4.6 Article

Groundwater level prediction in arid areas using wavelet analysis and Gaussian process regression

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19942060.2021.1944913

Keywords

Groundwater level prediction; hydrological model; Gaussian process regression; support vector; artificial intelligence; machine learning

Funding

  1. TU Dresden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Utilizing different models and wavelet transformations for predicting groundwater levels in arid regions shows that hybrid models have higher accuracy, especially the SVR model using Symlet wavelets.
Utilizing new approaches to accurately predict groundwater level (GWL) in arid regions is of vital importance. In this study, support vector regression (SVR), Gaussian process regression (GPR), and their combination with wavelet transformation (named wavelet-support vector regression (W-SVR) and wavelet-Gaussian process regression (W-GPR)) are used to forecast groundwater level in Semnan plain (arid area) for the next month. Three different wavelet transformations, namely Haar, db4, and Symlet, are tested. Four statistical metrics, namely root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), coefficient of determination (R (2)), and Nah-Sutcliffe efficiency (NS), are used to evaluate performance of different methods. The results reveal that SVR with RMSE of 0.04790 (m), MAPE of 0.00199%, R (2) of 0.99995, and NS of 0.99988 significantly outperforms GPR with RMSE of 0.55439 (m), MAPE of 0.04363%, R2 of 0.99264, and NS of 0.98413. Besides, the hybrid W-GPR-1 model (i.e. GPR with Harr wavelet) remarkably improves the accuracy of GWL prediction compared to GPR. Finally, the hybrid W-SVR-3 model (i.e. SVR with Symlet) provides the best GWL prediction with RMSE, MAPE, R2, and NS of 0.01290 (m), 0.00079%, 0.99999, and 0.99999, respectively. Overall, the findings indicate that hybrid models can accurately predict GWL in arid regions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available