Towards the systematic simplification of mechanistic models

By G. Cox, J. Gibbons, Andrew T. A. Wood, J. Craigon, S. Ramsden, N. Crout. 2006

152 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Mechanistic models used for prediction should be parsimonious, as models which are over-parameterised may have poor predictive performance. Determining whether a model is parsimonious requires comparisons with alternative model formulations with differing levels of complexity. However, creating alternative formulations for large mechanistic models is often problematic, and usually time-consuming. Consequently, few are ever investigated. In this paper, we present an approach which rapidly generates reduced model formulations by replacing a model’s variables with constants. These reduced alternatives can be compared to the original model, using data based model selection criteria, to assist in the identification of potentially unnecessary model complexity, and thereby inform reformulation of the model. To illustrate the approach, we present its application to a published radiocaesium plant-uptake model, which predicts uptake on the basis of soil characteristics (e.g. pH, organic matter content, clay content). A total of 1024 reduced model formulations were generated, and ranked according to five model selection criteria: Residual Sum of Squares (RSS), AICc, BIC, MDL and ICOMP. The lowest scores for RSS and AICc occurred for the same reduced model in which pH dependent model components were replaced. The lowest scores for BIC, MDL and ICOMP occurred for a further reduced model in which model components related to the distinction between adsorption on clay and organic surfaces were replaced. Both these reduced models had a lower RSS for the parameterisation dataset than the original model. As a test of their predictive performance, the original model and the two reduced models outlined above were used to predict an independent dataset. The reduced models have lower prediction sums of squares than the original model, suggesting that the latter may be overfitted. The approach presented has the potential to inform model development by rapidly creating a class of alternative model formulations, which can be compared.

Subfields: Civil and Structural Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0139dcf84a9af1665f095646655fc2bd73417735

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Civil and Structural Engineering

  1. K. V. Werkhoven
  2. Yong Tang
  3. Thorsten Wagener
  4. Patrick M. Reed
  5. Francesca Pianosi

In Environmental Engineering

  1. Patrick M. Reed
  2. Thorsten Wagener
  3. Hoshin V. Gupta
  4. Jasper A. Vrugt
  5. Francesca Pianosi
  6. M. Clark
  7. P. Pokhrel
  8. Yuqiong Liu

In Soil Science

  1. Thorsten Wagener

Citations in the corpus