Towards an Extension of the Model Conditional Processor: Predictive Uncertainty Quantification of Monthly Streamflow via Gaussian Mixture Models and Clusters
[EN] This research develops an extension of the Model Conditional Processor (MCP), which merges clusters with Gaussian mixture models to offer an alternative solution to manage heteroscedastic errors. The new method is called the Gaussian mixture clustering post-processor (GMCP). The results of the...
| Autores: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) |
| Repositorio: | RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/194039 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/194039 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Uncertainty analysis Water resources Cluster analysis Gaussian mixture model Probabilistic prediction INGENIERIA HIDRAULICA |
| Sumario: | [EN] This research develops an extension of the Model Conditional Processor (MCP), which merges clusters with Gaussian mixture models to offer an alternative solution to manage heteroscedastic errors. The new method is called the Gaussian mixture clustering post-processor (GMCP). The results of the proposed post-processor were compared to the traditional MCP and MCP using a truncated Normal distribution (MCPt) by applying multiple deterministic and probabilistic verification indices. This research also assesses the GMCP's capacity to estimate the predictive uncertainty of the monthly streamflow under different climate conditions in the "Second Workshop on Model Parameter Estimation Experiment" (MOPEX) catchments distributed in the SE part of the USA. The results indicate that all three post-processors showed promising results. However, the GMCP post-processor has shown significant potential in generating more reliable, sharp, and accurate monthly streamflow predictions than the MCP and MCPt methods, especially in dry catchments. Moreover, the MCP and MCPt provided similar performances for monthly streamflow and better performances in wet catchments than in dry catchments. The GMCP constitutes a promising solution to handle heteroscedastic errors in monthly streamflow, therefore moving towards a more realistic monthly hydrological prediction to support effective decision-making in planning and managing water resources. |
|---|