Sensitivity analysis of prior model probabilities and the value of prior knowledge in the assessment of conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modelling

A key point in the application of multi-model Bayesian averaging techniques to assess the predictive uncertainty in groundwater modelling applications is the definition of prior model probabilities, which reflect the prior perception about the plausibility of alternative models. In this work the influence of prior knowledge and prior model probabilities on posterior model probabilities, multi-model predictions, and conceptual model uncertainty estimations is analysed. The sensitivity to prior model probabilities is assessed using an extensive numerical analysis in which the prior probability space of a set of plausible conceptualizations is discretized to obtain a large ensemble of possible combinations of prior model probabilities. Additionally, the value of prior knowledge about alternative models in reducing conceptual model uncertainty is assessed by considering three example knowledge states, expressed as quantitative relations among the alternative models. A constrained maximum entropy approach is used to find the set of prior model probabilities that correspond to the different prior knowledge states. For illustrative purposes, a three-dimensional hypothetical setup approximated by seven alternative conceptual models is employed. Results show that posterior model probabilities, leading moments of the predictive distributions and estimations of conceptual model uncertainty are very sensitive to prior model probabilities, indicating the relevance of selecting proper prior probabilities. Additionally, including proper prior knowledge improves the predictive performance of the multi-model approach, expressed by reductions of the multi-model prediction variances by up to 60% compared with a non-informative case. However, the ratio between-model to total variance does not substantially decrease. This suggests that the contribution of conceptual model uncertainty to the total variance cannot be further reduced based only on prior knowledge about the plausibility of alternative models. These results advocate including proper prior knowledge about alternative conceptualizations in combination with extra conditioning data to further reduce conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modelling predictions. Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis , 2010 .

[2]  Keith Beven,et al.  Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology , 2001 .

[3]  David Draper,et al.  Assessment and Propagation of Model Uncertainty , 2011 .

[4]  John D Bredehoeft From models to performance assessment: the conceptualization problem. , 2003, Ground water.

[5]  A. Brix Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd edn , 2005 .

[6]  P. Kiessler,et al.  An Introduction to Bayesian Analysis: Theory and Methods , 2008 .

[7]  Keith Beven,et al.  A manifesto for the equifinality thesis , 2006 .

[8]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Multi-Model Combination Techniques for Hydrological Forecasting: Application to Distributed Model Intercomparison Project Results , 2005 .

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

[10]  M. Goitein,et al.  The inverse problem. , 1990, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  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 .

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

[13]  Andres Alcolea,et al.  Inverse problem in hydrogeology , 2005 .

[14]  David S. Shafer,et al.  On Evaluation of Recharge Model Uncertainty: a Priori and a Posteriori , 2006 .

[15]  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.

[16]  Keith Beven,et al.  So just why would a modeller choose to be incoherent , 2008 .

[17]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

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

[19]  Wasserman,et al.  Bayesian Model Selection and Model Averaging. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[20]  Qingyun Duan,et al.  An integrated hydrologic Bayesian multimodel combination framework: Confronting input, parameter, and model structural uncertainty in hydrologic prediction , 2006 .

[21]  Y. Rubin Applied Stochastic Hydrogeology , 2003 .

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

[23]  Arlen W. Harbaugh,et al.  MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model - User Guide to Modularization Concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process , 2000 .

[24]  Faming Liang,et al.  Automatic Bayesian model averaging for linear regression and applications in Bayesian curve fitting , 2001 .

[25]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  The mathematical theory of communication , 1950 .

[26]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Multimodel Combination Techniques for Analysis of Hydrological Simulations: Application to Distributed Model Intercomparison Project Results , 2006 .

[27]  L. Wasserman,et al.  Computing Bayes Factors by Combining Simulation and Asymptotic Approximations , 1997 .

[28]  Alberto Montanari,et al.  Large sample behaviors of the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) in assessing the uncertainty of rainfall‐runoff simulations , 2005 .

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

[30]  Keith Beven,et al.  Vadose Zone Flow Model Uncertainty as Conditioned on Geophysical Data , 2003, Ground water.

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

[32]  L. Wasserman,et al.  The Selection of Prior Distributions by Formal Rules , 1996 .

[33]  A. Raftery,et al.  Discussion: Performance of Bayesian Model Averaging , 2003 .

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

[35]  David Applebaum,et al.  Probability and Information: An Integrated Approach , 2008 .

[36]  Peter Spellucci,et al.  An SQP method for general nonlinear programs using only equality constrained subproblems , 1998, Math. Program..

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

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

[39]  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 .

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

[41]  Clayton V. Deutsch,et al.  GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide , 1993 .

[42]  M. D. McKay,et al.  A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code , 2000 .