The paper appraises two approaches for the treatment of heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation in residual errors of hydrological models. Both approaches use weighted least squares (WLS), with heteroscedasticity modeled as a linear function of predicted flows and autocorrelation represented using an AR(1) process. In the first approach, heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation parameters are inferred jointly with hydrological model parameters. The second approach is a two-stage "postprocessor" scheme, where Stage 1 infers the hydrological parameters ignoring autocorrelation and Stage 2 conditionally infers the heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation parameters. These approaches are compared to a WLS scheme that ignores autocorrelation. Empirical analysis is carried out using daily data from 12 US catchments from the MOPEX set using two conceptual rainfall-runoff models, GR4J, and HBV. Under synthetic conditions, the postprocessor and joint approaches provide similar predictive performance, though the postprocessor approach tends to underestimate parameter uncertainty. However, the MOPEX results indicate that the joint approach can be nonrobust. In particular, when applied to GR4J, it often produces poor predictions due to strong multiway interactions between a hydrological water balance parameter and the error model parameters. The postprocessor approach is more robust precisely because it ignores these interactions. Practical benefits of accounting for error autocorrelation are demonstrated by analyzing streamflow predictions aggregated to a monthly scale (where ignoring daily-scale error autocorrelation leads to significantly underestimated predictive uncertainty), and by analyzing one-day-ahead predictions (where accounting for the error autocorrelation produces clearly higher precision and better tracking of observed data). Including autocorrelation into the residual error model also significantly affects calibrated parameter values and uncertainty estimates. The paper concludes with a summary of outstanding challenges in residual error modeling, particularly in ephemeral catchments.

[1] Residual errors of hydrological models are usually both heteroscedastic and autocorrelated. However, only a few studies have attempted to explicitly include these two statistical properties into the residual error model and jointly infer them with the hydrological model parameters. This technical note shows that applying autoregressive error models to raw heteroscedastic residuals, as done in some recent studies, can lead to unstable error models with poor predictive performance. This instability can be avoided by applying the autoregressive process to standardized residuals. The theoretical analysis is supported by empirical findings in three hydrologically distinct catchments. The case studies also highlight strong interactions between the parameters of autoregressive residual error models and the water balance parameters of the hydrological model.

Abstract. Many multi-site stochastic models have been proposed for the generation of daily precipitation, but they generally focus on the reproduction of low to high precipitation amounts at the stations concerned. This paper proposes significant extensions to the multi-site daily precipitation model introduced by Wilks, with the aim of reproducing the statistical features of extremely rare events (in terms of frequency and magnitude) at different temporal and spatial scales. In particular, the first extended version integrates heavy-tailed distributions, spatial tail dependence, and temporal dependence in order to obtain a robust and appropriate representation of the most extreme precipitation fields. A second version enhances the first version using a disaggregation method. The performance of these models is compared at different temporal and spatial scales on a large region covering approximately half of Switzerland. While daily extremes are adequately reproduced at the stations by all models, including the benchmark Wilks version, extreme precipitation amounts at larger temporal scales (e.g., 3-day amounts) are clearly underestimated when temporal dependence is ignored.