Assessment of parametric uncertainty for groundwater reactive transport modeling

Abstract

The validity of using Gaussian assumptions for model residuals in uncertainty quantification of a groundwater reactive transport model was evaluated in this study. Least squares regression methods explicitly assume Gaussian residuals, and the assumption leads to Gaussian likelihood functions, model parameters, and model predictions. While the Bayesian methods do not explicitly require the Gaussian assumption, Gaussian residuals are widely used. This paper shows that the residuals of the reactive transport model are non-Gaussian, heteroscedastic, and correlated in time; characterizing them requires using a generalized likelihood function such as the formal generalized likelihood function developed by Schoups and Vrugt (2010). For the surface complexation model considered in this study for simulating uranium reactive transport in groundwater, parametric uncertainty is quantified using the least squares regression methods and Bayesian methods with both Gaussian and formal generalized likelihood functions. While the least squares methods and Bayesian methods with Gaussian likelihood function produce similar Gaussian parameter distributions, the parameter distributions of Bayesian uncertainty quantification using the formal generalized likelihood function are non-Gaussian. In addition, predictive performance of formal generalized likelihood function is superior to that of least squares regression and Bayesian methods with Gaussian likelihood function. The Bayesian uncertainty quantification is conducted using the differential evolution adaptive metropolis (DREAM ( zs ) ) algorithm; as a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method, it is a robust tool for quantifying uncertainty in groundwater reactive transport models. For the surface complexation model, the regression-based local sensitivity analysis and Morris-and DREAM (ZS) -based global sensitivity analysis yield almost identical ranking of parameter importance. The uncertainty analysis may help select appropriate likelihood functions, improve model calibration, and reduce predictive uncertainty in other groundwater reactive transport and environmental modeling.

Development of Probabilistic Dam Breach Model Using Bayesian Inference

“…Related frameworks were applied in different fields, such as three‐dimensional environment modeling (Balakrishnan et al, ), sediment entrainment modeling (F.‐C. Wu & Chen, ), groundwater modeling (Laloy & Vrugt, ; Shi et al, ), rating curve derivation (Mansanarez et al, ), or design flood estimation (Steinbakk et al, ).…”

Efficient Bayesian Inverse Modeling of Water Infiltration in Layered Soils

“…Formulating the inverse problem in a probabilistic framework, Bayesian methods can be used to accurately estimate the unknown parameters and associated uncertainties. As a very popular Bayesian method, Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) requires repeated evaluations of the governing equations to generate posterior parameter samples (Scholer et al, 2012; Zhang et al, 2015; Shi et al, 2014). If the numerical solver is computationally demanding, the computational cost of MCMC simulation will be prohibitive.…”

Quantifying model structural error: Efficient Bayesian calibration of a regional groundwater flow model using surrogates and a data‐driven error model

“…For least squares regression‐based calibration, correlated residuals can be handled by using a full error covariance matrix (i.e., with nonzero off‐diagonal entries) in the objective function [ Lu et al ., ]. In Bayesian calibration, customized likelihood functions are used to characterize model residuals that are non‐Gaussian, biased, skewed, heteroscedastic, and correlated [ Beven and Freer , ; Erdal et al ., ; Nearing et al ., ; Schoups and Vrugt , ; Shi et al ., ]. The above methods have been applied to various fields, including rainfall‐runoff, unsaturated flow and groundwater reactive transport modeling.…”