Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40256895›Full record

ArticleGround water

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

Thomas Wöhling, Alvaro Oliver Crespo Delgadillo, Moritz Kraft, Anneli Guthke

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alvaro Oliver Crespo DelgadilloChair of Hydrology, Dresden University of Technology (TUD), 01069, Dresden, Germany.
Moritz KraftChair of Hydrology, Dresden University of Technology (TUD), 01069, Dresden, Germany.
Anneli GuthkeUniversity of Stuttgart, Stuttgart Center for Simulation Science (SC SimTech), 70569, Stuttgart, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft EXC 2075 390740016Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment 1964-MLDC149
6 · The paper itself

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

Environmental MonitoringGroundwaterMachine LearningModels, TheoreticalForecastingNew ZealandWater Movements

Identifiers

PMID40256895
PMCPMC12272009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.