4.7 Article

Towards a comprehensive assessment of model structural adequacy

Journal

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
Volume 48, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2011WR011044

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council through the Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science [CE110001028]
  2. NSF-EAR grant [0911074]
  3. DOE Early Career Award [DE-SC0008272]
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. Division Of Earth Sciences [0911074] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The past decade has seen significant progress in characterizing uncertainty in environmental systems models, through statistical treatment of incomplete knowledge regarding parameters, model structure, and observational data. Attention has now turned to the issue of model structural adequacy (MSA, a term we prefer over model structure error). In reviewing philosophical perspectives from the groundwater, unsaturated zone, terrestrial hydrometeorology, and surface water communities about how to model the terrestrial hydrosphere, we identify several areas where different subcommunities can learn from each other. In this paper, we (a) propose a consistent and systematic unifying conceptual framework consisting of five formal steps for comprehensive assessment of MSA; (b) discuss the need for a pluralistic definition of adequacy; (c) investigate how MSA has been addressed in the literature; and (d) identify four important issues that require detailed attention-structured model evaluation, diagnosis of epistemic cause, attention to appropriate model complexity, and a multihypothesis approach to inference. We believe that there exists tremendous scope to collectively improve the scientific fidelity of our models and that the proposed framework can help to overcome barriers to communication. By doing so, we can make better progress toward addressing the question How can we use data to detect, characterize, and resolve model structural inadequacies?

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available