For calibrating the conceptual hydrological models (CHM), the traditional calibration method with a single objective cannot properly measure all the behaviors of the hydrological system. To obtain a successful parameters calibration, in this paper, we propose a multi-objective cultural self-adaptive electromagnetism-like mechanism (MOCSEM) algorithm, which is first implemented in solving the parameters calibration problem of CHM. In this algorithm, a self-adaptive parameter is applied in local search operation for adjusting the values of parameters dynamically. Meanwhile, cultural algorithm (CA) is adopted to keep a good diversity and uniformity of Pareto-optimal solutions (POS). MOCSEM is tested, firstly, by several benchmark test problems. After achieving satisfactory performance on the test problems, a case study is implemented for parameter calibration of a CHM by comparing the properties of POS obtained by the MOCSEM and other methods. Finally, when the optimization problem quickly becomes a decision-making problem because of the multiple objectives in CHM, fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution method has been used to rank the POS and select the optimal scheme. The results show that the MOCSEM algorithm can provide high-accuracy parameters of CHM on various decision-making scenarios.
Parameters calibration Conceptual hydrological models Multi-objective cultural self-adaptive electromagnetism-like mechanism Decision-making problem
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51239004) and the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (No.20100142110012). Special thanks are given to the anonymous reviewers and editors for their constructive comments.
Afshar A, Shojaei N, Sagharjooghifarahani M (2013) Multiobjective calibration of reservoir water quality modeling using multiobjective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO). Water Resour Manag 27(7):1931–1947. doi:10.1007/s11269-013-0263-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baykasoglu A, Kaplanoglu V, Durmusoglu ZDU, Sahin C (2013) Integrating fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS methods for truck selection. Expert Syst Appl 40(3):899–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deckers DLEH, Booij MJ, Rientjes THM, Krol MS (2010) Catchment variability and parameter estimation in multi-objective regionalisation of a rainfall–runoff model. Water Resour Manag 24(14):3961–3985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumedah G, Berg A, Wineberg M, Collier R (2010) Selecting model parameter sets from a trade-off surface generated from the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II. Water Resour Manag 24(15):4469–4489. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9668-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo J, Zhou J, Zou Q, Liu Y, Song L (2013) A novel multi-objective shuffled complex differential evolution algorithm with application to hydrological model parameter optimization. Water Resour Manag 27(8):2923–2946. doi:10.1007/s11269-013-0324-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khu ST, Madsen H (2005) Multiobjective calibration with Pareto preference ordering: an application to rainfall-runoff model calibration. Water Resour Res 41(3), W03004. doi:10.1029/2004wr003041Google Scholar
Moore RJ (1985) The probability-distributed principle and runoff production at point and basin scales. Hydrol Sci J 30:273–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian WY, Li A (2008) Adaptive differential evolution algorithm for multiobjective optimization problems. Appl Math Comput 201(1–2):431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qin H, Zhou JZ, Lu YL, Li YH, Zhang YC (2010) Multi-objective cultured differential evolution for generating optimal trade-offs in reservoir flood control operation. Water Resour Manag 24(11):2611–2632. doi:10.1007/s11269-009-9570-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds RG (1994) An introduction to cultural algorithms. In: Proceedings of the third annual conference on evolutionary programming:131–136.Google Scholar
Vrugt JA, Gupta HV, Bastidas LA, Bouten W, Sorooshian S (2003a) Effective and efficient algorithm for multiobjective optimization of hydrologic models. Water Resour Res 39(8):1214. doi:10.1029/2002wr001746Google Scholar
Vrugt JA, Gupta HV, Bouten W, Sorooshian S (2003b) A shuffled complex evolution metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters. Water Resour Res 39(8):1201. doi:10.1029/2002wr001642Google Scholar
Zhang R, Zhou JZ, Wang YQ (2012) Multi-objective optimization of hydrothermal energy system considering economic and environmental aspects. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 42(1):384–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L (2001) SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm. Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETH). doi:citeulike-article-id:2815762. doi: 10.3929/ethz-a-004284029