Testing and validating environmental models

Testing and validating environmental models Generally accepted standards for testing and validating ecosystem models would benefit both modellers and model users. Universally applicable test procedures are difficult to prescribe, given the diversity of modelling approaches and the many uses for models. However, the generally accepted scientific principles of documentation and disclosure provide a useful framework for devising general standards for model evaluation. Adequately documenting model tests requires explicit performance criteria, and explicit benchmarks against which model performance is compared. A model's validity, reliability, and accuracy can be most meaningfully judged by explicit comparison against the available alternatives. In contrast, current practice is often characterized by vague, subjective claims that model predictions show ‘acceptable’ agreement with data; such claims provide little basis for choosing among alternative models. Strict model tests (those that invalid models are unlikely to pass) are the only ones capable of convincing rational skeptics that a model is probably valid. However, ‘false positive’ rates as low as 10% can substantially erode the power of validation tests, making them insufficiently strict to convince rational skeptics. Validation tests are often undermined by excessive parameter calibration and overuse of ad hoc model features. Tests are often also divorced from the conditions under which a model will be used, particularly when it is designed to forecast beyond the range of historical experience. In such situations, data from laboratory and field manipulation experiments can provide particularly effective tests, because one can create experimental conditions quite different from historical data, and because experimental data can provide a more precisely defined ‘target’ for the model to hit. We present a simple demonstration showing that the two most common methods for comparing model predictions to environmental time series (plotting model time series against data time series, and plotting predicted versus observed values) have little diagnostic power. We propose that it may be more useful to statistically extract the relationships of primary interest from the time series, and test the model directly against them. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Science of the Total Environment Elsevier

Testing and validating environmental models

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/testing-and-validating-environmental-models-vDhq0zX077
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Generally accepted standards for testing and validating ecosystem models would benefit both modellers and model users. Universally applicable test procedures are difficult to prescribe, given the diversity of modelling approaches and the many uses for models. However, the generally accepted scientific principles of documentation and disclosure provide a useful framework for devising general standards for model evaluation. Adequately documenting model tests requires explicit performance criteria, and explicit benchmarks against which model performance is compared. A model's validity, reliability, and accuracy can be most meaningfully judged by explicit comparison against the available alternatives. In contrast, current practice is often characterized by vague, subjective claims that model predictions show ‘acceptable’ agreement with data; such claims provide little basis for choosing among alternative models. Strict model tests (those that invalid models are unlikely to pass) are the only ones capable of convincing rational skeptics that a model is probably valid. However, ‘false positive’ rates as low as 10% can substantially erode the power of validation tests, making them insufficiently strict to convince rational skeptics. Validation tests are often undermined by excessive parameter calibration and overuse of ad hoc model features. Tests are often also divorced from the conditions under which a model will be used, particularly when it is designed to forecast beyond the range of historical experience. In such situations, data from laboratory and field manipulation experiments can provide particularly effective tests, because one can create experimental conditions quite different from historical data, and because experimental data can provide a more precisely defined ‘target’ for the model to hit. We present a simple demonstration showing that the two most common methods for comparing model predictions to environmental time series (plotting model time series against data time series, and plotting predicted versus observed values) have little diagnostic power. We propose that it may be more useful to statistically extract the relationships of primary interest from the time series, and test the model directly against them.

Journal

Science of the Total EnvironmentElsevier

Published: Apr 12, 1996

References

  • Assessing the Birkenes model of stream acidification using a multisignal calibration methodology
    Hooper, R.P.; Stone, A.; Christophersen, N.; de Grosbois, E.; Seip, H.M.
  • A model for streamwater chemistry at Birkenes, Norway
    Christophersen, N.; Seip, H.M.; Wright, R.F.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off