Ann output updating of lumped conceptual rainfall/runoff forecasting models1 Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Oct

2003 by Anctil, Francois, Perrin, Charles, Andreassian, Vazken ABSTRACT: Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are tested for the output updating of one-day-ahead and three-day-ahead streamflow forecasts derived from three lumped conceptual rainfall/runoff (RR) models: the GR4J, the IHAC, and the TOPMO. ANN output updating proved superior to a parameter updating scheme and to the 'simple' output updating scheme, which always replicates the last observed forecast error. In fact, ANN output updating was able to compensate for large differences in the initial performance of the three tested lumped conceptual R-R models, which the other tested updating approaches were not able to achieve. This is done mainly by incorporating input vectors usually exploited for ANN R-R modeling such as previous rainfall and streamflow observations, in addition to the previous observed error. For one-day-ahead forecasts, the performance of all three lumped conceptual R-R models, used in conjunction with ANN output updating, was equivalent to that of the ANN R-R model. For three-day-ahead forecasts, the performance of the ANN-output-updated conceptual models was even superior to that of the ANN R-R model, revealing that the conceptual models are probably performing some tasks that the ANN R-R model cannot map. However, further testing is needed to substantiate the last statement. (KEY TERMS: surface-water hydrology; modeling; model output updating;

rainfall/runoff; artificial neural networks.) INTRODUCTION A hydrometeorological network and a rainfall/ runoff (R-R) model are key elements of any streamflow forecasting system. The first one provides timely observations of streamflow, precipitation, and other pertinent climate variables, while the second one exploits this information to simulate the hydrological processes that produce surface river flow. R-R models may be classified according to their internal description of the hydrological processes as either black box, conceptual or physically based, and,

according to the spatial description of watershed processes, as lumped or distributed [see Beven (2001) among others]. In most instances, R-R models rely on a mathematical description of selected hydrological processes and a more or less large number of state variables and model parameters that need to be calibrated by means of a series of available observations. However, in forecasting mode, the calibrated model is often driven away from the average conditions of the observation series. To circumvent this problem, R-R model performances are usually improved by an updating procedure, which uses streamflow values observed until the time of issuing the forecast. Updating procedures are based on the idea that the forecast is improved when the model is in better agreement with recent observations. The updating methodology depends on what is considered by the modeler to be the main cause of discrepancy between observed and computed streamflow values. Different types of updating procedures exist. Reviews agree on the following classification (O'Connell and Clarke, 1981; Refsgaard, 1997; Babovic et al, 2001). (1) Updating of Inputs - This is the least favored updating scheme because of the lack of guidance and justification for modifying the precipitation and/or the streamflow time series. (2) Updating of State Variables - The idea supporting state variable updating is that dayto-day watershed states deviate from the average conditions simulated by the model. The state-space-based Kaiman filter (Kaiman, 1960) has been used with many R-R models to achieve such updating (e.g., Da Ros and Borga, 1997; Lauzon et al., 1997; Lee and Singh, 1998; Schreider et al, 2001). The Kaiman filter is known to lead to an optimal prediction for a linear system. It can also be extended to the nonlinear case - such as that of the vast majority of R-R models - by linearization. This is the so-called extended Kaiman filter. However, it is also known that the stability of the extended Kaiman filter method is questionable. Moreover, the process of linearization leads to biased estimates that degrade the performance of the prediction (Tanizaki, 1996). Tucci and Clark (1980) argue against too liberal use of these mathematical tools.

(3) Updating of Model Parameters - Model parameter updating schemes are often criticized either because they are known to be difficult to use when the model includes a large number of parameters or because it is believed that it is not physically sound to modify model parameters at each time step. However, a new methodology, described by Yang and Michel (2000), adjusts R-R conceptual model parameters by retracing a certain number of past time steps. This approach will be described in more detail below. (4) Updating of Output Variables (error prediction) - The fourth procedure considers the actual streamflow as the sum of the model output and of an error term. The error term has to be modeled to allow predictions of its short term realizations, which is often done through time series analysis (e.g., the Box and Jenkins family of linear models) that makes use of the fact that model residuals are often strongly autocorrelated. For example, Schreider et al. (1997) applied an AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model to the conceptual R-R IHACRES model. The purpose of this work is to test the capacity of artificial neural networks (ANNs) to update the output of lumped conceptual R-R models. The strategy of employing ANNs as updating procedures is similar to that employed in Babovic et al. (2001) in the context of hydrodynamic modeling. It is considered as critical to transfer the implementation proposed by Babovic et al. (2001) into a hydrologic context such as streamflow forecasting, for it is usually more difficult in hydrology than in hydrodynamics to work in modeling conditions in which the natural processes are extensively described. Updating procedures might be significant modeling supports that help compensate for the deficiencies of the hydrologic models, which is why it is important to investigate any existing updating procedure applied in other fields and develop new ones whenever possible. ANNs are nonlinear entities that could be trained to map input vectors to their corresponding targets. They are particularly suited to updating because they are driven by the consideration of the data structure, and therefore they may provide additional information independent of the mathematical descriptions of the relevant physical processes attempted by the lumped conceptual R-R models. To evaluate the general

applicability of the ANNs, three lumped conceptual R-R models are used to forecast oneday and three-day-ahead streamflows: the GR4J, the IHAC, and the TOPMO. These models proved efficient in a comprehensive comparison of 19 existing conceptual R-R models over 429 catchments worldwide (Perrin et al., 2001). Then, ANN output updating is compared to Yang and Michel's (2000) parameter updating scheme and to a basic output updating, which assumes that the error is equal to the last observed one. ANN R-R models are also trained for comparison. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: (a) presentation of the dataset and of the watershed; (b) outline of the selected lumped conceptual models and ANN methodology; (c) description of the tested updating schemes; (d) description of the analysis results; and (e) conclusion. DATA AND WATERSHED Forecasts were made for the Serein River catchment, in the Seine basin, France. The Serein is an unregulated tributary of the Yonne River, which joins the Seine River upstream of Paris (Figure 1). The streamflow gauging station (Code H2342010) is located at Chablis and the catchment size is 1,120 km^sup 2^. The basin has an elongated shape and a concentration time of about three days. Altitudes range from some 135 m at the outlet to 535 m upstream. The catchment is mainly rural, with cropland in the north and pastures in the south. Daily streamflow data are available from 1955, but the study focused on periods without missing data and with the highest number of active rain gauges. Observations from 1970 to 1979 were used for model training (calibration), while observations gathered between 1982 and 1988 were used to test the model (Figure 2). The calibration period is slightly drier than the validation period, as indicated by the means represented by the dashed lines in Figure 2. This increases the value of the validation period in the evaluation of model performance, for it is usually more challenging to estimate wetter streamflow events with the model calibrated on dry to average streamflow conditions. The mean streamflow is 7.9 m^sup 3^/s, which represents an average of 225 mm annually. Twenty-one rain

gauges, uniformly distributed across the catchment, were used to compute areal rainfall by a simple arithmetic average of available data (Figure 1). The mean annual rainfall over the catchment is about 850 mm, but some heterogeneity is observed in the rainfall field. The annual rainfall ranges from 750 to 1,050 mm depending on the rain gauge. Snowfalls occasionally occur in winter, but snowmelt was not found to be significant enough to warrant specific modules in the tested modeling tools. Potential evapotranspiration was obtained through Penman's (1948) formula and the meteorological observations at Auxerre (Figure 1). Ten-day long term averages were used and daily values were calculated by applying a polynomial smoothing function to the ten-day data. The mean potential evapotranspiration is about 740 mm at Auxerre. The same evapotranspiration data were used for every year of the studied period. MODELS The study relies on three lumped conceptual R-R models that are based on quite different R-R transformations and parameter numbers: the GR4J, the IHAC, and the TOPMO. ANNs are also used both as R-R models and as output updating models for the three conceptual R-R models. The conceptual models are fed with rainfall and potential evapotranspiration, while streamflow is used for updating. The ANNs are run with rainfall and streamflow time series. Conceptual Models The GR4J conceptual R-R model originates from the GR3J model proposed by Edijatno et al. (1999). Its simple structure includes a soil moisture balance reservoir and a water exchange function in the production module and two unit hydrographs and a nonlinear routing store in the transfer part of the model. The model used in this study is a modified fourparameter version, called GR4J, which was found under many different climate conditions to perform better than the initial three-parameter version (C. Perrin, 2000, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, INP/ Cemagref, France). The IHAC is a six-parameter modified version of the IHACRES model initially proposed by Jakeman et al. (1990). IHACRES is relatively simple, with a nonlinear production

function and a linear routing module based on two unit hydrographs working in parallel (Littlewood and Jakeman, 1994). It was tested in many different contexts (Chiew et al., 1993) and proved particularly interesting for regionalization (Post et al, 1998). The IHAC, further described by Andreassian et al. (2001), differs slightly from the IHACRES PC-version proposed by Littlewood et al. (1997). The TOPMO is an eight-parameter modified version of the well known TOPMODEL initially proposed by Beven and Kirkby (1979). Its main difference with the original TOPMODEL is that the distribution of the topographical index is approximated by a calibrated two-parameter probability distribution function (logistic equation) instead of being derived from the catchment topography. This does not significantly degrade its performance (Edijatno et al., 1999; Andreassian et al., 2001). Given the low number of parameters in these conceptual models, they can be calibrated with simple techniques. All models are calibrated with a local optimization algorithm called the 'step-by-step' method. The principle of the method is described by Edijatno et al. (1999). Starting from average parameter values, the procedure finds an optimum parameter set in the parameter space by maximizing the classical Nash and Sutcliffe (1970) efficiency criterion used as an objective function. The method proved efficient in the case of the models proposed here (Andreassian et al, 2001; Perrin et al, 2001) (i.e., it was found able to identify reliable sets of parameters yielding satisfactory model performances). ANNs There are many ways of using ANNs. To keep the task within manageable proportions, the modeler has to make some a priori experience based assumptions. These assumptions are described and justified here network topology, training algorithm, input selection, and network size optimization. Once the topology and training algorithm are selected, two further questions must be answered. How many nodes are needed in the hidden sigmoid layer? What input vectors should be used? The first problem is usually treated by trial and error. MLPs with a range

of hidden nodes are successively trained, and the MLP producing the best performance (test set), within a pool of 30 repetitions, is selected. According to Iyer and Rhinehart (1999) this implies that the retained model resides within the best 14 percent of the distribution of all possible models (99 percent confidence). A sensitivity analysis (not presented here), oriented towards the input selection of ANN R-R forecasting models, led to the selection of four inputs: Q^sub t^, P^sub t^, P^sub t-1^, and P^sub t-2^. When ANNs are used as updating tools, four different input vectors are tested: (1) the last known model error e^sub t^; (2) e^sub t^ and the last observed streamflow Q^sub t^; (3) e^sub f^ and the last three rainfall observations P^sub t^, P^sub t-1^, and P^sub t-2^; and 4) e^sub t^, Q^sub t^, P^sub t^, P^sub t-1^, and P^sub t-2^. UPDATING METHODOLOGIES The study focuses on one parameter updating scheme and two output updating schemes. Parameter Updating Yang's updating procedure is based on model parameter corrections, assuming that the catchment behavior, characterized by model parameters, may change slightly during flood events (Yang and Michel, 2000). Only a brief outline is provided here. The method has five main original features. 1. A systematic correction on high flows using a regression relationship between the observed and the computed streamflows to avoid systematic flood underestimates or overestimates due to possible model biases. 2. A backtracking period long enough to ensure that the model parameter modifications have an impact on the forecasts.

3. A unique baseline set of parameters, obtained from the complete calibration record, to eliminate risks of parameter value divergence. 4. A selection of model parameter modifications that minimizes both the last model error(s) and the extent of the modifications. 5. A general limit to the extent of model parameter modifications proportional to the standard deviation of the parameters. Since external sources of uncertainties (e.g., errors in the rainfall record) may affect the model output, it may be disadvantageous to push the last model error(s) to zero. This updating approach has already proved efficient on a set of French catchments, including the Serein catchment studied here, and superior to an Auto-Regressive model of Order 1 (Yang and Michel, 2000). The parameter standard deviations are calculated according to the linear approximation method described by Mein and Brown (1978). In this study, a backtracking period of 60 days and a maximum number of parameter modifications equal to 50 times the standard deviations were found to be satisfactory, when the last model error on the streamflow forecasts is considered. COMPARISON PROTOCOL The performances of the various one-day-ahead and three-day-ahead models are compared. For each lead time, 22 scenarios were tested: an ANN R-R model (to set a performance target for the other scenarios), and seven scenarios for each of the three lumped conceptual R-R models (no updating, simple output updating, and Yang's parameter updating), and four ANN implementations of output updating that differ by their input vectors. For completeness, the efficiency index EI (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970) is also computed, even if we believe that for forecasting, it is much less informative than the PI, mainly because there is no consensus on what EI level guarantees a satisfactory performance. RESULTS

The following discussion is structured around the persistence index, but the efficiency index and the RMSE are given in the tables for completeness. One-Day-Ahead Performance For one-day-ahead forecasts (Table 1), the ANN R-R persistence index reaches 0.64. All of the tested lumped conceptual models lead to negative persistence indices, which implies that, on average, they provide forecasts that are worse than a one-parameter 'naive' model, which gives a prediction of the previous observation for all time steps. This performance illustrates a well established truth: conceptual R-R models cannot be used for short term forecasting without an adequate updating scheme. It is noteworthy that the three models do not perform equally well on the Serein catchment - the IHAC is much worse than the other two. This fact should not be generalized to any other site. The differences in performance offer in fact an opportunity to test updating schemes for initial predictions of different quality. The simple output updating scheme is quite efficient at improving the model forecasting performances, which implies that the model errors are strongly autocorrelated. For example, for the GR4J, the simple output updating scheme leads to a persistence index of 0.63, which is very close to the ANN R-R model performance. The IHAC and the TOPMO persistence indices are also considerably improved, but to a lesser extent than for the GR4J. This probably reflects their lower initial forecasting performances. Yang's parameter updating approach greatly improves the persistence indices of the GR4J and of the TOPMO, but is less useful for the IHAC. One of the strengths of parameter updating is to take better advantage of the hydrological insights of a particular model. The forecasting ability is thus strongly linked to a direct adequation between the mathematical structure of the model and the real hydrological behavior of the catchment. In this study, the limited success of the IHAC parameter updating is another clue indicating that this particular model is not suited to the Serein catchment. Yang's updating scheme leads to a better persistence index than the simple output updating only in the case of the TOPMO.

Four implementations of ANN output updating are tested to identify the influence of the input vector structure, whose size varies from one to five. One-input ANNs use the last observed model error time series. For all three conceptual models, the one-input ANNs lead to better persistence indices than the simple output updating scheme. This result shows that ANN mapping is very efficient in exploiting this single dominating input. The other three tested implementations are targeted at further improving the performance by considering additional input vectors, namely the last observed streamflow or the last three observed rainfalls or all of the above time series. The use of additional input vectors brings all three conceptual models to about the same level as the ANN R-R model. It seems that ANNs are able to compensate for the different initial conceptual model limitations. While the GR4J is fairly insensitive to the size of the ANN input vector (oscillations between 0.63 and 0.65), the IHAC persistence index progresses from 0.49 to 0.63 and the TOPMO persistence index increases from 0.54 to 0.61. For one-day-ahead forecasting, there is not much difference between an ANN R-R model and a lumped conceptual R-R model combined with an ANN output updating model. However, the ANN output updating models require a much smaller hidden sigmoid layer than the ANN R-R model, revealing that the problem is much simpler in the former case, probably because the conceptual models have already performed part of the task. Three-Day-Ahead Performance Three-day-ahead forecasting performance (Table 2) was studied in a manner similar to the one above. However, it is noteworthy that an increase in the persistence index as a function of the lead time L indicates an improvement in the model accuracy compared to that of a one-parameter 'naive' model, which gives a prediction of the last observation for all time steps. This does not necessarily imply an improvement in the model accuracy in absolute terms since the 'naive' model performance degrades for increasing lead time (Corradini et al., 1986). Comparison between one-day-ahead and three-day-ahead model accuracies should thus be based on the RMSEs or on the efficiency indices. Note also that all three-day-ahead ANN models are nonrecursive predictors - information from the previous step is not used as input to the next one - according to the comparisons by Tan and Van Cauwenberghe (1999) between recursive and nonrecursive L-step-ahead models.

This choice does not constitute a statement in favor of non-recursive L-step-ahead models since the issue is not specifically addressed in the present study. Without updating, all three conceptual models lead to persistence indices above zero (the naive model) but smaller than the ANN R-R model (0.57). The best conceptual model is the TOPMO, the GR4J is a close contender, and the IHAC is again behind. The last observed error, used in the simple output updating scheme, is not as useful to compensate for the three-day-ahead conceptual model inaccuracies as it was for one-dayahead inaccuracies. The GR4J is improved, the IHAC is improved but not to the level already reached by the other two models, and the TOPMO is worse. This probably signifies that the model error is not strongly autocorrelated for a lag time of three days. Yang's parameter updating scheme performs well for the GR4J and TOPMO, but not for the IHAC. These results confirm the sensitivity of this approach to the initial quality of the conceptual R-R model. The one-input ANN implementation of output updating is in all three cases superior to simple output updating, demonstrating the ability of the ANNs to use patterns in the last observed model error time series. The benefit is substantial. The persistence index for the GR4J progresses from 0.45 to 0.58, while the IHAC and the TOPMO persistence indices increase from 0.33 to 0.48, and from 0.37 to 0.55, respectively. With only one input, the ANN output updating brings GR4J and TOPMO to accuracy levels close to that of the ANN R-R model. Use of the other four available input vectors further improves the prediction accuracies. All three five-input ANN output updated persistence indices are within the range 0.60 and 0.62, which is beyond the value reached by the ANN R-R model (note that this R-R model has only two hidden nodes, reducing the potential complexity of the mapping). It thus appears that for three-day-ahead forecasting, it is more advantageous to use a lumped conceptual R-R model combined with an ANN output updating model than an ANN R-R model. These results are promising, but need to be tested further at other sites before they can be generalized. CONCLUSION

Lumped conceptual R-R models must be operated in conjunction with an efficient updating scheme to provide short term forecasts superior in performance to the naive model that simply proposes that the forecast streamflow is equal to the last observation. For the Serein catchment, ANN output updating proved superior to Yang and Michel's (2000) parameter updating scheme and to the 'simple' output updating scheme, which always replicates the last observed forecast error. In fact, the strength of ANN output updating resides in its intrinsic nonlinearity, and in its flexibility to account for multiple input vectors. For instance, results obtained here showed that ANN output updating was able to compensate for large differences in the initial performance of the three tested lumped conceptual R-R models (GR4J, IHAC, and TOPMO) by considering input vectors usually exploited for ANN R-R modeling such as previous rainfall and streamflow observations, in addition to the previous observed error. For one-day-ahead forecasts, the performance of all three lumped conceptual R-R models, used in conjunction with ANN output updating, was equivalent to that of the ANN R-R model. For three-day-ahead forecasts, the ANN-output-updated conceptual model performance was even superior to that of the ANN R-R model, revealing that the conceptual models are probably performing some tasks that the ANN R-R model cannot map. However, further testing on other watersheds is needed to substantiate this statement. Overall, the ANN methodology proved to be an efficient and versatile tool for streamflow forecasting. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was done during the sabbatical leave of Francois Anctil from Universite Lavai to Cemagref. Support from both institutions is gratefully acknowledged. 1Paper No. 02080 of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Discussions are open until April 1, 2004. LITERATURE CITED Andreassian, V., C. Perrin, C. Michel, I. Usart-Sanchez, and J. Lavabre, 2001. Impact of Imperfect Rainfall Knowledge on the Efficiency and the Parameters of Watershed Models. Journal of Hydrology 250:206-223.

Babovic, V., R. Canizares, H. R. Jensen, and A. Klinting, 2001. Neural Networks as Routine for Error Updating of Numerical Models. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 127(3):181-193. Bertsekas, D. P. and J. N. Tsitsiklis, 1996. Neuro-Dynamic Programming. Athena Scientific, Belmont, Massachusetts. Beven, K. J., 2001. Rainfall-Runoff Modelling: The Primer. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom. Beven, K. J. and M. J. Kirkby, 1979. A Physically Based Variable Contributing Area Model of Basin Hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin 24(1):43-69. Chiew, F. H. S., M. J. Stewardson, and T. A. McMahon, 1993. Comparison of Six Rainfall-Runoff Modelling Approaches. Journal of Hydrology 147:1-36. Corradini, C., F. Melone, and L. Ubertini, 1986. A Semi-Distributed Adaptive Model for Real-Time Flood Forecasting. Water Resources Bulletin 22:1031-1038. Coulibaly, P., F. Anctil, and B. Bobee, 1999. Prevision Hydrologique par Reseaux de Neurones Artificiels: Etat de l'Art. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 26:293-304. Cybenko, G., 1989. Approximation by Superposition of a Sigmoidal Function. Mathematics of Control Signals and Systems 2:303-314. Da Ros, D. and M. Borga, 1997. Adaptive Use of a Conceptual Model for Real Time Flood Forecasting. Nordic Hydrology 28:169-188. Edijatno, N., O. Nascimento, X. Yang, Z. Makhlouf, and C. Michel, 1999. GR3J: A Daily Watershed Model With Three Free Parameters. Hydrological Sciences Journal 44(2):263277.

Foresee, F. D. and M. T. Hagan, 1997. Gauss-Newton Approximation to Bayesian Learning. In: Proceedings of the 1997 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 1930-1935. Hagan, M. T. and M. Menhaj, 1994. Training Feedforward Networks With the Marquardt Algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 5:989-993. Hornik, K., M. Stinchcombe, and H. White, 1989. Multilayer Feed-forward Networks Are Universal Approximators. Neural Networks 2:359-366. Iyer, M. S. and R. R. Rhinehart, 1999. A Method to Determine the Required Number of Neural-Network Training Repetitions. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 10(2):427432. Jakeman, A. J., I. G. Littlewood, and P. G. Whitehead, 1990. Computation of the Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph and Identifiable Component Flows With Application to Two Small Upland Catchments. Journal of Hydrology 117:275-300. Kalman, R. E., 1960. A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problem. Journal of Basic Engineering 82D:35-45. Khu, S. T., S.-Y. Liong, V. Babovic, H. Madsen, and N. Muttil, 2001. Genetic Programming and Its Application in Real-Time Runoff Forecasting. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 37(2):439-451. Kitanidis, P. K. and R. L. Bras, 1980. Real-Time Forecasting With a Conceptual Hydrologie Model: 2. Applications and Results. Water Resources Research 16:10341044. Lauzon, N., S. Birikundavyi, C. Gignac, and J. Rouselle, 1997. Comparaison de Deux Procedures d'Amelioration des Previsions a Court Terme des Apports Naturels d'un Modele Deterministe. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 24:723-735.

Lee, Y. H. and V. P. Singh, 1998. Application of the Kalman Filter to the Nash Model. Hydrological Processes 12:755-767. Lippmann, R. P., 1987. An Introduction to Computing With Neural Nets. IEEE ASSP Magazine, pp. 4-22. Littlewood, I. G., K. Down, J. R. Parker, and D.A. Post, 1997. The PC Version of IHACRES for Catchment-Scale Rainfall-Streamflow Modelling. Version 1.0. User Guide. Institute of Hydrology. Littlewood, I. G. and A. J. Jakeman, 1994. A New Method of Rainfall-Runoff Modelling and Its Applications in Catchment Hydrology. In: Environmental Modelling, P. Zannetti (Editor). Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, Vol. 2, pp. 143-171. MacKay, D. J. C., 1992. Bayesian Interpolation. Neural Computation 4:415-447. Maier, H. R. and G. C. Dandy, 2000. Neural Networks for Prediction and Forecasting of Water Resources Variables: Review of Modelling Issues and Applications, Environmental Modelling and Software 15:101-124. Masters, T., 1995. Advanced Algorithms for Neural Networks: A C++ Sourcebook. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. Mein, R. G. and B. M. Brown, 1978. Sensitivity of Optimized Parameters in Watershed Models. Water Resources Research 14(2):299-303. Nash, J. E. and J. V. Sutcliffe, 1970. River Flow Forecasting Through Conceptual Models: Part I. A Discussion of Principles. Journal of Hydrology 10:282-290. O'Connell, P. E. and R. T. Clarke. 1981. Adaptative Hydrological Forecasting: A Review. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin 26(2): 179-205. Penman, H. L., 1948. Natural Evaporation From Open Water, Bare Soil and Grass. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A193:120-145.

Perrin, C., C. Michel, and V. Andreassian, 2001. Does a Large Number of Parameters Enhance Model Performance? Comparative Assessment of Common Catchment Model Structures on 429 Catchments. Journal of Hydrology 242:275-301. Post, D. A., J. A. Jones, and G. E. Grant, 1998. An Improved Methodology for Predicting the Daily Hydrologic Response of Ungauged Catchments. Environmental Modelling and Software 13:395-403. Refsgaard, J. C., 1997. Validation and Intercomparison of Different Updating Procedures for Real-Time Forecasting. Nordic Hydrology 28:65-84. Schreider, S. Y., A. J. Jakeman, B. G. Dyer, and R. I. Francis, 1997. A Combined Deterministic and Self-Adaptive Stochastic Algorithm for Streamflow Forecasting With Application to Catchments of the Upper Murray Basin, Australia. Environmental Modelling and Software 12(1):93-104. Schreider, S. Y., P. C. Young, and A. J. Jakeman, 2001. An Application of the Kalman Filtering Technique for Streamflow Forecasting in the Upper Murray Basin. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 33:733-743. Tan, Y. and A. Van Cauwenberghe, 1999. Neural-Network-Based D-Step-Ahead Predictors for Nonlinear Systems With Time Delay. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 12:21-25. Tanizaki, H., 1996. Nonlinear Filters: Estimation and Applications (Second Edition). Springer, Berlin, Germany. Tucci, C. E. M. and R. T. Clark, 1980. Adaptive Forecasting With a Conceptual RainfallRunoff Model. In: Hydrological Forecasting, International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Publication 129, pp. 445-454. Yang, X. and C. Michel, 2000. Flood Forecasting With a Watershed Model: A New Method of Parameter Updating. Hydrological Sciences Journal 45(4):537-546.

Francois Anctil, Charles Perrin, and Vazken Andreassian2 2Respectively, Associate Professor, Departement de Genie Civil, Pavillon AdrienPouliot, Universite Lavai, Quebec, Qc, Canada G1K 7P4; and Research Engineers, Cemagref, Water Quality and Hydrology Research Unit, PB. 44, 92163 Antony Cedex, France (E-Mail/Anctil: francois.anctil@gci.ulaval.ca). Copyright American Water Resources Association Oct 2003

Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved