Finding the right balance between groundwater model complexity and experimental effort via Bayesian model selection

Summary Groundwater modelers face the challenge of how to assign representative parameter values to the studied aquifer. Several approaches are available to parameterize spatial heterogeneity in aquifer parameters. They differ in their conceptualization and complexity, ranging from homogeneous models to heterogeneous random fields. While it is common practice to invest more effort into data collection for models with a finer resolution of heterogeneities, there is a lack of advice which amount of data is required to justify a certain level of model complexity. In this study, we propose to use concepts related to Bayesian model selection to identify this balance. We demonstrate our approach on the characterization of a heterogeneous aquifer via hydraulic tomography in a sandbox experiment (Illman et al., 2010). We consider four increasingly complex parameterizations of hydraulic conductivity: (1) Effective homogeneous medium, (2) geology-based zonation, (3) interpolation by pilot points, and (4) geostatistical random fields. First, we investigate the shift in justified complexity with increasing amount of available data by constructing a model confusion matrix . This matrix indicates the maximum level of complexity that can be justified given a specific experimental setup. Second, we determine which parameterization is most adequate given the observed drawdown data. Third, we test how the different parameterizations perform in a validation setup. The results of our test case indicate that aquifer characterization via hydraulic tomography does not necessarily require (or justify) a geostatistical description. Instead, a zonation-based model might be a more robust choice, but only if the zonation is geologically adequate.

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

[2]  Velimir V. Vesselinov,et al.  Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of airflow models in unsaturated fractured tuff using Occam and variance windows , 2010 .

[3]  N. Ajami,et al.  Complexity in microbial metabolic processes in soil nitrogen modeling: a case for model averaging , 2010 .

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

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

[6]  A. Bellin,et al.  A Bayesian approach for inversion of hydraulic tomographic data , 2009 .

[7]  S. Gull.  Bayesian Inductive Inference and Maximum Entropy , 1988 .

[8]  Mary F. Wheeler,et al.  Nested sampling algorithm for subsurface flow model selection, uncertainty quantification, and nonlinear calibration , 2013 .

[9]  J. Huelsenbeck,et al.  Bayesian phylogenetic model selection using reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

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

[11]  Junfeng Zhu,et al.  Laboratory sandbox validation of transient hydraulic tomography , 2007 .

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

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

[14]  Junfeng Zhu,et al.  Comparison of aquifer characterization approaches through steady state groundwater model validation: A controlled laboratory sandbox study , 2010 .

[15]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  On model selection criteria in multimodel analysis , 2007 .

[16]  Peter Dietrich,et al.  Identification of the permeability distribution in soil by hydraulic tomography , 1995 .

[17]  P. Kitanidis.  Quasi‐Linear Geostatistical Theory for Inversing , 1995 .

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

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

[20]  Wolfgang Nowak,et al.  Bayesian model averaging to explore the worth of data for soil‐plant model selection and prediction , 2015 .

[21]  D. Krabbenhoft,et al.  Obtaining parsimonious hydraulic conductivity fields using head and transport observations: A Bayesian geostatistical parameter estimation approach , 2009 .

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

[23]  P. Kitanidis.  Introduction to Geostatistics: Applications in Hydrogeology , 1997 .

[24]  James J. Butler,et al.  Pumping tests in networks of multilevel sampling wells: Motivation and methodology , 1999 .

[25]  Wolfgang Nowak,et al.  Probability density functions of hydraulic head and velocity in three‐dimensional heterogeneous porous media , 2008 .

[26]  T. Yeh,et al.  Hydraulic tomography: Development of a new aquifer test method , 2000 .

[27]  W. Li,et al.  Two‐dimensional characterization of hydraulic heterogeneity by multiple pumping tests , 2007 .

[28]  W. Nowak,et al.  Geostatistical inverse modeling of transient pumping tests using temporal moments of drawdown , 2005 .

[29]  Peter K. Kitanidis,et al.  An interactive Bayesian geostatistical inverse protocol for hydraulic tomography , 2006 .

[30]  Walter A. Illman,et al.  Heterogeneity in hydraulic conductivity and its role on the macroscale transport of a solute plume: From measurements to a practical application of stochastic flow and transport theory , 2010 .

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

[32]  Wolfgang Nowak,et al.  Parameter Estimation by Ensemble Kalman Filters with Transformed Data , 2010 .

[33]  Alberto Guadagnini,et al.  Multimodel Bayesian analysis of groundwater data worth , 2014 .

[34]  Junfeng Zhu,et al.  Sequential aquifer tests at a well field, Montalto Uffugo Scalo, Italy , 2007 .

[35]  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 .

[36]  William W.-G. Yeh,et al.  Aquifer parameter identification with optimum dimension in parameterization , 1981 .

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

[38]  W. Illman,et al.  Should hydraulic tomography data be interpreted using geostatistical inverse modeling? A laboratory sandbox investigation , 2015 .

[39]  A. Raftery.  Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research , 1995 .

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

[41]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Bayesian analysis of data-worth considering model and parameter uncertainties , 2012 .

[42]  H. Kaiser.  The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis , 1960 .

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

[44]  Y. Rubin,et al.  Hydrogeological parameter estimation using geophysical data: a review of selected techniques , 2000 .

[45]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Three‐dimensional numerical inversion of pneumatic cross‐hole tests in unsaturated fractured tuff: 2. Equivalent parameters, high‐resolution stochastic imaging and scale effects , 2001 .

[46]  A Revil,et al.  A Potential‐Based Inversion of Unconfined Steady‐State Hydraulic Tomography , 2009, Ground water.

[47]  M. Marietta,et al.  Pilot Point Methodology for Automated Calibration of an Ensemble of conditionally Simulated Transmissivity Fields: 1. Theory and Computational Experiments , 1995 .

[48]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Multimodel Inference , 2004 .

[49]  H. Jeffreys,et al.  Theory of probability , 1896 .

[50]  Edward I. George,et al.  Dilution priors: Compensating for model space redundancy , 2010 .

[51]  M. Cardiff,et al.  3‐D transient hydraulic tomography in unconfined aquifers with fast drainage response , 2011 .

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

[53]  H. Moradkhani,et al.  Assessing the uncertainties of hydrologic model selection in climate change impact studies , 2011 .

[54]  Y. Rubin,et al.  A hypothesis‐driven approach to optimize field campaigns , 2012 .

[55]  N. Gordon,et al.  Novel approach to nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian state estimation , 1993 .

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

[57]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

[58]  Walter A. Illman,et al.  Steady-state hydraulic tomography in a laboratory aquifer with deterministic heterogeneity: Multi-method and multiscale validation of hydraulic conductivity tomograms , 2007 .

[59]  Jun S. Liu,et al.  Monte Carlo strategies in scientific computing , 2001 .

[60]  E. Sudicky.  A natural gradient experiment on solute transport in a sand aquifer: Spatial variability of hydraulic conductivity and its role in the dispersion process , 1986 .

[61]  Frank T.-C. Tsai,et al.  Inverse groundwater modeling for hydraulic conductivity estimation using Bayesian model averaging and variance window , 2008 .

[62]  Y. Rubin,et al.  Bayesian geostatistical design: Task‐driven optimal site investigation when the geostatistical model is uncertain , 2010 .