Application of machine learning and deep learning for predicting groundwater levels in the West Coast Aquifer System, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Groundwater models are valuable tools to quantify the response of groundwater level to hydrological stresses induced by climate variability and groundwater extraction. These models strive for sustainable groundwater management by balancing recharge, discharge, and natural processes, with groundwater level serving as a critical response variable. While traditional numerical models are labour-intensive, machine learning and deep learning offer a data-driven alternative, learning from historical data to predict groundwater level variations. The groundwater level in wells is typically recorded as continuous groundwater level time series data and is essential for implementing managed aquifer recharge within a particular region. Machine learning and deep learning are essential tools to generate a data-driven approach to modeling an area, and there is a need to understand if they are the most suitable tools to improve model prediction. To address this objective, the study evaluates two machine learning algorithms - Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM); and two deep learning algorithms - Simple Recurrent Neural Network (SimpleRNN) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) for modeling groundwater level changes in the West Coast Aquifer System of South Africa. Analysis of regression error metrics on the test dataset revealed that SVM outperformed the other models in terms of the root mean square error, whereas random forest had the best performance in terms of the MAE. In the accuracy analysis of predicted groundwater levels, SVM achieved the highest accuracy with an MAE of 0.356 m and an RMSE of 0.372 m. The study concludes that machine learning and deep learning are effective tools for improved modeling and prediction of groundwater level. Further research can incorporate more detailed geologic information of the study area for enhanced interpretation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".