the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Enhancing Inverse Modeling in Groundwater Systems through Machine Learning: A Comprehensive Comparative Study
Abstract. Machine learning has significantly improved inverse modeling for groundwater systems. One promising development is the tandem neural network architecture (TNNA), which integrates surrogate modeling and reverse mapping for efficient forward simulations and data assimilation. Although TNNA has shown success in groundwater inverse modeling, its application scenarios remain limited, and its advantages over conventional methods have not been fully explored. This paper aims to address these gaps by comparing the TNNA method with four conventional metaheuristic algorithms: Particle Swarm Optimization, Genetic Algorithm, Simulated Annealing, and Differential Evolution. Two synthetic solute transport numerical cases are designed, with aquifer parameters characterized by low- and high-dimensional scenarios, respectively. The surrogate model is constructed using a deep residual convolutional neural network (ResNet), selected based on a comparative evaluation against three other popular machine learning models. Inversion performance is evaluated based on the accuracy of calibrated hydraulic heads, solute concentrations, and parameter estimation errors. The results demonstrate that the TNNA algorithm yields more reliable inversion results and significantly reduces computational burden across both low- and high-dimensional cases, effectively balancing exploration and exploitation in global optimization. This study highlights the significant advantages of machine learning in advancing groundwater system inversions.
- Preprint
(3337 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(43585 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 17 Feb 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-315', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Jan 2025
reply
General comments
The preprint deals with the analysis of the performance of different machine learning methods in inverse modelling of groundwater system. It compares the TNNA method described in previous papers by the authors' collective (J. Chen et al., 2021) with other machine learning methods and shows significantly better performance of the TNNA method compared to several other methods.
The scientific contribution of the preprint is fair, but not very good. The paper does not introduce a new method, but presents on two selected academic problems the good performance of a previously described method. It uses appropriate procedures and criteria for comparison and the results are presented in a very clear, lucid and convincing manner.
The study is well constructed and executed; its scientific quality is very good but I have one reservation about the chosen methodology that I will describe in the following paragraph.
Â
Specific comments
My only comment on the methodology used in the preprint, which I consider to be significant, is the failure to include measurement error in the test problems used. The optimization problems are well chosen, but the measurements used to calibrate the parameters (inverse modeling) were not burdened with any random error emulating measurement error.
This may have a significant impact on the applicability of the method. In inverse modelling, in practice, we face two types of problems - the lack of ability to fit the measured data and the so-called overfitting of the data consisting in their too accurate replication by the model (by including the measurement error in the model parameters, i.e. damaging them in terms of the ability of further prediction). If the aim of the study was to show possible applicability of TNNA to solution of inverse models of groundwater problems, this feature of the study does not allow to fulfil the intended objective.
Â
Technical corrections
The language of the preprint is clear, I did not notice any specific errors or typos.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-315-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Junjun Chen, 17 Jan 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2024-315/hess-2024-315-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Junjun Chen, 17 Jan 2025
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2024-315', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Jan 2025
reply
While the topic covered could be of interest, using a Gaussian covariance (or double exponential, as it is called in the paper) without any nugget effect renders the comparison exercise a purely academic exercise with little or no practical bearing. Besides the fact that the underlying random function model behind the K-L expansion is the multiGaussian one, another decision that is far from reality.
In summary, for this paper to have any practical interest, the comparison exercise should be performed using a clearly non-multiGaussian random function with the kind of spatial variability one is expected to find in the field, not the unrealistic smooth spatial variability induced by a Gaussian covariance function.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-315-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Junjun Chen, 17 Jan 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2024-315/hess-2024-315-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Junjun Chen, 17 Jan 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
155 | 27 | 6 | 188 | 35 | 6 | 3 |
- HTML: 155
- PDF: 27
- XML: 6
- Total: 188
- Supplement: 35
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1