Comparing Physics-Based, Conceptual and Machine-Learning Models to Predict Groundwater Levels by BMA.

Ground water Pub Date : 2025-04-21 DOI:10.1111/gwat.13487
Thomas Wöhling, Alvaro Oliver Crespo Delgadillo, Moritz Kraft, Anneli Guthke
{"title":"Comparing Physics-Based, Conceptual and Machine-Learning Models to Predict Groundwater Levels by BMA.","authors":"Thomas Wöhling, Alvaro Oliver Crespo Delgadillo, Moritz Kraft, Anneli Guthke","doi":"10.1111/gwat.13487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Groundwater level observations are used as decision variables for aquifer management, often in conjunction with models to provide predictions for operational forecasting. In this study, we compare different model classes for this task: a spatially explicit 3D groundwater flow model (MODFLOW), an eigenmodel, a transfer-function model, and three machine learning models, namely, multi-layer perceptron models, long short-term memory models, and random forest models. The models differ widely in their complexity, input requirements, calibration effort, and run-times. They are tested on four groundwater level time series from the Wairau Aquifer in New Zealand to investigate the potential of the data-driven approaches to outperform the MODFLOW model in predicting individual target wells. Further, we wish to reveal whether the MODFLOW model has advantages in predicting all four wells simultaneously because it can use the available information in a physics-based, integrated manner, or whether structural limitations spoil this effect. Our results demonstrate that data-driven models with low input requirements and short run-times are competitive candidates for local groundwater level predictions even for system states that lie outside the calibration data range. There is no \"single best\" model that performs best in all cases, which motivates ensemble forecasting with different model classes using Bayesian model averaging. The obtained Bayesian model weights clearly favor MODFLOW when targeting all wells simultaneously, even though the competing approaches had the chance to fine-tune for each tested well individually. This is a remarkable result that strengthens the argument for physics-based approaches even for seemingly \"simple\" groundwater level prediction tasks.</p>","PeriodicalId":94022,"journal":{"name":"Ground water","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ground water","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.13487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Groundwater level observations are used as decision variables for aquifer management, often in conjunction with models to provide predictions for operational forecasting. In this study, we compare different model classes for this task: a spatially explicit 3D groundwater flow model (MODFLOW), an eigenmodel, a transfer-function model, and three machine learning models, namely, multi-layer perceptron models, long short-term memory models, and random forest models. The models differ widely in their complexity, input requirements, calibration effort, and run-times. They are tested on four groundwater level time series from the Wairau Aquifer in New Zealand to investigate the potential of the data-driven approaches to outperform the MODFLOW model in predicting individual target wells. Further, we wish to reveal whether the MODFLOW model has advantages in predicting all four wells simultaneously because it can use the available information in a physics-based, integrated manner, or whether structural limitations spoil this effect. Our results demonstrate that data-driven models with low input requirements and short run-times are competitive candidates for local groundwater level predictions even for system states that lie outside the calibration data range. There is no "single best" model that performs best in all cases, which motivates ensemble forecasting with different model classes using Bayesian model averaging. The obtained Bayesian model weights clearly favor MODFLOW when targeting all wells simultaneously, even though the competing approaches had the chance to fine-tune for each tested well individually. This is a remarkable result that strengthens the argument for physics-based approaches even for seemingly "simple" groundwater level prediction tasks.

比较基于物理、概念和机器学习的BMA预测地下水位模型。
地下水位观测被用作含水层管理的决策变量,通常与模型结合使用,为业务预测提供预测。在这项研究中,我们比较了用于该任务的不同模型类别:空间显式三维地下水流动模型(MODFLOW)、特征模型、传递函数模型和三种机器学习模型,即多层感知器模型、长短期记忆模型和随机森林模型。这些模型在复杂性、输入需求、校准工作和运行时间方面差异很大。他们在新西兰Wairau含水层的四个地下水位时间序列上进行了测试,以研究数据驱动方法在预测单个目标井方面优于MODFLOW模型的潜力。此外,我们希望揭示MODFLOW模型在同时预测所有四口井方面是否具有优势,因为它可以以基于物理的综合方式使用现有信息,或者是否结构限制了这种效果。我们的研究结果表明,具有低输入要求和短运行时间的数据驱动模型是当地地下水水位预测的竞争候选人,即使系统状态位于校准数据范围之外。不存在在所有情况下都表现最好的“单一最佳”模型,这激发了使用贝叶斯模型平均的不同模型类别的集成预测。当同时针对所有井时,获得的贝叶斯模型权重显然有利于MODFLOW,尽管竞争方法有机会对每口测试井进行单独微调。这是一个显著的结果,它加强了基于物理的方法的争论,即使对于看似“简单”的地下水位预测任务也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信