Error analysis for the evaluation of model performance: rainfall-runoff event time series data

This paper provides a procedure for evaluating model performance where model predictions and observations are given as time series data. The procedure focuses on the analysis of error time series by graphing them, summarizing them, and predicting their variability through available information (recalibration). We analysed two rainfall–runoff events from the R‐5 data set, and evaluated 12 distinct model simulation scenarios for these events, of which 10 were conducted with the quasi‐physically‐based rainfall–runoff model (QPBRRM) and two with the integrated hydrology model (InHM). The QPBRRM simulation scenarios differ in their representation of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Two InHM simulation scenarios differ with respect to the inclusion of the roads at R‐5. The two models, QPBRRM and InHM, differ strongly in the complexity and number of processes included. For all model simulations we found that errors could be predicted fairly well to very well, based on model output, or based on smooth functions of lagged rainfall data. The errors remaining after recalibration are much more alike in terms of variability than those without recalibration. In this paper, recalibration is not meant to fix models, but merely as a diagnostic tool that exhibits the magnitude and direction of model errors and indicates whether these model errors are related to model inputs such as rainfall. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.