Journal of Applied Mathematics

  • J. Appl. Math.
  • Volume 2013, Special Issue (2013), Article ID 346045, 11 pages.

Uncertainty Analysis of Multiple Hydrologic Models Using the Bayesian Model Averaging Method

Leihua Dong, Lihua Xiong, and Kun-xia Yu

Full-text: Open access


Since Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) method can combine the forecasts of different models together to generate a new one which is expected to be better than any individual model’s forecast, it has been widely used in hydrology for ensemble hydrologic prediction. Previous studies of the BMA mostly focused on the comparison of the BMA mean prediction with each individual model’s prediction. As BMA has the ability to provide a statistical distribution of the quantity to be forecasted, the research focus in this study is shifted onto the comparison of the prediction uncertainty interval generated by BMA with that of each individual model under two different BMA combination schemes. In the first BMA scheme, three models under the same Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency objective function are, respectively, calibrated, thus providing three-member predictions ensemble for the BMA combination. In the second BMA scheme, all three models are, respectively, calibrated under three different objective functions other than Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency to obtain nine-member predictions ensemble. Finally, the model efficiency and the uncertainty intervals of each individual model and two BMA combination schemes are assessed and compared.

Article information

J. Appl. Math., Volume 2013, Special Issue (2013), Article ID 346045, 11 pages.

First available in Project Euclid: 14 March 2014

Permanent link to this document

Digital Object Identifier


Dong, Leihua; Xiong, Lihua; Yu, Kun-xia. Uncertainty Analysis of Multiple Hydrologic Models Using the Bayesian Model Averaging Method. J. Appl. Math. 2013, Special Issue (2013), Article ID 346045, 11 pages. doi:10.1155/2013/346045.

Export citation


  • WMO, “Intercomparison of conceptual models used in hydrological forecasting,” Operational Hydrology Report 7, WMO, Geneva, Switzerland, 1975.
  • V. P. Singh, Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, Water Resources Publications, 1995.
  • D. J. Reid, “Combing three estimates of gross domestic products,” Economica, vol. 35, pp. 431–444, 1968.
  • J. M. Bates and C. W. J. Granger, “The combination of forecasts,” Operational Research Quarterly, vol. 20, pp. 451–468, 1969.
  • J. P. Dickinson, “Some statistical results in the combination of forecasts,” Operational Research Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 253–260, 1973.
  • A. Y. Shamseldin, K. M. O'Connor, and G. C. Liang, “Methods for combining the outputs of different rainfall-runoff models,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 197, no. 1–4, pp. 203–229, 1997.
  • L. Xiong, A. Y. Shamseldin, and K. M. O'Connor, “A non-linear combination of the forecasts of rainfall-runoff models by the first-order Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy system,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 245, no. 1–4, pp. 196–217, 2001.
  • D. Madigan and A. E. Raftery, “Model selection and accounting for model uncertainty in graphical models using Occam's window,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 89, pp. 1535–1546, 1994.
  • A. E. Raftery, “Bayesian model selection in social research,” Sociological Methodology, vol. 25, pp. 111–163, 1995.
  • D. Draper, “Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 45–97, 1995.
  • C. Fernández, E. Ley, and M. Steel, “Benchmark priors for Bayesian model averaging,” Journal of Econometrics, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 381–427, 2001.
  • K. Y. Yeung, R. E. Bumgarner, and A. E. Raftery, “Bayesian model averaging: development of an improved multi-class, gene selection and classification tool for microarray data,” Bioinformatics, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 2394–2402, 2005.
  • B. A. Wintle, M. A. McCarthy, C. T. Volinsky, and R. P. Kavanagh, “The use of bayesian model averaging to better represent uncertainty in ecological models,” Conservation Biology, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1579–1590, 2003.
  • K. H. Morales, J. G. Ibrahim, C.-J. Chen, and L. M. Ryan, “Bayesian model averaging with applications to benchmark dose estimation for arsenic in drinking water,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 101, no. 473, pp. 9–17, 2006.
  • G. Koop and L. Tole, “Measuring the health effects of air pollution: to what extent can we really say that people are dying from bad air?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 30–54, 2004.
  • A. E. Raftery, F. Balabdaoui, T. Gneiting, and M. Polakowski, “Using bayesian model averaging to calibrate forecast ensembles,” Technical Report 440, Department of Statistics, University of Washington, 2003.
  • V. Viallefont, A. E. Raftery, and S. Richardson, “Variable selection and Bayesian model averaging in case-control studies,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 20, no. 21, pp. 3215–3230, 2001.
  • J. A. Hoeting, D. Madigan, A. E. Raftery, and C. T. Volinsky, “Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial,” Statistical Science, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 382–417, 1999.
  • M. A. Clyde, “Bayesian model averaging and model search strategies,” in Bayesian Statistics, J. M. Bernardo, A. P. Dawid, J. O. Berger, and A. F. M. Smith, Eds., vol. 6, pp. 157–185, Oxford University Press, 1999.
  • A. E. Raftery and Y. Zheng, “Discussion: performance of bayesian model averaging,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 98, no. 464, pp. 931–938, 2003.
  • S. P. Neuman, “Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of uncertain model predictions,” Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 291–305, 2003.
  • N. K. Ajami, Q. Duan, and S. Sorooshian, “An integrated hydrologic Bayesian multimodel combination framework: confronting input, parameter, and model structural uncertainty in hydrologic prediction,” Water Resources Research, vol. 43, no. 1, Article ID W01403, 2007.
  • Q. Duan, N. K. Ajami, X. Gao, and S. Sorooshian, “Multi-model ensemble hydrologic prediction using Bayesian model averaging,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1371–1386, 2007.
  • X. Zhang, R. Srinivasan, and D. Bosch, “Calibration and uncertainty analysis of the SWAT model using genetic algorithms and Bayesian model averaging,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 374, no. 3-4, pp. 307–317, 2009.
  • K. Beven and A. Binley, “The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction,” Hydrological Processes, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 279–298, 1992.
  • H. V. Gupta, K. J. Beven, and T. Wagener, “Calibration and uncertainty estimation,” in Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 2003.
  • L. Marshall, D. Nott, and A. Sharma, “A comparative study of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for conceptual rainfall-runoff modeling,” Water Resources Research, vol. 40, no. 2, Article ID W02501, 2004.
  • J. A. Vrugt, H. V. Gupta, W. Bouten, and S. Sorooshian, “A Sshuffled complex evolution metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters,” Water Resources Research, vol. 39, no. 8, 2003.
  • J. M. Hammersley and D. C. Handscomb, Monte Carlo Methods, Methuen, London, UK, 1975.
  • F. H. S. Chiew, M. C. Peel, and A. W. Western, “Application and testing of the simple rainfall runoff model SIMHYD,” in Mathematical Models of Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications, V. P. Singh and D. Frevert, Eds., pp. 335–366, Water Resources Publications, 2002.
  • Q. Duan, S. Sorooshian, and V. Gupta, “Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models,” Water Resources Research, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1015–1031, 1992.
  • L. Oudin, V. Andréassian, T. Mathevet, C. Perrin, and C. Michel, “Dynamic averaging of rainfall-runoff model simulations from complementary model parameterizations,” Water Resources Research, vol. 42, no. 7, Article ID W07410, 2006.
  • L. Xiong, M. Wan, X. Wei, and K. M. O'Connor, “Indices for assessing the prediction bounds of hydrological models and application by generalised likelihood uncertainty estimation,” Hydrological Sciences Journal, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 852–871, 2009. \endinput