thumbnail

Evaluation of prediction intervals for expressing uncertainties in groundwater flow model predictions

Water Resources Research

By:
and

Links

  • The Publications Warehouse does not have links to digital versions of this publication at this time
  • Download citation as: RIS

Abstract

We tested the accuracy of 95% individual prediction intervals for hydraulic heads, streamflow gains, and effective transmissivities computed by groundwater models of two Danish aquifers. To compute the intervals, we assumed that each predicted value can be written as the sum of a computed dependent variable and a random error. Testing was accomplished by using a cross-validation method and by using new field measurements of hydraulic heads and transmissivities that were not used to develop or calibrate the models. The tested null hypotheses are that the coverage probability of the prediction intervals is not significantly smaller than the assumed probability (95%) and that each tail probability is not significantly different from the assumed probability (2.5%). In all cases tested, these hypotheses were accepted at the 5% level of significance. We therefore conclude that for the groundwater models of two real aquifers the individual prediction intervals appear to be accurate.We tested the accuracy of 95% individual prediction intervals for hydraulic heads, streamflow gains, and effective transmissivities computed by groundwater models of two Danish aquifers. To compute the intervals, we assumed that each predicted value can be written as the sum of a computed dependent variable and a random error. Testing was accomplished by using a cross-validation method and by using new field measurements of hydraulic heads and transmissivities that were not used to develop or calibrate the models. The tested null hypotheses are that the coverage probability of the prediction intervals is not significantly smaller than the assumed probability (95%) and that each tail probability is not significantly different from the assumed probability (2.5%). In all cases tested, these hypotheses were accepted at the 5% level of significance. We therefore conclude that for the groundwater models of two real aquifers the individual prediction intervals appear to be accurate.

Additional Publication Details

Publication type:
Article
Publication Subtype:
Journal Article
Title:
Evaluation of prediction intervals for expressing uncertainties in groundwater flow model predictions
Series title:
Water Resources Research
Volume
35
Issue:
9
Year Published:
1999
Language:
English
Publisher:
American Geophysical Union
Publisher location:
Washington, DC, United States
Larger Work Type:
Article
Larger Work Subtype:
Journal Article
Larger Work Title:
Water Resources Research
First page:
2627
Last page:
2639