Evaluation of statistical models for forecast errors from the HBV model

被引:53
|
作者
Engeland, Kolbjorn [1 ]
Renard, Benjamin [2 ]
Steinsland, Ingelin [1 ,3 ]
Kolberg, Sjur [1 ]
机构
[1] SINTEF Energy Res, N-7465 Trondheim, Norway
[2] Irstea, UR HHLY, F-69336 Lyon, France
[3] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Math Sci, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
关键词
Rainfall-runoff model; Forecast error; Error model; Model evaluation; RECURSIVE PARAMETER-ESTIMATION; HYDROLOGIC-MODELS; PROBABILISTIC FORECASTS; UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT; CATCHMENT MODELS; INCOHERENCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.01.018
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Three statistical models for the forecast errors for inflow into the Langvatn reservoir in Northern Norway have been constructed and tested according to the agreement between (i) the forecast distribution and the observations and (ii) median values of the forecast distribution and the observations. For the first model observed and forecasted inflows were transformed by the Box-Cox transformation before a first order auto-regressive model was constructed for the forecast errors. The parameters were conditioned on weather classes. In the second model the Normal Quantile Transformation (NQT) was applied on observed and forecasted inflows before a similar first order auto-regressive model was constructed for the forecast errors. For the third model positive and negative errors were modeled separately. The errors were first NQT-transformed before conditioning the mean error values on climate, forecasted inflow and yesterday's error. To test the three models we applied three criterions: we wanted (a) the forecast distribution to be reliable; (b) the forecast intervals to be narrow; (c) the median values of the forecast distribution to be close to the observed values. Models 1 and 2 gave almost identical results. The median values improved the forecast with Nash-Sutcliffe R-eff increasing from 0.77 for the original forecast to 0.87 for the corrected forecasts. Models 1 and 2 over-estimated the forecast intervals but gave the narrowest intervals. Their main drawback was that the distributions are less reliable than Model 3. For Model 3 the median values did not fit well since the auto-correlation was not accounted for. Since Model 3 did not benefit from the potential variance reduction that lies in bias estimation and removal it gave on average wider forecasts intervals than the two other models. At the same time Model 3 on average slightly under-estimated the forecast intervals, probably explained by the use of average measures to evaluate the fit. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:142 / 155
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of MJO Forecast Skill from Several Statistical and Dynamical Forecast Models
    Seo, Kyong-Hwan
    Wang, Wanqiu
    Gottschalck, Jon
    Zhang, Qin
    Schemm, Jae-Kyung E.
    Higgins, Wayne R.
    Kumar, Arun
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2009, 22 (09) : 2372 - 2388
  • [2] Evaluation of realized volatility predictions from models with leptokurtically and asymmetrically distributed forecast errors
    Degiannakis, Stavros
    Livada, Alexandra
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED STATISTICS, 2016, 43 (05) : 871 - 892
  • [3] Evaluation of Statistical River Temperature Forecast Models for Fisheries Management
    Hague, Merran J.
    Patterson, David A.
    NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, 2014, 34 (01) : 132 - 146
  • [4] Statistical analysis of maximum temperature forecast errors
    Stem, H
    13TH CONFERENCE ON PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS IN THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 1996, : 268 - 273
  • [5] ERRORS IN A SPECTRAL FORECAST MODEL
    LEBLANC, M
    GIRARD, C
    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 1977, 58 (01) : 113 - 113
  • [6] Statistical evaluation of wind speed forecast models for microgrid distributed control
    Eduardo, Cruz Victorio Marcos
    Behzad, Kazemtabrizi
    Mahmoud, Shahbazi
    IET SMART GRID, 2022, 5 (05) : 347 - 362
  • [7] EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF STATISTICAL FORECAST MODELS FOR DAILY MAXIMUM OZONE CONCENTRATIONS
    ROBESON, SM
    STEYN, DG
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT PART B-URBAN ATMOSPHERE, 1990, 24 (02): : 303 - 312
  • [8] An evaluation of recent macroeconomic forecast errors
    Schuh, S
    NEW ENGLAND ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2001, : 35 - +
  • [9] Comparison of statistical iceberg forecast models
    Andersson, Leif Erik
    Scibilia, Francesco
    Copland, Luke
    Imsland, Lars
    COLD REGIONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2018, 155 : 69 - 89
  • [10] Evaluation of forecast strategies for seasonal and decadal forecasts in presence of systematic model errors
    Linus Magnusson
    Magdalena Alonso-Balmaseda
    Susanna Corti
    Franco Molteni
    Tim Stockdale
    Climate Dynamics, 2013, 41 : 2393 - 2409