Improving probabilistic prediction of daily streamflow by identifying Pareto optimal approaches for modeling heteroscedastic residual errors

Reliable and precise probabilistic prediction of daily catchment‐scale streamflow requires statistical characterization of residual errors of hydrological models. This study focuses on approaches for representing error heteroscedasticity with respect to simulated streamflow, i.e., the pattern of lar...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Water resources research 2017-03, Vol.53 (3), p.2199-2239
Hauptverfasser: McInerney, David, Thyer, Mark, Kavetski, Dmitri, Lerat, Julien, Kuczera, George
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2239
container_issue 3
container_start_page 2199
container_title Water resources research
container_volume 53
creator McInerney, David
Thyer, Mark
Kavetski, Dmitri
Lerat, Julien
Kuczera, George
description Reliable and precise probabilistic prediction of daily catchment‐scale streamflow requires statistical characterization of residual errors of hydrological models. This study focuses on approaches for representing error heteroscedasticity with respect to simulated streamflow, i.e., the pattern of larger errors in higher streamflow predictions. We evaluate eight common residual error schemes, including standard and weighted least squares, the Box‐Cox transformation (with fixed and calibrated power parameter λ) and the log‐sinh transformation. Case studies include 17 perennial and 6 ephemeral catchments in Australia and the United States, and two lumped hydrological models. Performance is quantified using predictive reliability, precision, and volumetric bias metrics. We find the choice of heteroscedastic error modeling approach significantly impacts on predictive performance, though no single scheme simultaneously optimizes all performance metrics. The set of Pareto optimal schemes, reflecting performance trade‐offs, comprises Box‐Cox schemes with λ of 0.2 and 0.5, and the log scheme (λ = 0, perennial catchments only). These schemes significantly outperform even the average‐performing remaining schemes (e.g., across ephemeral catchments, median precision tightens from 105% to 40% of observed streamflow, and median biases decrease from 25% to 4%). Theoretical interpretations of empirical results highlight the importance of capturing the skew/kurtosis of raw residuals and reproducing zero flows. Paradoxically, calibration of λ is often counterproductive: in perennial catchments, it tends to overfit low flows at the expense of abysmal precision in high flows. The log‐sinh transformation is dominated by the simpler Pareto optimal schemes listed above. Recommendations for researchers and practitioners seeking robust residual error schemes for practical work are provided. Plain Language Summary Predicting streamflow and water availability is a major scientific and engineering challenge, with global socioeconomic significance. Quantifying the uncertainty in streamflow predictions is a key component of risk‐based design and management of water systems. It enables decision‐makers to assess the likelihood that their investments will produce the desired outcome (e.g., reduced flood risk, increased environmental flows). Streamflow predictions at the catchment scale are often highly uncertain due to factors such as observation errors in the data and incomplete understand
doi_str_mv 10.1002/2016WR019168
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1897381354</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1897381354</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3110-6162e3d1580b067b0a04226d72928251c3a9ae992446d9fb0630b86ffcd84a643</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1q3TAQhUVpoLdJdn0AQTfZOB39WJaW5dL8QKDl0pKlka1xoyBbN5Jvgt-hDx256SJk0dUw8J2ZwzmEfGJwzgD4Fw5M3e6AGab0O7JhRsqqMY14TzYAUlRMmOYD-ZjzPQCTtWo25M_1uE_x0U-_aZmd7XzwefZ92dD5fvZxonGgzvqw0DwntOMQ4hPtFuodTrMfllX7wyacI4372Y82ULsvx2x_h5kOMdExOgwrdoczpph7dPbvk4TZu0MRYEox5RNyNNiQ8fTfPCa_Lr793F5VN98vr7dfbyorGINKMcVROFZr6EA1HViQnCvXcMM1r1kvrLFoDJdSOTMURkCn1TD0TkurpDgmZy93i8uHA-a5HX0xFYKdMB5yy3QJTTNRr-jnN-h9PKSpuGtLzMLwYoL9l9JrG5pLKJR4oZ58wKXdp5JVWloG7dpe-7q99na33XFeA4hnz0uQJg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1891688240</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Improving probabilistic prediction of daily streamflow by identifying Pareto optimal approaches for modeling heteroscedastic residual errors</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>McInerney, David ; Thyer, Mark ; Kavetski, Dmitri ; Lerat, Julien ; Kuczera, George</creator><creatorcontrib>McInerney, David ; Thyer, Mark ; Kavetski, Dmitri ; Lerat, Julien ; Kuczera, George</creatorcontrib><description>Reliable and precise probabilistic prediction of daily catchment‐scale streamflow requires statistical characterization of residual errors of hydrological models. This study focuses on approaches for representing error heteroscedasticity with respect to simulated streamflow, i.e., the pattern of larger errors in higher streamflow predictions. We evaluate eight common residual error schemes, including standard and weighted least squares, the Box‐Cox transformation (with fixed and calibrated power parameter λ) and the log‐sinh transformation. Case studies include 17 perennial and 6 ephemeral catchments in Australia and the United States, and two lumped hydrological models. Performance is quantified using predictive reliability, precision, and volumetric bias metrics. We find the choice of heteroscedastic error modeling approach significantly impacts on predictive performance, though no single scheme simultaneously optimizes all performance metrics. The set of Pareto optimal schemes, reflecting performance trade‐offs, comprises Box‐Cox schemes with λ of 0.2 and 0.5, and the log scheme (λ = 0, perennial catchments only). These schemes significantly outperform even the average‐performing remaining schemes (e.g., across ephemeral catchments, median precision tightens from 105% to 40% of observed streamflow, and median biases decrease from 25% to 4%). Theoretical interpretations of empirical results highlight the importance of capturing the skew/kurtosis of raw residuals and reproducing zero flows. Paradoxically, calibration of λ is often counterproductive: in perennial catchments, it tends to overfit low flows at the expense of abysmal precision in high flows. The log‐sinh transformation is dominated by the simpler Pareto optimal schemes listed above. Recommendations for researchers and practitioners seeking robust residual error schemes for practical work are provided. Plain Language Summary Predicting streamflow and water availability is a major scientific and engineering challenge, with global socioeconomic significance. Quantifying the uncertainty in streamflow predictions is a key component of risk‐based design and management of water systems. It enables decision‐makers to assess the likelihood that their investments will produce the desired outcome (e.g., reduced flood risk, increased environmental flows). Streamflow predictions at the catchment scale are often highly uncertain due to factors such as observation errors in the data and incomplete understanding of catchment physics. This study advances the field of catchment‐scale hydrological modeling by identifying the best‐performing error modeling schemes (from eight common approaches) that provide the most reliable, precise and unbiased streamflow predictions. These best‐performing schemes provide substantially tighter and more reliable predictions than other schemes under consideration, with some of the most pronounced improvements relating to streamflow prediction in ephemeral catchments. These findings provide hydrologists with robust modeling tools for quantifying predictive uncertainty in research and operational applications. Key Points Choice of heteroscedastic error modeling approach significantly impacts on predictive reliability, precision, and bias, over 46 case studies Pareto optimal performance (out of eight residual error schemes) provided by Box‐Cox transform with power parameter λ fixed between 0 and 0.5 Empirically identified limitations of individual residual error schemes are interpreted using theoretical and synthetic analysis</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1397</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-7973</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/2016WR019168</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Availability ; Bias ; Box‐Cox transformation ; Calibration ; Case studies ; Catchment area ; Catchment scale ; Catchments ; Computer simulation ; Daily ; Environmental risk ; Error analysis ; Errors ; Flood predictions ; Flood risk ; Floods ; Forecasting ; heteroscedasticity ; High flow ; Hydrologic models ; hydrological models ; Hydrologists ; Hydrology ; Impact prediction ; Investment ; Kurtosis ; Least squares method ; Low flow ; Modelling ; Pareto optimality ; Pareto optimum ; Performance measurement ; Performance prediction ; Physics ; probabilistic prediction ; Probability theory ; Reliability ; residual errors ; Risk ; Risk reduction ; Scale (ratio) ; Statistical analysis ; Stream discharge ; Stream flow ; Uncertainty ; Water availability ; Water management</subject><ispartof>Water resources research, 2017-03, Vol.53 (3), p.2199-2239</ispartof><rights>2017. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0003-4966-9234 ; 0000-0003-4876-8281 ; 0000-0002-2830-516X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2F2016WR019168$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2F2016WR019168$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,11493,27901,27902,45550,45551,46443,46867</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McInerney, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thyer, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kavetski, Dmitri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lerat, Julien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuczera, George</creatorcontrib><title>Improving probabilistic prediction of daily streamflow by identifying Pareto optimal approaches for modeling heteroscedastic residual errors</title><title>Water resources research</title><description>Reliable and precise probabilistic prediction of daily catchment‐scale streamflow requires statistical characterization of residual errors of hydrological models. This study focuses on approaches for representing error heteroscedasticity with respect to simulated streamflow, i.e., the pattern of larger errors in higher streamflow predictions. We evaluate eight common residual error schemes, including standard and weighted least squares, the Box‐Cox transformation (with fixed and calibrated power parameter λ) and the log‐sinh transformation. Case studies include 17 perennial and 6 ephemeral catchments in Australia and the United States, and two lumped hydrological models. Performance is quantified using predictive reliability, precision, and volumetric bias metrics. We find the choice of heteroscedastic error modeling approach significantly impacts on predictive performance, though no single scheme simultaneously optimizes all performance metrics. The set of Pareto optimal schemes, reflecting performance trade‐offs, comprises Box‐Cox schemes with λ of 0.2 and 0.5, and the log scheme (λ = 0, perennial catchments only). These schemes significantly outperform even the average‐performing remaining schemes (e.g., across ephemeral catchments, median precision tightens from 105% to 40% of observed streamflow, and median biases decrease from 25% to 4%). Theoretical interpretations of empirical results highlight the importance of capturing the skew/kurtosis of raw residuals and reproducing zero flows. Paradoxically, calibration of λ is often counterproductive: in perennial catchments, it tends to overfit low flows at the expense of abysmal precision in high flows. The log‐sinh transformation is dominated by the simpler Pareto optimal schemes listed above. Recommendations for researchers and practitioners seeking robust residual error schemes for practical work are provided. Plain Language Summary Predicting streamflow and water availability is a major scientific and engineering challenge, with global socioeconomic significance. Quantifying the uncertainty in streamflow predictions is a key component of risk‐based design and management of water systems. It enables decision‐makers to assess the likelihood that their investments will produce the desired outcome (e.g., reduced flood risk, increased environmental flows). Streamflow predictions at the catchment scale are often highly uncertain due to factors such as observation errors in the data and incomplete understanding of catchment physics. This study advances the field of catchment‐scale hydrological modeling by identifying the best‐performing error modeling schemes (from eight common approaches) that provide the most reliable, precise and unbiased streamflow predictions. These best‐performing schemes provide substantially tighter and more reliable predictions than other schemes under consideration, with some of the most pronounced improvements relating to streamflow prediction in ephemeral catchments. These findings provide hydrologists with robust modeling tools for quantifying predictive uncertainty in research and operational applications. Key Points Choice of heteroscedastic error modeling approach significantly impacts on predictive reliability, precision, and bias, over 46 case studies Pareto optimal performance (out of eight residual error schemes) provided by Box‐Cox transform with power parameter λ fixed between 0 and 0.5 Empirically identified limitations of individual residual error schemes are interpreted using theoretical and synthetic analysis</description><subject>Availability</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Box‐Cox transformation</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Catchment area</subject><subject>Catchment scale</subject><subject>Catchments</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Daily</subject><subject>Environmental risk</subject><subject>Error analysis</subject><subject>Errors</subject><subject>Flood predictions</subject><subject>Flood risk</subject><subject>Floods</subject><subject>Forecasting</subject><subject>heteroscedasticity</subject><subject>High flow</subject><subject>Hydrologic models</subject><subject>hydrological models</subject><subject>Hydrologists</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Impact prediction</subject><subject>Investment</subject><subject>Kurtosis</subject><subject>Least squares method</subject><subject>Low flow</subject><subject>Modelling</subject><subject>Pareto optimality</subject><subject>Pareto optimum</subject><subject>Performance measurement</subject><subject>Performance prediction</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>probabilistic prediction</subject><subject>Probability theory</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>residual errors</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Risk reduction</subject><subject>Scale (ratio)</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Stream discharge</subject><subject>Stream flow</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><subject>Water availability</subject><subject>Water management</subject><issn>0043-1397</issn><issn>1944-7973</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kc1q3TAQhUVpoLdJdn0AQTfZOB39WJaW5dL8QKDl0pKlka1xoyBbN5Jvgt-hDx256SJk0dUw8J2ZwzmEfGJwzgD4Fw5M3e6AGab0O7JhRsqqMY14TzYAUlRMmOYD-ZjzPQCTtWo25M_1uE_x0U-_aZmd7XzwefZ92dD5fvZxonGgzvqw0DwntOMQ4hPtFuodTrMfllX7wyacI4372Y82ULsvx2x_h5kOMdExOgwrdoczpph7dPbvk4TZu0MRYEox5RNyNNiQ8fTfPCa_Lr793F5VN98vr7dfbyorGINKMcVROFZr6EA1HViQnCvXcMM1r1kvrLFoDJdSOTMURkCn1TD0TkurpDgmZy93i8uHA-a5HX0xFYKdMB5yy3QJTTNRr-jnN-h9PKSpuGtLzMLwYoL9l9JrG5pLKJR4oZ58wKXdp5JVWloG7dpe-7q99na33XFeA4hnz0uQJg</recordid><startdate>201703</startdate><enddate>201703</enddate><creator>McInerney, David</creator><creator>Thyer, Mark</creator><creator>Kavetski, Dmitri</creator><creator>Lerat, Julien</creator><creator>Kuczera, George</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4966-9234</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4876-8281</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2830-516X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201703</creationdate><title>Improving probabilistic prediction of daily streamflow by identifying Pareto optimal approaches for modeling heteroscedastic residual errors</title><author>McInerney, David ; Thyer, Mark ; Kavetski, Dmitri ; Lerat, Julien ; Kuczera, George</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a3110-6162e3d1580b067b0a04226d72928251c3a9ae992446d9fb0630b86ffcd84a643</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Availability</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Box‐Cox transformation</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Catchment area</topic><topic>Catchment scale</topic><topic>Catchments</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Daily</topic><topic>Environmental risk</topic><topic>Error analysis</topic><topic>Errors</topic><topic>Flood predictions</topic><topic>Flood risk</topic><topic>Floods</topic><topic>Forecasting</topic><topic>heteroscedasticity</topic><topic>High flow</topic><topic>Hydrologic models</topic><topic>hydrological models</topic><topic>Hydrologists</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Impact prediction</topic><topic>Investment</topic><topic>Kurtosis</topic><topic>Least squares method</topic><topic>Low flow</topic><topic>Modelling</topic><topic>Pareto optimality</topic><topic>Pareto optimum</topic><topic>Performance measurement</topic><topic>Performance prediction</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>probabilistic prediction</topic><topic>Probability theory</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>residual errors</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Risk reduction</topic><topic>Scale (ratio)</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Stream discharge</topic><topic>Stream flow</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><topic>Water availability</topic><topic>Water management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McInerney, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thyer, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kavetski, Dmitri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lerat, Julien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuczera, George</creatorcontrib><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McInerney, David</au><au>Thyer, Mark</au><au>Kavetski, Dmitri</au><au>Lerat, Julien</au><au>Kuczera, George</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Improving probabilistic prediction of daily streamflow by identifying Pareto optimal approaches for modeling heteroscedastic residual errors</atitle><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle><date>2017-03</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>2199</spage><epage>2239</epage><pages>2199-2239</pages><issn>0043-1397</issn><eissn>1944-7973</eissn><abstract>Reliable and precise probabilistic prediction of daily catchment‐scale streamflow requires statistical characterization of residual errors of hydrological models. This study focuses on approaches for representing error heteroscedasticity with respect to simulated streamflow, i.e., the pattern of larger errors in higher streamflow predictions. We evaluate eight common residual error schemes, including standard and weighted least squares, the Box‐Cox transformation (with fixed and calibrated power parameter λ) and the log‐sinh transformation. Case studies include 17 perennial and 6 ephemeral catchments in Australia and the United States, and two lumped hydrological models. Performance is quantified using predictive reliability, precision, and volumetric bias metrics. We find the choice of heteroscedastic error modeling approach significantly impacts on predictive performance, though no single scheme simultaneously optimizes all performance metrics. The set of Pareto optimal schemes, reflecting performance trade‐offs, comprises Box‐Cox schemes with λ of 0.2 and 0.5, and the log scheme (λ = 0, perennial catchments only). These schemes significantly outperform even the average‐performing remaining schemes (e.g., across ephemeral catchments, median precision tightens from 105% to 40% of observed streamflow, and median biases decrease from 25% to 4%). Theoretical interpretations of empirical results highlight the importance of capturing the skew/kurtosis of raw residuals and reproducing zero flows. Paradoxically, calibration of λ is often counterproductive: in perennial catchments, it tends to overfit low flows at the expense of abysmal precision in high flows. The log‐sinh transformation is dominated by the simpler Pareto optimal schemes listed above. Recommendations for researchers and practitioners seeking robust residual error schemes for practical work are provided. Plain Language Summary Predicting streamflow and water availability is a major scientific and engineering challenge, with global socioeconomic significance. Quantifying the uncertainty in streamflow predictions is a key component of risk‐based design and management of water systems. It enables decision‐makers to assess the likelihood that their investments will produce the desired outcome (e.g., reduced flood risk, increased environmental flows). Streamflow predictions at the catchment scale are often highly uncertain due to factors such as observation errors in the data and incomplete understanding of catchment physics. This study advances the field of catchment‐scale hydrological modeling by identifying the best‐performing error modeling schemes (from eight common approaches) that provide the most reliable, precise and unbiased streamflow predictions. These best‐performing schemes provide substantially tighter and more reliable predictions than other schemes under consideration, with some of the most pronounced improvements relating to streamflow prediction in ephemeral catchments. These findings provide hydrologists with robust modeling tools for quantifying predictive uncertainty in research and operational applications. Key Points Choice of heteroscedastic error modeling approach significantly impacts on predictive reliability, precision, and bias, over 46 case studies Pareto optimal performance (out of eight residual error schemes) provided by Box‐Cox transform with power parameter λ fixed between 0 and 0.5 Empirically identified limitations of individual residual error schemes are interpreted using theoretical and synthetic analysis</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/2016WR019168</doi><tpages>41</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4966-9234</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4876-8281</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2830-516X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0043-1397
ispartof Water resources research, 2017-03, Vol.53 (3), p.2199-2239
issn 0043-1397
1944-7973
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1897381354
source Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Availability
Bias
Box‐Cox transformation
Calibration
Case studies
Catchment area
Catchment scale
Catchments
Computer simulation
Daily
Environmental risk
Error analysis
Errors
Flood predictions
Flood risk
Floods
Forecasting
heteroscedasticity
High flow
Hydrologic models
hydrological models
Hydrologists
Hydrology
Impact prediction
Investment
Kurtosis
Least squares method
Low flow
Modelling
Pareto optimality
Pareto optimum
Performance measurement
Performance prediction
Physics
probabilistic prediction
Probability theory
Reliability
residual errors
Risk
Risk reduction
Scale (ratio)
Statistical analysis
Stream discharge
Stream flow
Uncertainty
Water availability
Water management
title Improving probabilistic prediction of daily streamflow by identifying Pareto optimal approaches for modeling heteroscedastic residual errors
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T02%3A43%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Improving%20probabilistic%20prediction%20of%20daily%20streamflow%20by%20identifying%20Pareto%20optimal%20approaches%20for%20modeling%20heteroscedastic%20residual%20errors&rft.jtitle=Water%20resources%20research&rft.au=McInerney,%20David&rft.date=2017-03&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=2199&rft.epage=2239&rft.pages=2199-2239&rft.issn=0043-1397&rft.eissn=1944-7973&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/2016WR019168&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wiley%3E1897381354%3C/proquest_wiley%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1891688240&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true