Geology topics

R.L. Cooley

Publications and source records attributed to R.L. Cooley.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2006

Bias and uncertainty in regression-calibrated models of groundwater flow in heterogeneous media

Groundwater models need to account for detailed but generally unknown spatial variability (heterogeneity) of the hydrogeologic model inputs. To address this problem we replace the large, m-dimensional stochastic vector ?? that reflects both small and large scales of heterogeneity in the inputs by a lumped or smoothed m-dimensional approximation ????*, where ?? is an interpolation matrix and ??* is a stochastic vector of parameters. Vector ??* has small enough dimension to allow its estimation with the available data. The consequence of the replacement is that model function f(????*) written in terms of the approximate inputs is in error with respect to the same model function written in terms of ??, ??,f(??), which is assumed to be nearly exact. The difference f(??) - f(????*), termed model error, is spatially correlated, generates prediction biases, and causes standard confidence and prediction intervals to be too small. Model error is accounted for in the weighted nonlinear regression methodology developed to estimate ??* and assess model uncertainties by incorporating the second-moment matrix of the model errors into the weight matrix. Techniques developed by statisticians to analyze classical nonlinear regression methods are extended to analyze the revised method. The analysis develops analytical expressions for bias terms reflecting the interaction of model nonlinearity and model error, for correction factors needed to adjust the sizes of confidence and prediction intervals for this interaction, and for correction factors needed to adjust the sizes of confidence and prediction intervals for possible use of a diagonal weight matrix in place of the correct one. If terms expressing the degree of intrinsic nonlinearity for f(??) and f(????*) are small, then most of the biases are small and the correction factors are reduced in magnitude. Biases, correction factors, and confidence and prediction intervals were obtained for a test problem for which model error is large to test robustness of the methodology. Numerical results conform with the theoretical analysis. ?? 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Advances in Water Resources↗

USGS2005

A controlled experiment in ground water flow model calibration

Nonlinear regression was introduced to ground water modeling in the 1970s, but has been used very little to calibrate numerical models of complicated ground water systems. Apparently, nonlinear regression is thought by many to be incapable of addressing such complex problems. With what we believe to be the most complicated synthetic test case used for such a study, this work investigates using nonlinear regression in ground water model calibration. Results of the study fall into two categories. First, the study demonstrates how systematic use of a well designed nonlinear regression method can indicate the importance of different types of data and can lead to successive improvement of models and their parameterizations. Our method differs from previous methods presented in the ground water literature in that (1) weighting is more closely related to expected data errors than is usually the case; (2) defined diagnostic statistics allow for more effective evaluation of the available data, the model, and their interaction; and (3) prior information is used more cautiously. Second, our results challenge some commonly held beliefs about model calibration. For the test case considered, we show that (1) field measured values of hydraulic conductivity are not as directly applicable to models as their use in some geostatistical methods imply; (2) a unique model does not necessarily need to be identified to obtain accurate predictions; and (3) in the absence of obvious model bias, model error was normally distributed. The complexity of the test case involved implies that the methods used and conclusions drawn are likely to be powerful in practice.

Groundwater↗

USGS2002

Experience gained in testing a theory for modelling groundwater flow in heterogeneous media

Usually, small-scale model error is present in groundwater modelling because the model only represents average system characteristics having the same form as the drift, and small-scale variability is neglected. These errors cause the true errors of a regression model to be correlated. Theory and an example show that the errors also contribute to bias in the estimates of model parameters. This bias originates from model nonlinearity. In spite of this bias, predictions of hydraulic head are nearly unbiased if the model intrinsic nonlinearity is small. Individual confidence and prediction intervals are accurate if the t-statistic is multiplied by a correction factor. The correction factor can be computed from the true error second moment matrix, which can be determined when the stochastic properties of the system characteristics are known.

IAHS-AISH Publication↗

USGS2002

Experiences from the testing of a theory for modelling groundwater flow in heterogeneous media

Usually, small-scale model error is present in groundwater modelling because the model only represents average system characteristics having the same form as the drift and small-scale variability is neglected. These errors cause the true errors of a regression model to be correlated. Theory and an example show that the errors also contribute to bias in the estimates of model parameters. This bias originates from model nonlinearity. In spite of this bias, predictions of hydraulic head are nearly unbiased if the model intrinsic nonlinearity is small. Individual confidence and prediction intervals are accurate if the t-statistic is multiplied by a correction factor. The correction factor can be computed from the true error second moment matrix, which can be determined when the stochastic properties of the system characteristics are known.

Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geologica↗

USGS1999

Evaluation of confidence intervals for a steady-state leaky aquifer model

The fact that dependent variables of groundwater models are generally nonlinear functions of model parameters is shown to be a potentially significant factor in calculating accurate confidence intervals for both model parameters and functions of the parameters, such as the values of dependent variables calculated by the model. The Lagrangian method of Vecchia and Cooley [Vecchia, A.V. and Cooley, R.L., Water Resources Research, 1987, 23(7), 1237-1250] was used to calculate nonlinear Scheffe-type confidence intervals for the parameters and the simulated heads of a steady-state groundwater flow model covering 450 km2 of a leaky aquifer. The nonlinear confidence intervals are compared to corresponding linear intervals. As suggested by the significant nonlinearity of the regression model, linear confidence intervals are often not accurate. The commonly made assumption that widths of linear confidence intervals always underestimate the actual (nonlinear) widths was not correct. Results show that nonlinear effects can cause the nonlinear intervals to be asymmetric and either larger or smaller than the linear approximations. Prior information on transmissivities helps reduce the size of the confidence intervals, with the most notable effects occurring for the parameters on which there is prior information and for head values in parameter zones for which there is prior information on the parameters.The fact that dependent variables of groundwater models are generally nonlinear functions of model parameters is shown to be a potentially significant factor in calculating accurate confidence intervals for both model parameters and functions of the parameters, such as the values of dependent variables calculated by the model. The Lagrangian method of Vecchia and Cooley was used to calculate nonlinear Scheffe-type confidence intervals for the parameters and the simulated heads of a steady-state groundwater flow model covering 450 km2 of a leaky aquifer. The nonlinear confidence intervals are compared to corresponding linear intervals. As suggested by the significant nonlinearity of the regression model, linear confidence intervals are often not accurate. The commonly made assumption that widths of linear confidence intervals always underestimate the actual (nonlinear) widths was not correct. Results show that nonlinear effects can cause the nonlinear intervals to be asymmetric and either larger or smaller than the linear approximations. Prior information on transmissivities helps reduce the size of the confidence intervals, with the most notable effects occurring for the parameters on which there is prior information and for head values in parameter zones for which there is prior information on the parameters.

Advances in Water Resources↗

USGS1996

Simultaneous confidence intervals for a steady-state leaky aquifer groundwater flow model

Using the optimization method of Vecchia & Cooley (1987), nonlinear Scheffe??-type confidence intervals were calculated tor the parameters and the simulated heads of a steady-state groundwater flow model covering 450 km2 of a leaky aquifer. The nonlinear confidence intervals are compared to corresponding linear intervals. As suggested by the significant nonlinearity of the regression model, linear confidence intervals are often not accurate. The commonly made assumption that widths of linear confidence intervals always underestimate the actual (nonlinear widths was not correct for the head intervals. Results show that nonlinear effects can cause the nonlinear intervals to be offset from, and either larger or smaller than, the linear approximations. Prior information on some transmissivities helps reduce and stabilize the confidence intervals, with the most notable effects occurring for the parameters on which there is prior information and for head values in parameter zones for which there is prior information on the parameters.

IAHS-AISH Publication↗

USGS1992

Comparison of three newton-like nonlinear least-squares methods for estimating parameters of ground-water flow models

Three methods of solving nonlinear least-squares problems were compared for robustness and efficiency using a series of hypothetical and field problems. A modified Gauss-Newton/full Newton hybrid method (MGN/FN) and an analogous method for which part of the Hessian matrix was replaced by a quasi-Newton approximation (MGN/QN) solved some of the problems with appreciably fewer iterations than required using only a modified Gauss-Newton (MGN) method. In these problems, model nonlinearity and a large variance for the observed data apparently caused MGN to converge more slowly than MGN/FN or MGN/QN after the sum of squared errors had almost stabilized. Other problems were solved as efficiently with MGN as with MGN/FN or MGN/QN. Because MGN/FN can require significantly more computer time per iteration and more computer storage for transient problems, it is less attractive for a general purpose algorithm than MGN/QN.

Conference Paper↗

USGS1985

Regression modeling of ground-water flow

Nonlinear multiple regression methods are developed to model and analyze groundwater flow systems. Complete descriptions of regression methodology as applied to groundwater flow models allow scientists and engineers engaged in flow modeling to apply the methods to a wide range of problems. Organization of the text proceeds from an introduction that discusses the general topic of groundwater flow modeling, to a review of basic statistics necessary to properly apply regression techniques, and then to the main topic: exposition and use of linear and nonlinear regression to model groundwater flow. Statistical procedures are given to analyze and use the regression models. A number of exercises and answers are included to exercise the student on nearly all the methods that are presented for modeling and statistical analysis. Three computer programs implement the more complex methods. These three are a general two-dimensional, steady-state regression model for flow in an anisotropic, heterogeneous porous medium, a program to calculate a measure of model nonlinearity with respect to the regression parameters, and a program to analyze model errors in computed dependent variables such as hydraulic head. (USGS)

Open-File Report↗