Model averaging techniques for quantifying conceptual model uncertainty

Ground Water

Volumn 48, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 701-715

  Singh, Abhishek ^a   Mishra, Srikanta ^a   Ruskauff, Greg ^a  

^a INTERA Incorporated   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AKAIKE INFORMATION CRITERION; ANDERSONS; BAYESIAN; BAYESIAN MODEL AVERAGING; COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT; CONCEPTUAL MODEL; GENERALIZED LIKELIHOOD UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATION; GROUNDWATER MODELING; GROUNDWATER MODELS; INFORMATION CRITERION; MODEL AVERAGING; MODEL UNCERTAINTIES; MODELING PARADIGMS; MONTE CARLO; PROS AND CONS; STATISTICAL MODELS;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; GLUES; GLUING; GROUNDWATER; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION; MONTE CARLO METHODS;

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

AKAIKE INFORMATION CRITERION; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; GROUNDWATER FLOW; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; PARADIGM SHIFT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNCERTAINTY;

MODELS, THEORETICAL; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 77954973403     PISSN: 0017467X     EISSN: 17456584     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00642.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Akaike H. Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Second International Symposium on Information Theory 1973, 267-281. Petrov BN. ed., Budapest, Hungary, Akademiai Kiado
2. A Hydrostratigraphic Framework Model and Alternatives for the Ground water Flow and Contaminant Transport Model of Corrective Action Unit 98: Frenchman Flat, Clark, Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada, DOE/NV/11718-1064 2005, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, Bechtel Nevada
3. Death Valley regional ground-water flow system, Nevada and California-Hydrogeologic framework and transient ground-water flow model. 2004, Belcher WR. ed., U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5205, 408 p., Reston, Virginia, USGS
4. Beven KJ. Environmental Modelling: An Uncertain Future? An Introduction to Techniques for Uncertainty Estimation in Environmental Prediction 2008, London: Routledge Publishing
5. Beven KJ. On undermining the science? Hydrological Processes 2006, 20:3141-3146.
6. Beven KJ. Uniqueness of place and process representations in hydrological modelling. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 2000, 4:203-213.
7. Beven KJ. Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modeling. Advances in Water Resources 1993, 16:41-51.
8. Beven K, Freer J. Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. Journal of Hydrology 2001, 249:11-29.
9. Beven KJ, Binley A. The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrological Processes 1992, 6:279-298.
10. Carrera J, Neuman SP. Estimation of aquifer parameters under transient and steady state conditions. 1, Maximum likelihood method incorporating prior information. Water Resources Research 1986, 22(2):199-210. no.
11. Delhomme JP. Spatial variability and uncertainty in ground water flow parameters: A geostatistical approach. Water Resources Research 1979, 15(2):269-280. no.
12. Doherty J. 2004, PEST: Model-independent parameter estimation, user manual, version 5. Brisbane, Australia: Watermark Numerical Computing
13. Domingos P. Bayesian averaging of classifiers and the overfitting problem. 2000, http://www.cs.washington.edu/homese/pedrod/mlc00b.ps.gz, ICML'00.
14. Draper D. Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 1995, 57(1):45-97. no.
15. Hill MC, Tiedeman CR. Effective Groundwater Model Calibration: With Analysis of Data, Sensitivities, Predictions, and Uncertainty 2007, New York: Wiley and Sons
16. Hoeksema RJ, Kitanidis PK. Predictions of transmissivities, heads, and seepage velocities using mathematical models and geostatistics. Advances in Water Resources 1989, 12(2):90-102. no.
17. Hoeting JA, Madigan D, Raftery AE, Volinsky CT. Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial. Statistical Science 1999, 14(4):382-417. no.
18. Hurvich CM, Tsai C-L. Regression and time series model selection in small sample. Biometrika 1989, 76(2):99-104. no.
19. Kashyap RL. Optimal choice of AR and MA parts in autoregressive moving average models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 1982, 4(2):99-104. no.
20. Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1995, 90:773-795.
21. Madigan D, Raftery AE. Model selection and accounting for model uncertainty in graphical models using Occam's window. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1994, 89(428):1535-1546. no.
22. Mantovan P, Todini E. Hydrological forecasting uncertainty assessment: Incoherence of the GLUE methodology. Journal of Hydrology 2006, 330:368-381.
23. Minka TP. Bayesian model averaging is not model combination, MIT Media Lab note (7/6/00). 2000, http://research.microsoft.com/~minka/papers/minka-bma-isnt-mc.pdf, Available at
24. Moore C, Doherty J. The cost of uniqueness in groundwater model calibration. Advances in Water Resources 2006, 29:605-623.
25. Mugunthan P, Shoemaker CA. Assessing the impacts of parameter uncertainty for computationally expensive ground water models. Water Resources Research 2006, 42:W10428. doi:10.1029/2005WR004640
26. Nash J, Sutcliffe J. River flow forecasting through conceptual models, 1. A 849 discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology 1970, 10:282-290.
27. Conceptual Models of Flow and Transport in the Fractured Vadose Zone 2001, National Research Council, Washington, DC, National Academic Press
28. Neuman SP. Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of uncertain model predictions. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 2003, 17(5):291-305. no.
29. Neuman SP. Statistical characterization of aquifer heterogeneities: An overview. Recent Trends in Hydrogeology 1982, 81-102. Geological Society of America Special Paper 189., Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America
30. Neuman SP, Wierenga PJ. A Comprehensive Strategy of Hydrogeologic Modeling and Uncertainty Analysis for Nuclear Facilities and Sites, NUREG/CR-6805 2003, Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
31. Poeter EP, Hill MC. MMA, A computer code for Multi-Model Analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods. 2007, 6-E3. Reston, Virginia: USGS
32. Poeter E, Anderson D. Multimodel ranking and inference in ground water modeling. Ground Water 2005, 43(4):597-605. no.
33. Raftery AE. Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology 1995, 25:111-163.
34. Samper FJ, Neuman SP. Estimation of spatial covariance structures by adjoint state maximum likelihood cross validation: 1, Theory. Water Resources Research 1989, 25:351-362.
35. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 1978, 6(2):461-464. no.
36. Phase II ground-water flow model of Corrective Action Unit 98-Frenchman Flat, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture Report S-N/99205-074 prepared for the U.S 2006a, http://www.osti.gov/bridge, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, Department of Energy Available at, accessed February 8, 2007
37. Tsai FT-C, Li X. Ground water inverse modeling for hydraulic conductivity estimation using Bayesian model averaging and variance window. Water Resources Research 2008, 44(9):W09434. no., doi:10.1029/2007WR006576
38. Vogel RM, Batchelder R, Stedinger JR. Appraisal of the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) method. Water Resources Research 2007, 44:WOOB06. doi:10.1029/2008WR006822, 2008
39. Wagner BJ, Gorelick SM. Reliable aquifer remediation in the presence of spatially variable hydraulic conductivity; from data to design. Water Resources Research 1989, 25(10):2211-2225. no.
40. Ye M, Meyer PD, Neuman SP. On model selection criteria in multimodel analysis. Water Resources Research 2008b, 44:W03428. doi:10.1029/2008WR006803
41. Ye M, Pohlmann K, Chapman J, Shafer D. 2005, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=875590, On evaluation of conceptual models: a priori and a posteriori. International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference, April 30 - May 4, Las Vegas, NV. Available at
42. Ye M, Neuman SP, Meyer PD, Pohlmann KF. Sensitivity analysis and assessment of prior model probabilities in MLBMA with application to unsaturated fractured tuff. Water Resources Research 2005, 41:W12429. doi:10.1029/2005WR004260
43. Ye M, Neuman SP, Meyer PD. Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of spatial variability models in unsaturated fractured tuff. Water Resources Research 2004, 40:W05113.
44. Ye M, Pohlmann KF, Chapman JB. Expert elicitation of recharge model probabilities for the Death Valley regional flow system. Journal of Hydrology 2008a, 354:102-115. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.03.001