1
|
Bacci M, Sukys J, Reichert P, Ulzega S, Albert C. A comparison of numerical approaches for statistical inference with stochastic models. STOCHASTIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND RISK ASSESSMENT : RESEARCH JOURNAL 2023; 37:3041-3061. [PMID: 37502198 PMCID: PMC10368571 DOI: 10.1007/s00477-023-02434-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/23/2023] [Indexed: 07/29/2023]
Abstract
Due to our limited knowledge about complex environmental systems, our predictions of their behavior under different scenarios or decision alternatives are subject to considerable uncertainty. As this uncertainty can often be relevant for societal decisions, the consideration, quantification and communication of it is very important. Due to internal stochasticity, often poorly known influence factors, and only partly known mechanisms, in many cases, a stochastic model is needed to get an adequate description of uncertainty. As this implies the need to infer constant parameters, as well as the time-course of stochastic model states, a very high-dimensional inference problem for model calibration has to be solved. This is very challenging from a methodological and a numerical perspective. To illustrate aspects of this problem and show options to successfully tackle it, we compare three numerical approaches: Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, Particle Markov Chain Monte Carlo, and Conditional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Sampling. As a case study, we select the analysis of hydrological data with a stochastic hydrological model. We conclude that the performance of the investigated techniques is comparable for the analyzed system, and that also generality and practical considerations may be taken into account to guide the choice of which technique is more appropriate for a particular application. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00477-023-02434-z.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Bacci
- SIAM, Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
| | - Jonas Sukys
- SIAM, Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
| | - Peter Reichert
- SIAM, Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
| | - Simone Ulzega
- Institute of Computational Life Sciences, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, 8820 Wädenswil, Switzerland
| | - Carlo Albert
- SIAM, Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Iwanaga T, Wang HH, Hamilton SH, Grimm V, Koralewski TE, Salado A, Elsawah S, Razavi S, Yang J, Glynn P, Badham J, Voinov A, Chen M, Grant WE, Peterson TR, Frank K, Shenk G, Barton CM, Jakeman AJ, Little JC. Socio-technical scales in socio-environmental modeling: Managing a system-of-systems modeling approach. ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE : WITH ENVIRONMENT DATA NEWS 2021; 135:104885. [PMID: 33041631 PMCID: PMC7537632 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104885] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/29/2020] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
System-of-systems approaches for integrated assessments have become prevalent in recent years. Such approaches integrate a variety of models from different disciplines and modeling paradigms to represent a socio-environmental (or social-ecological) system aiming to holistically inform policy and decision-making processes. Central to the system-of-systems approaches is the representation of systems in a multi-tier framework with nested scales. Current modeling paradigms, however, have disciplinary-specific lineage, leading to inconsistencies in the conceptualization and integration of socio-environmental systems. In this paper, a multidisciplinary team of researchers, from engineering, natural and social sciences, have come together to detail socio-technical practices and challenges that arise in the consideration of scale throughout the socio-environmental modeling process. We identify key paths forward, focused on explicit consideration of scale and uncertainty, strengthening interdisciplinary communication, and improvement of the documentation process. We call for a grand vision (and commensurate funding) for holistic system-of-systems research that engages researchers, stakeholders, and policy makers in a multi-tiered process for the co-creation of knowledge and solutions to major socio-environmental problems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takuya Iwanaga
- Institute for Water Futures and Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
| | - Hsiao-Hsuan Wang
- Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA
| | - Serena H Hamilton
- Institute for Water Futures and Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
- CSIRO Land & Water, Canberra, Australia
| | - Volker Grimm
- Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Ecological Modelling, Leipzig, Germany
- University of Potsdam, Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation, Potsdam, Germany
| | - Tomasz E Koralewski
- Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA
| | - Alejandro Salado
- Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
| | - Sondoss Elsawah
- Institute for Water Futures and Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
- School of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, ACT, Australia
| | - Saman Razavi
- Global Institute for Water Security, School of Environment and Sustainability, Department of Civil, Geological, and Environmental Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
| | - Jing Yang
- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
| | - Pierre Glynn
- U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA
| | - Jennifer Badham
- Centre for Research in Social Simulation, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom
| | - Alexey Voinov
- Center on Persuasive Systems for Wise Adaptive Living (PERSWADE), Faculty of Engineering & IT, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
- Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, Netherlands
| | - Min Chen
- Key Laboratory of Virtual Geographic Environment (Ministry of Education of PRC), Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, 210023, China
| | - William E Grant
- Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA
| | - Tarla Rai Peterson
- Environmental Science and Engineering Program, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, 79968, USA
| | - Karin Frank
- Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Ecological Modelling, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Gary Shenk
- U.S Geological Survey, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD, 21403, USA
| | - C Michael Barton
- Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity, School of Human Evolution & Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
| | - Anthony J Jakeman
- Institute for Water Futures and Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
| | - John C Little
- Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
| |
Collapse
|