Advances in WaterResources17 (1994) 197-200
© 1994 Elsevier Science Limited
ELSEVIER
Short Communication
Model definition and model validation
Anton Leijnse & S. Majid Hassanizadeh
National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection ( R I V M ) , PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
(Received 22 March 1994; accepted 4 May 1994)
INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, groundwater models have been used
in studying more and more complicated situations. The
advanced uses of groundwater models are in the
framework of studies of groundwater contamination,
nuclear/hazardous waste disposal, thermal energy
storage/exploration, etc. In these applications, large
temporal and/or spatial scales are often encountered and
many uncertainties enter the model. As a result, the
investigation of the validity of a model becomes a very
complicated task and the issue of model validation takes
upon a much greater dimension than that commonly
associated with groundwater supply problems. Much
discussion about validation of geo-hydrological models
has taken place in recent years and, as might be
expected, the opinions are diverse. A list of various
studies on model validation is found in Tsang. 8
Recently, a two-part special issue of A d v a n c e s in
W a t e r R e s o u r c e s (vol. 15, nos 1 and 3) was devoted to
the question of validation of geo-hydrological models.
In an article in that special issue Konikow and
Bredehoeft5 submit that 'groundwater models cannot
be validated'. This point of view, shared by some other
researchers, has proven to be controversial. For
example, it has been challenged in a commentary by
de Marsily et al. 3 who present evidence which they
consider as proof that their groundwater model has been
validated. In a reply to that commentary, Bredehoeft
and Konikow 1 reiterate their stand that despite their
usefulness, groundwater models are impossible to
validate. A similar discussion was carried out in two
editorials which appeared in the journal G r o u n d W a t e r
(Bredehoeft & Konikow;2 McCombie & McKinley7).
The question to be considered here is 'Is there a
contradiction between these two points of view?' We
believe not. The apparent contradiction between the
views of de Marsily et al. 3 and Konikow and
197
Printed in Great Britain. All fights reserved
0309-1708/94/$07.00
Bredehoefl5 stems from the difference in definitions
and perceptions behind the words 'model' and 'valida-
tion'. Contrary to Bredehoeft and Konikow, 1 we believe
that the word validation does not have a clear and
unambiguous meaning, certainly not to the general
public and even not within the scientific community (see
also Hassanizadeh and Carrera 4 and McCombie and
McKinley7). We go even one step further and contend
that there is no unanimity within the groundwater
modelling community on what constitutes a model. In
fact, it appears that there is a significant difference in
what Konikow and Bredehoefl5 and de Marsily et al. 3
understand under the word 'model'. We would like to
discuss these points here. Our discussion is strictly
limited to mathematical models; all other kinds of model
are not considered here. Also, the discussion is mainly
focussed on mathematical models employed in ground-
water studies. However, the ideas brought up here apply
to other geo-hydrological problems as well.
WEAK AND STRONG DEFINITIONS OF A
MODEL
Konikow and Bredehoeft5 define a model as 'a
representation of a real system or process'. This
definition includes the basic equations as well as all
input parameters needed to describe the system
behaviour. De Marsily et al., 3 on the other hand, state
that 'groundwater flow models rely essentially on two
concepts: (i) mass balance; (ii) Darcy's law'. Obviously,
the model envisaged by de Marsily et al. 3 constitutes
only a part of a model as defined by Konikow and
Bredehoefl;5 the part that the latter authors call the
conceptual model.
In fact, a survey of the geo-hydrology literature will
reveal that the word model has been used (and
sometimes misused) to refer to many different entities.
198 A. Leijnse, S. M . Hassanizadeh
In general, two categories of model definition can be
recognized: weak definitions and strong definitions. A
weak definition model is one which is intended to
simulate only the processes of interest in a given system
and does not characterize that particular system.
According to the weak definition, a groundwater model
consists of the equation of mass balance, Darcy's
equation, the equation of state, and all simplifying
assumptions; it does not incorporate the input data. The
development of a model is considered to be accom-
plished as soon as the modeller has demonstrated that
the processes of interest are correctly simulated by the
model. Of course, in order to use the model, one has to
assign values to the parameters appearing in the
equations and choose initial and boundary conditions.
However, the fact that the values of such parameters, or
their spatial and temporal variations, may not be known
for a given groundwater system is not considered to
have any bearing on the utility, applicability, or validity
of the model. Commonly, although not necessarily, a
model defined according to the weak definition is not a
site-specific model.
According to the strong definition, a model is a
substitute for the whole system. Thus, it includes not
only the basic equations, but also all parameter values
and their spatial and temporal variations, initial and
boundary conditions, system geometry, sources, and
sinks, and all other data which characterize a given
system. A model defined according to a strong definition
is almost always a site-specific model. If chosen
parameter values appear to be in error, the applicability
of the model is brought under question.
There are arguments both against and in favour of
each definition. For example, de Marsily et al., 3 who
invoke the weak definition, comment that 'a ground-
water flow model does not claim that it can predict
climate variability in the future'. Indeed, input data are
often provided by geological, meteorological, agricul-
tural and/or industrial models and are not prepared by
the groundwater hydrologists. Why should the ground-
water modeller be held responsible for possible short-
comings in input data!?
On the other hand, those in favor of invoking the
strong definition of a model argue that modelling is a
subjective activity and the selection of input data is an
integral part of modelling. Although groundwater flow
is distinguished from other processes such as climatic
changes and geological events, there is a coupling
through boundaries, sources and sinks, etc. The
groundwater modeller has to decide where to put the
boundaries and which type of boundary conditions to
employ. Such decisions are based on the modeller's
conceptual understandings of the system and its
interaction with the surroundings. Hence, it can be
argued that the input data are an integral part of the
model and a correct choice of the data is the
responsibility of the groundwater modeUer.
It must be emphasized that we do not attempt to
give a unique definition of weak and strong models.
We recognize that there is an overlap in some elements
of the two model definitions. We simply want to point
out that there are two extremes. At one extreme, a
model is seen as a process simulator, consisting only
of conceptual description and corresponding mathe-
matical equations. At the other extreme, a model
is seen as a system simulator which includes any item
and any factor that affect the quantitative character-
ization of the system and future events. Some people
may even go to the extreme of considering the 'modeller'
as part of the model too! Obviously, between these
two extremes many intermediate definitions are possible.
For example, one may choose to define a model
consisting of basic equations plus some of the input
data which either remain invariant during future
events, or their variations can be determined with an
acceptable degree of certainty. Typical examples of
such data are the geometrical structure, permeability,
and porosity of a porous medium. In general, how-
ever, all parameter values are subject to temporal and
spatial variations and the magnitude of these vari-
ations and the associated uncertainties are dependent
on the spatial and temporal scales of processes being
considered.
With regard to the foregoing discussion, two
questions arise: (i) Is the difference of opinions about
what constitutes a model simply a matter of semantics?
(ii) Should one of the model definitions be selected as the
most appropriate definition? We believe that the answers
to both of these questions are negative. The distinction
among various model definitions is not a matter of
semantics; it is a matter of having consistency and
clarity in the meaning of a word which is being used very
extensively. The point is that the same word is being
used to refer to different entities, and this can obviously
be confusing, to say the least. Concerning the second
question, we believe that the weak and strong model
definitions are both useful; they simply serve different
purposes. Also, the adjectives 'weak' and 'strong', by no
means refer to the quality of a model. A weak definition
model is of a 'strong' quality if it is shown to be a valid
model of the processes it is simulating. On the other
hand, a strong definition model may be proven to be of
a 'weak' quality if it makes incorrect prediction of the
system behaviour.
'ANALYSIS MODELS' AND 'PREDICTION
MODELS'
The question of what constitutes a model is closely
related to the intended purpose and usage of the model.
In general, two major categories of models can be
identified: models used as analytical tools, and models
used as predictive tools. In the analytical mode, a model
 M o d e l definition and model validation
is used as a tool to analyse a system of interest and to
increase understanding of its behaviour. For example, a
model may be used in site investigation studies, in
analysing pumping test data, in investigating the
effect of heterogeneities on flow and transport proper-
ties, in determining how the variations in boundary
conditions or hydrological stresses affect the system
behaviour, and in scenario comparison studies.
We refer to this category of models as 'analysis models'.
An analysis model is primarily used in those modelling
activities which do not constitute quantitative prediction
of future events. The weak definition of a model
discussed above is appropriate for this category of
models. An analysis model must simulate internal
processes of interest occurring in the system, correctly.
Input data are not necessarily part of such a model
type. Although data are always required to perform
analysis of any real or generic system, it is not strictly
necessary to have the model sufficiently calibrated and/
or to have an accurate and detailed knowledge of
parameter values and hydrological stresses. In fact,
one may consider many realizations of the hetero-
geneities or the temporal variations of parameter
values and stresses (perhaps with a given set of statistical
properties). The results of calculations with an analysis
model do not have to correspond to any future
measurements of the system response. Although
analysis models are not intended to make predictions,
they can be very helpful in increasing our understanding
of the behaviour of a system, in designing field
investigations, in estimating parameter values, and in
determining the range of validity of a given set of basic
equations.
In the predictive mode, a model is used as a tool
to predict the system behaviour. A groundwater
model is expected to provide the spatial distribution
of head or flow rates and their future variations, at
least in a stochastic sense. We refer to this category of
models as 'prediction models'. A prediction model is
primarily used in those modelling activities which
lead to a quantitative prediction of future events. A
prediction model basically replaces the real system.
It contains both causes and effects. It gives a quanti-
tative picture of various processes of interest and
their future development. For a prediction model to
have these capabilities, it is not enough to know the
basic equations with certainty. It is also necessary to
have a good knowledge of all parameter values and their
spatial and temporal variations for the system being
modelled. In other words, input values become an
integral part of the model. The strong definition of a
model dis-cussed above is appropriate for this category
of models. It should be noted that a prediction model
can be used as an analysis tool too. But, an analysis
model has to be augmented with much additional
information and input before it can be used as a
prediction tool.
199
WEAK AND STRONG VALIDATION
Parallel with the above definitions of a model, one may
speak of validation in the weak sense and in the strong
sense. Validation in the weak sense refers to the validity
of the 'conceptual part of a model'. That is, one
attempts to determine the dominant processes and the
range of applicability of the basic equations describing
these processes. The concept of weak validation is
applicable to analysis models. We believe that the
validation of analysis models can be achieved with a
reasonable degree of certainty, for a given range of
temporal and spatial scales. In other words, it is possible
to show that the basic equations are valid and applicable
to a large variety of situations, regardless of parameter
values and boundary conditions. An example of model
validation in the weak sense is that in groundwater flow
problems, equations of mass balance, Darcy, and state
are generally accepted as validated. When de Marsily
et al. 3 state that 'we claim that this is a "validation" of
the model', they refer primarily to the conceptual part of
their model: Darcy's law and equation of mass balance.
Thus, they imply a weak validation of 'their model'.
Validation in the strong sense refers to the validity of
the model of a given system as a whole including all
input data. This validity is related to the predictive
ability of a model. When Konikow and Bredehoeft5
state that 'groundwater models cannot be validated',
they refer to validation in the strong sense and they have
'prediction models' in mind. We agree with Konikow
and Bredehoeft5 that validation of groundwater models
in the strong sense is almost impossible, because, for
example, future changes in geo-hydrological stresses are
often unknown.
Thus, we submit that both Konikow and Bredehoeft5
and de Marsily et al. 3 are partially correct; 'prediction
models' cannot be validated (in the strong sense), but
'analysis models' can be validated (in the weak sense).
SUMMARY
Two major definitions of a model are possible: a weak
definition and a strong definition, with the main difference
being whether input data should be considered as part of
the model or not. According to the weak definition, a
model consists only of the basic equations and input
data are considered to be external elements immaterial
to the applicability of the model. The strong definition
considers a model to be composed of input data as well
as the basic equations. Models defined according to the
weak definition are not suitable for predicting the
system behaviour and are called analysis models.
Models defined according to the strong definition may
be used for prediction purposes and are, therefore,
called prediction models. Parallel with these definitions,
the concepts of 'weak validation' and 'strong validation'
200 A. Leijnse, S. M. Hassanizadeh
may be introduced. Validation of a model in the weak
sense implies that the processes of interest are correctly
described by the basic equations incorporated in the
model. Thus, the concept of weak validation applies to
'analysis models' only. The (weak) validation of analysis
models is a viable task. On the other hand, validation of
a model in the strong sense implies that the model truly
represents the system of interest. Thus, the concept of
strong validation applies to 'prediction models'. We
believe that the (strong) validation of prediction models
is an almost impossible task in typical geo-hydrological
applications.
Finally, note that the foregoing discussion does not
support abandoning the use of the term 'model
validation'. It only makes it apparent that the modellers
have to carefully specify what their models constitute
and what is being validated. In this regard, we are in full
agreement with McCombie and McKinley7 that, if
confusion arises about validation, 'use of the term
validation is much less to blame than poor science and
sloppy documentation'.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors have benefited greatly from the experience
gained during their participation in the international
model validation studies H Y D R O C O I N and INTRA-
VAL. 6 Constructive remarks by William G. Gray, which
resulted in improving the presentation of certain ideas in
this manuscript, are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Bredehoeft, J. D. & Konikow, L. F., Reply to comment.
Adv. Water Resour., 15 (1992) 371-2.
2. Bredehoeft, J. D. & Konikow, L. F., Groundwater models:
Validate or invalidate. Ground Water, 31 (1993) 178-9.
3. de Marsily, G., Combes, P. & Goblet, P., Comment on
'Ground-water models cannot be validated', by L. F.
Konikow and J. D. Bredehoeft. Adv. Water Resour., 15
(1992) 367-9.
4. Hassanizadeh, S. M. & Carrera, J., Editorial of the Special
Issue on Validation of Geo-hydrological Models. Adv.
Water Resour., 15 (1992) 1-3.
5. Konikow, L. F. & Bredehoeft, J. D., Ground-water models
cannot be validated. Adv. Water Resour., 15 (1992) 75-83.
6. Larson, A., The international projects INTRACOIN,
HYDROCOIN and INTRAVAL. Adv. Water Resour.,
15 (1992) 85-7.
7. McCombie, C. & McKinley, I., Validation -- Another
perspective. Ground Water, 31 (1993) 530-1.
8. Tsang, C., The modelling process and model validation.
Ground Water, 29 (1991) 825-31.