Hydrogeological conceptual model building and testing: A review

Abstract Hydrogeological conceptual models are collections of hypotheses describing the understanding of groundwater systems and they are considered one of the major sources of uncertainty in groundwater flow and transport modelling. A common method for characterizing the conceptual uncertainty is the multi-model approach, where alternative plausible conceptual models are developed and evaluated. This review aims to give an overview of how multiple alternative models have been developed, tested and used for predictions in the multi-model approach in international literature and to identify the remaining challenges. The review shows that only a few guidelines for developing the multiple conceptual models exist, and these are rarely followed. The challenge of generating a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive range of plausible models is yet to be solved. Regarding conceptual model testing, the reviewed studies show that a challenge remains in finding data that is both suitable to discriminate between conceptual models and relevant to the model objective. We argue that there is a need for a systematic approach to conceptual model building where all aspects of conceptualization relevant to the study objective are covered. For each conceptual issue identified, alternative models representing hypotheses that are mutually exclusive should be defined. Using a systematic, hypothesis based approach increases the transparency in the modelling workflow and therefore the confidence in the final model predictions, while also anticipating conceptual surprises. While the focus of this review is on hydrogeological applications, the concepts and challenges concerning model building and testing are applicable to spatio-temporal dynamical environmental systems models in general.

[1]  Frank T.-C. Tsai,et al.  Bayesian model averaging assessment on groundwater management under model structure uncertainty , 2010 .

[2]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Estimation of spatial covariance structures by adjoint state maximum likelihood cross validation: 3. Application to hydrochemical and isotopic data , 1989 .

[3]  Frank T.-C. Tsai,et al.  Constructive epistemic modeling of groundwater flow with geological structure and boundary condition uncertainty under the Bayesian paradigm , 2014 .

[4]  David J Tonjes,et al.  Multimodel Validity Assessment of Groundwater Flow Simulation Models Using Area Metric Approach , 2017, Ground water.

[5]  W. Nowak,et al.  Model selection on solid ground: Rigorous comparison of nine ways to evaluate Bayesian model evidence , 2014, Water resources research.

[6]  Jef Caers,et al.  Bayesianism in the Geosciences , 2018 .

[7]  B. Scanlon,et al.  Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge , 2002 .

[8]  Xiaobao Li,et al.  Multiple Parameterization for Hydraulic Conductivity Identification , 2008, Ground water.

[9]  Philip John Binning,et al.  Uncertainty evaluation of mass discharge estimates from a contaminated site using a fully Bayesian framework , 2010 .

[10]  Mary P. Anderson,et al.  Use of a Numerical Ground‐Water Flow Model for Hypothesis Testing , 1986 .

[11]  H. K. Chang,et al.  A Mathematical View of Water Table Fluctuations in a Shallow Aquifer in Brazil , 2016, Ground water.

[12]  Alain Dassargues,et al.  Conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modeling: Combining generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation and Bayesian model averaging , 2008 .

[13]  Srikanta Mishra,et al.  Model Averaging Techniques for Quantifying Conceptual Model Uncertainty , 2010, Ground water.

[14]  Clifford I. Voss,et al.  Sampling design for groundwater solute transport: Tests of methods and analysis of Cape Cod tracer test data , 1991 .

[15]  Keith Beven,et al.  A guide to good practice in modeling semantics for authors and referees , 2013 .

[16]  Hoshin V. Gupta,et al.  Hydrologic consistency as a basis for assessing complexity of monthly water balance models for the continental United States , 2011 .

[17]  S. Birk,et al.  Characterizing regional groundwater flow in the Ethiopian Rift: A multimodel approach applied to Gidabo River Basin , 2016 .

[18]  Clifford I. Voss,et al.  Multiobjective sampling design for parameter estimation and model discrimination in groundwater solute transport , 1989 .

[19]  M. Clark,et al.  A philosophical basis for hydrological uncertainty , 2016 .

[20]  P. Döll,et al.  Global-scale modeling of groundwater recharge , 2008 .

[21]  K. Jensen,et al.  The importance of alternative conceptual models for simulation of concentrations in a multi-aquifer system , 2007 .

[22]  Paul L. Younger,et al.  A proposed framework for hydrogeological conceptual modelling , 2010 .

[23]  N. Linde,et al.  Tomogram-based comparison of geostatistical models: Application to the Macrodispersion Experiment (MADE) site , 2015, 1701.01615.

[24]  John D. Bredehoeft,et al.  Ground-water models cannot be validated , 1992 .

[25]  Frank T.-C. Tsai,et al.  Bayesian model averaging for groundwater head prediction and uncertainty analysis using multimodel and multimethod , 2009 .

[26]  R. Lee,et al.  Aquifer Analysis and Modeling in a Fractured, Heterogeneous Medium , 1992 .

[27]  Ming Ye,et al.  Combined Estimation of Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, Parameter, and Scenario Uncertainty with Application to Uranium Transport at the Hanford Site 300 Area , 2006 .

[28]  Luk Peeters,et al.  Application of a multimodel approach to account for conceptual model and scenario uncertainties in groundwater modelling , 2010 .

[29]  Anandaroop Ray,et al.  Bayesian inversion of marine CSEM data with a trans‐dimensional self parametrizing algorithm , 2012 .

[30]  Mary C. Hill,et al.  Evaluating model structure adequacy: The case of the Maggia Valley groundwater system, southern Switzerland , 2013 .

[31]  F. Tsai,et al.  Indicator geostatistics for reconstructing Baton Rouge aquifer-fault hydrostratigraphy, Louisiana, USA , 2013, Hydrogeology Journal.

[32]  Jeroen P. van der Sluijs,et al.  A framework for dealing with uncertainty due to model structure error , 2004 .

[33]  John Doherty,et al.  Efficient nonlinear predictive error variance for highly parameterized models , 2006 .

[34]  N. Kerr HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known , 1998, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[35]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Sensitivity analysis and assessment of prior model probabilities in MLBMA with application to unsaturated fractured tuff , 2005 .

[36]  P. Young,et al.  Simplicity out of complexity in environmental modelling: Occam's razor revisited. , 1996 .

[37]  Frank T.-C. Tsai,et al.  Bayesian experimental design for identification of model propositions and conceptual model uncertainty reduction , 2015 .

[38]  J C Refsgaard,et al.  Model uncertainty--parameter uncertainty versus conceptual models. , 2005, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[39]  Clifford I. Voss,et al.  Discrimination among one‐dimensional models of solute transport in porous media: Implications for sampling design , 1988 .

[40]  P. Aggarwal,et al.  Naïve Simplicity: The Overlooked Piece of the Complexity‐Simplicity Paradigm , 2017, Ground water.

[41]  Wolfgang Nowak,et al.  Finding the right balance between groundwater model complexity and experimental effort via Bayesian model selection , 2015 .

[42]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Estimation of Aquifer Parameters Under Transient and Steady State Conditions: 3. Application to Synthetic and Field Data , 1986 .

[43]  Ty P A Ferré,et al.  Revisiting the Relationship Between Data, Models, and Decision‐Making , 2017, Ground water.

[44]  J. Vrugt,et al.  On the optimal design of experiments for conceptual and predictive discrimination of hydrologic system models , 2015 .

[45]  Luk Peeters,et al.  Australian groundwater modelling guidelines , 2012 .

[46]  M. Castro,et al.  Calibration of regional groundwater flow models: Working toward a better understanding of site‐specific systems , 2003 .

[47]  Laurence Smith,et al.  The role of expert opinion in environmental modelling , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[48]  Jasper A. Vrugt,et al.  Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using the DREAM software package: Theory, concepts, and MATLAB implementation , 2016, Environ. Model. Softw..

[49]  B. Robinson,et al.  The site-scale saturated zone flow model for Yucca Mountain: calibration of different conceptual models and their impact on flow paths. , 2003, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[50]  Chin-Fu Tsang,et al.  The Modeling Process and Model Validation , 1991 .

[51]  K. Beven Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environment , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[52]  Kamran Davary,et al.  A framework toward developing a groundwater conceptual model , 2014, Arabian Journal of Geosciences.

[53]  S. F. Mousavi,et al.  An approach to the design of experiments for discriminating among alternative conceptual models , 1992 .

[54]  Keith Beven,et al.  Towards a coherent philosophy for environmental modelling. , 2002 .

[55]  John Doherty,et al.  A short exploration of structural noise , 2010 .

[56]  P. Renard,et al.  Geological realism in hydrogeological and geophysical inverse modeling: A review , 2015, 1701.01602.

[57]  Jef Caers,et al.  Uncertainty in training image‐based inversion of hydraulic head data constrained to ERT data: Workflow and case study , 2014 .

[58]  C. Faunt,et al.  Estimation of Regional Recharge and Travel Time Through the Unsaturated Zone in Arid Climates , 2013 .

[59]  Hans Jørgen Henriksen,et al.  Capture zone, travel time, and solute-transport predictions using inverse modeling and different geological models , 2003 .

[60]  Zeynep Demiray,et al.  Exploring the use of alternative groundwater models to understand the hydrogeological flow processes in an alluvial context (Tiber River, Rome, Italy) , 2014, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[61]  Keith Beven,et al.  The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. , 1992 .

[62]  N Oreskes,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences , 1994, Science.

[63]  A. Lukjan,et al.  Importance of Alternative Conceptual Model for Sustainable Groundwater Management of the Hat Yai Basin, Thailand , 2016 .

[64]  Jens Christian Refsgaard,et al.  Review of strategies for handling geological uncertainty in groundwater flow and transport modeling , 2012 .

[65]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  Ensembles vs. information theory: supporting science under uncertainty , 2018, Frontiers of Earth Science.

[66]  Jens Christian Refsgaard,et al.  Assessment of hydrological model predictive ability given multiple conceptual geological models , 2012 .

[67]  L Foglia,et al.  Testing Alternative Ground Water Models Using Cross‐Validation and Other Methods , 2007, Ground water.

[68]  Ming Ye,et al.  A Model‐Averaging Method for Assessing Groundwater Conceptual Model Uncertainty , 2010, Ground water.

[69]  Frank T.-C. Tsai,et al.  Optimal observation network design for conceptual model discrimination and uncertainty reduction , 2016 .

[70]  D. Mallants,et al.  Multi-scale aquifer characterization and groundwater flow model parameterization using direct push technologies , 2014, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[71]  P. Green Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination , 1995 .

[72]  J. Doherty,et al.  Role of the calibration process in reducing model predictive error , 2005 .

[73]  W. Nowak,et al.  A Primer for Model Selection: The Decisive Role of Model Complexity , 2018 .

[74]  Clifford M. Hurvich,et al.  Regression and time series model selection in small samples , 1989 .

[75]  Bruce A. Robinson,et al.  Treatment of uncertainty using ensemble methods: Comparison of sequential data assimilation and Bayesian model averaging , 2007 .

[76]  Diederik Jacques,et al.  Sensitivity of groundwater recharge using climatic analogues and HYDRUS-1D , 2012 .

[77]  A. Raftery,et al.  Using Bayesian Model Averaging to Calibrate Forecast Ensembles , 2005 .

[78]  Mary P. Anderson,et al.  The role of the postaudit in model validation , 1992 .

[79]  N. Sugiura Further analysts of the data by akaike' s information criterion and the finite corrections , 1978 .

[80]  Jan-Olof Selroos,et al.  Comparison of alternative modelling approaches for groundwater flow in fractured rock , 2002 .

[81]  W. Yeh,et al.  Identification of Parameter Structure in Groundwater Inverse Problem , 1985 .

[82]  Joseph H. A. Guillaume,et al.  Methods for exploring uncertainty in groundwater management predictions , 2016 .

[83]  Frank T.-C. Tsai,et al.  Hierarchical Bayesian model averaging for hydrostratigraphic modeling: Uncertainty segregation and comparative evaluation , 2013 .

[84]  R. Doble,et al.  Review: Current and emerging methods for catchment-scale modelling of recharge and evapotranspiration from shallow groundwater , 2017, Hydrogeology Journal.

[85]  Ming Ye,et al.  Towards a comprehensive assessment of model structural adequacy , 2012 .

[86]  F. C. Brassington Fciwem,et al.  A proposed framework for hydrogeological conceptual modelling , 2009 .

[87]  Martyn P. Clark,et al.  Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models , 2008 .

[88]  Vicky L. Freedman,et al.  Elements of complexity in subsurface modeling, exemplified with three case studies , 2017, Hydrogeology Journal.

[89]  Randall J. Hunt,et al.  Chapter 2 – Modeling Purpose and Conceptual Model , 2015 .

[90]  Ming Ye,et al.  Incorporation of conceptual and parametric uncertainty into radionuclide flux estimates from a fractured granite rock mass , 2010 .

[91]  Sebastien Strebelle,et al.  Conditional Simulation of Complex Geological Structures Using Multiple-Point Statistics , 2002 .

[92]  John Doherty,et al.  Quantifying the predictive consequences of model error with linear subspace analysis , 2014 .

[93]  Jasper A. Vrugt,et al.  Comparison of point forecast accuracy of model averaging methods in hydrologic applications , 2010 .

[94]  David Anderson,et al.  Multimodel Ranking and Inference in Ground Water Modeling , 2004, Ground water.

[95]  Xin He,et al.  The effect of training image and secondary data integration with multiple-point geostatistics in groundwater modelling , 2013 .

[96]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial (with comments by M. Clyde, David Draper and E. I. George, and a rejoinder by the authors , 1999 .

[97]  J. Bredehoeft The conceptualization model problem—surprise , 2005 .

[98]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[99]  Alain Dassargues,et al.  Assessment of conceptual model uncertainty for the regional aquifer Pampa del Tamarugal – North Chile , 2009 .

[100]  Randall J Hunt,et al.  Taking Account of “Unknown Unknowns” , 2010, Ground water.

[101]  Henk M. Haitjema,et al.  Analytic Element Modeling of Groundwater Flow , 1995 .

[102]  D. F. Watson,et al.  The distinction between probabilistic prediction and statistical decision-making , 1986 .

[103]  Ahmed E. Hassan,et al.  A Validation Process for the Groundwater Flow and Transport Model of the Faultless Nuclear Test at Central Nevada Test Area , 2003 .

[104]  L. Feyen,et al.  Quantifying geological uncertainty for flow and transport modeling in multi-modal heterogeneous formations , 2006 .

[105]  R. Liedl,et al.  Complexity vs. Simplicity: Groundwater Model Ranking Using Information Criteria , 2014, Ground water.

[106]  Laurent Pfister,et al.  Debates—Hypothesis testing in hydrology: Theory and practice , 2017 .

[107]  Ming Ye,et al.  Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of spatial variability models in unsaturated fractured tuff , 2003 .

[108]  W. Sanford,et al.  Assessment Of A Groundwater Flow Model Of The Bangkok Basin, Thailand, Using Carbon-14-Based Ages And Paleohydrology , 1996 .

[109]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[110]  Ming Ye,et al.  Expert elicitation of recharge model probabilities for the Death Valley regional flow system , 2008 .

[111]  J. Caers,et al.  Dynamic data integration for structural modeling: model screening approach using a distance-based model parameterization , 2008 .

[112]  G. Johnson,et al.  Evaluation of a pumping test of the Snake River Plain aquifer using axial-flow numerical modeling , 2002 .

[113]  R. Hunt,et al.  Basic Mathematics and the Computer Code , 2015 .

[114]  Y. Pachepsky,et al.  Augmentation of groundwater monitoring networks using information theory and ensemble modeling with pedotransfer functions , 2013 .

[115]  J. Batlle‐Aguilar,et al.  Using hydraulic head, chloride and electrical conductivity data to distinguish between mountain-front and mountain-block recharge to basin aquifers , 2017 .

[116]  M. Sambridge,et al.  Trans-dimensional inverse problems, model comparison and the evidence , 2006 .

[117]  Yangxiao Zhou,et al.  Evaluation of alternative conceptual models for groundwater modelling , 2017 .

[118]  Keith Beven,et al.  On hypothesis testing in hydrology: Why falsification of models is still a really good idea , 2018 .

[119]  A. Rinaldo,et al.  Alternative conceptual models and the robustness of groundwater management scenarios in the multi-aquifer system of the Central Veneto Basin, Italy , 2012, Hydrogeology Journal.

[120]  Doug Nychka,et al.  Forecasting skill of model averages , 2010 .

[121]  A. Werner,et al.  Problems with the application of hydrogeological science to regulation of Australian mining projects: Carmichael Mine and Doongmabulla Springs , 2017 .

[122]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of uncertain model predictions , 2003 .

[123]  Okke Batelaan,et al.  On the value of conditioning data to reduce conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modeling , 2010 .

[124]  Lachun Wang,et al.  Uncertainty Evaluation of a Groundwater Conceptual Model by Using a Multimodel Averaging Method , 2015 .

[125]  A. Tarantola Popper, Bayes and the inverse problem , 2006 .

[126]  Ming Ye,et al.  Investigating the effect of complexity on groundwater flow modeling uncertainty , 2018, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment.

[127]  Alain Dassargues,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of prior model probabilities and the value of prior knowledge in the assessment of conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modelling , 2009 .

[128]  T. Sonnenborg,et al.  Use of alternative conceptual models to assess the impact of a buried valley on groundwater vulnerability , 2008 .