Cargando…

Learning from mistakes—Assessing the performance and uncertainty in process‐based models

Typical applications of process‐ or physically‐based models aim to gain a better process understanding or provide the basis for a decision‐making process. To adequately represent the physical system, models should include all essential processes. However, model errors can still occur. Other than lar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Feigl, Moritz, Roesky, Benjamin, Herrnegger, Mathew, Schulz, Karsten, Hayashi, Masaki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9306826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35910683
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14515
_version_ 1784752627300433920
author Feigl, Moritz
Roesky, Benjamin
Herrnegger, Mathew
Schulz, Karsten
Hayashi, Masaki
author_facet Feigl, Moritz
Roesky, Benjamin
Herrnegger, Mathew
Schulz, Karsten
Hayashi, Masaki
author_sort Feigl, Moritz
collection PubMed
description Typical applications of process‐ or physically‐based models aim to gain a better process understanding or provide the basis for a decision‐making process. To adequately represent the physical system, models should include all essential processes. However, model errors can still occur. Other than large systematic observation errors, simplified, misrepresented, inadequately parametrised or missing processes are potential sources of errors. This study presents a set of methods and a proposed workflow for analysing errors of process‐based models as a basis for relating them to process representations. The evaluated approach consists of three steps: (1) training a machine‐learning (ML) error model using the input data of the process‐based model and other available variables, (2) estimation of local explanations (i.e., contributions of each variable to an individual prediction) for each predicted model error using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) in combination with principal component analysis, (3) clustering of SHAP values of all predicted errors to derive groups with similar error generation characteristics. By analysing these groups of different error‐variable association, hypotheses on error generation and corresponding processes can be formulated. That can ultimately lead to improvements in process understanding and prediction. The approach is applied to a process‐based stream water temperature model HFLUX in a case study for modelling an alpine stream in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. By using available meteorological and hydrological variables as inputs, the applied ML model is able to predict model residuals. Clustering of SHAP values results in three distinct error groups that are mainly related to shading and vegetation‐emitted long wave radiation. Model errors are rarely random and often contain valuable information. Assessing model error associations is ultimately a way of enhancing trust in implemented processes and of providing information on potential areas of improvement to the model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9306826
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93068262022-07-28 Learning from mistakes—Assessing the performance and uncertainty in process‐based models Feigl, Moritz Roesky, Benjamin Herrnegger, Mathew Schulz, Karsten Hayashi, Masaki Hydrol Process Towards More Credible Models in Catchment Hydrology to Enhance Hydrological Process Understanding Typical applications of process‐ or physically‐based models aim to gain a better process understanding or provide the basis for a decision‐making process. To adequately represent the physical system, models should include all essential processes. However, model errors can still occur. Other than large systematic observation errors, simplified, misrepresented, inadequately parametrised or missing processes are potential sources of errors. This study presents a set of methods and a proposed workflow for analysing errors of process‐based models as a basis for relating them to process representations. The evaluated approach consists of three steps: (1) training a machine‐learning (ML) error model using the input data of the process‐based model and other available variables, (2) estimation of local explanations (i.e., contributions of each variable to an individual prediction) for each predicted model error using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) in combination with principal component analysis, (3) clustering of SHAP values of all predicted errors to derive groups with similar error generation characteristics. By analysing these groups of different error‐variable association, hypotheses on error generation and corresponding processes can be formulated. That can ultimately lead to improvements in process understanding and prediction. The approach is applied to a process‐based stream water temperature model HFLUX in a case study for modelling an alpine stream in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. By using available meteorological and hydrological variables as inputs, the applied ML model is able to predict model residuals. Clustering of SHAP values results in three distinct error groups that are mainly related to shading and vegetation‐emitted long wave radiation. Model errors are rarely random and often contain valuable information. Assessing model error associations is ultimately a way of enhancing trust in implemented processes and of providing information on potential areas of improvement to the model. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022-02-24 2022-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9306826/ /pubmed/35910683 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14515 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Hydrological Processes published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Towards More Credible Models in Catchment Hydrology to Enhance Hydrological Process Understanding
Feigl, Moritz
Roesky, Benjamin
Herrnegger, Mathew
Schulz, Karsten
Hayashi, Masaki
Learning from mistakes—Assessing the performance and uncertainty in process‐based models
title Learning from mistakes—Assessing the performance and uncertainty in process‐based models
title_full Learning from mistakes—Assessing the performance and uncertainty in process‐based models
title_fullStr Learning from mistakes—Assessing the performance and uncertainty in process‐based models
title_full_unstemmed Learning from mistakes—Assessing the performance and uncertainty in process‐based models
title_short Learning from mistakes—Assessing the performance and uncertainty in process‐based models
title_sort learning from mistakes—assessing the performance and uncertainty in process‐based models
topic Towards More Credible Models in Catchment Hydrology to Enhance Hydrological Process Understanding
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9306826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35910683
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14515
work_keys_str_mv AT feiglmoritz learningfrommistakesassessingtheperformanceanduncertaintyinprocessbasedmodels
AT roeskybenjamin learningfrommistakesassessingtheperformanceanduncertaintyinprocessbasedmodels
AT herrneggermathew learningfrommistakesassessingtheperformanceanduncertaintyinprocessbasedmodels
AT schulzkarsten learningfrommistakesassessingtheperformanceanduncertaintyinprocessbasedmodels
AT hayashimasaki learningfrommistakesassessingtheperformanceanduncertaintyinprocessbasedmodels