DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Bayesian calibration of groundwater models with input data uncertainty

Abstract

Abstract Effective water resources management typically relies on numerical models to analyze groundwater flow and solute transport processes. Groundwater models are often subject to input data uncertainty, as some inputs (such as recharge and well pumping rates) are estimated and subject to uncertainty. Current practices of groundwater model calibration often overlook uncertainties in input data; this can lead to biased parameter estimates and compromised predictions. Through a synthetic case study of surface‐ground water interaction under changing pumping conditions and land use, we investigate the impacts of uncertain pumping and recharge rates on model calibration and uncertainty analysis. We then present a Bayesian framework of model calibration to handle uncertain input of groundwater models. The framework implements a marginalizing step to account for input data uncertainty when evaluating likelihood. It was found that not accounting for input uncertainty may lead to biased, overconfident parameter estimates because parameters could be over‐adjusted to compensate for possible input data errors. Parameter compensation can have deleterious impacts when the calibrated model is used to make forecast under a scenario that is different from calibration conditions. By marginalizing input data uncertainty, the Bayesian calibration approach effectively alleviates parameter compensation and gives more accurate predictions in themore » synthetic case study. The marginalizing Bayesian method also decomposes prediction uncertainty into uncertainties contributed by parameters, input data, and measurements. The results underscore the need to account for input uncertainty to better inform postmodeling decision making.« less

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [2]; ORCiD logo [3];  [2]; ORCiD logo [2]
  1. Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL (United States); Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI (United States)
  2. Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL (United States)
  3. Florida State Univ., Tallahassee, FL (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Florida State Univ., Tallahassee, FL (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC)
OSTI Identifier:
1466031
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1402401
Grant/Contract Number:  
SC0002687; DE‐SC0002687
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Water Resources Research
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 53; Journal Issue: 4; Journal ID: ISSN 0043-1397
Publisher:
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; input uncertainty; calibration; Bayesian; uncertainty quanitfication

Citation Formats

Xu, Tianfang, Valocchi, Albert J., Ye, Ming, Liang, Feng, and Lin, Yu -Feng. Bayesian calibration of groundwater models with input data uncertainty. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1002/2016WR019512.
Xu, Tianfang, Valocchi, Albert J., Ye, Ming, Liang, Feng, & Lin, Yu -Feng. Bayesian calibration of groundwater models with input data uncertainty. United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019512
Xu, Tianfang, Valocchi, Albert J., Ye, Ming, Liang, Feng, and Lin, Yu -Feng. Wed . "Bayesian calibration of groundwater models with input data uncertainty". United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019512. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1466031.
@article{osti_1466031,
title = {Bayesian calibration of groundwater models with input data uncertainty},
author = {Xu, Tianfang and Valocchi, Albert J. and Ye, Ming and Liang, Feng and Lin, Yu -Feng},
abstractNote = {Abstract Effective water resources management typically relies on numerical models to analyze groundwater flow and solute transport processes. Groundwater models are often subject to input data uncertainty, as some inputs (such as recharge and well pumping rates) are estimated and subject to uncertainty. Current practices of groundwater model calibration often overlook uncertainties in input data; this can lead to biased parameter estimates and compromised predictions. Through a synthetic case study of surface‐ground water interaction under changing pumping conditions and land use, we investigate the impacts of uncertain pumping and recharge rates on model calibration and uncertainty analysis. We then present a Bayesian framework of model calibration to handle uncertain input of groundwater models. The framework implements a marginalizing step to account for input data uncertainty when evaluating likelihood. It was found that not accounting for input uncertainty may lead to biased, overconfident parameter estimates because parameters could be over‐adjusted to compensate for possible input data errors. Parameter compensation can have deleterious impacts when the calibrated model is used to make forecast under a scenario that is different from calibration conditions. By marginalizing input data uncertainty, the Bayesian calibration approach effectively alleviates parameter compensation and gives more accurate predictions in the synthetic case study. The marginalizing Bayesian method also decomposes prediction uncertainty into uncertainties contributed by parameters, input data, and measurements. The results underscore the need to account for input uncertainty to better inform postmodeling decision making.},
doi = {10.1002/2016WR019512},
journal = {Water Resources Research},
number = 4,
volume = 53,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Apr 19 00:00:00 EDT 2017},
month = {Wed Apr 19 00:00:00 EDT 2017}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 20 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Describing the catchment-averaged precipitation as a stochastic process improves parameter and input estimation: IMPROVING INPUT UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION
journal, April 2016

  • Del Giudice, Dario; Albert, Carlo; Rieckermann, Jörg
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 52, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015WR017871

The global groundwater crisis
journal, October 2014


How do hydrologic modeling decisions affect the portrayal of climate change impacts?: Subjective Hydrologic Modelling Decisions in Climate Change Impacts
journal, October 2015

  • Mendoza, Pablo A.; Clark, Martyn P.; Mizukami, Naoki
  • Hydrological Processes, Vol. 30, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10684

Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences
journal, November 1992


Changes in precipitation with climate change
journal, March 2011


Treatment of input uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Doing hydrology backward with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation: FORCING DATA ERROR USING MCMC SAMPLING
journal, December 2008

  • Vrugt, Jasper A.; ter Braak, Cajo J. F.; Clark, Martyn P.
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 44, Issue 12
  • DOI: 10.1029/2007WR006720

Impacts of rainfall spatial variability on hydrogeological response
journal, February 2015

  • Sapriza-Azuri, Gonzalo; Jódar, Jorge; Navarro, Vicente
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 51, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014WR016168

Dimensionality reduction and polynomial chaos acceleration of Bayesian inference in inverse problems
journal, April 2009


Accelerating Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation by Differential Evolution with Self-Adaptive Randomized Subspace Sampling
journal, January 2009

  • Vrugt, J. A.; ter Braak, C. J. F.; Diks, C. G. H.
  • International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, Vol. 10, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1515/IJNSNS.2009.10.3.273

A Bayesian approach to improved calibration and prediction of groundwater models with structural error
journal, November 2015

  • Xu, Tianfang; Valocchi, Albert J.
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 51, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015WR017912

Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 2. Application: INPUT UNCERTAINTY IN HYDROLOGY, 2
journal, March 2006

  • Kavetski, Dmitri; Kuczera, George; Franks, Stewart W.
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 42, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004376

Practical Use of Computationally Frugal Model Analysis Methods: M.C. Hill et al. Ground Water xx, no. x: xx-xx
journal, March 2015

  • Hill, Mary C.; Kavetski, Dmitri; Clark, Martyn
  • Groundwater, Vol. 54, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1111/gwat.12330

Markov Chain Monte Carlo Convergence Diagnostics: A Comparative Review
journal, June 1996


PRO-GRADE: GIS Toolkits for Ground Water Recharge and Discharge Estimation
journal, January 2009


Effective Groundwater Model Calibration
book, January 2007


Quantifying the predictive consequences of model error with linear subspace analysis: SUBSPACE ANALYSIS OF MODEL ERROR
journal, February 2014

  • White, Jeremy T.; Doherty, John E.; Hughes, Joseph D.
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 50, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013WR014767

A truncated Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm for the calibration of highly parameterized nonlinear models
journal, June 2011


Improving uncertainty estimation in urban hydrological modeling by statistically describing bias
journal, January 2013

  • Del Giudice, D.; Honti, M.; Scheidegger, A.
  • Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 17, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.5194/hess-17-4209-2013

Robust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming
journal, November 2006

  • Held, Isaac M.; Soden, Brian J.
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 19, Issue 21
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3990.1

Calibration of hydrological model GR2M using Bayesian uncertainty analysis: BAYESIAN UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
journal, February 2008


Assessing the relative importance of parameter and forcing uncertainty and their interactions in conceptual hydrological model simulations
journal, November 2016


Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge
journal, January 2002

  • Scanlon, Bridget R.; Healy, Richard W.; Cook, Peter G.
  • Hydrogeology Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1007/s10040-001-0176-2

Quantifying uncertainty sources in an ensemble of hydrological climate-impact projections: UNCERTAINTY SOURCES IN CLIMATE-IMPACT PROJECTIONS
journal, March 2013

  • Bosshard, T.; Carambia, M.; Goergen, K.
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 49, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1029/2011WR011533

Global change and the groundwater management challenge: Groundwater Management Challenge
journal, May 2015

  • Gorelick, Steven M.; Zheng, Chunmiao
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 51, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014WR016825

A review of surrogate models and their application to groundwater modeling: SURROGATES OF GROUNDWATER MODELS
journal, August 2015

  • Asher, M. J.; Croke, B. F. W.; Jakeman, A. J.
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 51, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015WR016967

Parameter Estimation for Groundwater Models under Uncertain Irrigation Data
journal, July 2014

  • Demissie, Yonas; Valocchi, Albert; Cai, Ximing
  • Groundwater, Vol. 53, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1111/gwat.12235

Rainfall uncertainty in hydrological modelling: An evaluation of multiplicative error models
journal, March 2011


Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index
journal, February 2010

  • Saltelli, Andrea; Annoni, Paola; Azzini, Ivano
  • Computer Physics Communications, Vol. 181, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2009.09.018

Towards a Practice Based View of Strategy
journal, January 2014


Uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Toward an integrated data assimilation framework: HYDROLOGIC DATA ASSIMILATION
journal, July 2007

  • Liu, Yuqiong; Gupta, Hoshin V.
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 43, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1029/2006WR005756

Ground Water Model Calibration Using Pilot Points and Regularization
journal, March 2003


Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1. Theory: INPUT UNCERTAINTY IN HYDROLOGY, 1
journal, March 2006

  • Kavetski, Dmitri; Kuczera, George; Franks, Stewart W.
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 42, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004368

A hybrid regularized inversion methodology for highly parameterized environmental models: HYBRID REGULARIZATION METHODOLOGY
journal, October 2005

  • Tonkin, Matthew James; Doherty, John
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 41, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1029/2005WR003995

A new streamflow-routing (SFR1) package to simulate stream-aquifer interaction with MODFLOW-2000
report, January 2004


Works referencing / citing this record:

Toward a combined Bayesian frameworks to quantify parameter uncertainty in a large mountainous catchment with high spatial variability
journal, December 2018

  • Hassanzadeh, Yousef; Afshar, Amirhosein Aghakhani; Pourreza-Bilondi, Mohsen
  • Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 191, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1007/s10661-018-7145-x

Estimation and Impact Assessment of Input and Parameter Uncertainty in Predicting Groundwater Flow With a Fully Distributed Model
journal, September 2018

  • Mustafa, Syed Md. Touhidul; Nossent, Jiri; Ghysels, Gert
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 54, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1029/2017wr021857

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Uncertainty Analysis of a Continuous Hydrological Model Using DREAM-ZS Algorithm
journal, June 2019

  • Aghakhani Afshar, Amirhosein; Hassanzadeh, Yousef; Pourreza-Bilondi, Mohsen
  • Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol. 44, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1007/s40996-019-00287-7

Addressing Challenges for Mapping Irrigated Fields in Subhumid Temperate Regions by Integrating Remote Sensing and Hydroclimatic Data
journal, February 2019

  • Xu, Tianfang; Deines, Jillian; Kendall, Anthony
  • Remote Sensing, Vol. 11, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.3390/rs11030370