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization. J. Optimiz. Theory App. 1993, 76(3):501-521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00939380.
24. Gelman A., Rubin D.B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat. Sci. 1992, 7(4):457-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136.
25. Gupta H.V., Nearing G.S. Debates-the future of hydrological sciences: a (common) path forward? using models and data to learn: a systems theoretic perspective on the future of hydrological science. Water Resour. Res. 2014, 50(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013WR015096.
26. Gupta V.K., Sorooshian S. Uniqueness and observability of conceptual rainfall-runoff model parameters: the percolation process examined. Water Resour. Res. 1983, 19(1):269-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR019i001p00269.
27. Gupta V.K., Sorooshian S. The automatic calibration of conceptual catchment models using derivative-based optimization algorithms. Water Resour. Res. 1985, 21(4):473-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR021i004p00473.
28. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/97WR03495.
29. Gupta H.V., Kling H., Yilmaz K.K., Martinez G.F. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: implications for improving hydrological modelling. J. Hydrol. 2009, 377(1):80-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003.
30. Gupta H.V., Clark M.P., Vrugt J.A., Abramowitz G., Ye M. Towards a comprehensive assessment of model structural adequacy. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48(8). http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011044.
31. Hansen N., Ostermeier A. Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evol. Comput. 2001, 9(2):159-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/106365601750190398.
32. Hansen N., Müller S.D., Koumoutsakos P. Reducing the time complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (CMA-ES). Evol. Comput. 2003, 11(1):1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/106365603321828970.
33. He M., Hogue T.S., Franz K.J., Margulis S.A., Vrugt J.A. Corruption of parameter behavior and regionalization by model and forcing data errors: a Bayesian example using the SNOW17 model. Water Resour. Res. 2011, 47(7):W07546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009753.
34. Herman J.D., Reed P.M., Wagener T. Time-varying sensitivity analysis clarifies the effects of watershed model formulation on model behavior. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49(3):1400-1414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20124.
35. Holland J.H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial System: An Introduction with Application to Biology, Control and Artificial Intelligence 1975, Michigan Univ. Press, Ann Arbor.
36. Huisman J.A., Rings J., Vrugt J.A., Sorg J., Vereecken H. Hydraulic properties of a model dike from coupled Bayesian and multi-criteria hydrogeophysical inversion. J. Hydrol. 2010, 380(1-2):62-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.10.023.
37. Jakeman A.J., Hornberger G.M. How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model?. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29(8):2637-2649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/93WR00877.
38. Kavetski D., Clark M.P. Numerical troubles in conceptual hydrology: approximations, absurdities and impact on hypothesis testing. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 25(4):661-670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7899.
39. Kavetski D., Kuczera G. Model smoothing strategies to remove microscale discontinuities and spurious secondary optima in objective functions in hydrological calibration. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43(3):W03411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005195.
40. Kern S., Müller S.D., Hansen N., Büche D., Ocenasek J., Koumoutsakos P. Learning probability distributions in continuous evolutionary algorithms - a comparative review. Nat. Comp. 2004, 3(1):77-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:NACO.0000023416.59689.4e.
41. Khu S.T., Madsen H. Multiobjective calibration with Pareto preference ordering: an application to rainfall-runoff model calibration. Water Resour. Res. 2005, 41(3):W03004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003041.
42. Kim H.S., Croke B.F.W., Jakeman A.J., Chiew F.H.S. An assessment of modelling capacity to identify the impacts of climate variability on catchment hydrology. Math. Comput. Simulat. 2011, 81(7):1419-1429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2010.05.007.
43. Koopmans T.C., Reiersol O. The identification of structural characteristics. Ann. Math. Stat. 1950, 21(2):165-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729837.
44. Laloy E., Fasbender D., Bielders C.L. Parameter optimization and uncertainty analysis for plot-scale continuous modeling of runoff using a formal Bayesian approach. J. Hydrol. 2010, 380(1-2):82-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.10.025.
45. Li Q., Ishidaira H. Development of a biosphere hydrological model considering vegetation dynamics and its evaluation at basin scale under climate change. J. Hydrol. 2012, 3-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.08.046.
46. Mathevet T., Michel C., Andréassian V., Perrin C. A bounded version of the Nash-Sutcliffe criterion for better model assessment on large sets of basins. Large Sample Basin Experiments for Hydrological Model Parameterization: Results of the Model Parameter Experiment - MOPEX 2006, vol. 307:211-219. IAHS Publ.
47. Mejía A.I., Moglen G.E. Impact of the spatial distribution of imperviousness on the hydrologic response of an urbanizing basin. Hydrol. Process. 2010, 24(23):3359-3373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7755.
48. Moreno H.A., Vivoni E.R., Gochis D.J. Utility of quantitative precipitation estimates for high resolution hydrologic forecasts in mountain watersheds of the Colorado front range. J. Hydrol. 2012, 66-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.03.019.
49. Mortazavi M., Kuczera G., Cui L. Multiobjective optimization of urban water resources: moving toward more practical solutions. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48(3):W03514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010866.
50. Muñoz, E., Rivera, D., Vergara, F., Tume, P., Arumí, J.L., 2014. Identifiability analysis. Towards constrained equifinality and reduced uncertainty in a conceptual model. Hydrol. Sci. J. (in press). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.892205.
51. Nash J.E., Sutcliffe J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I - a discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 1970, 10(3):282-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6.
52. Nelder J.A., Mead R. A simplex method for function minimization. Comput. J. 1965, 7(4):308-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308.
53. Nicklow J., Reed P., Savic D., Dessalegne T., Harrell L., Chan-Hilton A., Karamouz M., Minsker B., Ostfeld A., Singh A., Zechman E. State of the art for genetic algorithms and beyond in water resources planning and management. J. Water Res. Pl. - ASCE 2010, 136(4):412-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000053.
54. Norton J.P. Normal-mode identifiability analysis of linear compartmental systems in linear stages. Math. Biosci. 1980, 50(1-2):95-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(80)90124-8.
55. Norton J.P. Algebraic sensitivity analysis of environmental models. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2008, 23(8):963-972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.11.007.
56. Pareto, V., 1972. Manual of Political Economy. In: Schwier, A.S., Page, A.N. (Eds.), MacMillan, London, UK.
57. Peck, E.L., 1976. Catchment Modeling and Initial Parameter Estimation for the National Weather Service River Forecast System. In: NOAA Tech. Memo. NWS HYDRO-31. Hydrol. Res. Lab., Silver Spring, Md.
58. Perrin, C., 2000. Towards an Improvement of a Lumped Rainfall-Runoff Model through a Comparative Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France (in French).
59. Perrin C., Michel C., Andréassian V. Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments. J. Hydrol. 2001, 242(3-4):275-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00393-0.
60. Perrin C., Michel C., Andréassian V. Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation. J. Hydrol. 2003, 279(1):275-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00225-7.
61. Podger, G., 2004. RRL Rainfall Runoff Library User Guide. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. http://www.toolkit.net.au.
62. Price W.L. Global optimization algorithms for a CAD workstation. J. Optimiz. Theory App. 1987, 55(1):133-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00939049.
63. Pujol, G., Iooss, B., Janon, A., 2012. Package 'Sensitivity': Sensitivity Analysis. R Package Version 1.5. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sensitivity.
64. Rothenberg T.J. Identification in parametric models. Econometrica 1971, 39(3):577-591. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1913267.
65. Saltelli A. Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2002, 145(2):280-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(02)00280-1.
66. Saltelli A., Chan K., Scott E.M. Sensitivity Analysis 2000, Wiley, New York.
67. Serrat-Capdevila A., Scott R.L., James Shuttleworth W., Valdés J.B. Estimating evapotranspiration under warmer climates: insights from a semi-arid riparian system. J. Hydrol. 2011, 399(1-2):1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.021.
68. Shin M.-J., Guillaume J.H.A., Croke B.F.W., Jakeman A.J. Addressing ten questions about conceptual rainfall-runoff models with global sensitivity analyses in R. J. Hydrol. 2013, 503:135-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.047.
69. Shoemaker C.A., Regis R.G., Fleming R.C. Watershed calibration using multistart local optimization and evolutionary optimization with radial basis function approximation. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2007, 52(3):450-465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1623/hysj.52.3.450.
70. Sobol I.M. Sensitivity analysis for nonlinear mathematical models. Math. Model. Comput. Exp. 1993, 1(4):407-414.
71. Sorooshian S., Duan Q., Gupta V.K. Calibration of rainfall-runoff models: application of global optimization to the Sacramento soil moisture accounting model. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29(4):1185-1194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/92WR02617.
72. Srinivas N., Deb K. Muiltiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol. Comput. 1994, 2(3):221-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/evco.1994.2.3.221.
73. Storn R., Price K. Differential evolution - a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Global Optim. 1997, 11(4):341-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328.
74. Sudret B. Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety 2008, 93(7):964-979. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.04.002.
75. Sun A.Y., Green R., Swenson S., Rodell M. Toward calibration of regional groundwater models using GRACE data. J. Hydrol. 2012, 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.10.025.
76. Valent P., Szolgay J., Land Riverso C. Assessment of the uncertainties of a conceptual hydrologic model by using artificially generated flows. Slovak J. Civil Eng. 2012, 20(4):35-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10189-012-0020-9.
77. van Werkhoven K., Wagener T., Reed P., Tang Y. Sensitivity-guided reduction of parametric dimensionality for multi-objective calibration of watershed models. Adv. Water Resour. 2009, 32(6):1154-1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.03.002.
78. Vrugt J.A., ter Braak C.J.F., Diks C.G.H., Robinson B.A., Hyman J.M., Higdon D. Accelerating Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling. Int. J. Nonlin. Sci. Num. 2008, 10(3):273-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/IJNSNS.2009.10.3.273.
79. Wagener T., Gupta H.V. Model identification for hydrological forecasting under uncertainty. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk A 2005, 19(6):378-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00477-005-0006-5.
80. Wagener T., Kollat J. Numerical and visual evaluation of hydrological and environmental models using the Monte Carlo analysis toolbox. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2007, 22(7):1021-1033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.017.
81. Wagener, T., Lees, M.J., Wheater, H.S., 1999. A generic rainfall-runoff modelling toolbox. EOS Trans. AGU Fall Meet. Suppl., Vol. 80, p. F409.
82. Wagener T., Boyle D.P., Lees M.J., Wheater H.S., Gupta H.V., Sorooshian S. A framework for development and application of hydrological models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2001, 5(1):13-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-5-13-2001.
83. Wagener T., Lees M.J., Wheater H.S. A toolkit for the development and application of parsimonious hydrological models. Mathematical Models of Small Watershed Hydrology 2001, vol. 2. Water Resour. Publ. LLC, USA.
84. Walter E., Lecourtier Y. Unidentifiable compartmental models: what to do?. Math. Biosci. 1981, 56(1-2):1-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(81)90025-0.
85. Willjuice I.M., Baskar S. Covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy based design of centralized PID controller. Expert. Syst. Appl. 2010, 37(8):5775-5781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.031.
86. Yapo P.O., Gupta H.V., Sorooshian S. Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data. J. Hydrol. 1996, 181(1-4):23-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(95)02918-4.
87. Zégre N., Skaugset A.E., Som N.A., McDonnell J.J., Ganio L.M. In lieu of the paired catchment approach: hydrologic model change detection at the catchment scale. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46(11):W11544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008601.