Comparison of Multiple Machine Learning Methods for Correcting Groundwater Levels Predicted by Physics-Based Models

Abstract

Accurate groundwater level (GWL) prediction is crucial in groundwater resource management. Currently, it relies mainly on physics-based models for prediction and quantitative analysis. However, physics-based models used for prediction often have errors in structure, parameters, and data, resulting in inaccurate GWL predictions. In this study, machine learning algorithms were used to correct the prediction errors of physics-based models. First, a MODFLOW groundwater flow model was created for the Hutuo River alluvial fan in the North China Plain. Then, using the observed GWLs from 10 monitoring wells located in the upper, middle, and lower parts of the alluvial fan as the test standard, three algorithms—random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and long short-term memory (LSTM)—were compared for their abilities to correct MODFLOW’s predicted GWLs of these 10 wells under two sets of feature variables. The results show that the RF and XGBoost algorithms are not suitable for correcting predicted GWLs that exhibit continuous rising or falling trends, but the LSTM algorithm has the ability to correct them. During the prediction period, the LSTM2 model, which incorporates additional source–sink feature variables based on MODFLOW’s predicted GWLs, can improve the Pearson correlation coefficient (PR) for 80% of wells, with a maximum increase of 1.26 and a minimum increase of 0.02, and can reduce the root mean square error (RMSE) for 100% of the wells with a maximum decrease of 1.59 m and a minimum decrease of 0.17 m. And it also outperforms the MODFLOW model in capturing the long-term trends and short-term seasonal fluctuations of GWLs. However, the correction effect of the LSTM1 model (using only MODFLOW’s predicted GWLs as a feature variable) is inferior to that of the LSTM2 model, indicating that multiple feature variables are superior to a single feature variable. Temporally and spatially, the greater the prediction error of the MODFLOW model, the larger the correction magnitude of the LSTM2 model.