Skip to main content
Book cover

Computational Intelligence Techniques in Earth and Environmental Sciences pp 243–264Cite as

Evaluation of Mathematical Models with Utility Index: A Case Study from Hydrology

  • 762 Accesses

Abstract

Conventional error-based statistical parameters like the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index are popular among hydrologists to check the accuracy of hydrological models and to compare the relative performance of alternative models in a particular modelling scenario. A major drawback of those traditional indices is that they are based on only one modelling attribute, i.e. the modelling error. This study has identified an overall model utility index as an effective error-sensitivity-uncertainty procedure which could serve as a useful quality indicator of data-based modelling. This study has also made an attempt to answer the question—should the increasing complexity of the existing model add any benefit to the model users? The study evaluates the utility of some popular and widely used data-based models in hydrological modelling such as local linear regression, artificial neural networks (ANNs), Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and support vector machines (SVMs) along with relatively complex wavelet hybrid forms of ANN, ANFIS and SVM in the context of daily rainfall–runoff modelling. The study has used traditional error-based statistical indices to confirm capabilities of model utility index values in identifying better model for rainfall–runoff modelling. The implication of this study is that a modeller may use utility values to select the best model instead of using both calibration and validation processes in the case of data scarcity. The study comprehensively analysed the modelling capabilities of SVM and its waveform in the context of rainfall–runoff modelling.

Keywords

  • Support vector machines
  • Wavelets
  • Local linear regression
  • Artificial neural network
  • Fuzzy inference system
  • Hydrology

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-8642-3_13
  • Chapter length: 22 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-94-017-8642-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 13.1
Fig. 13.2
Fig. 13.3
Fig. 13.4
Fig. 13.5
Fig. 13.6
Fig. 13.7
Fig. 13.8
Fig. 13.9
Fig. 13.10
Fig. 13.11
Fig. 13.12
Fig. 13.13

References

  • Barnes CJ (1995) Commentary: the art of catchment modelling: what is a good model? Environ Int 21(5):747–751

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bray M, Han D (2004) Identification of support vector machines for runoff modelling. J Hydroinf 6(4):265–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer, New York

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hecht-Nielsen R (1990) Neurocomputing. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain SK, Sudheer KP (2008) Fitting of hydrologic models: a close look at the Nash–Sutcliffe Index. J Hydrol Engrg 13(10):981–986. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:10(981)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jang JSR (1993) ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23(3):665–685

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Klir GJ (1989) Methodological principles of uncertainty in inductive modelling: a new perspective. In: Erickson GJ, Smith CR (eds) Maximum-entropy and Bayesian methods in science and engineering, vol 1. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Legates DR, McCabe GJ (1999) Evaluating the use of goodness of fit measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35:233–241

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Maren AJ, Harston CT, Pap RM (1990) Handbook of neural computing applications. Academic, San Diego, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch WS, Pitts W (1943) A logical calculus of the ideas imminent in nervous activity. Bull Math Biophys 5:115–133

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mechaqrane A, Zouak M (2004) A comparison of linear and neural network ARX models applied to a prediction of the indoor temperature of a building. Neural Comput Appl 13:32–37

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the Earth sciences. Science 263:641–646

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pepelnjak JC (2009) Validating the combined approach to online reach prediction. Atlas® Institute Digital Marketing Insights. http://www.atlassolutions.com /uploadedFiles/Atlas/Atlas_Institute/Published_Content/CombinedApproach.pdf

  • Plate EJ, Duckstein L (1987) Reliability in hydraulic design. In: Duckstein L, Plate EJ (eds) Engineering reliability and risk in water resources. NATO ASI Series, Series E: Applied Sciences, No. 124. Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Remesan R, Shamim MA, Han D, Mathew J (2009) Runoff prediction using an integrated hybrid modelling scheme. J Hydrol 372(1–4):48–60. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.03.034

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Snowling SD, Kramer JR (2001) Evaluating modelling uncertainty for model selection. Ecol Model 138:17–30

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sugeno M, Kang GT (1988) Structure identification of fuzzy model. Fuzzy Set Syst 28:15–33

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cranfield Water Science Institute, Cranfield University, Vincent Building, College Road, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK

    Dr. Renji Remesan

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Dr. Dawei Han

Authors
  1. Dr. Renji Remesan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dr. Dawei Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renji Remesan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, NOAA/NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research, College Park, MD, USA, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Tanvir Islam

  2. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt & ESSIC, University of Maryland College Park, MD, USA, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

    Prashant K. Srivastava

  3. Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi, Delhi, India

    Manika Gupta

  4. School of Geog. and Env. Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Xuan Zhu

  5. School of Environmental Sciences Remote Sensing, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

    Saumitra Mukherjee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Remesan, R., Han, D. (2014). Evaluation of Mathematical Models with Utility Index: A Case Study from Hydrology. In: Islam, T., Srivastava, P., Gupta, M., Zhu, X., Mukherjee, S. (eds) Computational Intelligence Techniques in Earth and Environmental Sciences. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8642-3_13

Download citation