Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 24, Issue 15, pp 4469–4489 | Cite as

Selecting Model Parameter Sets from a Trade-off Surface Generated from the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II

  • Gift Dumedah
  • Aaron A. Berg
  • Mark Wineberg
  • Robert Collier
Article

Abstract

There is increasing trend in the use of multi-objective genetic algorithms (GAs) to estimate parameter sets in the calibration of hydrological models. Multi-objective GAs facilitate the evaluation of several model evaluation objectives, and the examination of massive combinations of parameter sets. Typically, the outcome is a set of several equally-accurate parameter sets which make-up a trade-off surface between the objective functions, usually referred to as Pareto set. The Pareto set is a set of incomparable parameter sets as each solution has unique parameter values in parameter space with competing accuracy in the objective function space. As would be required for decision making purposes, a single parameter set is usually chosen to represent the model calibration procedure. An automated framework for choosing a single solution from such a trade-off surface has not been thoroughly investigated in the model calibration literature. As a result, this study has outlined an automated framework using the distribution of solutions in objective space and parameter space to select solutions with unique properties from an incomparable set of solutions. Our Pareto set was generated from the application of Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II) to calibrate the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) for simulations of streamflow in the Fairchild Creek watershed in southern Ontario. Using cluster analysis to evaluate the distribution of solutions in both objective space and parameter space, we developed four auto-selection methods for choosing parameter sets from the trade-off surface to support decision making. Our method generates solutions with unique properties including a representative pathway in parameter space, a basin of attraction (or the center of mass) in objective space, a proximity to the origin in objective space, and a balanced compromise between objective space and parameter space (denoted BCOP). The BCOP method is appealing as it is an equally-weighted compromise for the distribution of solutions in objective space and parameter space. That is, the BCOP solution emphasizes stability in model parameter values and in objective function values—in a way that similarity in parameter space implies similarity in objective space.

Keywords

Hydrological calibration model Multi-objective genetic algorithms NSGA-II Pareto set Robust 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agrawal N, Rangaiah GP, Ray AK, Gupta SK (2006) Multi-objective optimization of the operation of an industrial low-density polyethylene tubular reactor using genetic algorithm and its jumping gene adaptations. J Ind Eng Chem Res 45(9):3128–3199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahsan M, O’Connor KM (1994) A simple non-linear rainfall-runoff model with a variable gain factor. J Hydrol 155:151–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold JG, Fohrer N (2005) Swat2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrol Process 19:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part 1: model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34:73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atiquzzaman M, Liong SY, Yu W (2006) Alternative decision making in water distribution network with nsga-ii. J Water Resour Plan Manage 132(2):122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bekele EG, Nicklow JW (2007) Multi-objective automatic calibration of swat using nsga-ii. J Hydrol 341:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beven K (2001) Rainfall runoff modelling the primer. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonnycastle A (2006) Environmental and economic implications of land management changes in agricultural watersheds. Thesis, Geography, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 CanadaGoogle Scholar
  9. Borah DK, Bera M (2003a) Swat model background and application reviews. In: 2003 ASAE annual international meeting, ASAE: the society for engineering in agricultural, food, and biological systems. Riviera Hotel and Convention Center, Las Vegas, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Borah DK, Bera M (2003b) Watershed-scale hydrologic and nonpoint-source pollution models: review of mathematical bases. Trans ASAE 46(6):1553–1566Google Scholar
  11. Coello Coello CA, Van Veldhuizen DA, Lamont GB (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Kluwer/Plenum Publishers, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. Confesor RB, Whittaker GW (2007) Automatic calibration of hydrologic models with multi-objective evolutionary algorithm and pareto optimization. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43(4):981–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crispim JA, de Sousa JP (2009) Partner selection in virtual enterprises: a multi-criteria decision support approach. Int J Prod Res 47(17):4791–4812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, Chichester, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Deb K, Goel T (2001) Controlled elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms for better convergence. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich Switzerland. Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1993/2001. Springer, pp 67–81Google Scholar
  16. Deb K, Agrawal S, Pratap A, Meyarivan T (2000) A fast elitist non dominated sorting genetic algorithms for multi-objective optimization: Nsga-ii. Paris, France. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature VI (PPSN-VI). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1917. Springer, pp 849–858Google Scholar
  17. Deb K, Pratap A, Agrawal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duan QY, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (1993) Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization. J Optim Theory Appl 76:501–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eiben AE, Smith JE (2003) Introduction to evolutionary computing. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Environment-Canada (2006) National climate data and information archive. Technical report, Environment CanadaGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferreira JC, Fonseca CM, Gaspar-Cunha A (2007) Methodology to select solutions from the pareto-optimal set: a comparative study. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference. Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. London, England, United Kingdom, GECCO, pp 789–796Google Scholar
  22. Gill MK, Kaheil YH, Khalil A, McKee M, Bastidas L (2006) Multiobjective particle swarm optimization for parameter estimation in hydrology. Water Resour Res 42(7):W07417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Green WH, Ampt GA (1911) Studies on soil physics, 1: the flow of air and water through soils. J Agric Sci 4:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grierson DE (2008) Pareto multi-criteria decision making. Adv Eng Inf 22(3):371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gupta H, Sorooshian S, Yapo PO (1998) Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: multiple and noncommensurable measures of information. Water Resour Res 34:751–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hee-Su K, Sung-Bae C (2000) Application of interactive genetic algorithm to fashion design. Eng Appl Artif Intell 13(6):635–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeong HS, Abraham DM (2006) Operational response model for physically attacked water networks using nsga-ii. J Comput Civ Eng 20(5):328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khu ST, Madsen H (2005) Multiobjective calibration with pareto preference ordering: an application to rainfall-runoff model calibration. Water Resour Res 41(3):W03004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leavesley GH (1994) Modeling the effects of climate change on water resources—a review. Clim Change 28:159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liang GC, O’Connor KM, Kachroo RK (1994) A mulitiple-input, single-output, variable gain-factor model. J Hydrol 155:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu Y, Yang W (2007) An interface of drainage division for modeling wetlands and riparian buffers in agricultural watersheds. J Spat Hydro 7(1):66–80Google Scholar
  32. Madsen H (2003) Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using automatic calibration with multiple objectives. Adv Water Resources 26(2):205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marler RT, Arora JS (2004) Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 26(6):369–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miyamoto T, Kaneda K, Noguchi S, Yamashita H (2006) A technique for selecting an optimal solution from among pareto-optima of multi-purposed electromagnetic apparatus design based on game theory. In: Electromagnetic field computation, 12th biennial IEEE conference, p 121Google Scholar
  35. Nazemi A, Yao X, Chan A (2006) Extracting a set of robust pareto-optimal parameters for hydrologic models using nsga-ii and scem. In: 2006 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 1901–1908. doi: 10.1109/CEC.2006.1688539
  36. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2001) Soil and water assessment tool: theoretical documentation, version 2000. Soil and Water Research Service, Temple, TexasGoogle Scholar
  37. Rakesh K, Chandan G (2005) Multi-objective optimization of a batch copoly (ethylene-polyoxyethylene terephthalate) reactor using different adaptations of nondominated sorting genetic algorithm. Macromol Theory Simul 14(6):358–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sarkar D, Modak YM (2006) Optimal design of multiproduct batch chemical plant using nsga-ii. Asia-Pac J Chem Eng 1(1–2):13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shafii M, Smedt FD (2009) Multi-objective calibration of a distributed hydrological model (wetspa) using a genetic algorithm. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discussions 6(1):243–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taboada H, Coit D (2006) Data mining techniques to facilitate the analysis of the pareto-optimal set for multiple objective problems. In: Proceedings of the industrial engineering research conference, IERC 2006. IERC, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  41. Tabrizi MHN, Said SE, Badr AW, Mashor Y, Billings SA (1998) Nonlinear modelling and prediction of a river flow system. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34:1333–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tang Y, Reed P, Wagener T (2006) How effective and efficient are multiobjective evolutionary algorithms at hydrologic model calibration? Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 10:289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tappeta RV, Renaud JE, Messac A, Sundararaj GJ (2000) Interactive physical programming: tradeoff analysis and decision making in multidisciplinary optimization. AIAA J 38(5):917–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thorndike RL (1953) Who belong in the family? Psychometrika 18(4):267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tolson BA, Shoemaker CA (2007) Cannonsville reservoir watershed swat2000 model development, calibration and validation. J Hydrol 337(1–2):68–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia LS, Savic DA, Walters GA (2006) Fuzzy hierarchical decision support system for water distribution network optimization. Civ Eng Environ Syst 23(3):237–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weinert K, Zabel A, Kersting P, Michelitsch T, Wagner T (2009) On the use of problem-specific candidate generators for the hybrid optimization of multi-objective production engineering problems. Evol Comput 17(4):527–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wöhling T, Vrugt JA, Barkle GF (2008) Comparison of three multiobjective optimization algorithms for inverse modeling of vadose zone hydraulic properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72(2):305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xuebin L (2009) Study of multi-objective optimization and multi-attribute decision-making for dynamic economic emission dispatch. Electr Power Compon Syst 37:1133–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yapo PO, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (1998) Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models. J Hydrol 204:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Young P, Beven KJ (1994) Data-based mechanistic modelling and the rainfall-flow nonlinearity. Environmetrics 5(3):335–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gift Dumedah
    • 1
  • Aaron A. Berg
    • 1
  • Mark Wineberg
    • 2
  • Robert Collier
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computing, and Information ScienceUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations