Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Water Resources Rese...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Water Resources Research
Article . 2012 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 1 versions
addClaim

Analysis of regression confidence intervals and Bayesian credible intervals for uncertainty quantification

Authors: Dan Lu; Ming Ye; Mary C. Hill;

Analysis of regression confidence intervals and Bayesian credible intervals for uncertainty quantification

Abstract

Confidence intervals based on classical regression theories augmented to include prior information and credible intervals based on Bayesian theories are conceptually different ways to quantify parametric and predictive uncertainties. Because both confidence and credible intervals are used in environmental modeling, we seek to understand their differences and similarities. This is of interest in part because calculating confidence intervals typically requires tens to thousands of model runs, while Bayesian credible intervals typically require tens of thousands to millions of model runs. Given multi‐Gaussian distributed observation errors, our theoretical analysis shows that, for linear or linearized‐nonlinear models, confidence and credible intervals are always numerically identical when consistent prior information is used. For nonlinear models, nonlinear confidence and credible intervals can be numerically identical if parameter confidence regions defined using the approximate likelihood method and parameter credible regions estimated using Markov chain Monte Carlo realizations are numerically identical and predictions are a smooth, monotonic function of the parameters. Both occur if intrinsic model nonlinearity is small. While the conditions of Gaussian errors and small intrinsic model nonlinearity are violated by many environmental models, heuristic tests using analytical and numerical models suggest that linear and nonlinear confidence intervals can be useful approximations of uncertainty even under significantly nonideal conditions. In the context of epistemic model error for a complex synthetic nonlinear groundwater problem, the linear and nonlinear confidence and credible intervals for individual models performed similarly enough to indicate that the computationally frugal confidence intervals can be useful in many circumstances. Experiences with these groundwater models are expected to be broadly applicable to many environmental models. We suggest that for environmental problems with lengthy execution times that make credible intervals inconvenient or prohibitive, confidence intervals can provide important insight. During model development when frequent calculation of uncertainty intervals is important to understanding the consequences of various model construction alternatives and data collection strategies, strategic use of both confidence and credible intervals can be critical.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    50
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
50
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
gold