MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322208740 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-15689

Adaptive Surrogate Likelihood Function for Blended Hydrologic Models

2023· preprint· en· W4322208740 on OpenAlexaff
Rezgar Arabzadeh, Jonathan Romero-Cuéllar, Robert Chlumsky, James R. Craig, Bryan A. Tolson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLikelihood functionComputer scienceBayesian inferenceA priori and a posterioriGaussian processFunction (biology)Model selectionResidualStatistical modelAutocorrelationMarkov chain Monte CarloBayesian probabilityApplied mathematicsEstimation theoryMathematicsStatisticsGaussianAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This abstract introduces a recipe for an adaptive general likelihood function and its application in the Bayesian epistemology of model parameters and structure uncertainty. The proposed methodology focuses on a special class of likelihood function, hereinafter mentioned as adaptive general likelihood function (AGL), which require a minimum priori assumptions/knowledge about the model residuals. The goal of the AGL is to characterize the model residuals independently from the inference framework in order to avoid incorrectly posterior estimation as a result of jointly inferencing of model and error model parameters. Mathematically, AGL is structured with a mixture of gaussian distributions joined with a first order autoregressive model, account for error model shape and autocorrelation respectively. To assess the AGL application, it is benchmarked with a formal likelihood function formulated by Schoups and Vrugt (2010) and evaluated for 24 Camels basins where the blended model has been deterministically applied with success (Chlumsky et al. 2022). Both approaches are compared with the residual’s empirical distributions using various statistical tests. The model used here is a blended hydrologic model introduced by Mai et al., (2021) which is a class of hydrologic models constructed by averaging (blending) various process options at the process flux level. This blending means calibration of the model functions to identify traditionally calibrated model process parameters as well as the weights utilized to average multiple process options. The model is deployed in the Raven hydrologic framework (Craig et al., 2020) and simultaneously both processes weights and parameters were calibrated deterministically for both high flows and low flows using PADDS algorithm (Asadzadeh and Tolson, 2013). This multi-objective calibration yields a suite of sample of calibrated blended models which is then utilized for error model development and testing. The tests results indicated a statistically comparable performance for both methods for t-distributed residuals highly skewed and long-tailed residual errors which are apparent in many hydrologic model residuals. Finally, to disjoin the epistemic Bayesian inference framework from the error model parameters, an epsilon-support vector regression (eps-SVR) is deterministically trained as a surrogate model to map the structural/parametric variability to residual error model parameters. The eps-SVR calibration performance metrics indicated high quality of surrogate for training set indicating promising performance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207