Evaluation of statistical models for forecast errors from the HBV model

• Published in: Journal of Hydrology
• Main Authors: Engeland, K., Renard, Benjamin, Steinsland, I., Kolberg, S.
• Other Authors: SINTEF TRONDHEIM NOR, Partenaires IRSTEA, Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture (IRSTEA)-Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture (IRSTEA), Hydrologie-Hydraulique (UR HHLY), Centre national du machinisme agricole, du génie rural, des eaux et forêts (CEMAGREF)
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: HAL CCSD 2010
• Subjects: RAINFALL RUNOFF MODEL; FORECAST ERROR; ERROR MODEL; MODEL EVALUATION; [SDE]Environmental Sciences; Norway; Northern Norway
• Online Access: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02593369; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.01.018

International audience 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 BoxCox 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 NashSutcliffe Reff 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.