Abstract
In 1988, an important publication moved model calibration and forecasting beyond case studies and theoretical analysis. It reported on a somewhat idyllic graduate student modeling exercise where many of the system properties were known; the primary forecasts of interest were heads in pumping wells after a river was modified. The model was calibrated using manual trial‐and‐error approaches where a model's forecast quality was not related to how well it was calibrated. Here, we investigate whether tools widely available today obviate the shortcomings identified 30 years ago. A reconstructed version of the 1988 true model was tested using increasing parameter estimation sophistication. The parameter estimation demonstrated the inverse problem was non‐unique because only head data were available for calibration. When a flux observation was included, current parameter estimation approaches were able to overcome all calibration and forecast issues noted in 1988. The best forecasts were obtained from a highly parameterized model that used pilot points for hydraulic conductivity and was constrained with soft knowledge. Like the 1988 results, however, the best calibrated model did not produce the best forecasts due to parameter overfitting. Finally, a computationally frugal linear uncertainty analysis demonstrated that the single‐zone model was oversimplified, with only half of the forecasts falling within the calculated uncertainty bounds. Uncertainties from the highly parameterized models had all six forecasts within the calculated uncertainty. The current results outperformed those of the 1988 effort, demonstrating the value of quantitative parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis methods.
Highlights
Thirty years ago, Freyberg (1988) documented an exercise where nine groups of graduate students calibrated a groundwater model and used it to make forecasts
Because parameter estimation has long been called a “necessary step” for groundwater modeling (Poeter and Hill 1997), it formed the basis for our initial evaluations, which began with simple methods and moved to more sophistication methods
We conclude with an uncertainty analysis—a logical endpoint for models used for decision making
Summary
Freyberg (1988) documented an exercise where nine groups of graduate students calibrated a groundwater model and used it to make forecasts. Article impact statement: The power of today’s calibration and uncertainty tools and approaches is demonstrated by revisiting a landmark work from 30 years ago. These results influenced a generation of modelers. The results called into question the ability to make forecasts even for cases of relatively small modifications to base case conditions Less obviously, it exposed the intractable shortcomings of limiting calibration to manual trial-and-error where there is no quantitative or systematic evaluation, and details about how each group obtained their results were only narrative. These observations formed the motivation to use this problem in a parameter estimation course we teach and prompted revisitation of the original problem
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call