Equifinality of formal (DREAM) and informal (GLUE) Bayesian approaches in hydrologic modeling?

被引:350
作者
Vrugt, Jasper A. [1 ,2 ]
ter Braak, Cajo J. F. [3 ]
Gupta, Hoshin V. [4 ]
Robinson, Bruce A. [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Inst Biodivers & Ecosyst Dynam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Los Alamos Natl Lab, Ctr Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA
[3] Univ Wageningen & Res Ctr, NL-6700 AC Wageningen, Netherlands
[4] Univ Arizona, Dept Hydrol & Water Resources, Tucson, AZ 85737 USA
[5] Los Alamos Natl Lab, Civilian Nucl Program Off SPO CNP, Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA
关键词
UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT; PARAMETER-ESTIMATION; RUNOFF; SENSITIVITY; OPTIMIZATION; CALIBRATION; FRAMEWORK;
D O I
10.1007/s00477-008-0274-y
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
In recent years, a strong debate has emerged in the hydrologic literature regarding what constitutes an appropriate framework for uncertainty estimation. Particularly, there is strong disagreement whether an uncertainty framework should have its roots within a proper statistical (Bayesian) context, or whether such a framework should be based on a different philosophy and implement informal measures and weaker inference to summarize parameter and predictive distributions. In this paper, we compare a formal Bayesian approach using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) with generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) for assessing uncertainty in conceptual watershed modeling. Our formal Bayesian approach is implemented using the recently developed differential evolution adaptive metropolis (DREAM) MCMC scheme with a likelihood function that explicitly considers model structural, input and parameter uncertainty. Our results demonstrate that DREAM and GLUE can generate very similar estimates of total streamflow uncertainty. This suggests that formal and informal Bayesian approaches have more common ground than the hydrologic literature and ongoing debate might suggest. The main advantage of formal approaches is, however, that they attempt to disentangle the effect of forcing, parameter and model structural error on total predictive uncertainty. This is key to improving hydrologic theory and to better understand and predict the flow of water through catchments.
引用
收藏
页码:1011 / 1026
页数:16
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2003, Water Science Series
[2]   Assessing the uncertainty in distributed model predictions using observed binary pattern information within GLUE [J].
Aronica, G ;
Bates, PD ;
Horritt, MS .
HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2002, 16 (10) :2001-2016
[3]   A Markov chain Monte Carlo scheme for parameter estimation and inference in conceptual rainfall-runoff modeling [J].
Bates, BC ;
Campbell, EP .
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2001, 37 (04) :937-947
[4]   A manifesto for the equifinality thesis [J].
Beven, K .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2006, 320 (1-2) :18-36
[5]   PROPHECY, REALITY AND UNCERTAINTY IN DISTRIBUTED HYDROLOGICAL MODELING [J].
BEVEN, K .
ADVANCES IN WATER RESOURCES, 1993, 16 (01) :41-51
[6]   THE FUTURE OF DISTRIBUTED MODELS - MODEL CALIBRATION AND UNCERTAINTY PREDICTION [J].
BEVEN, K ;
BINLEY, A .
HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 1992, 6 (03) :279-298
[7]   CHANGING IDEAS IN HYDROLOGY - THE CASE OF PHYSICALLY-BASED MODELS [J].
BEVEN, K .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 1989, 105 (1-2) :157-172
[8]   So just why would a modeller choose to be incoherent? [J].
Beven, Keith J. ;
Smith, Paul J. ;
Freer, Jim E. .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2008, 354 (1-4) :15-32
[9]   Generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) using adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling [J].
Blasone, Roberta-Serena ;
Vrugt, Jasper A. ;
Madsen, Henrik ;
Rosbjerg, Dan ;
Robinson, Bruce A. ;
Zyvoloski, George A. .
ADVANCES IN WATER RESOURCES, 2008, 31 (04) :630-648
[10]   AN ANALYSIS OF TRANSFORMATIONS [J].
BOX, GEP ;
COX, DR .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES B-STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY, 1964, 26 (02) :211-252