Comparing Physics‐Based, Conceptual and Machine‐Learning Models to Predict Groundwater Levels by <scp>BMA</scp>

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ground Water
Published
2025-04-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.13487
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Hydrological Forecasting Using AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Anneli Guthke, Markus Kraft, Thomas Wöhling, Alvaro Oliver Crespo Delgadillo
5 citations
Ground Water
Hydrological Forecasting Using AI
4.00
article

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

Anneli Guthke, Markus Kraft, Thomas Wöhling, Alvaro Oliver Crespo Delgadillo
article en
5 citations

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.

Ground WaterVol. 63(4)
University of Stuttgart (DE), Stuttgart Technical University of Applied Sciences (DE), Lincoln Agritech (New Zealand) (NZ), Simulation Technologies (United States) (US), Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Clean water and sanitation
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Hydrological Forecasting Using AI
4.00
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.