% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Xu:890096,
author = {Xu, Teng and Reuschen, Sebastian and Nowak, Wolfgang and
Hendricks Franssen, Harrie‐Jan},
title = {{P}reconditioned {C}rank‐{N}icolson {M}arkov {C}hain
{M}onte {C}arlo {C}oupled {W}ith {P}arallel {T}empering:
{A}n {E}fficient {M}ethod for {B}ayesian {I}nversion of
{M}ulti‐{G}aussian {L}og‐{H}ydraulic {C}onductivity
{F}ields},
journal = {Water resources research},
volume = {56},
number = {8},
issn = {1944-7973},
address = {[New York]},
publisher = {Wiley},
reportid = {FZJ-2021-00685},
pages = {1-19},
year = {2020},
note = {Kein Post-print verfügbar},
abstract = {Geostatistical inversion with quantified uncertainty for
nonlinear problems requires techniques for providing
conditional realizations of the random field of interest.
Many first‐order second‐moment methods are being
developed in this field, yet almost impossible to critically
test them against high‐accuracy reference solutions in
high‐dimensional and nonlinear problems. Our goal is to
provide a high‐accuracy reference solution algorithm.
Preconditioned Crank‐Nicolson Markov chain Monte Carlo
(pCN‐MCMC) has been proven to be more efficient in the
inversion of multi‐Gaussian random fields than traditional
MCMC methods; however, it still has to take a long chain to
converge to the stationary target distribution. Parallel
tempering aims to sample by communicating between multiple
parallel Markov chains at different temperatures. In this
paper, we develop a new algorithm called pCN‐PT. It
combines the parallel tempering technique with pCN‐MCMC to
make the sampling more efficient, and hence converge to a
stationary distribution faster. To demonstrate the
high‐accuracy reference character, we test the accuracy
and efficiency of pCN‐PT for estimating a multi‐Gaussian
log‐hydraulic conductivity field with a relative high
variance in three different problems: (1) in a
high‐dimensional, linear problem; (2) in a
high‐dimensional, nonlinear problem and with only few
measurements; and (3) in a high‐dimensional, nonlinear
problem with sufficient measurements. This allows testing
against (1) analytical solutions (kriging), (2) rejection
sampling, and (3) pCN‐MCMC in multiple, independent runs,
respectively. The results demonstrate that pCN‐PT is an
asymptotically exact conditional sampler and is more
efficient than pCN‐MCMC in geostatistical inversion
problems.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255) / DFG project 359880532 - Computergestützter
Ansatz zur Kalibrierung und Validierung mathematischer
Modelle für Strömungen im Untergrund - COMPU-FLOW},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255 / G:(GEPRIS)359880532},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000582701700068},
doi = {10.1029/2020WR027110},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/890096},
}