Ontology type: schema:ScholarlyArticle
2017-07-12
AUTHORSSaeideh Samani, Asghar Asghari Moghaddam, Ming Ye
ABSTRACTConsidering complexity in groundwater modeling can aid in selecting an optimal model, and can avoid over parameterization, model uncertainty, and misleading conclusions. This study was designed to determine the uncertainty arising from model complexity, and to identify how complexity affects model uncertainty. The Ajabshir aquifer, located in East Azerbaijan, Iran, was used for comprehensive hydrogeological studies and modeling. Six unique conceptual models with four different degrees of complexity measured by the number of calibrated model parameters (6, 10, 10, 13, 13 and 15 parameters) were compared and characterized with alternative geological interpretations, recharge estimates and boundary conditions. The models were developed with Model Muse and calibrated using UCODE with the same set of observed data of hydraulic head. Different methods were used to calculate model probability and model weight to explore model complexity, including Bayesian model averaging, model selection criteria, and multicriteria decision-making (MCDM). With the model selection criteria of AIC, AICc and BIC, the simplest model received the highest model probability. The model selection criterion, KIC, and the MCDM method, in addition to considering the quality of model fit between observed and simulated data and the number of calibrated parameters, also consider uncertainty in parameter estimates with a Fisher information matrix. KIC and MCDM selected a model with moderate complexity (10 parameters) and the best parameter estimation (model 3) as the best models, over another model with the same degree of complexity (model 2). The results of these comparisons show that in choosing between models, priority should be given to quality of the data and parameter estimation rather than degree of complexity. More... »
PAGES643-659
http://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6
DIMENSIONShttps://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1090656367
JSON-LD is the canonical representation for SciGraph data.
TIP: You can open this SciGraph record using an external JSON-LD service: JSON-LD Playground Google SDTT
[
{
"@context": "https://springernature.github.io/scigraph/jsonld/sgcontext.json",
"about": [
{
"id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/01",
"inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/",
"name": "Mathematical Sciences",
"type": "DefinedTerm"
},
{
"id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/0104",
"inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/",
"name": "Statistics",
"type": "DefinedTerm"
}
],
"author": [
{
"affiliation": {
"alternateName": "Department of Earth Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran",
"id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.412831.d",
"name": [
"Department of Earth Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran"
],
"type": "Organization"
},
"familyName": "Samani",
"givenName": "Saeideh",
"id": "sg:person.012310645655.51",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.012310645655.51"
],
"type": "Person"
},
{
"affiliation": {
"alternateName": "Department of Earth Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran",
"id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.412831.d",
"name": [
"Department of Earth Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran"
],
"type": "Organization"
},
"familyName": "Moghaddam",
"givenName": "Asghar Asghari",
"id": "sg:person.010731265314.29",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.010731265314.29"
],
"type": "Person"
},
{
"affiliation": {
"alternateName": "Department of Scientific Computing, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA",
"id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.255986.5",
"name": [
"Department of Scientific Computing, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA"
],
"type": "Organization"
},
"familyName": "Ye",
"givenName": "Ming",
"id": "sg:person.016425122141.09",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.016425122141.09"
],
"type": "Person"
}
],
"citation": [
{
"id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s00477-010-0378-z",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1026422499",
"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-010-0378-z"
],
"type": "CreativeWork"
},
{
"id": "sg:pub.10.3758/bf03207179",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1000378568",
"https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03207179"
],
"type": "CreativeWork"
},
{
"id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s00477-003-0151-7",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1017926309",
"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-003-0151-7"
],
"type": "CreativeWork"
}
],
"datePublished": "2017-07-12",
"datePublishedReg": "2017-07-12",
"description": "Considering complexity in groundwater modeling can aid in selecting an optimal model, and can avoid over parameterization, model uncertainty, and misleading conclusions. This study was designed to determine the uncertainty arising from model complexity, and to identify how complexity affects model uncertainty. The Ajabshir aquifer, located in East Azerbaijan, Iran, was used for comprehensive hydrogeological studies and modeling. Six unique conceptual models with four different degrees of complexity measured by the number of calibrated model parameters (6, 10, 10, 13, 13 and 15 parameters) were compared and characterized with alternative geological interpretations, recharge estimates and boundary conditions. The models were developed with Model Muse and calibrated using UCODE with the same set of observed data of hydraulic head. Different methods were used to calculate model probability and model weight to explore model complexity, including Bayesian model averaging, model selection criteria, and multicriteria decision-making (MCDM). With the model selection criteria of AIC, AICc and BIC, the simplest model received the highest model probability. The model selection criterion, KIC, and the MCDM method, in addition to considering the quality of model fit between observed and simulated data and the number of calibrated parameters, also consider uncertainty in parameter estimates with a Fisher information matrix. KIC and MCDM selected a model with moderate complexity (10 parameters) and the best parameter estimation (model 3) as the best models, over another model with the same degree of complexity (model 2). The results of these comparisons show that in choosing between models, priority should be given to quality of the data and parameter estimation rather than degree of complexity.",
"genre": "article",
"id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6",
"inLanguage": "en",
"isAccessibleForFree": false,
"isFundedItemOf": [
{
"id": "sg:grant.5018921",
"type": "MonetaryGrant"
}
],
"isPartOf": [
{
"id": "sg:journal.1039987",
"issn": [
"1436-3240",
"1436-3259"
],
"name": "Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment",
"publisher": "Springer Nature",
"type": "Periodical"
},
{
"issueNumber": "3",
"type": "PublicationIssue"
},
{
"type": "PublicationVolume",
"volumeNumber": "32"
}
],
"keywords": [
"model selection criteria",
"parameter estimation",
"model probabilities",
"model uncertainty",
"model complexity",
"Fisher information matrix",
"alternative geological interpretations",
"better parameter estimation",
"Bayesian model averaging",
"highest model probability",
"information matrix",
"modeling uncertainties",
"model averaging",
"parameter estimates",
"model parameters",
"boundary conditions",
"groundwater modeling",
"degree of complexity",
"model weights",
"observed data",
"optimal model",
"simple model",
"moderate complexity",
"uncertainty",
"effects of complexity",
"comprehensive hydrogeological studies",
"hydraulic head",
"complexity",
"estimation",
"model fit",
"probability",
"modeling",
"best model",
"model",
"selection criteria",
"parameters",
"geological interpretation",
"estimates",
"AIC",
"MCDM methods",
"same set",
"AICc",
"different methods",
"averaging",
"parameterization",
"multicriteria",
"BIC",
"UCODE",
"matrix",
"fit",
"set",
"number",
"criteria",
"MCDM",
"hydrogeological studies",
"degree",
"data",
"aquifer",
"interpretation",
"unique conceptual model",
"conditions",
"results",
"comparison",
"same degree",
"MUSE",
"different degrees",
"quality",
"effect",
"conceptual model",
"East Azerbaijan",
"addition",
"study",
"weight",
"conclusion",
"KIC",
"priority",
"head",
"Iran",
"Azerbaijan",
"method"
],
"name": "Investigating the effect of complexity on groundwater flow modeling uncertainty",
"pagination": "643-659",
"productId": [
{
"name": "dimensions_id",
"type": "PropertyValue",
"value": [
"pub.1090656367"
]
},
{
"name": "doi",
"type": "PropertyValue",
"value": [
"10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6"
]
}
],
"sameAs": [
"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6",
"https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1090656367"
],
"sdDataset": "articles",
"sdDatePublished": "2022-05-10T10:20",
"sdLicense": "https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/",
"sdPublisher": {
"name": "Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project",
"type": "Organization"
},
"sdSource": "s3://com-springernature-scigraph/baseset/20220509/entities/gbq_results/article/article_745.jsonl",
"type": "ScholarlyArticle",
"url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6"
}
]
Download the RDF metadata as: json-ld nt turtle xml License info
JSON-LD is a popular format for linked data which is fully compatible with JSON.
curl -H 'Accept: application/ld+json' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6'
N-Triples is a line-based linked data format ideal for batch operations.
curl -H 'Accept: application/n-triples' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6'
Turtle is a human-readable linked data format.
curl -H 'Accept: text/turtle' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6'
RDF/XML is a standard XML format for linked data.
curl -H 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6'
This table displays all metadata directly associated to this object as RDF triples.
169 TRIPLES
22 PREDICATES
108 URIs
97 LITERALS
6 BLANK NODES
Subject | Predicate | Object | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | sg:pub.10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6 | schema:about | anzsrc-for:01 |
2 | ″ | ″ | anzsrc-for:0104 |
3 | ″ | schema:author | Nffa0fed2d9cb4a2d954e2c7732acdffd |
4 | ″ | schema:citation | sg:pub.10.1007/s00477-003-0151-7 |
5 | ″ | ″ | sg:pub.10.1007/s00477-010-0378-z |
6 | ″ | ″ | sg:pub.10.3758/bf03207179 |
7 | ″ | schema:datePublished | 2017-07-12 |
8 | ″ | schema:datePublishedReg | 2017-07-12 |
9 | ″ | schema:description | Considering complexity in groundwater modeling can aid in selecting an optimal model, and can avoid over parameterization, model uncertainty, and misleading conclusions. This study was designed to determine the uncertainty arising from model complexity, and to identify how complexity affects model uncertainty. The Ajabshir aquifer, located in East Azerbaijan, Iran, was used for comprehensive hydrogeological studies and modeling. Six unique conceptual models with four different degrees of complexity measured by the number of calibrated model parameters (6, 10, 10, 13, 13 and 15 parameters) were compared and characterized with alternative geological interpretations, recharge estimates and boundary conditions. The models were developed with Model Muse and calibrated using UCODE with the same set of observed data of hydraulic head. Different methods were used to calculate model probability and model weight to explore model complexity, including Bayesian model averaging, model selection criteria, and multicriteria decision-making (MCDM). With the model selection criteria of AIC, AICc and BIC, the simplest model received the highest model probability. The model selection criterion, KIC, and the MCDM method, in addition to considering the quality of model fit between observed and simulated data and the number of calibrated parameters, also consider uncertainty in parameter estimates with a Fisher information matrix. KIC and MCDM selected a model with moderate complexity (10 parameters) and the best parameter estimation (model 3) as the best models, over another model with the same degree of complexity (model 2). The results of these comparisons show that in choosing between models, priority should be given to quality of the data and parameter estimation rather than degree of complexity. |
10 | ″ | schema:genre | article |
11 | ″ | schema:inLanguage | en |
12 | ″ | schema:isAccessibleForFree | false |
13 | ″ | schema:isPartOf | N41cd61d20c194d398becdabf8007816b |
14 | ″ | ″ | Ne79532d748cc4104a770cef990694dcf |
15 | ″ | ″ | sg:journal.1039987 |
16 | ″ | schema:keywords | AIC |
17 | ″ | ″ | AICc |
18 | ″ | ″ | Azerbaijan |
19 | ″ | ″ | BIC |
20 | ″ | ″ | Bayesian model averaging |
21 | ″ | ″ | East Azerbaijan |
22 | ″ | ″ | Fisher information matrix |
23 | ″ | ″ | Iran |
24 | ″ | ″ | KIC |
25 | ″ | ″ | MCDM |
26 | ″ | ″ | MCDM methods |
27 | ″ | ″ | MUSE |
28 | ″ | ″ | UCODE |
29 | ″ | ″ | addition |
30 | ″ | ″ | alternative geological interpretations |
31 | ″ | ″ | aquifer |
32 | ″ | ″ | averaging |
33 | ″ | ″ | best model |
34 | ″ | ″ | better parameter estimation |
35 | ″ | ″ | boundary conditions |
36 | ″ | ″ | comparison |
37 | ″ | ″ | complexity |
38 | ″ | ″ | comprehensive hydrogeological studies |
39 | ″ | ″ | conceptual model |
40 | ″ | ″ | conclusion |
41 | ″ | ″ | conditions |
42 | ″ | ″ | criteria |
43 | ″ | ″ | data |
44 | ″ | ″ | degree |
45 | ″ | ″ | degree of complexity |
46 | ″ | ″ | different degrees |
47 | ″ | ″ | different methods |
48 | ″ | ″ | effect |
49 | ″ | ″ | effects of complexity |
50 | ″ | ″ | estimates |
51 | ″ | ″ | estimation |
52 | ″ | ″ | fit |
53 | ″ | ″ | geological interpretation |
54 | ″ | ″ | groundwater modeling |
55 | ″ | ″ | head |
56 | ″ | ″ | highest model probability |
57 | ″ | ″ | hydraulic head |
58 | ″ | ″ | hydrogeological studies |
59 | ″ | ″ | information matrix |
60 | ″ | ″ | interpretation |
61 | ″ | ″ | matrix |
62 | ″ | ″ | method |
63 | ″ | ″ | model |
64 | ″ | ″ | model averaging |
65 | ″ | ″ | model complexity |
66 | ″ | ″ | model fit |
67 | ″ | ″ | model parameters |
68 | ″ | ″ | model probabilities |
69 | ″ | ″ | model selection criteria |
70 | ″ | ″ | model uncertainty |
71 | ″ | ″ | model weights |
72 | ″ | ″ | modeling |
73 | ″ | ″ | modeling uncertainties |
74 | ″ | ″ | moderate complexity |
75 | ″ | ″ | multicriteria |
76 | ″ | ″ | number |
77 | ″ | ″ | observed data |
78 | ″ | ″ | optimal model |
79 | ″ | ″ | parameter estimates |
80 | ″ | ″ | parameter estimation |
81 | ″ | ″ | parameterization |
82 | ″ | ″ | parameters |
83 | ″ | ″ | priority |
84 | ″ | ″ | probability |
85 | ″ | ″ | quality |
86 | ″ | ″ | results |
87 | ″ | ″ | same degree |
88 | ″ | ″ | same set |
89 | ″ | ″ | selection criteria |
90 | ″ | ″ | set |
91 | ″ | ″ | simple model |
92 | ″ | ″ | study |
93 | ″ | ″ | uncertainty |
94 | ″ | ″ | unique conceptual model |
95 | ″ | ″ | weight |
96 | ″ | schema:name | Investigating the effect of complexity on groundwater flow modeling uncertainty |
97 | ″ | schema:pagination | 643-659 |
98 | ″ | schema:productId | N7fe08be1d7be4bb8b5fc5e0d41ae2546 |
99 | ″ | ″ | N9c1e46ccd2314b23ab24969ad9078d9f |
100 | ″ | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1090656367 |
101 | ″ | ″ | https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6 |
102 | ″ | schema:sdDatePublished | 2022-05-10T10:20 |
103 | ″ | schema:sdLicense | https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/ |
104 | ″ | schema:sdPublisher | N161be5ebd8384157bf2634edf710324a |
105 | ″ | schema:url | https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6 |
106 | ″ | sgo:license | sg:explorer/license/ |
107 | ″ | sgo:sdDataset | articles |
108 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:ScholarlyArticle |
109 | N161be5ebd8384157bf2634edf710324a | schema:name | Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project |
110 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Organization |
111 | N3b919afa4f844e6f868cef699c0ca197 | rdf:first | sg:person.010731265314.29 |
112 | ″ | rdf:rest | Ne61717b44e26428785bc1f3fe9563513 |
113 | N41cd61d20c194d398becdabf8007816b | schema:volumeNumber | 32 |
114 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:PublicationVolume |
115 | N7fe08be1d7be4bb8b5fc5e0d41ae2546 | schema:name | doi |
116 | ″ | schema:value | 10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6 |
117 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:PropertyValue |
118 | N9c1e46ccd2314b23ab24969ad9078d9f | schema:name | dimensions_id |
119 | ″ | schema:value | pub.1090656367 |
120 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:PropertyValue |
121 | Ne61717b44e26428785bc1f3fe9563513 | rdf:first | sg:person.016425122141.09 |
122 | ″ | rdf:rest | rdf:nil |
123 | Ne79532d748cc4104a770cef990694dcf | schema:issueNumber | 3 |
124 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:PublicationIssue |
125 | Nffa0fed2d9cb4a2d954e2c7732acdffd | rdf:first | sg:person.012310645655.51 |
126 | ″ | rdf:rest | N3b919afa4f844e6f868cef699c0ca197 |
127 | anzsrc-for:01 | schema:inDefinedTermSet | anzsrc-for: |
128 | ″ | schema:name | Mathematical Sciences |
129 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:DefinedTerm |
130 | anzsrc-for:0104 | schema:inDefinedTermSet | anzsrc-for: |
131 | ″ | schema:name | Statistics |
132 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:DefinedTerm |
133 | sg:grant.5018921 | http://pending.schema.org/fundedItem | sg:pub.10.1007/s00477-017-1436-6 |
134 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:MonetaryGrant |
135 | sg:journal.1039987 | schema:issn | 1436-3240 |
136 | ″ | ″ | 1436-3259 |
137 | ″ | schema:name | Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment |
138 | ″ | schema:publisher | Springer Nature |
139 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Periodical |
140 | sg:person.010731265314.29 | schema:affiliation | grid-institutes:grid.412831.d |
141 | ″ | schema:familyName | Moghaddam |
142 | ″ | schema:givenName | Asghar Asghari |
143 | ″ | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.010731265314.29 |
144 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Person |
145 | sg:person.012310645655.51 | schema:affiliation | grid-institutes:grid.412831.d |
146 | ″ | schema:familyName | Samani |
147 | ″ | schema:givenName | Saeideh |
148 | ″ | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.012310645655.51 |
149 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Person |
150 | sg:person.016425122141.09 | schema:affiliation | grid-institutes:grid.255986.5 |
151 | ″ | schema:familyName | Ye |
152 | ″ | schema:givenName | Ming |
153 | ″ | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.016425122141.09 |
154 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Person |
155 | sg:pub.10.1007/s00477-003-0151-7 | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1017926309 |
156 | ″ | ″ | https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-003-0151-7 |
157 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:CreativeWork |
158 | sg:pub.10.1007/s00477-010-0378-z | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1026422499 |
159 | ″ | ″ | https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-010-0378-z |
160 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:CreativeWork |
161 | sg:pub.10.3758/bf03207179 | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1000378568 |
162 | ″ | ″ | https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03207179 |
163 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:CreativeWork |
164 | grid-institutes:grid.255986.5 | schema:alternateName | Department of Scientific Computing, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA |
165 | ″ | schema:name | Department of Scientific Computing, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA |
166 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Organization |
167 | grid-institutes:grid.412831.d | schema:alternateName | Department of Earth Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran |
168 | ″ | schema:name | Department of Earth Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran |
169 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Organization |