Essential Site Maintenance: Authorea-powered sites will be updated circa 15:00-17:00 Eastern on Tuesday 5 November.
There should be no interruption to normal services, but please contact us at [email protected] in case you face any issues.

loading page

When to Make Mountains out of Molehills: The Pros and Cons of Simple and Complex Model Calibration Procedures
  • +4
  • Katie Smith,
  • Lucy Barker,
  • Shaun Harrigan,
  • Christel Prudhomme,
  • Jamie Hannaford,
  • Maliko Tanguy,
  • Simon Parry
Katie Smith
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Lucy Barker
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Author Profile
Shaun Harrigan
European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts
Author Profile
Christel Prudhomme
European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts
Author Profile
Jamie Hannaford
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Author Profile
Maliko Tanguy
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Author Profile
Simon Parry
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Author Profile

Abstract

Earth and environmental models are relied upon to investigate system responses that cannot otherwise be examined. In simulating physical processes, models have adjustable parameters which may, or may not, have a physical meaning. Determining the values to assign to these model parameters is an enduring challenge for earth and environmental modellers. Selecting different error metrics by which the models results are compared to observations will lead to different sets of calibrated model parameters, and thus different model results. Furthermore, models may exhibit ‘equifinal’ behaviour, where multiple combinations of model parameters lead to equally acceptable model performance against observations. These decisions in model calibration introduce uncertainty that must be considered when model results are used to inform environmental decision-making. This presentation focusses on the uncertainties that derive from the calibration of a four parameter lumped catchment hydrological model (GR4J). The GR models contain an inbuilt automatic calibration algorithm that can satisfactorily calibrate against four error metrics in only a few seconds. However, a single, deterministic model result does not provide information on parameter uncertainty. Furthermore, a modeller interested in extreme events, such as droughts, may wish to calibrate against more low flows specific error metrics. In a comprehensive assessment, the GR4J model has been run with 500,000 Latin Hypercube Sampled parameter sets across 303 catchments in the United Kingdom. These parameter sets have been assessed against six error metrics, including two drought specific metrics. This presentation compares the two approaches, and demonstrates that the inbuilt automatic calibration can outperform the Latin Hypercube experiment approach in single metric assessed performance. However, it is also shown that there are many merits of the more comprehensive assessment, which allows for probabilistic model results, multi-objective optimisation, and better tailoring to calibrate the model for specific applications such as drought event characterisation. Modellers and decision-makers may be constrained in their choice of calibration method, so it is important that they recognise the strengths and limitations of their chosen approach.