Decision Support Modeling: Data Assimilation, Uncertainty Quantification, and Strategic Abstraction

Abstract We present a framework for design and deployment of decision support modeling based on metrics which have their roots in the scientific method. Application of these metrics to decision support modeling requires recognition of the importance of data assimilation and predictive uncertainty quantification in this type of modeling. The difficulties of implementing these procedures depend on the relationship between data that is available for assimilation and the nature of the prediction(s) that a decision support model is required to make. Three different data/prediction contexts are identified. Unfortunately, groundwater modeling is generally aligned with the most difficult of these. It is suggested that these difficulties can generally be ameliorated through appropriate model design. This design requires strategic abstraction of parameters and processes in a way that is optimal for the making of one particular prediction but is not necessarily optimal for the making of another. It is further suggested that the focus of decision support modeling should be on the ability of a model to provide receptacles for decision‐pertinent information rather than on its purported ability to simulate environmental processes. While models are compromised in both of these roles, this view makes it clear that simulation should serve data assimilation and not the other way around. Data assimilation enables the uncertainties of decision‐critical model predictions to be quantified and maybe reduced. Decision support modeling requires this.

[1]  Christian D Langevin,et al.  Quantifying Data Worth Toward Reducing Predictive Uncertainty , 2010, Ground water.

[2]  Graham E. Fogg,et al.  Groundwater Flow and Sand Body Interconnectedness in a Thick, Multiple-Aquifer System , 1986 .

[3]  Jeremy T White,et al.  Forecast First: An Argument for Groundwater Modeling in Reverse , 2017, Ground water.

[4]  Dean S. Oliver,et al.  Calibration of imperfect models to biased observations , 2018, Computational Geosciences.

[5]  Anneli Guthke.  Defensible Model Complexity: A Call for Data-Based and Goal-Oriented Model Choice. , 2017, Ground water.

[6]  Mary C Hill,et al.  The Practical Use of Simplicity in Developing Ground Water Models , 2006, Ground water.

[7]  H. Haitjema,et al.  The Role of Hand Calculations in Ground Water Flow Modeling , 2006, Ground water.

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

[9]  M. Anderson.  Hydrogeologic facies models to delineate large-scale spatial trends in glacial and glaciofluvial sediments , 1989 .

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

[11]  Doug Weatherill,et al.  Australian Groundwater Modelling Guidelines , 2013 .

[12]  Peter M. Martin,et al.  Natural recharge estimation and uncertainty analysis of an adjudicated groundwater basin using a regional-scale flow and subsidence model (Antelope Valley, California, USA) , 2015, Hydrogeology Journal.

[13]  Joel Massmann,et al.  Hydrogeological Decision Analysis: 1. A Framework , 1990 .

[14]  Louis J. Durlofsky,et al.  A New Data-Space Inversion Procedure for Efficient Uncertainty Quantification in Subsurface Flow Problems , 2017, Mathematical Geosciences.

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

[16]  L. Durlofsky,et al.  Data-space approaches for uncertainty quantification of CO2 plume location in geological carbon storage , 2019, Advances in Water Resources.

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

[18]  John Doherty,et al.  Efficient regularization and uncertainty analysis using a global optimization methodology , 2010 .

[19]  David J. Dahlstrom.  Calibration and Uncertainty Analysis for Complex Environmental Models , 2015 .

[20]  George Kuczera,et al.  Model smoothing strategies to remove microscale discontinuities and spurious secondary optima in objective functions in hydrological calibration , 2007 .

[21]  Philippe Renard,et al.  Connectivity metrics for subsurface flow and transport , 2013 .

[22]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Bayesian calibration of computer models , 2001 .

[23]  Theo N Olsthoorn,et al.  Do a Bit More with Convolution , 2008, Ground water.

[24]  Al-Aziz Eddebbarh,et al.  Practical Postcalibration Uncertainty Analysis: Yucca Mountain, Nevada , 2009, Ground water.

[25]  J. Doherty,et al.  Calibration‐constrained Monte Carlo analysis of highly parameterized models using subspace techniques , 2009 .

[26]  D. Oliver,et al.  Levenberg–Marquardt forms of the iterative ensemble smoother for efficient history matching and uncertainty quantification , 2013, Computational Geosciences.

[27]  John Doherty,et al.  Groundwater modelling in decision support: reflections on a unified conceptual framework , 2013, Hydrogeology Journal.

[28]  John Doherty,et al.  Use of paired simple and complex models to reduce predictive bias and quantify uncertainty , 2011 .

[29]  Jef Caers,et al.  Direct forecasting of subsurface flow response from non-linear dynamic data by linear least-squares in canonical functional principal component space , 2014 .

[30]  Jeremy T. White,et al.  A model-independent iterative ensemble smoother for efficient history-matching and uncertainty quantification in very high dimensions , 2018, Environ. Model. Softw..