02 Fakultät Bau- und Umweltingenieurwissenschaften

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/3

Browse

Filters

2020 - 20222

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Guthke, AnneliSubject: search.filters.subject.624

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Diagnosis of model errors with a sliding time‐window Bayesian analysis
    (2022) Hsueh, Han‐Fang; Guthke, Anneli; Wöhling, Thomas; Nowak, Wolfgang
    Deterministic hydrological models with uncertain, but inferred‐to‐be‐time‐invariant parameters typically show time‐dependent model errors. Such errors can occur if a hydrological process is active in certain time periods in nature, but is not resolved by the model or by its input. Such missing processes could become visible during calibration as time‐dependent best‐fit values of model parameters. We propose a formal time‐windowed Bayesian analysis to diagnose this type of model error, formalizing the question “In which period of the calibration time‐series does the model statistically disqualify itself as quasi‐true?” Using Bayesian model evidence (BME) as model performance metric, we determine how much the data in time windows of the calibration time‐series support or refute the model. Then, we track BME over sliding time windows to obtain a dynamic, time‐windowed BME (tBME) and search for sudden decreases that indicate an onset of model error. tBME also allows us to perform a formal, sliding likelihood‐ratio test of the model against the data. Our proposed approach is designed to detect error occurrence on various temporal scales, which is especially useful in hydrological modeling. We illustrate this by applying our proposed method to soil moisture modeling. We test tBME as model error indicator on several synthetic and real‐world test cases that we designed to vary in error sources (structure and input) and error time scales. Results prove the successful detection errors in dynamic models. Moreover, the time sequence of posterior parameter distributions helps to investigate the reasons for model error and provide guidance for model improvement.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Bayesian model weighting : the many faces of model averaging
    (2020) Höge, Marvin; Guthke, Anneli; Nowak, Wolfgang
    Model averaging makes it possible to use multiple models for one modelling task, like predicting a certain quantity of interest. Several Bayesian approaches exist that all yield a weighted average of predictive distributions. However, often, they are not properly applied which can lead to false conclusions. In this study, we focus on Bayesian Model Selection (BMS) and Averaging (BMA), Pseudo-BMS/BMA and Bayesian Stacking. We want to foster their proper use by, first, clarifying their theoretical background and, second, contrasting their behaviours in an applied groundwater modelling task. We show that only Bayesian Stacking has the goal of model averaging for improved predictions by model combination. The other approaches pursue the quest of finding a single best model as the ultimate goal, and use model averaging only as a preliminary stage to prevent rash model choice. Improved predictions are thereby not guaranteed. In accordance with so-called ℳ-settings that clarify the alleged relations between models and truth, we elicit which method is most promising.