Abstract:[1] When conducting model averaging for assessing groundwater conceptual model uncertainty, the averaging weights are often evaluated using model selection criteria such as AIC, AICc, BIC, and KIC (Akaike Information Criterion, Corrected Akaike Information Criterion, Bayesian Information Criterion, and Kashyap Information Criterion, respectively). However, this method often leads to an unrealistic situation in which the best model receives overwhelmingly large averaging weight (close to 100%), which cannot be justified by available data and knowledge. It was found in this study that this problem was caused by using the covariance matrix, C-epsilon, of measurement errors for estimating the negative log likelihood function common to all the model selection criteria. This problem can be resolved by using the covariance matrix, Cek, of total errors (including model errors and measurement errors) to account for the correlation between the total errors. An iterative two-stage method was developed in the context of maximum likelihood inverse modeling to iteratively infer the unknown Cek from the residuals during model calibration. The inferred Cek was then used in the evaluation of model selection criteria and model averaging weights. While this method was limited to serial data using time series techniques in this study, it can be extended to spatial data using geostatistical techniques. The method was first evaluated in a synthetic study and then applied to an experimental study, in which alternative surface complexation models were developed to simulate column experiments of uranium reactive transport. It was found that the total errors of the alternative models were temporally correlated due to the model errors. The iterative two-stage method using Cek resolved the problem that the best model receives 100% model averaging weight, and the resulting model averaging weights were supported by the calibration results and physical understanding of the alternative models. Using Cek obtained from the iterative two-stage method also improved predictive performance of the individual models and model averaging in both synthetic and experimental studies.

Model averaging approaches to data subset selection

When and when not to use optimal model averaging

A Model Averaging Approach for the Ordered Probit and Nested Logit Models with Applications

A General Framework For Frequentist Model Averaging

Model Averaging and Its Use in Economics

Model Averaging Estimation for Nonparametric Varying-Coefficient Models with Multiplicative Heteroscedasticity

Jackknife Model Averaging for Mixed-Data Kernel-Weighted Spline Quantile Regressions

Jackknife Model Averaging for Additive Expectile Prediction

Optimal Model Averaging for Divergent-Dimensional Poisson Regressions

Parsimonious Model Averaging With a Diverging Number of Parameters

Model averaging in a multiplicative heteroscedastic model

Entropy-Based Model Averaging Estimation of Nonparametric Models

Jackknife Model Averaging for Composite Quantile Regression

Effects of error covariance structure on estimation of model averaging weights and predictive performance

Model averaging by jackknife criterion in models with dependent data

A Scalable Frequentist Model Averaging Method

Frequentist model averaging estimation: a review

Model Averaging for Estimating Treatment Effects With Binary Responses

Jackknife Model Averaging for Quantile Single-Index Coefficient Model

A Model-Averaging Approach for High-Dimensional Regression

Mixture Model Averaging for Clustering