On the (im)possible validation of hydrogeological models
This paper revisits the controversy on the validation of hydrogeological models, 30 years after it broke out with the publications by [Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1992a] and [de Marsily et al., 1992]. In that debate, [Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1992a] argued that the word “valid” was misleading to the publ...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Académie des sciences
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Comptes Rendus. Géoscience |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/geoscience/articles/10.5802/crgeos.142/ |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1825206303021072384 |
|---|---|
| author | Andréassian, Vazken |
| author_facet | Andréassian, Vazken |
| author_sort | Andréassian, Vazken |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This paper revisits the controversy on the validation of hydrogeological models, 30 years after it broke out with the publications by [Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1992a] and [de Marsily et al., 1992]. In that debate, [Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1992a] argued that the word “valid” was misleading to the public and should not be used with respect to models. [de Marsily et al., 1992] answered that while the bases of hydrogeological models (conservation of mass and Darcy’s law) were uncontestable and unconditionally valid, specific validation exercises were dearly needed to evaluate the parameters and the geometry of these models (confronting the models with data they had not seen during the calibration phase). By updating and extending the literature review, we reanalyze this debate and the arguments presented and conclude by proposing an extension of de Marsily’s position, which underlines the necessity to look at validation from two distinct viewpoints, i.e. the point of view of the model’s explanatory power (theoretical content) and the point of view of its predictive power. The explanatory and predictive dimensions of model validation are to be considered separately. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-592c9656f0c64458b589812ec73f9d34 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1778-7025 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | Académie des sciences |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Comptes Rendus. Géoscience |
| spelling | doaj-art-592c9656f0c64458b589812ec73f9d342025-02-07T10:40:14ZengAcadémie des sciencesComptes Rendus. Géoscience1778-70252022-09-01355S133734510.5802/crgeos.14210.5802/crgeos.142On the (im)possible validation of hydrogeological modelsAndréassian, Vazken0Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, HYCAR Research Unit, Antony, FranceThis paper revisits the controversy on the validation of hydrogeological models, 30 years after it broke out with the publications by [Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1992a] and [de Marsily et al., 1992]. In that debate, [Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1992a] argued that the word “valid” was misleading to the public and should not be used with respect to models. [de Marsily et al., 1992] answered that while the bases of hydrogeological models (conservation of mass and Darcy’s law) were uncontestable and unconditionally valid, specific validation exercises were dearly needed to evaluate the parameters and the geometry of these models (confronting the models with data they had not seen during the calibration phase). By updating and extending the literature review, we reanalyze this debate and the arguments presented and conclude by proposing an extension of de Marsily’s position, which underlines the necessity to look at validation from two distinct viewpoints, i.e. the point of view of the model’s explanatory power (theoretical content) and the point of view of its predictive power. The explanatory and predictive dimensions of model validation are to be considered separately.https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/geoscience/articles/10.5802/crgeos.142/Hydrogeological modelModel validationCorroborationFalsifiabilityGhislain de Marsily |
| spellingShingle | Andréassian, Vazken On the (im)possible validation of hydrogeological models Comptes Rendus. Géoscience Hydrogeological model Model validation Corroboration Falsifiability Ghislain de Marsily |
| title | On the (im)possible validation of hydrogeological models |
| title_full | On the (im)possible validation of hydrogeological models |
| title_fullStr | On the (im)possible validation of hydrogeological models |
| title_full_unstemmed | On the (im)possible validation of hydrogeological models |
| title_short | On the (im)possible validation of hydrogeological models |
| title_sort | on the im possible validation of hydrogeological models |
| topic | Hydrogeological model Model validation Corroboration Falsifiability Ghislain de Marsily |
| url | https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/geoscience/articles/10.5802/crgeos.142/ |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andreassianvazken ontheimpossiblevalidationofhydrogeologicalmodels |