ArticleGround water
Comparing Physics-Based, Conceptual and Machine-Learning Models to Predict Groundwater Levels by BMA.
Article in Ground water. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.