Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Benchmarking Automatically Identified Model Structures with a Large Model Ensemble
View through CrossRef
<p>Recent studies have introduced methods to simultaneously calibrate model structure choices and parameter values to identify an appropriate (conceptual) model structure for a given catchment. This can be done through mixed-integer optimization to identify the graph structure that links dominant flow processes (Spieler et al., 2020) or, likewise, by continuous optimization of weights when blending multiple flux equations to describe flow processes within a model (Chlumsky et al., 2021). Here, we use the combination of the mixed-integer optimization algorithm DDS and the modular modelling framework RAVEN and refer to it as Automatic Model Structure Identification (AMSI) framework.</p><p>This study validates the AMSI framework by comparing the performance of the identified AMSI model structures to two different benchmark ensembles. The first ensemble consists of the best model structures from the brute force calibration of all possible structures included in the AMSI model space (7488+). The second ensemble consists of 35+ MARRMoT structures representing a structurally more divers set of models than currently implemented in the AMSI framework. These structures stem from the MARRMoT Toolbox introduced by Knoben et al. (2019) providing established conceptual model structures based on hydrologic literature.</p><p>We analyze if the model structure(s) AMSI identifies are identical to the best performing structures of the brute force calibration and comparable in their performance to the MARRMoT ensemble. We can conclude that model structures identified with the AMSI framework can compete with the structurally more divers MARRMoT ensemble. In fact, we were surprised to see how well we do with a simple two storage structure over the 12 tested MOPEX catchments (Duan et al.,2006). We aim to discuss several emerging questions, such as the selection of a robust model structure, Equifinality in model structures, and the role of structural complexity.</p><p>&#160;</p><p>Spieler et al. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR027009</p><p>Chlumsky et al. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029229</p><p>Knoben et al. (2019). https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2463-2019</p><p>Duan et al. (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.031</p>
Title: Benchmarking Automatically Identified Model Structures with a Large Model Ensemble
Description:
<p>Recent studies have introduced methods to simultaneously calibrate model structure choices and parameter values to identify an appropriate (conceptual) model structure for a given catchment.
This can be done through mixed-integer optimization to identify the graph structure that links dominant flow processes (Spieler et al.
, 2020) or, likewise, by continuous optimization of weights when blending multiple flux equations to describe flow processes within a model (Chlumsky et al.
, 2021).
Here, we use the combination of the mixed-integer optimization algorithm DDS and the modular modelling framework RAVEN and refer to it as Automatic Model Structure Identification (AMSI) framework.
</p><p>This study validates the AMSI framework by comparing the performance of the identified AMSI model structures to two different benchmark ensembles.
The first ensemble consists of the best model structures from the brute force calibration of all possible structures included in the AMSI model space (7488+).
The second ensemble consists of 35+ MARRMoT structures representing a structurally more divers set of models than currently implemented in the AMSI framework.
These structures stem from the MARRMoT Toolbox introduced by Knoben et al.
(2019) providing established conceptual model structures based on hydrologic literature.
</p><p>We analyze if the model structure(s) AMSI identifies are identical to the best performing structures of the brute force calibration and comparable in their performance to the MARRMoT ensemble.
We can conclude that model structures identified with the AMSI framework can compete with the structurally more divers MARRMoT ensemble.
In fact, we were surprised to see how well we do with a simple two storage structure over the 12 tested MOPEX catchments (Duan et al.
,2006).
We aim to discuss several emerging questions, such as the selection of a robust model structure, Equifinality in model structures, and the role of structural complexity.
</p><p>&#160;</p><p>Spieler et al.
(2020).
https://doi.
org/10.
1029/2019WR027009</p><p>Chlumsky et al.
(2021).
https://doi.
org/10.
1029/2020WR029229</p><p>Knoben et al.
(2019).
https://doi.
org/10.
5194/gmd-12-2463-2019</p><p>Duan et al.
(2006).
https://doi.
org/10.
1016/j.
jhydrol.
2005.
07.
031</p>.
Related Results
Evolving benchmarking practices: a review for research perspectives
Evolving benchmarking practices: a review for research perspectives
PurposeThe purpose of this study is to review a major section of the literature on benchmarking practices in order to achieve better perspectives for emerging benchmarking research...
Perceptions about benchmarking best practices among French managers: an exploratory survey
Perceptions about benchmarking best practices among French managers: an exploratory survey
PurposeThe purpose of this study is to present a discussion on the most commonly accepted benchmarking norms in the USA, the lessons learned from benchmarking experiences and see h...
Barriers to internal benchmarking initiatives: an empirical investigation
Barriers to internal benchmarking initiatives: an empirical investigation
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to focus on the identification of barriers to the implementation of benchmarking initiatives. Managers have little guidance on strategies for su...
Improving SME logistics performance through benchmarking
Improving SME logistics performance through benchmarking
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the applicability of current benchmarking proposals for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and to suggest a condensed process...
A review on benchmarking of supply chain performance measures
A review on benchmarking of supply chain performance measures
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to redress the imbalances in the past literature of supply chain benchmarking and enhance data envelopment analysis (DEA) modeling approach in s...
An optimisational model of benchmarking
An optimisational model of benchmarking
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to develop a quantitative methodology for benchmarking process which is simple, effective and efficient as a rejoinder to benchmarking detractor...
The need for adaptive processes of benchmarking in small business‐to‐business services
The need for adaptive processes of benchmarking in small business‐to‐business services
PurposeThis paper aims to explore current management attitudes towards benchmarking and its implementation within small business‐to‐business service firms in order to enhance a dee...
Organisational ensuring the international benchmarking of the enterprise
Organisational ensuring the international benchmarking of the enterprise
This paper delves into the contemporary significance of organizational facilitation for international benchmarking within enterprises. It explores strategies and methodologies, she...

