Abstract:A Bayesian model averaging (BMA) framework is presented to evaluate the worth of different observation types and experimental design options for (1) more confidence in model selection and (2) for increased predictive reliability. These two modeling tasks are handled separately because model selection aims at identifying the most appropriate model with respect to a given calibration data set, while predictive reliability aims at reducing uncertainty in model predictions through constraining the plausible range of both models and model parameters. For that purpose, we pursue an optimal design of measurement framework that is based on BMA and that considers uncertainty in parameters, measurements, and model structures. We apply this framework to select between four crop models (the vegetation components of CERES, SUCROS, GECROS, and SPASS), which are coupled to identical routines for simulating soil carbon and nitrogen turnover, soil heat and nitrogen transport, and soil water movement. An ensemble of parameter realizations was generated for each model using Monte‐Carlo simulation. We assess each model's plausibility by determining its posterior weight, which signifies the probability to have generated a given experimental data set. Several BMA analyses were conducted for different data packages with measurements of soil moisture, evapotranspiration (ETa), and leaf area index (LAI). The posterior weights resulting from the different BMA runs were compared to the weight distribution of a reference run with all data types to investigate the utility of different data packages and monitoring design options in identifying the most appropriate model in the ensemble. We found that different (combinations of) data types support different models and none of the four crop models outperforms all others under all data scenarios. The best model discrimination was observed for those data where the competing models disagree the most. The data worth for reducing prediction uncertainty depends on the prediction to be made. LAI data have the highest utility for predicting ETa, while soil moisture data are better for predicting soil water drainage. Our study illustrates, that BMA provides an objective framework for data worth analysis with respect to both model discrimination and model calibration for a wide range of applications. BMA provides a data worth analysis framework for model selection and calibration BMA does not converge to the “true” model Different data types support different models and none outperforms all others

Application of Bayesian Model Averaging in the Reconstruction of Past Climate Change Using PMIP3/CMIP5 Multimodel Ensemble Simulations

Modeling the Impact of Climate Change on Low Flows in Xiangjiang River Basin with Bayesian Averaging Method

Merging Multi-Source Precipitation Products or Merging Their Simulated Hydrological Flows to Improve Streamflow Simulation

Bayesian Model Averaging of the RegCM Temperature Projections: a Canadian Case Study

Ensemble Bayesian model averaging using Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling

Evaluation of Crop Model Prediction and Uncertainty Using Bayesian Parameter Estimation and Bayesian Model Averaging

Assessing Groundwater Modeling Uncertainty By Model Averaging Method

Identifying and Interpreting Hydrological Model Structural Nonstationarity Using the Bayesian Model Averaging Method

Accounting for Model Structure, Parameter and Input Forcing Uncertainty in Flood Inundation Modeling Using Bayesian Model Averaging

Using Bayesian Model Averaging to Estimate Terrestrial Evapotranspiration in China

Multi-model ensemble prediction of terrestrial evapotranspiration across north China using Bayesian model averaging

Improving the Estimation of Snow Depth in the Noah-MP Model by Combining Particle Filter and Bayesian Model Averaging

Hierarchical Bayesian model averaging for hydrostratigraphic modeling: Uncertainty segregation and comparative evaluation

Separation and Prioritization of Uncertainty Sources in a Raster Based Flood Inundation Model Using Hierarchical Bayesian Model Averaging

Improving Hydrological Model Simulations with Combined Multi-Input and Multimodel Averaging Frameworks

A Bayesian model averaging method for software reliability modeling and assessment

Robust Bayesian model averaging for the analysis of presence–absence data

Sub-daily soil moisture estimate using dynamic Bayesian model averaging

Bayesian model averaging to explore the worth of data for soil‐plant model selection and prediction

Fusion of gauge-based, reanalysis, and satellite precipitation products using Bayesian model averaging approach: Determination of the influence of different input sources