Bayesian assessment of the expected data impact on prediction confidence in optimal sampling design

Incorporating hydro(geo)logical data, such as head and tracer data, into stochastic models of (subsurface) flow and transport helps to reduce prediction uncertainty. Because of financial limitations for investigation campaigns, information needs toward modeling or prediction goals should be satisfied efficiently and rationally. Optimal design techniques find the best one among a set of investigation strategies. They optimize the expected impact of data on prediction confidence or related objectives prior to data collection. We introduce a new optimal design method, called PreDIA(gnosis) (Preposterior Data Impact Assessor). PreDIA derives the relevant probability distributions and measures of data utility within a fully Bayesian, generalized, flexible, and accurate framework. It extends the bootstrap filter (BF) and related frameworks to optimal design by marginalizing utility measures over the yet unknown data values. PreDIA is a strictly formal information-processing scheme free of linearizations. It works with arbitrary simulation tools, provides full flexibility concerning measurement types (linear, nonlinear, direct, indirect), allows for any desired task-driven formulations, and can account for various sources of uncertainty (e.g., heterogeneity, geostatistical assumptions, boundary conditions, measurement values, model structure uncertainty, a large class of model errors) via Bayesian geostatistics and model averaging. Existing methods fail to simultaneously provide these crucial advantages, which our method buys at relatively higher-computational costs. We demonstrate the applicability and advantages of PreDIA over conventional linearized methods in a synthetic example of subsurface transport. In the example, we show that informative data is often invisible for linearized methods that confuse zero correlation with statistical independence. Hence, PreDIA will often lead to substantially better sampling designs. Finally, we extend our example to specifically highlight the consideration of conceptual model uncertainty.