The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of spatial variability models in unsaturated fractured tuff
Open accessAbstract
Hydrologic analyses typically rely on a single conceptual‐mathematical model. Yet hydrologic environments are open and complex, rendering them prone to multiple interpretations and mathematical descriptions. Adopting only one of these may lead to statistical bias and underestimation of uncertainty. Bayesian model averaging (BMA) [Hoeting et al., 1999] provides an optimal way to combine the predictions of several competing models and to assess their joint predictive uncertainty. However, it tends to be computationally demanding and relies heavily on prior information about model parameters.Neuman[2002,2003]proposed a maximum likelihood version (MLBMA) of BMA to render it computationally feasible and to allow dealing with cases where reliable prior information is lacking. We apply MLBMA to seven alternative variogram models of log air permeability data from single‐hole pneumatic injection tests in six boreholes at the Apache Leap Research Site (ALRS) in central Arizona. Unbiased ML estimates of variogram and drift parameters are obtained using adjoint state maximum likelihood cross validation [Samper and Neuman, 1989a] in conjunction with universal kriging and generalized least squares. Standard information criteria provide an ambiguous ranking of the models, which does not justify selecting one of them and discarding all others as is commonly done in practice. Instead, we eliminate some of the models based on their negligibly small posterior probabilities and use the rest to project the measured log permeabilities by kriging onto a rock volume containing the six boreholes. We then average these four projections and associated kriging variances, using the posterior probability of each model as weight. Finally, we cross validate the results by eliminating from consideration all data from one borehole at a time, repeating the above process and comparing the predictive capability of MLBMA with that of each individual model. We find that MLBMA is superior to any individual geostatistical model of log permeability among those we consider at the ALRS.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hoeting, J. A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A. E., & Volinsky, C. T. (1999) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009212519 · Cited by 4,118
Beven, K., & Freer, J. (2001) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(01)00421-8 · Cited by 2,189
Model Selection and Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Graphical Models Using Occam's Window
Madigan, D., & Raftery, A. E. (1994) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1994.10476894 · Cited by 1,205 · cited 2×
“A practical way to eliminate the first difficulty is to adopt the idea of Occam’s window [Jefferys and Berger, 1992; Madigan and Raftery, 1994] according to which one considers only a relatively small set of the most parsimonious models among those which, a priori, appear to be hydrologically most plausible in light o…”
MethodGood, I. J. (1952) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1952.tb00104.x · Cited by 976
Cited by
Towards a comprehensive assessment of model structural adequacy
Gupta, H. V., Clark, M. P., Vrugt, J. A., Abramowitz, G., & Ye, M. (2012) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2011wr011044 · Cited by 466
Self-citationVrugt, J. A., & Robinson, B. A. (2007) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2005wr004838 · Cited by 334
Guber, A. K., Pachepsky, Y. A., van Genuchten, M. T., Rawls, W. J., Simunek, J., Jacques, D., Nicholson, T. J., & Cady, R. E. (2006) · Vadose Zone Journal · doi:10.2136/vzj2005.0111 · Cited by 91
Wöhling, T., & Vrugt, J. A. (2008) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2008wr007154 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Ye, M., Neuman, S. P., & Meyer, P. D.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2004-05
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 5
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2155844565
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 12.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of spatial variability models in unsaturated fractured tuff. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2003wr002557
- The paper
- Ye, M., Neuman, S. P., & Meyer, P. D. (2004). Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of spatial variability models in unsaturated fractured tuff. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003wr002557
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.