the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
On the challenges of global entity-aware deep learning models for groundwater level prediction
Benedikt Heudorfer
Tanja Liesch
Stefan Broda
Abstract. The application of machine learning (ML) including deep learning models in hydrogeology to model and predict groundwater level in monitoring wells has gained some traction in recent years. By now, the dominant model class is so called single-well models, where one model is trained for each well separately. However, recent developments in neighbouring disciplines including hydrology (rainfall-runoff-modelling) have shown that global models, being able to incorporate data of several wells, may have advantages. These models are often called entity-aware models, as they usually rely on static data to differentiate the entities, i.e. groundwater wells in hydrogeology or catchments in surface hydrology. We test two kinds of static information to characterize the groundwater wells in a global, entity-aware deep learning model setup, first, environmental features that are continuously available and thus theoretically allow spatial generalization (regionalization), and second, timeseries features that are derived from the past time series at the respective well. Moreover, we test random integer features as entity information for comparison. We use a published dataset of 108 groundwater wells in Germany, and evaluate the models’ performances in terms of Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) in an in-sample and an out-of-sample setting, representing temporal and spatial generalization. Our results show, that entity-aware models work well with a mean performance of NSE > 0.8 in an in-sample setting, thus being comparable to, or even outperforming single-well models. However, they do not generalize well spatially in an out-of-sample setting (mean NSE < 0.7, i.e. lower than a global model without entity information). The reason for this potentially lies in the small number of wells in the dataset, which might not be enough to take full advantage of global models. However, also more research is needed to find meaningful static features for ML in hydrogeology.
- Preprint
(1559 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3413 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Benedikt Heudorfer et al.
Status: open (until 01 Nov 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-192', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Sep 2023
reply
The authors have presented an application of machine learning techniques to create a global model of groundwater levels in Germany. They compared two different input model settings: one with static features and one with dynamic features. Additionally, they compared these settings with two reference cases, one with random entity variables and a second without entity variables. Their results indicate that both model settings perform well under in-sample conditions, but their performance diminishes in out-of-sample conditions. The work aligns with the growing trend in this field, introducing entity-aware methods to hydrogeology and yielding promising results. I believe the paper has the potential for publication, but there are some points that need to be addressed before publication.
- Limited Machine Learning Methods Tested: The authors only tested two machine learning methods, LSTM and CNN. There are powerful alternatives like Transformers, which have outperformed LSTM in other studies (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2023.101833). LSTM models are designed for handling transient conditions, whereas CNNs are adapted to do so. There are various other methods like extreme gradient boosting that have been applied in hydrogeology that can be a powerful alternative to CNN (cite: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.119745, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08695-3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151065). The authors should explain why they chose not to explore more advanced models before attributing out-of-sampling prediction issues to dataset limitations.
- Data Fusion Method Comparison: In Line 164, the authors propose a new data fusion method. Did they compare this method to existing methods to demonstrate its benefits and limitations? Comparing it to cited methods would provide valuable insights.
- Introduction: The introduction lacks a description of the study area, which should be addressed since the model applies to a single case study. Adding a figure depicting the study area and well distribution would enhance the paper's context.
- Well data selection (Line 104): Quantitatively explain what "spatial coverage as representative as possible" means. Clarify if there is a minimum distance between wells, data density per area, or any specific criteria used for well selection. Provide the original dataset size from which data was picked.
- Upscaling (Line 136): Elaborate on the importance of not having too fine-grained categorical data. Describe the upscaling process and how the authors ensured that each category is correctly represented. Provide references or explore the effect of upscaling on training and prediction.
- MLP Classifier (Line 168): Explain the advantages of adding an MLP classifier rather than providing static features directly. Address concerns about uncertainty propagation due to MLP output in the concatenation.
- MLP Output Nodes (Line 170): Specify the number of output nodes in the MLP.
- Validation MSE (Figure 2): Explain the phenomenon where the validation MSE is smaller than the training MSE, especially in the initial epochs. This could indicate a bias in the validation dataset, and clarification is needed.
- Feature Importance (Line 245): Suggest using the SHAP method (Lundeberg and Lee, 2017, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.07874) for more stable feature ranking, as it has been used effectively in similar studies (Ransom et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151065).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-192-RC1
Benedikt Heudorfer et al.
Benedikt Heudorfer et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
293 | 64 | 9 | 366 | 15 | 3 | 4 |
- HTML: 293
- PDF: 64
- XML: 9
- Total: 366
- Supplement: 15
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1