Effect of formal and informal likelihood functions on uncertainty assessment in a single event rainfall-runoff model

- Sensitivities of the parameters strongly depend on the likelihood function.
- 95% total prediction uncertainty bounds bracketed most of the observed data.
- Likelihood functionL7 (based on AR − 1 of the residuals)can provide reliable parameters.

In the present study, DREAM(ZS), Differential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis combined with both formal and informal likelihood functions, is used to investigate uncertainty of parameters of the HEC-HMS model in Tamar watershed, Golestan province, Iran.In order to assess the uncertainty of 24 parameters used in HMS, three flood events were used to calibrate and one flood event was used to validate the posterior distributions. Moreover, performance of seven different likelihood functions (L1-L7) was assessed by means of DREAM(ZS)approach. Four likelihood functions, L1-L4, Nash-Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency, Normalized absolute error (NAE), Index of agreement (IOA), and Chiew-McMahon efficiency (CM), is considered as informal, whereas remaining (L5-L7) is represented in formal category. L5 focuses on the relationship between the traditional least squares fitting and the Bayesian inference, and L6, is a hetereoscedastic maximum likelihood error (HMLE) estimator. Finally, in likelihood function L7, serial dependence of residual errors is accounted using a first-order autoregressive (AR) model of the residuals.According to the results, sensitivities of the parameters strongly depend on the likelihood function, and vary for different likelihood functions. Most of the parameters were better defined by formal likelihood functions L5 and L7 and showed a high sensitivity to model performance. Posterior cumulative distributions corresponding to the informal likelihood functions L1, L2, L3, L4 and the formal likelihood function L6 are approximately the same for most of the sub-basins, and these likelihood functions depict almost a similar effect on sensitivity of parameters. 95% total prediction uncertainty bounds bracketed most of the observed data. Considering all the statistical indicators and criteria of uncertainty assessment, including RMSE, KGE, NS, P-factor and R-factor, results showed that DREAM(ZS) algorithm performed better under formal likelihood functions L5 and L7, but likelihood function L5 may result in biased and unreliable estimation of parameters due to violation of the residualerror assumptions. Thus, likelihood function L7 provides posterior distribution of model parameters credibly and therefore can be employed for further applications.