  We present a new statistically driven method for analyzing the modeling of
geophysical flows. Many models have been advocated by different modelers for
such flows incorporating different modeling assumptions. Limited and sparse
observational data on the modeled phenomena usually does not permit a clean
discrimination among models for fitness of purpose, and, heuristic choices are
usually made, especially for critical predictions of behavior that has not been
experienced. We advocate here a methodology for characterizing models and the
modeling assumptions they represent, using a statistical approach over the full
range of applicability of the models. Such a characterization may then be used
to decide the appropriateness of a model and modeling assumption for use. We
present our method by comparing three different models arising from different
rheology assumptions, and the data show unambiguously the performance of the
models across a wide range of possible flow regimes. This comparison is
facilitated by the recent development of the new release of our TITAN2D mass
flow code that allows choice of multiple rheologies The quantitative and
probabilistic analysis of contributions from different modeling assumptions in
the models is particularly illustrative of the impact of the assumptions.
Knowledge of which assumptions dominate, and, by how much, is illustrated in
two different case studies: a small scale inclined plane with a flat runway,
and the large scale topography on the SW slope of Volc\'{a}n de Colima (MX). A
simple model performance evaluation completes the presentation.
