Abstract
This chapter summarizes the main elements of Bayesian probability theory to help reconcile dynamic environmental system models with observations, including prediction in space (interpolation), prediction in time (forecasting), assimilation of data, and inference of the model parameters. Special attention is given to the treatment of parameter uncertainty (first-order approximations and Bayesian intervals), the prior distribution, the formulation of the likelihood function (using first-principles), the marginal likelihood, and sampling techniques used to estimate the posterior target distribution. This includes rejection sampling, importance sampling, and recent developments in Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation to sample efficiently complex and/or high-dimensional target distributions, including limits of acceptability. We illustrate the application of Bayes’ theorem and inference using three illustrative examples involving the flow and storage of water in the surface and subsurface. At least some level of calibration of these models is required to match their output with observations of system behavior and response. Algorithmic recipes of the different methods are provided to simplify implementation and use of Bayesian analysis.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
B.C. Bates, E.P. Campbell, A Markov chain Monte Carlo scheme for parameter estimation and inference in conceptual rainfall-runoff modeling. Water Resour. Res. 37(4), 937–947 (2001)
T. Bayes, R. Price, An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chance. By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes, communicated by Mr. Price, in a letter to John Canton, A.M.F.R.S. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 53(0), 370–418 (1763). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1763.0053
J.O. Berger, Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis (Springer, New York, 1985)
J.O. Berger, J.M. Bernardo, D. Sun, The formal definition of reference priors. Ann. Stat. 37(2), 905–938 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1214/07-AOS587
J.M. Bernardo, Reference posterior distributions for Bayesian inference (with discussion). J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 41, 113–147 (1979)
K. Beven, A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. J. Hydrol. 320(1), 18–36 (2006)
K.J. Beven, A.M. Binley, The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol. Process. 6, 279–298 (1992)
K.J. Beven, A.M. Binley, GLUE: 20 years on. Hydrol. Process. 28, 5879–5918 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10082
S. Blazkova, K.J. Beven, A limits of acceptability approach to model evaluation and uncertainty estimation in flood frequency estimation by continuous simulation: Skalka catchment, Czech Republic. Water Resour. Res. 45, W00B16 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006726
G.E.P. Box, G.C. Tiao, Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis (Wiley, New York, 1992), 588 pp
S.P. Brooks, A. Gelman, General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 7, 434–455 (1998)
M. Clark, D. Kavetski, F. Fenicia, Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling. Water Resour. Res. 47(9), 1–16 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009827
S. Dean, J.E. Freer, K.J. Beven, A.J. Wade, D. Butterfield, Uncertainty assessment of a process-based integrated catchment model of phosphorus (INCA-P). Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A. 23, 991–1010 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-008-0273-z
Q. Duan, S. Sorooshian, V. Gupta, Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour. Res. 28(4), 1015–1031 (1992)
G. Evin, D. Kavetski, M. Thyer, G. Kuczera, Pitfalls and improvements in the joint inference of heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation in hydrological model calibration. Water Resour. Res. 49, 4518–4524 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20284
C. Fernandez, M.J.F. Steel, On Bayesian modeling of fat tails and skewness. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 93, 359–371 (1998)
J. Freer, H. McMillan, J.J. McDonnell, K.J. Beven, Constraining dynamic TOPMODEL responses for imprecise water table information using fuzzy rule based performance measures. J. Hydrol. 291, 254–277 (2004)
A.G. Gelman, D.B. Rubin, Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat. Sci. 7, 457–472 (1992)
A.G. Gelman, G.O. Roberts, W.R. Gilks, Bayesian Statistics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996), pp. 599–608
J. Geweke, Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments, in Bayesian Statistics 4, ed. by J.M. Bernardo, J.O. Berger, A.P. Dawid, A.F.M. Smith (Oxford Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 169–193
W.R. Gilks, G.O. Roberts, Strategies for improving MCMC, in Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, ed. by W.R. Gilks, S. Richardson, D.J. Spiegelhalter (Chapman & Hall, London, 1996), pp. 89–114
W.R. Gilks, G.O. Roberts, E.I. George, Adaptive direction sampling. Underst. Stat. 43, 179–189 (1994)
H.V. Gupta, T. Wagener, Y. Liu, Reconciling theory with observations: Elements of a diagnostic approach to model evaluation. Hydrol. Process. 22(18), 3802–3813 (2008)
H. Haario, E. Saksman, J. Tamminen, Adaptive proposal distribution for random walk Metropolis algorithm. Comput. Stat. 14, 375–395 (1999)
H. Haario, E. Saksman, J. Tamminen, An adaptive Metropolis algorithm. Bernoulli 7, 223–242 (2001)
H. Haario, E. Saksman, J. Tamminen, Componentwise adaptation for high dimensional MCMC. Stat. Comput. 20, 265–274 (2005)
H. Haario, M. Laine, A. Mira, E. Saksman, DRAM: Efficient adaptive MCMC. Stat. Comput. 16, 339–354 (2006)
H. Hastings, Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57, 97–109 (1970)
T.J. Heimovaara, W. Bouten, A computer-controlled 36-channel time domain reflectometry system for monitoring soil water contents. Water Resour. Res. 26, 2311–2316 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i010p02311
J. Hoeting, D. Madigan, A. Raftery, C. Volinsky, Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial. Stat. Sci. 14(4), 382–417 (1999)
H. Jeffreys, An invariant form for the prior probability in estimation problems. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci. 186(1007), 453–461 (1946). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1946.0056
D. Kavetski, G. Kuczera, S.W. Franks, Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1. Theory. Water Resour. Res. 42(3), W03407 (2006a). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004368
D. Kavetski, G. Kuczera, S.W. Franks, Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 2. Application. Water Resour. Res. 42(3), W03408 (2006b). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004376
K. Keesman, Membership-set estimation using random scanning and principal component analysis. Math. Comput. Simul. 32, 535–543 (1990)
T. Krueger, J.N. Quinton, J. Freer, C.J. Macleod, G.S. Bilotta, R.E. Brazier, P.M. Haygarth, Uncertainties in data and models to describe event dynamics of agricultural sediment and phosphorus transfer. J. Environ. Qual. 38(3), 1137–1148 (2009)
G. Kuczera, Improved parameter inference in catchment models, 1. Evaluating parameter uncertainty. Water Resour. Res. 19(5), 1151–1162 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1029/WR019i005p01151
G. Kuczera, D. Kavetski, S. Franks, M. Thyer, Towards a Bayesian total error analysis of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: Characterising model error using storm-dependent parameters. J. Hydrol. 331(1), 161–177 (2006)
E. Laloy, J.A. Vrugt, High-dimensional posterior exploration of hydrologic models using multiple-try DREAM(ZS) and high-performance computing. Water Resour. Res. 48, W01526 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010608
J.S. Liu, F. Liang, W.H. Wong, The multiple-try method and local optimization in metropolis sampling. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95(449), 121–134 (2000). https://doi.org/10.2307/2669532
Y. Liu, J.E. Freer, K.J. Beven, P. Matgen, Towards a limits of acceptability approach to the calibration of hydrological models: Extending observation error. J. Hydrol. 367, 93–103 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.01.016
H. McMillan, J. Freer, F. Pappenberger, T. Krueger, M. Clark, Impacts of uncertain river flow data on rainfall-runoff model calibration and discharge predictions. Hydrol. Process. 24(10), 1270–1284 (2010)
N. Metropolis, A.W. Rosenbluth, M.N. Rosenbluth, A.H. Teller, E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087–1092 (1953)
J.E. Nash, A unit hydrograph study with particular reference to British catchments. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 17, 249–282 (1960)
J.E. Nash, J.V. Sutcliffe, River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I – A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10(3), 282–290 (1970)
T. Page, K.J. Beven, J. Freer, A. Jenkins, Investigating the uncertaintyin predicting responses to atmospheric deposition using the model of acidification of groundwater in catchments (MAGIC) within a generalised likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) framework. Water Soil Air Pollut. 142, 71–94 (2003)
T. Page, K.J. Beven, D. Whyatt, Predictive capability in estimating changes in water quality: Long-term responses to atmospheric deposition. Water Soil Air Pollut. 151, 215–244 (2004)
T. Page, K.J. Beven, J. Freer, Modelling the chloride signal at the Plynlimon catchments, Wales using a modified dynamic TOPMODEL. Hydrol. Process. 21, 292–307 (2007)
F. Pappenberger, K. Beven, M. Horritt, S. Blazkova, Uncertainty in the calibration of effective roughness parameters in HEC-RAS using inundation and downstream level observations. J. Hydrol. 302, 46–69 (2005)
F. Pappenberger, K. Frodsham, K.J. Beven, R. Romanovicz, P. Matgen, Fuzzy set approach to calibrating distributed flood inundation models using remote sensing observations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11(2), 739–752 (2007)
K.V. Price, R.M. Storn, J.A. Lampinen, Differential Evolution, A Practical Approach to Global Optimization (Springer, Berlin, 2005)
V.C. Radu, J. Rosenthal, C. Yang, Learn from the thy neighbor: Parallel-chain and regional adaptive MCMC. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 104(488), 1454–1466 (2009)
A.E. Raftery, S.M. Lewis, One long run with diagnostics: Implementation strategies for Markov chain Monte Carlo. Stat. Sci. 7, 493–497 (1992)
A.E. Raftery, T. Gneiting, F. Balabdaoui, M. Polakowski, Using Bayesian model averaging to calibrate forecast ensembles. Mon. Weather Rev. 133, 1155–1174 (2005)
P. Reichert, J. Mieleitner, Analyzing input and structural uncertainty of nonlinear dynamic models with stochastic, timeâĂŘdependent parameters. Water Resour. Res. 45, W10402 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR007814
B. Renard, D. Kavetski, E. Leblois, M. Thyer, G. Kuczera, S.W. Franks, Toward a reliable decomposition of predictive uncertainty in hydrological modeling: Characterizing rainfall errors using conditional simulation. Water Resour. Res. 47(11), W11516 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010643
C.P. Roberts, G. Casella, Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, 2nd edn. (Springer, New York, 2004)
G.O. Roberts, W.R. Gilks, Convergence of adaptive direction sampling. J. Multivar. Anal. 49, 287–298 (1994)
G.O. Roberts, J.S. Rosenthal, Coupling and ergodicity of adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms. J. Appl. Probab. 44, 458–475 (2007)
G.O. Roberts, A. Gelman, W.R. Gilks, Weak convergence and optimal scaling of random walk Metropolis algorithms. Ann. Appl. Probab. 7, 110–120 (1997)
M. Sadegh, J.A. Vrugt, Approximate Bayesian computation using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation: DREAM(ABC). Water Resour. Res. 50 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015386
M. Sadegh, J.A. Vrugt, C. Xu, E. Volpi, The stationarity paradigm revisited: Hypothesis testing using diagnostics, summary metrics, and DREAM(ABC). Water Resour. Res. 51, 9207–9231 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016805
M.G. Schaap, F.J. Leij, M.T. van Genuchten, Neural network analysis for hierarchical prediction of soil water retention and saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62, 847–855 (1998)
M.G. Schaap, F.J. Leij, M.T. van Genuchten, Rosetta: A computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical pedotransfer functions. J. Hydrol. 251, 163–176 (2001)
B. Scharnagl, J.A. Vrugt, H. Vereecken, M. Herbst, Bayesian inverse modeling of soil water dynamics at the field scale: Using prior information about the soil hydraulic properties. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 3043–3059 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-3043-2011
B. Scharnagl, S.C. Iden, W. Durner, H. Vereecken, M. Herbst, Inverse modelling of in situ soil water dynamics: Accounting for heteroscedastic, autocorrelated, and non-Gaussian distributed residuals. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 12, 2155–2199 (2015)
A. Schöniger, T. Wöhling, L. Samaniego, W. Nowak, Model selection on solid ground: Rigorous comparison of nine ways to evaluate Bayesian model evidence. Water Resour. Res. 50(12), W10530, 9484–9513 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016062
G. Schoups, J.A. Vrugt, A formal likelihood function for parameter and predictive inference of hydrologic models with correlated, heteroscedastic and non-Gaussian errors. Water Resour. Res. 46, W10531 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008933
J. Šimůnek, M. Šejna, H. Saito, M. Sakai, M.T. van Genuchten, The HYDRUS-1D Software Package for Simulating the One-Dimensional Movement of Water, Heat and Multiple Solutes in Variably-Saturated Media (Version 4.0) (Department of Environmental Sciences, University of California Riverside, Riverside, 2008)
T. Smith, A. Sharma, L. Marshall, R. Mehrotra, S. Sisson, Development of a formal likelihood function for improved Bayesian inference of ephemeral catchments. Water Resour. Res. 46, W12551 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009514
S. Sorooshian, J.A. Dracup, Stochastic parameter estimation procedures for hydrologic rainfall-runoff models: Correlated and heteroscedastic error cases. Water Resour. Res. 16(2), 430–442 (1980)
S.M. Stigler, Who discovered Bayes’s theorem? Am. Stat. 37(4 Part 1), 290–296 (1983)
R. Storn, K. Price, A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Glob. Optim. 11, 341–359 (1997)
C.J.F. ter Braak, A Markov chain Monte Carlo version of the genetic algorithm differential evolution: Easy Bayesian computing for real parameter spaces. Stat. Comput. 16, 239–249 (2006)
C.J.F. ter Braak, J.A. Vrugt, Differential evolution Markov chain with snooker updater and fewer chains. Stat. Comput. 18(4), 435–446 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-008-9104-9
M. Thiemann, M. Trosset, H. Gupta, S. Sorooshian, Bayesian recursive parameter estimation for hydrologic models. Water Resour. Res. 37(10), 2521–2535 (2001)
G.C. Topp, J.L. Davis, A.P. Annan, Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resour. Res. 16, 574–582 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1029/WR016i003p00574
M.T. van Genuchten, A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44(5), 892–898 (1980). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x
E. Volpi, G. Schoups, G. Firmani, J.A. Vrugt, Sworn testimony of the model evidence: Gaussian Mixture Importance (GAME) sampling. Water Resour. Res. 53, 6133–6158 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020167
J.A. Vrugt, Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using the DREAM software package: Theory, concepts, and MATLAB implementation. Environ. Model. Softw. 75, 273–316 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.08.013
J.A. Vrugt, K.J. Beven, Embracing equifinality with efficiency: Limits of acceptability sampling using the DREAM(LOA) algorithm. J. Hydrol. 559, 954–971 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.026, In Press
J.A. Vrugt, E. Laloy, Reply to comment by Chu et al. on High-dimensional posterior exploration of hydrologic models using multiple-try DREAMtext(ZS) and high-performance computing. Water Resour. Res. 50, 2781–2786 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014425
J.A. Vrugt, B.A. Robinson, Treatment of uncertainty using ensemble methods: Comparison of sequential data assimilation and Bayesian model averaging. Water Resour. Res. 43, W01411 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004838
J.A. Vrugt, M. Sadegh, Toward diagnostic model calibration and evaluation: Approximate Bayesian computation. Water Resour. Res. 49 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20354
J.A. Vrugt, C.J.F. ter Braak, DREAM(D): An adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation algorithm to solve discrete, noncontinuous, and combinatorial posterior parameter estimation problems. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 3701–3713 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-3701-2011
J.A. Vrugt, H.V. Gupta, W. Bouten, S. Sorooshian, A Shuffled Complex Evolution Metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters. Water Resour. Res. 39(8), 1201 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001642
J.A. Vrugt, C.G.H. Diks, W. Bouten, H.V. Gupta, J.M. Verstraten, Improved treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Combining the strengths of global optimization and data assimilation. Water Resour. Res. 41(1), W01017 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003059
J.A. Vrugt, C.J.F. ter Braak, M.P. Clark, J.M. Hyman, B.A. Robinson, Treatment of input uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Doing hydrology backward with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. Water Resour. Res. 44, W00B09 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006720
J.A. Vrugt, C.J.F. ter Braak, C.G.H. Diks, D. Higdon, B.A. Robinson, J.M. Hyman, Accelerating Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling. Int. J. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul 10(3), 273–290 (2009)
L. Wasserman, Bayesian model selection and model averaging. J. Math. Psychol. 44(1), 92–107 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1999.1278
I.K. Westerberg, J.-L. Guerrero, P.M. Younger, K.J. Beven, J. Seibert, S. Halldin, J.E. Freer, C.-Y. Xu, Calibration of hydrological models using flow-duration curves. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 2205–2227 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2205-2011
J. Yang, P. Reichert, K.C. Abbaspour, Bayesian uncertainty analysis in distributed hydrologic modeling: A case study in the Thur River basin (Switzerland). Water Resour. Res. 43, W10401 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005497
M. Ye, P. Meyer, S.P. Neuman, On model selection criteria in multimodel analysis. Water Resour. Res. 44, 1–12 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006803
S.L. Zabell, The rule of succession. Erkenntnis 31(2–3), 283–321 (1989)
Acknowledgments
The first author is supported by funding from the UC-Lab Fees Research Program Award 237285. The material presented in this chapter is part of the first author’s graduate course on “Merging Models and Data” (CEE-290) taught at the University of California, Irvine. An animated presentation of this material can be found online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhA9vtiHxZ0. The DREAM family of algorithms discussed in this chapter are implemented in DREAM Suite, an easy to use, plug-and-play, Windows program. This program can be found online at www.dreamsuite.eu and simplifies considerably Bayesian analysis and its application to uncertainty quantification of mathematical models.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 A: Derivation of Bayes’ Theorem
Bayes’ theorem (also referred to as Bayes’ law or Bayes’ rule) is a relatively simple but fundamental result of probability theory that allows for the calculation of certain conditional probabilities. The theorem specifies the relationship between the probability of two entities, A and D, or P(A) and P(D), and their respective conditional probabilities, P(A|D) and P(D|A). This theorem follows logically from Kolmogorovs (1903–1987) axiomatic definition of probability and is consistent with the frequentist and subjectivist approach to epistemology.
If P(A) > 0 and P(D) > 0 denote the probability of two different events A and D, then the conditional probability of A given event D is equivalent to
where P(A ∩ D) signifies the probability of the union of events A and D. Similarly, the conditional probability of D given event A is
Per definition, P(A ∩ D) = P(D ∩ A) which implies that
which after simple rearrangement leads to Bayes’ theorem in Eq. (11)
where A signifies the parameter values, and B denotes the data.
The different probabilities in Eq. (86) may have different interpretations, depending on the intended goal of application. Within the context of statistical inference, Bayes’ theorem expresses mathematically how a subjective initial degree of belief, P(a), in a proposition a, changes rationally to P(a|d) in response to new data, d. The evidence d is not to be confused with the evidence, P(d), or marginal likelihood. The term P(a) is called the prior distribution, and P(a|d) denotes the posterior probability density function, or the degree of belief having accounted for the evidence d. This subjectivist approach is the cornerstone of Bayesian inference, yet Bayes’ theorem has much wider applicability. In our application of Bayes theorem, we can replace the conditional probability, P(d|a) with the data likelihood, L(a|d) as all our inferences are drawn from the residuals of a and d, that is a − d. Whether we center the measurement error distribution on the proposition, a (simulated data), or the “evidence,” b (observed data), this does not change the degree of belief in a.
To illustrate the application of Bayes theorem, let us consider a simple thought experiment in which we are trying to infer the probability that someone has a disease, X, given that they have some symptom, S. That the person has this symptom is clearly visible to the eye, but whether they have the decease is not evident. Bayes’ law tells us that P(X|S) can be derived from
So to compute P(X|S), we need to know the prior probability, P(S) and P(X), of the symptom and the disease, respectively (how common are the symptom and disease), and P(S|X), the probability that someone has symptom S given that he/she has the disease, X (via lab tests).
We can confirm Bayes’ law with a simple practical example (see Fig. 23) wherein the occurrence of two, presumably correlated, events, Rain and Thunder, is observed at some place on our planet for a period of n = 20-days. The prior probabilities of both events, P(R) and P(T), and their respective conditional probabilities, P(R|T) and P(T|R), are easy to calculate from the data.
We can now use these (conditional) probabilities to benchmark Bayes’ law. Indeed, per Bayes’ theorem, P(R|T) = P(R)P(T|R)/P(T), which gives P(R|T) = (11/20 × 4/11)/(5/20) = (4/20)/(5/20) = 4/5. This confirms the value of P(R|T) = 4/5 computed directly from the data. The same result is found for P(T|R).
1.2 B: MATLAB Code DREAM
The core of the DREAM algorithm can be written in MATLAB in about 30 lines of code (see below). Based on input arguments, prior (function handle that draws samples from prior distribution), f (function handle that returns target density), N (number of chains), M (desired number of iterations), d (number of parameters) and problem (structure that allows user to pass additional input arguments to f or prior), the DREAM function returns as output to the user the multidimensional array x which stores the sampled states and corresponding target densities of each chain (third dimension). Example function handles for some d-variate uniform prior distribution, prior = @(N,d) unifrnd(−10,10,N,d), and standard normal target distribution, f = @(x,d) mvnpdf(x,zeros(1,d),eye(d)).
The variables in the DREAM function are chosen carefully to match, insofar possible, their symbols used in the main text. Built-in functions are highlighted with a low dash and information about their respective input and output arguments is provided by the MATLAB “help” utility. The jump vector, dx(j,1:d), of the jth chain contains the desired information about the scale and orientation of the proposal distribution and is derived from the remaining N-1 chains. The function check() is used as a patch for outlier chains, a critical vulnerability of multi-chain MCMC methods such as SCEM-UA, DE-MC, and DREAM (Vrugt et al. 2003; ter Braak and Vrugt 2008; Vrugt et al. 2008, 2009). Note, vectorization of the inner (proposal) loop would enhance significantly computational efficiency, yet affects negatively readability.
The MATLAB code of DREAM presented in this Appendix has several important restrictions (e.g., uniform prior, fixed crossover selection probabilities, convergence is not monitored, lack of built-in likelihood functions) – all of which are addressed in the MATLAB toolbox of DREAM developed by Vrugt (2016). This toolbox also allows the user to evaluate the chains in parallel using the distributed computing toolbox of MATLAB (see Vrugt (2016) for a multicore DREAM implementation). This parallel implementation violates detailed balance of the sampled chain trajectories, nonetheless, benchmark experiments on a diverse set of problems have shown that this violation hardly affects the results.
1.3 C: MATLAB Code DREAM(LOA)
Basic MATLAB implementation of the DREAM(LOA) algorithm for limits of acceptability sampling. This code is identical to DREAM in Appendix B except for lines 29–31 which accommodate the revised acceptance rule of Eq. (80). Input argument f is an anonymous function handle that returns the value of the fitness in Eq. (81), and the structure problem allows the user to pass to f the observed data and corresponding limits of acceptability.
The variables in the DREAM(LOA) function are chosen carefully to match, insofar possible, their symbols used in the main text. Built-in functions are highlighted with a low dash. Detailed documentation on each of these functions can be found in the MATLAB “help” system.
The fitness has to be defined as an anonymous function handle as follows, f = @(x,problem) fitness(x,problem), wherein problem is a structure with fields Yobs and Delta that store in a n-vector the measurements and limits of acceptability, respectively. A template fitness function, f, is given below.
The fitness function includes a call to own_model_script, which executes the forward model and returns simulated values for a given d-vector of parameter values, x. This function should be written by the user.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
About this entry
Cite this entry
Vrugt, J.A., Massoud, E.C. (2019). Uncertainty Quantification of Complex System Models: Bayesian Analysis. In: Duan, Q., Pappenberger, F., Wood, A., Cloke, H., Schaake, J. (eds) Handbook of Hydrometeorological Ensemble Forecasting. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39925-1_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39925-1_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39924-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39925-1
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceReference Module Physical and Materials ScienceReference Module Earth and Environmental Sciences