Articles | Volume 25, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1671-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1671-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
01 Apr 2021
Research article |
| 01 Apr 2021
| 01 Apr 2021
Groundwater level forecasting with artificial neural networks: a comparison of long short-term memory (LSTM), convolutional neural networks (CNNs), and non-linear autoregressive networks with exogenous input (NARX)
Hydrogeology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute of Applied Geosciences, Kaiserstr. 12, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
Tanja Liesch
Hydrogeology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute of Applied Geosciences, Kaiserstr. 12, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
Stefan Broda
Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Wilhelmstr. 25–30, 13593 Berlin, Germany
Related authors
Raoul A. Collenteur, Ezra Haaf, Mark Bakker, Tanja Liesch, Andreas Wunsch, Jenny Soonthornrangsan, Jeremy White, Nick Martin, Rui Hugman, Ed de Sousa, Didier Vanden Berghe, Xinyang Fan, Tim J. Peterson, Jānis Bikše, Antoine Di Ciacca, Xinyue Wang, Yang Zheng, Maximilian Nölscher, Julian Koch, Raphael Schneider, Nikolas Benavides Höglund, Sivarama Krishna Reddy Chidepudi, Abel Henriot, Nicolas Massei, Abderrahim Jardani, Max Gustav Rudolph, Amir Rouhani, J. Jaime Gómez-Hernández, Seifeddine Jomaa, Anna Pölz, Tim Franken, Morteza Behbooei, Jimmy Lin, and Rojin Meysami
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 5193–5208, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-5193-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-5193-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We show the results of the 2022 Groundwater Time Series Modelling Challenge; 15 teams applied data-driven models to simulate hydraulic heads, and three model groups were identified: lumped, machine learning, and deep learning. For all wells, reasonable performance was obtained by at least one team from each group. There was not one team that performed best for all wells. In conclusion, the challenge was a successful initiative to compare different models and learn from each other.
Andreas Wunsch, Tanja Liesch, and Nico Goldscheider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2167–2178, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2167-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2167-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Seasons have a strong influence on groundwater levels, but relationships are complex and partly unknown. Using data from wells in Germany and an explainable machine learning approach, we showed that summer precipitation is the key factor that controls the severeness of a low-water period in fall; high summer temperatures do not per se cause stronger decreases. Preceding winters have only a minor influence on such low-water periods in general.
Guillaume Cinkus, Naomi Mazzilli, Hervé Jourde, Andreas Wunsch, Tanja Liesch, Nataša Ravbar, Zhao Chen, and Nico Goldscheider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2397–2411, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2397-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2397-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Kling–Gupta Efficiency (KGE) is a performance criterion extensively used to evaluate hydrological models. We conduct a critical study on the KGE and its variant to examine counterbalancing errors. Results show that, when assessing a simulation, concurrent over- and underestimation of discharge can lead to an overall higher criterion score without an associated increase in model relevance. We suggest that one carefully choose performance criteria and use scaling factors.
Guillaume Cinkus, Andreas Wunsch, Naomi Mazzilli, Tanja Liesch, Zhao Chen, Nataša Ravbar, Joanna Doummar, Jaime Fernández-Ortega, Juan Antonio Barberá, Bartolomé Andreo, Nico Goldscheider, and Hervé Jourde
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1961–1985, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1961-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1961-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Numerous modelling approaches can be used for studying karst water resources, which can make it difficult for a stakeholder or researcher to choose the appropriate method. We conduct a comparison of two widely used karst modelling approaches: artificial neural networks (ANNs) and reservoir models. Results show that ANN models are very flexible and seem great for reproducing high flows. Reservoir models can work with relatively short time series and seem to accurately reproduce low flows.
Marc Ohmer, Tanja Liesch, and Andreas Wunsch
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4033–4053, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4033-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4033-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present a data-driven approach to select optimal locations for groundwater monitoring wells. The applied approach can optimize the number of wells and their location for a network reduction (by ranking wells in order of their information content and reducing redundant) and extension (finding sites with great information gain) or both. It allows us to include a cost function to account for more/less suitable areas for new wells and can help to obtain maximum information content for a budget.
Andreas Wunsch, Tanja Liesch, Guillaume Cinkus, Nataša Ravbar, Zhao Chen, Naomi Mazzilli, Hervé Jourde, and Nico Goldscheider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2405–2430, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2405-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2405-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Modeling complex karst water resources is difficult enough, but often there are no or too few climate stations available within or close to the catchment to deliver input data for modeling purposes. We apply image recognition algorithms to time-distributed, spatially gridded meteorological data to simulate karst spring discharge. Our models can also learn the approximate catchment location of a spring independently.
Fabienne Doll, Tanja Liesch, Maria Wetzel, Stefan Kunz, and Stefan Broda
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3539, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3539, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
With the growing use of machine learning for groundwater level (GWL) prediction, proper performance estimation is crucial. This study compares three validation strategies—blocked cross-validation (bl-CV), repeated out-of-sample (repOOS), and out-of-sample (OOS)—for 1D-CNN models using meteorological inputs. Results show that bl-CV offers the most reliable performance estimates, while OOS is the most uncertain, highlighting the need for careful method selection.
Marc Ohmer, Tanja Liesch, Bastian Habbel, Benedikt Heudorfer, Mariana Gomez, Patrick Clos, Maximilian Nölscher, and Stefan Broda
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-321, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-321, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
We present a public dataset of weekly groundwater levels from more than 3,000 wells across Germany, spanning 32 years. It combines weather data and site-specific environmental information to support forecasting groundwater changes. Three benchmark models of varying complexity show how data and modeling approaches influence predictions. This resource promotes open, reproducible research and helps guide future water management decisions.
Stefan Kunz, Alexander Schulz, Maria Wetzel, Maximilian Nölscher, Teodor Chiaburu, Felix Biessmann, and Stefan Broda
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 3405–3433, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3405-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3405-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate groundwater level predictions are crucial for sustainable management. This study applies two machine learning models – Neural Hierarchical Interpolation for Time Series Forecasting (N-HiTS) and the Temporal Fusion Transformer (TFT) – to forecast seasonal groundwater levels for 5288 wells across Germany. N-HiTS outperformed TFT, with both models performing well in diverse hydrogeological settings, particularly in lowlands with distinct seasonal dynamics.
Raoul A. Collenteur, Ezra Haaf, Mark Bakker, Tanja Liesch, Andreas Wunsch, Jenny Soonthornrangsan, Jeremy White, Nick Martin, Rui Hugman, Ed de Sousa, Didier Vanden Berghe, Xinyang Fan, Tim J. Peterson, Jānis Bikše, Antoine Di Ciacca, Xinyue Wang, Yang Zheng, Maximilian Nölscher, Julian Koch, Raphael Schneider, Nikolas Benavides Höglund, Sivarama Krishna Reddy Chidepudi, Abel Henriot, Nicolas Massei, Abderrahim Jardani, Max Gustav Rudolph, Amir Rouhani, J. Jaime Gómez-Hernández, Seifeddine Jomaa, Anna Pölz, Tim Franken, Morteza Behbooei, Jimmy Lin, and Rojin Meysami
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 5193–5208, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-5193-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-5193-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We show the results of the 2022 Groundwater Time Series Modelling Challenge; 15 teams applied data-driven models to simulate hydraulic heads, and three model groups were identified: lumped, machine learning, and deep learning. For all wells, reasonable performance was obtained by at least one team from each group. There was not one team that performed best for all wells. In conclusion, the challenge was a successful initiative to compare different models and learn from each other.
Mariana Gomez, Maximilian Nölscher, Andreas Hartmann, and Stefan Broda
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4407–4425, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4407-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4407-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To understand the impact of external factors on groundwater level modelling using a 1-D convolutional neural network (CNN) model, we train, validate, and tune individual CNN models for 505 wells distributed across Lower Saxony, Germany. We then evaluate the performance of these models against available geospatial and time series features. This study provides new insights into the relationship between these factors and the accuracy of groundwater modelling.
Andreas Wunsch, Tanja Liesch, and Nico Goldscheider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2167–2178, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2167-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2167-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Seasons have a strong influence on groundwater levels, but relationships are complex and partly unknown. Using data from wells in Germany and an explainable machine learning approach, we showed that summer precipitation is the key factor that controls the severeness of a low-water period in fall; high summer temperatures do not per se cause stronger decreases. Preceding winters have only a minor influence on such low-water periods in general.
Benedikt Heudorfer, Tanja Liesch, and Stefan Broda
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 525–543, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-525-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-525-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We build a neural network to predict groundwater levels from monitoring wells. We predict all wells at the same time, by learning the differences between wells with static features, making it an entity-aware global model. This works, but we also test different static features and find that the model does not use them to learn exactly how the wells are different, but only to uniquely identify them. As this model class is not actually entity aware, we suggest further steps to make it so.
Guillaume Cinkus, Naomi Mazzilli, Hervé Jourde, Andreas Wunsch, Tanja Liesch, Nataša Ravbar, Zhao Chen, and Nico Goldscheider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2397–2411, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2397-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2397-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Kling–Gupta Efficiency (KGE) is a performance criterion extensively used to evaluate hydrological models. We conduct a critical study on the KGE and its variant to examine counterbalancing errors. Results show that, when assessing a simulation, concurrent over- and underestimation of discharge can lead to an overall higher criterion score without an associated increase in model relevance. We suggest that one carefully choose performance criteria and use scaling factors.
Guillaume Cinkus, Andreas Wunsch, Naomi Mazzilli, Tanja Liesch, Zhao Chen, Nataša Ravbar, Joanna Doummar, Jaime Fernández-Ortega, Juan Antonio Barberá, Bartolomé Andreo, Nico Goldscheider, and Hervé Jourde
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1961–1985, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1961-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1961-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Numerous modelling approaches can be used for studying karst water resources, which can make it difficult for a stakeholder or researcher to choose the appropriate method. We conduct a comparison of two widely used karst modelling approaches: artificial neural networks (ANNs) and reservoir models. Results show that ANN models are very flexible and seem great for reproducing high flows. Reservoir models can work with relatively short time series and seem to accurately reproduce low flows.
Marc Ohmer, Tanja Liesch, and Andreas Wunsch
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4033–4053, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4033-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4033-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present a data-driven approach to select optimal locations for groundwater monitoring wells. The applied approach can optimize the number of wells and their location for a network reduction (by ranking wells in order of their information content and reducing redundant) and extension (finding sites with great information gain) or both. It allows us to include a cost function to account for more/less suitable areas for new wells and can help to obtain maximum information content for a budget.
Andreas Wunsch, Tanja Liesch, Guillaume Cinkus, Nataša Ravbar, Zhao Chen, Naomi Mazzilli, Hervé Jourde, and Nico Goldscheider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2405–2430, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2405-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2405-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Modeling complex karst water resources is difficult enough, but often there are no or too few climate stations available within or close to the catchment to deliver input data for modeling purposes. We apply image recognition algorithms to time-distributed, spatially gridded meteorological data to simulate karst spring discharge. Our models can also learn the approximate catchment location of a spring independently.
Cited articles
Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., Brevdo, E., Chen, Z., Citro, C., Corrado,
G. S., Davis, A., Dean, J., Devin, M., Ghemawat, S., Goodfellow, I., Harp,
A., Irving, G., Isard, M., Jia, Y., Jozefowicz, R., Kaiser, L., Kudlur, M.,
Levenberg, J., Mane, D., Monga, R., Moore, S., Murray, D., Olah, C.,
Schuster, M., Shlens, J., Steiner, B., Sutskever, I., Talwar, K., Tucker, P.,
Vanhoucke, V., Vasudevan, V., Viegas, F., Vinyals, O., Warden, P.,
Wattenberg, M., Wicke, M., Yu, Y., and Zheng, X.: TensorFlow:
Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems, p. 19, available at: https://www.tensorflow.org/ (last access: 30 March 2021), 2015. a
Adamowski, J. and Chan, H. F.: A Wavelet Neural Network Conjunction Model for
Groundwater Level Forecasting, J. Hydrol., 407, 28–40,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.06.013, 2011. a
Afzaal, H., Farooque, A. A., Abbas, F., Acharya, B., and Esau, T.: Groundwater Estimation from Major Physical Hydrology Components Using Artificial Neural Networks and Deep Learning, Water, 12, 5, https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010005, 2020. a, b, c
Alsumaiei, A. A.: A Nonlinear Autoregressive Modeling Approach for
Forecasting Groundwater Level Fluctuation in Urban Aquifers, Water,
12, 820, https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030820, 2020. a
Beale, H. M., Hagan, M. T., and Demuth, H. B.: Neural Network
ToolboxTM User's Guide: Revised for Version 9.1 (Release 2016b), The MathWorks, Inc., available at:
https://de.mathworks.com/help/releases/R2016b/nnet/index.html (last access: 30 March 2021), 2016. a
Bengio, Y., Simard, P., and Frasconi, P.: Learning Long-Term Dependencies with Gradient Descent Is Difficult, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw., 5, 157–166,
https://doi.org/10.1109/72.279181, 1994. a, b
Bowes, B. D., Sadler, J. M., Morsy, M. M., Behl, M., and Goodall, J. L.:
Forecasting Groundwater Table in a Flood Prone Coastal City with
Long Short-Term Memory and Recurrent Neural Networks, Water, 11,
1098, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051098, 2019. a
Chang, F.-J., Chang, L.-C., Huang, C.-W., and Kao, I.-F.: Prediction of Monthly Regional Groundwater Levels through Hybrid Soft-Computing Techniques, J. Hydrol., 541, 965–976, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.006, 2016. a
Chen, Y., Kang, Y., Chen, Y., and Wang, Z.: Probabilistic Forecasting with
Temporal Convolutional Neural Network, Neurocomputing, 399, 491–501,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.03.011, 2020. a
Chollet, F.: Keras, Keras, GitHub, available at: https://github.com/fchollet/keras (last access: 30 March 2021), 2015. a
Di Nunno, F. and Granata, F.: Groundwater Level Prediction in Apulia Region (Southern Italy) Using NARX Neural Network, Environ. Res., 190, 110062, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110062, 2020. a
Duan, S., Ullrich, P., and Shu, L.: Using Convolutional Neural Networks for Streamflow Projection in California, Front. Water, 2, 28, https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2020.00028, 2020. a
Fang, K., Pan, M., and Shen, C.: The Value of SMAP for Long-Term Soil Moisture Estimation With the Help of Deep Learning, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote, 57, 2221–2233, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2018.2872131, 2019. a
Fang, K., Kifer, D., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: Evaluating the Potential and Challenges of an Uncertainty Quantification Method for Long
Short-Term Memory Models for Soil Moisture Predictions, Water
Resour. Res., 56, e2020WR028095, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028095, 2020. a
FAO: The Wealth of Waste: The Economics of Wastewater Use in Agriculture,
no. 35 in FAO Water Reports, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, 2010. a
Frick, C., Steiner, H., Mazurkiewicz, A., Riediger, U., Rauthe, M., Reich, T., and Gratzki, A.: Central European High-Resolution Gridded Daily Data Sets (HYRAS): Mean Temperature and Relative Humidity, Meteorol. Z., 23, 15–32, https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2014/0560, 2014. a, b
Gauch, M., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Nearing, G., Lin, J., and Hochreiter, S.: Rainfall–Runoff Prediction at Multiple Timescales with a Single Long Short-Term Memory Network, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2020-540, in review, 2020. a
Gauch, M., Mai, J., and Lin, J.: The Proper Care and Feeding of
CAMELS: How Limited Training Data Affects Streamflow Prediction,
Environ. Model. Softw., 135, 104926, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104926, 2021. a, b
Gers, F. A., Schmidhuber, J., and Cummins, F.: Learning to Forget:
Continual Prediction with LSTM, Neural Comput., 12, 2451–2471,
https://doi.org/10.1162/089976600300015015, 2000. a
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., and Courville, A.: Deep Learning, Adaptive
Computation and Machine Learning, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2016. a
Guzman, S. M., Paz, J. O., and Tagert, M. L. M.: The Use of NARX Neural
Networks to Forecast Daily Groundwater Levels, Water Resour. Manage., 31, 1591–1603, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1598-5, 2017. a
Guzman, S. M., Paz, J. O., Tagert, M. L. M., and Mercer, A. E.: Evaluation of
Seasonally Classified Inputs for the Prediction of Daily Groundwater Levels: NARX Networks Vs Support Vector Machines, Environ.
Model. Assess., 24, 223–234, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-018-9639-x, 2019. a
Hasda, R., Rahaman, M. F., Jahan, C. S., Molla, K. I., and Mazumder, Q. H.:
Climatic Data Analysis for Groundwater Level Simulation in Drought Prone
Barind Tract, Bangladesh: Modelling Approach Using Artificial
Neural Network, Groundwater Sustain. Dev., 10, 100361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100361, 2020. a
Hochreiter, S. and Schmidhuber, J.: Long Short-Term Memory, Neural
Comput., 9, 1735–1780, https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735, 1997. a, b, c
Hunter, J. D.: Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90–95, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55, 2007. a
Izady, A., Davary, K., Alizadeh, A., Moghaddamnia, A., Ziaei, A. N., and
Hasheminia, S. M.: Application of NN-ARX Model to Predict Groundwater Levels in the Neishaboor Plain, Iran, Water Resour.
Manage., 27, 4773–4794, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0432-y, 2013. a
Jakeman, A. J. and Hornberger, G. M.: How Much Complexity Is Warranted in a
Rainfall-Runoff Model?, Water Resour. Res., 29, 2637–2649, https://doi.org/10.1029/93WR00877, 1993. a
Jeihouni, E., Mohammadi, M., Eslamian, S., and Zareian, M. J.: Potential
Impacts of Climate Change on Groundwater Level through Hybrid Soft-Computing
Methods: A Case Study–Shabestar Plain, Iran, Environ. Monit. Assess., 191, 620, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7784-6, 2019. a
Jeong, J. and Park, E.: Comparative Applications of Data-Driven Models
Representing Water Table Fluctuations, J. Hydrol., 572, 261–273,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.02.051, 2019. a, b, c
Jeong, J., Park, E., Chen, H., Kim, K.-Y., Shik Han, W., and Suk, H.:
Estimation of Groundwater Level Based on the Robust Training of Recurrent
Neural Networks Using Corrupted Data, J. Hydrol., 582, 124512, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124512, 2020. a
Klotz, D., Kratzert, F., Gauch, M., Sampson, A., Klambauer, G., Hochreiter, S., and Nearing, G.: Uncertainty Estimation with Deep Learning for
Rainfall-Runoff Modelling, arXiv: preprint, https://doi.org/10.31223/X5JS4T, 2020. a
Kong-A-Siou, L., Fleury, P., Johannet, A., Borrell Estupina, V., Pistre, S.,
and Dörfliger, N.: Performance and Complementarity of Two Systemic Models
(Reservoir and Neural Networks) Used to Simulate Spring Discharge and
Piezometry for a Karst Aquifer, J. Hydrol., 519, 3178–3192, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.041, 2014. a
Kraft, B., Jung, M., Körner, M., and Reichstein, M.: Hybrid Modeling:
Fusion of a Deep Learning Approach and a Physics-Based Model
for Global Hydrological Modeling, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
Spatial Inf. Sci., XLIII-B2-2020, 1537–1544, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B2-2020-1537-2020, 2020. a
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Brenner, C., Schulz, K., and Herrnegger, M.: Rainfall–runoff modelling using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 6005–6022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6005-2018, 2018. a
Kratzert, F., Herrnegger, M., Klotz, D., Hochreiter, S., and Klambauer, G.:
NeuralHydrology – Interpreting LSTMs in Hydrology, arXiv: preprint, arXiv:1903.07903 [physics, stat], 2019a. a
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Shalev, G., Klambauer, G., Hochreiter, S., and Nearing, G.: Towards learning universal, regional, and local hydrological behaviors via machine learning applied to large-sample datasets, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 5089–5110, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5089-2019, 2019b. a
Lähivaara, T., Malehmir, A., Pasanen, A., Kärkkäinen, L., Huttunen, J. M. J., and Hesthaven, J. S.: Estimation of Groundwater Storage from Seismic Data Using Deep Learning, Geophys. Prospect., 67, 2115–2126,
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12831, 2019. a
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., and Hinton, G.: Deep Learning, Nature, 521, 436–444,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539, 2015. a
Lin, T., Horne, B. G., Tiño, P., and Giles, C. L.: Learning Long-Term
Dependencies in NARX Recurrent Neural Networks, IEEE T. Neural Netw., 7, 1329–1338, 1996a. a
Lin, T., Horne, B. G., Tiño, P., and Giles, C. L.: Learning Long-Term
Dependencies Is Not as Difficult with NARX Networks, in: Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems, MIT Press, Denver, Colorado, 577–583, 1996b. a
Lin, T., Horne, B. G., and Giles, C. L.: How Embedded Memory in Recurrent
Neural Network Architectures Helps Learning Long-Term Temporal Dependencies,
Neural Networks, 11, 861–868, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-6080(98)00018-5, 1998. a
LUBW: Hydrogeologischer Bau Und Hydraulische Eigenschaften –
9INTERREG III A-Projekt MoNit “Modellierung Der
Grundwasserbelastung Durch Nitrat Im Oberrheingraben”/Structure Hydrogéologique et Caractéristiques Hydrauliques – 9INTERREG III A: MoNit “Modélisation de La Pollution Des Eaux Souterraines Par Les Nitrates Dans La Vallée Du Rhin Supérieur”, Tech. rep., LUBW, available at:
https://www4.lubw.baden-wuerttemberg.de/servlet/is/18633/monit_hydrogeologischer_bau.pdf?command=downloadContent&filename=monit_hydrogeologischer_bau.pdf
(last access: 11 June 2019), 2006. a, b
Maier, H. R., Jain, A., Dandy, G. C., and Sudheer, K.: Methods Used for the
Development of Neural Networks for the Prediction of Water Resource Variables
in River Systems: Current Status and Future Directions, Environ. Model. Softw., 25, 891–909, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.02.003, 2010. a
Mathworks Inc.: Matlab 2020a, The MathWorks Inc., 2020. a
McKinney, W.: Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python, in: Python in Science Conference, Austin, Texas,
56–61, https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a, 2010. a
Moghaddamnia, A., Remesan, R., Kashani, M. H., Mohammadi, M., Han, D., and
Piri, J.: Comparison of LLR, MLP, Elman, NNARX and ANFIS
Models – with a Case Study in Solar Radiation Estimation, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phy., 71, 975–982, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2009.04.009, 2009. a
Müller, J., Park, J., Sahu, R., Varadharajan, C., Arora, B., Faybishenko,
B., and Agarwal, D.: Surrogate Optimization of Deep Neural Networks for
Groundwater Predictions, J. Glob. Optim., https://doi.org/0.1007/s10898-020-00912-0, in press, 2020. a, b, c, d
Nogueira, F.: Bayesian Optimization: Open Source Constrained Global
Optimization Tool for Python, GitHub, available at: https://github.com/fmfn/BayesianOptimization (last access: 15 April 2020), 2014. a
Pan, M., Zhou, H., Cao, J., Liu, Y., Hao, J., Li, S., and Chen, C.-H.: Water
Level Prediction Model Based on GRU and CNN, IEEE Access, 8,
60090–60100, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2982433, 2020. a
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel,
O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J.,
Passos, A., and Cournapeau, D.: Scikit-Learn: Machine Learning in
Python, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12, 2825–2830, 2011. a
Rahmani, F., Lawson, K., Ouyang, W., Appling, A., Oliver, S., and Shen, C.:
Exploring the Exceptional Performance of a Deep Learning Stream Temperature
Model and the Value of Streamflow Data, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 024025, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd501, 2021. a
Rajaee, T., Ebrahimi, H., and Nourani, V.: A review of the artificial intelligence methods in groundwater level modeling, 572, 336–351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.037, 2019. a
Rauthe, M., Steiner, H., Riediger, U., Mazurkiewicz, A., and Gratzki, A.: A
Central European Precipitation Climatology – Part I:
Generation and Validation of a High-Resolution Gridded Daily Data Set
(HYRAS), Meteorol. Z., 22, 235–256, https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0436, 2013. a, b
Reback, J., McKinney, W., Jbrockmendel, Bossche, J. V. D., Augspurger, T.,
Cloud, P., Gfyoung, Sinhrks, Klein, A., Roeschke, M., Hawkins, S., Tratner,
J., She, C., Ayd, W., Petersen, T., Garcia, M., Schendel, J., Hayden, A.,
MomIsBestFriend, Jancauskas, V., Battiston, P., Seabold, S., Chris-B1,
H-Vetinari, Hoyer, S., Overmeire, W., Alimcmaster, Dong, K., Whelan, C.,
and Mehyar, M.: Pandas-Dev/Pandas: Pandas 1.0.3, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3509134, 2020. a
Région Alsace – Strasbourg: Bestandsaufnahme Der Grundwasserqualität Im Oberrheingraben/Inventaire de La Qualité Des Eaux Souterraines Dans La Vallée Du Rhin Supérieur, available at: https://www.ermes-rhin.eu/uploads/pdf/acces-libres/Resultats-INV1997.pdf
(last access: 31 March 2021), 1999. a
Shen, C.: A Transdisciplinary Review of Deep Learning Research and
Its Relevance for Water Resources Scientists, Water Resour. Res., 54,
8558–8593, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022643, 2018. a, b
Sudheer, K. P., Nayak, P. C., and Ramasastri, K. S.: Improving Peak Flow
Estimates in Artificial Neural Network River Flow Models, Hydrol. Process., 17, 677–686, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5103, 2003. a
Supreetha, B. S., Shenoy, N., and Nayak, P.: Lion Algorithm-Optimized
Long Short-Term Memory Network for Groundwater Level Forecasting in
Udupi District, India, Appl. Comput. Intel. Soft Comput.g, 2020, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8685724, 2020. a
UNESCO: World's Groundwater Resources Are Suffering from Poor Governance, available at:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/worlds_groundwater_resources_are_suffering_from_poor_gove/
(last access: 31 March 2021), 2012.
a
van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., and Varoquaux, G.: The NumPy Array: A
Structure for Efficient Numerical Computation, Comput. Sci. Eng., 13,
22–30, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.37, 2011. a
Wunsch, A.:
AndreasWunsch/Groundwater-Level-Forecasting-with-ANNs-A-Comparison-of-LSTM-CNN-and-NARX,
GitHub repository, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4018722, 2020. a
Wunsch, A., Liesch, T., and Broda, S.: Forecasting Groundwater Levels Using
Nonlinear Autoregressive Networks with Exogenous Input (NARX), J.
Hydrol., 567, 743–758, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.045, 2018. a
Zhang, J., Zhu, Y., Zhang, X., Ye, M., and Yang, J.: Developing a Long
Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Based Model for Predicting Water Table
Depth in Agricultural Areas, J. Hydrol., 561, 918–929, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.04.065, 2018. a
Zhang, J., Zhang, X., Niu, J., Hu, B. X., Soltanian, M. R., Qiu, H., and Yang, L.: Prediction of Groundwater Level in Seashore Reclaimed Land Using Wavelet and Artificial Neural Network-Based Hybrid Model, J. Hydrol., 577,
123948, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.123948, 2019. a
