A model-averaging method for assessing groundwater conceptual model uncertainty

Ground Water

Volumn 48, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 716-728

  Ye, Ming ^a   Pohlmann, Karl F ^b   Chapman, Jenny B ^b   Pohll, Greg M ^c   Reeves, Donald M ^c  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AVERAGING METHOD; AVERAGING TECHNIQUE; CONCEPTUAL MODEL; DATA AND INFORMATION; DEATH VALLEY; EVALUATING MODELS; FLAT AREA; FLOW SYSTEMS; GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION; GEOLOGICAL MODELS; GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL; GROUNDWATER MODELING; GROUNDWATER MODELS; HYDRAULIC HEADS; HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS; HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS; INFORMATION CRITERION; MODEL AVERAGING; MODEL PARAMETERS; MODEL PREDICTION; MODEL UNCERTAINTIES; MODELING COMPONENT; MONTE CARLO SIMULATION; PARAMETRIC UNCERTAINTIES; PREDICTIVE UNCERTAINTY; RECHARGE ESTIMATES; WEIGHTED RESIDUALS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; FORECASTING; GEOLOGIC MODELS; GROUNDWATER FLOW; HYDRAULICS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; RECHARGING (UNDERGROUND WATERS);

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

WATER;

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; FLOW MODELING; GROUNDWATER FLOW; HYDROGEOLOGY; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; RECHARGE; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNCERTAINTY;

MODELS, THEORETICAL; UNCERTAINTY; WATER;

CALIFORNIA; DEATH VALLEY; NEVADA; UNITED STATES; YUCCA FLAT;

EID: 77954990181     PISSN: 0017467X     EISSN: 17456584     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00633.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Akaike H. A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 1974, AC-19:716-722.
2. A Hydrostratigraphic Model and Alternatives for the Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Model of Corrective Action Unit 97 2006, Bechtel Nevada, Nevada, Yucca Flat-Climax Mine, Lincoln and Nye Counties, DOE/NV/11718-1119
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 Investigation Report 2004-5205., Reston, Virginia, USGS
4. Berger JO. Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis 1985, 2nd ed, New York, Springer-Verlag
5. Beven K. A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. Journal of Hydrology 2006, 320:18-36.
6. Beven K, Freer J. Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modeling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. Journal of Hydrology 2001, 249(1-4):11-29. no., DOI:10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00421-8
7. Beven K, Binley A. The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrological Processes 1992, 6(5):279-283. no., DOI:10.1002/hyp.3360060305
8. Bredehoeft JD. The conceptualization model problem-surprise. Hydrogeology Journal 2005, 13:37-46.
9. Bredehoeft JD. From models to performance assessment: The conceptualization problem. Ground Water 2003, 41(5):571-577. no.
10. Carrera J, Neuman SP. Estimation of aquifer parameters under transient and steady state conditions: 3. Application to synthetic and field data. Water Resources Research 1986, 22(2):228-242. no.
11. Epstein B. Development and uncertainty analysis of empirical recharge prediction models for Nevada's Desert basins. 2004, Masters thesis, University of Nevada. Reston, Virginia: USGS
12. Foglia L, Mehl SW, Hill MC, Perona P, Burlando P. Testing alternative ground water models using cross validation and other methods. Ground Water 2007, 45(5):627-641. no.
13. Harbaugh AW, Banta ER, Hill MC, McDonald MG. MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model-User guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process. 2000, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-92. Reston, Virginia: USGS
14. Harrar WG, Sonnenborg TO, Henriksen HJ. Capture zone, travel time, and solute-transport predictions using inverse modeling and different geological models. Hydrogeology Journal 2003, 11:536-548.
15. Hevesi JA, Flint AL, Flint LE. Simulation of net infiltration and potential recharge using a distributed parameter watershed model for the Death Valley Region, Nevada and California. 2003, Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4090., Sacramento, California, U.S. Geological Survey
16. Hill MC, Tiedeman CR. Effective Methods and Guidelines for Groundwater Model Calibration, Including Analysis of Data, Sensitivities, Predictions, and Uncertainty 2007, Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons
17. Hill MC, Banta ER, Harbaugh AW, Anderman ER. MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey modular groundwater model-user guide to the observation, sensitivity, and parameter estimation processes and three post-processing programs. 2000, USGS Open-File Report 00-184., Reston, Virginia, USGS
18. Hoeting JA, Madigan D, Raftery AE, Volinsky CT. Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial. Statistical Science 1999, 14(4):382-417. no.
19. Hojberg AL, Refsgaard JC. Model uncertainty-parametric uncertainty versus conceptual models. Water Science and Technology 2005, 25(6):153-160. no.
20. Hurvich CM, Tsai C-L. Regression and time series model selection in small sample. Biometrika 1989, 76(2):99-104. no.
21. 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.
22. Maxey GB, Eakin TE. Groundwater in White River Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln Counties, Nevada. No. 8, State of Nevada Office of the State Engineer prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey. 1949, Carson City, Nevada
23. Neuman SP. Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of alternative conceptual-mathematical models. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 2003, 17(5):291-305. no., DOI: 10.1007/s00477-003-0151-7
24. Neuman SP, Wierenga PJ. A Comprehensive Strategy of Hydrogeologic Modeling and Uncertainty Analysis for Nuclear Facilities and Sites 2003, NUREG/CR-6805., Washington, D.C., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
25. Poeter EP, Hill MC. MMA: A Computer Code for Multi-Model Analysis. 2007, U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods TM6-E3. Reston, Virginia: USGS
26. Poeter E, Anderson DR. Multimodel ranking and inference in groundwater modeling. Ground Water 2005, 43(4):597-605. no.
27. Pohlmann K, Ye M, Reeves D, Zavarin M, Decker D, Chapman J. Modeling of Groundwater Flow and Radionuclide Transport at the Climax Mine sub-CAU 2007, Nevada Test Site, DRI Publication 45226, DOE/NV/26383-06, Nevada Site Office, National Nuclear Security Administration., Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S. Department of Energy
28. Reeves DM, Pohlmann KF, Chapman JB, Pohll GM, Ye M. Influence of conceptual and parametric uncertainty on radionuclide flux estimates from a fracture granite rock mass. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Analysis 2009, Under Review
29. Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Hojberg AL, Vanrolleghem PA. Uncertainty in the environmental modeling process-a framework and guidance. Environmental Modeling and Software 2007, 22(11):1543-1556. no.
30. Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Brown J, van der Keur P. A framework for dealing with uncertainty due to model structure error. Advances in Water Resources 2006, 29:1586-1597.
31. Rojas R, Feyen L, Dassargues A. Sensitivity analysis of prior model probabilities and the value of prior knowledge in the assessment of conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modeling. Hydrological Processes 2009, 23(8):1131-1146. no.
32. Rojas R, Feyen L, Dassargues A. Conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modeling: Combining generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation and Bayesian model averaging. Water Resources Research 2008, 44:W12418. DOI:10.1029/2008WR006908
33. Russell CE, Minor T. Reconnaissance Estimates of Recharge Based on an Elevation-dependent Chloride Mass-balance Approach 2002, DOE/NV/11508-37, Publication No. 45164. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office., Las Vegas, Nevada, Desert Research Institute
34. Samper FJ, Neuman SP. Estimation of spatial covariance structures by adjoint state maximum likelihood cross-validation: 2. Synthetic experiments. Water Resources Research 1989, 25(3):363-371. no.
35. Scanlon BR, Healy RW, Cook PG. Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge. Hydrogeology Journal 2002, 10:18-39. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-001-0176-2
36. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annual Statistics 1978, 6(2):461-464. no.
37. Sun N-Z, Yeh W W-G. Identification of parameter structure in groundwater inverse problem. Water Resources Research 1985, 21(6):869-883. no.
38. Troldborg L, Refsgaard JC, Jensen KH, Engesgaard P. The importance of alternative conceptual models for simulation of concentrations in a multi-aquifer system. Hydrogeology Journal 2007, 15:843-860.
39. Tsai F T-C, Li X. Multiple parameterization for hydraulic conductivity identification. Ground Water 2008, 46(6):851-864. no.
40. Tsai F T-C, Sun NZ, Yeh W W-G. A combinatorial optimization scheme for parameter structure identification in ground water modeling. Ground Water 2003, 41(2):156-169. no.
41. 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
42. Ye M, Meyer PD, Neuman SP. On model selection criteria in multimodel analysis. Water Resources Research 2008b, 44(3):W03428. no., DOI:10.1029/2008WR006803
43. 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(12):W12429. no., DOI:10.1029/2005WR004260
44. Ye M, Neuman SP, Meyer PD. Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of spatial variability models in unsaturated fractured tuff. Water Resources Research 2004, 40(5):W05113. no., DOI:10.1029/2003WR002557