Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 103 references

Alternate Groundwater Modelling Strategies: A Multi-Faceted Data-Driven Approach

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A VAR(4) model using only temperature and precipitation can forecast groundwater level at Patyapura with absolute percentage error below 5% for 11 consecutive quarters, slightly less than the 12 quarters reported for an LSTM.

desk verdict Useful applied groundwater study undermined by an unspecified shelf-life regression and a Granger causality test that reads backward; the empirical CDD map is the most defensible part. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24235 v1 pith:6HFHQ5KA submitted 2025-05-30 stat.AP stat.COstat.ML

Muralidharan K. , Agniva Das , Shrey Pandya , Jong Min Kim This is my paper
classification stat.APstat.COstat.ML MSC 62M1062H0562P12
keywords groundwaterlevelforecastingvectorautoregressionmodelshelf-lifecopuladirectionaldependenceLSTMcomparisonquarterlyclimatedataspatialnetworkVadodaraandChhotaUdaipurwells
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a conventional vector autoregression with four quarterly lags, fed only temperature and precipitation from public records, can forecast groundwater level at Patyapura station with mean absolute percentage error below 5% for 11 quarters (33 months), a horizon just short of the 12 quarters the authors report for an LSTM. It introduces “model shelf-life” as a validation metric: the number of periods a model can forecast without retraining while staying under a chosen error threshold, estimated here by regressing out-of-sample errors on time since training and reading the 5% crossing. For spatial structure, the paper applies copula directional dependence to groundwater levels at 64 wells in two Indian districts and reports many station pairs with directional dependence above 0.95, mostly bidirectional, with six stations acting as dependency hubs. If these results hold, minimal open-source climate data and classical statistical tools are enough for multi-year groundwater forecasting and for choosing a small set of wells to monitor regional behaviour.

What carries the argument

Three objects carry the argument. First, the vector autoregression VAR(4): a simultaneous linear model in which groundwater level, temperature, and precipitation are each regressed on four quarterly lags of all three series, with lag length chosen unanimously by AIC, BIC, HQIC, and FPE. Second, copula directional dependence (CDD): an asymmetric measure of how much of one well's groundwater-level variance is explained by the copula regression of that level on another well's level, estimated here by Gaussian-copula beta regression after a probability integral transform to standard normality. Third, model shelf-life: the number of quarters out-of-sample absolute percentage error is expected to stay below 5%, obtained by fitting a regression line through out-of-sample errors as a function of time since training and locating where the line crosses 5%.

What would settle it

Recompute the same VAR(4) and LSTM out-of-sample absolute percentage errors on a fresh holdout from the same public quarterly data, and estimate shelf-life under several regression forms (linear, log-linear, robust) with uncertainty bands; if the VAR crossing point moves well away from 11 quarters or the LSTM ordering flips, the specific shelf-life claim fails. A field version would track the Patyapura forecast errors for the next 11 quarters after training and check whether they actually stay below 5%.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a VAR(4) fitted to 59 quarterly observations of water level, temperature, and precipitation at Patyapura passes standard residual diagnostics (Portmanteau p = 0.1163, ARCH p = 0.7252, no rejected normality) and produces out-of-sample absolute percentage errors below 5% for 11 consecutive quarters; the companion vanilla LSTM is estimated to stay below 5% for 12 quarters. The paper reads this as evidence that a simple, interpretable statistical model fed only common meteorological variables can compete with deep learning on forecasting horizon. Spatially, copula directional dependence values above 0.95 across the 64-well network reveal mostly bidirectional station pairs, and six stations—Vadtalav, Makni, Amreshwar, Segwa Chowki, Vadodara, and Handod—carry the largest number of strong dependencies; the paper attributes the longest-range links to shared aquifers or similar elevations, and boundary-proximity hubs to district-edge locations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that “model shelf-life” is well defined by a single regression line through out-of-sample absolute percentage errors against time since training, with a 5% cutoff; the paper does not specify the regression form, the number of points, or the uncertainty around the crossing point, so the headline 11-quarter and 12-quarter numbers could shift under a different but equally plausible specification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If shelf-life estimates hold, a single training run supports roughly 11 quarters (VAR) to 12 quarters (LSTM) of acceptable groundwater forecasts, reducing how often a model must be refit.
  • Quarterly temperature and precipitation alone are enough for useful forecasts at Patyapura, lowering the data and computational barrier compared with numerical groundwater models.
  • The CDD map identifies Vadtalav, Makni, Amreshwar, Segwa Chowki, Vadodara, and Handod as dependency hubs, so monitoring these stations may summarize regional groundwater behaviour.
  • The mostly bidirectional dependencies above 0.95 imply strong co-movement among the 64 wells, favouring network-based or interpolated forecasting across the region.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the 11-versus-12-quarter shelf-life gap is likely within the uncertainty of the un-specified regression, so the two models may be statistically indistinguishable; a fair comparison needs confidence intervals around both crossing points.
  • Editorial inference: if hub stations really summarize regional dynamics, one should be able to forecast non-hub well levels from hub series alone; testing that would turn the CDD result into a sparse-monitoring design.
  • Editorial inference: CDD values near 0.99 may partly reflect shared seasonal cycles and common geology rather than direct hydraulic connection; applying the same copula analysis to synthetic series with known dependence would calibrate the 0.95 threshold.
  • Editorial inference: model shelf-life could be converted into an operational rule—retrain only when a running forecast error crosses 5%—and the paper's regression gives an expected retraining interval that field data could verify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes quarterly groundwater level, temperature, and precipitation data from the Patyapura station in Vadodara, Gujarat, spanning roughly 2000 through Q1 2021. It fits a VAR(4) model, applies various diagnostics (Portmanteau, ARCH, normality, CUSUM), reports impulse response and forecast error variance decompositions, and compares the VAR against an LSTM using a proposed 'model shelf-life' metric; it also applies copula directional dependence (CDD) to groundwater levels from 64 wells in Vadodara and Chhota Udaipur. The central claims are that the VAR has an expected shelf life of 11 quarters within 5% APE versus 12 for the LSTM, and that CDD values above 0.95 identify stable, mostly bidirectional spatial dependencies among wells.

Significance. If fully supported, the paper would show that minimal open-source meteorological data can yield multi-quarter groundwater forecasts competitive with deep learning, and that a CDD network can prioritize monitoring stations. The paper has concrete strengths: code and data are promised on GitHub, the VAR is accompanied by several residual diagnostics, and the literature review is broad. However, the central shelf-life comparison is currently not reproducible because the defining regression is unspecified, and several methodological steps (stationarity testing, Granger causality specification, CDD uncertainty) need to be corrected or added before the claims can be evaluated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Fig. 8] The central forecast comparison rests on the 'model shelf-life' values of 11 quarters for the VAR and 12 for the LSTM, but the regression that defines shelf-life is never specified. The text says the quantity is APE while the Fig. 8 caption calls it 'Out of Bag Error'; no equation, estimation method, number of points, or measure of uncertainty is given for the line whose crossing with the 5% threshold produces the headline numbers. The 26 test observations come from a single 70-30 split of an 85-quarter series, so the errors at successive horizons are serially correlated and a naive regression through them will overstate precision. Because the 5% cutoff appears to be selected after inspecting the errors, the 11-versus-12 comparison is not a reproducible or robust result as written. Please specify the shelf-life estimator, report its uncertainty, and show sensitivity to the threshold and to the split.
  2. [Section 4, Granger causality paragraph] The sentence describing the Granger causality test has the direction backwards relative to the conclusion. The text says 'Temperature is the endogenous variable and Groundwater level and Precipitation level are the exogenous variables' and then concludes 'Temperature has a one-way impact on the variability of Groundwater level as well as Precipitation Level.' In a VAR all variables are endogenous; if the test was structured in the way described, the result would speak to whether groundwater and precipitation help predict temperature, not the reverse. The null hypothesis, lag structure, and test output need to be stated so that the claimed direction of causality follows from the reported test.
  3. [Section 3.2 / Section 4] No stationarity or unit-root tests are reported before fitting the VAR(4). The run charts and ACF/PACF plots suggest strong trend or seasonal behavior, especially in groundwater level and temperature; if any of the series is I(1), the levels VAR can still be informative under cointegration, but the Granger tests, IRFs, and FEVDs require a correctly specified cointegrating relationship or differenced/seasonally adjusted data. Please add unit-root and stationarity tests (e.g., ADF, KPSS, possibly seasonal tests) and either justify the levels specification or re-estimate accordingly.
  4. [Section 3.3 / Table 1] The copula directional dependence methodology is attributed to reference [100], which includes one of the authors of this manuscript, yet the paper presents it as part of its contribution without clarifying what is new. The note that the CDD is 'a version of the Spearman's Correlation Coefficient' is not derived or referenced, and Table 1 reports CDD values to five decimals without confidence intervals or any uncertainty quantification, even though the 0.95 interpretation threshold is central to the spatial conclusions. Please state the novel modifications, if any, and provide standard errors or bootstrap intervals for the CDD estimates.
  5. [Section 4 / Section 5] The VAR-versus-LSTM shelf-life comparison is not apples-to-apples: the LSTM appears to be a univariate model trained only on groundwater level, while the VAR uses temperature and precipitation as additional inputs. The paper itself acknowledges this imbalance in Section 5 ('the LSTM model is not exposed to' temperature and precipitation), but the headline '11 versus 12 quarters' is still presented as a forecast comparison. Either the LSTM must be given the same covariates, or the conclusion must be reframed as a comparison of information sets, not of model classes. The LSTM architecture, training procedure, and hyperparameters also need to be described for reproducibility.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figures 2 and 3] The captions state the data span 'from the first quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2021,' which conflicts with the 2000 to Q1 2021 range described in Section 3.1; please correct the date range.
  2. [Section 4] The text refers to 'Fig. 4.1' for the ACF/PACF plots, but these are shown in Fig. 2; update the cross-reference.
  3. [Throughout] The station name appears as both Patyapura and Patiyapura; please standardize the spelling.
  4. [Fig. 8] The caption contains the typo 'hte calculation'; also reconcile the 'Out of Bag Error' label with the APE terminology used in the text.
  5. [Section 4] The asymptotic Portmanteau test p-value is reported without the lag order and test variant used; please state them so the diagnostic is reproducible.
  6. [Acknowledgements] The acknowledgments thank reviewers and the editorial board of a specific journal; please verify that this is appropriate for the submission venue and remove or revise if it refers to a prior submission.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline forecast comparison is a fitted summary: 'model shelf-life' is read off an unspecified regression line fit to the model's own APE, so the 11-vs-12 quarter claim reduces by construction; the CDD spatial results, though imported from a self-citation, are not fitted to a target.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (Results), model shelf-life paragraph; Fig. 8 and its caption.]
    "From the fitted model, we observed that the expected shelf life of the V AR model was 11 time points or 11 quarter-years, or 33 months, i.e. 2 years 9 months. It indicates that at the current stage, it is expected that the model shall be good for (i.e. shall not provide APE greater than 5%) 11 quarter-years. Any model that provides higher shelf life can be considered a more desirable model. The LSTM model generated a shelf life of 12 quarter-years. Plot of the regression line on which Model Shelf-Life is calculated is provided in Fig. 8."

    Shelf-life is defined as the horizon until APE exceeds 5%, and the reported value is the crossing of a regression line fitted to the model's own out-of-sample APE plotted against time since the last training point (Fig. 8). Thus the claimed 11-quarter longevity is not an independent prediction; it is a fitted parameter of the same error series that the claim is about. The regression form, estimation method, and uncertainty are not stated, and the 26 test APE points from a single 70-30 split are serially correlated, so the 11-vs-12 comparison is forced by the (unspecified) fit rather than by an independent test of predictive skill.

full rationale

The one place where a claimed 'result' reduces to its own inputs is the model-shelf-life comparison. The CDD equations are directly attributed to reference [100], which shares an author (Jong-Min Kim), but the paper uses them as an acknowledged estimator rather than as a uniqueness theorem or an independent proof; the spatial dependence values are computed from data and are not fitted to a target, so I do not treat that reuse as circular. The forecast comparison, however, is the paper's stated evidence for the value of minimal-data groundwater forecasting: because 'expected shelf life' is obtained by fitting a regression to the same APE values it is meant to summarize, the headline numbers are a fitted summary. The unspecified regression means different assumptions could change or reverse the VAR/LSTM ordering, but that is also a reproducibility issue; the circular component is that the reported shelf-life is, by construction, the crossing point of a line fitted to the model's own errors. Overall, partial circularity: the central comparison reduces to a fit, while the spatial-dependence contribution is independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The analysis rests on a small, unvalidated dataset, a stationary VAR(4) assumption, an imported copula method, and an ad hoc shelf-life definition. The free parameters are choices made by the authors, and the shelf-life metric is a new construct with no external evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • VAR lag order p = 4
    Selected using AIC, BIC, HQ, FPE and ACF/PACF on the training data; affects all subsequent inference.
  • Shelf-life APE threshold = 5%
    Defines what counts as a 'good' forecast; no loss-based derivation is given.
  • CDD interpretation threshold = 0.95
    Only pairs with CDD above 0.95 are interpreted; with 64 stations this selects extreme tail values.
  • LSTM architecture = not reported
    Layers, units, epochs, optimizer, and regularization are not specified, so the 12-quarter shelf-life is not reproducible.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The three variables follow a stationary, linear VAR(4) with no structural breaks.
    Invoked in Section 3.2; no unit-root or cointegration tests are reported, and the EFP/CUSUM plot is used to assert stability.
  • domain assumption Quarterly observations from India-WRIS are accurate and complete, and the 85-point series is a faithful record of groundwater dynamics at Patyapura.
    Data source is public, but no cleaning or missing-data handling is described; figure captions give an inconsistent date range.
  • domain assumption Directional dependence between any pair of wells is fully captured by a bivariate Gaussian copula beta regression on the two groundwater-level series, with no covariates and no spatial structure.
    Section 3.3 states covariates are excluded due to data scarcity; this ignores shared seasonal drivers that could create spurious dependence.
  • ad hoc to paper Model shelf-life is a meaningful validation quantity defined by a 5% APE threshold and a linear fit to test-set errors.
    Introduced in Section 4 and Fig. 8; no external benchmark or statistical theory justifies the threshold or the regression form.
  • standard math The formulas for copula directional dependence (Eqs. 2-5) from [100] are correct under the Gaussian copula beta regression assumption.
    Borrowed from the authors' own prior publication without independent verification.
invented entities (1)
  • Model shelf-life metric
    purpose: A new validation statistic: number of forecast periods until APE exceeds 5%, estimated from a regression line on forecast error vs time.
    The paper proposes this concept but does not validate it against external benchmarks or show it measures something beyond ordinary forecast error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alternate Groundwater Modelling Strategies: A Multi-Faceted Data-Driven Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HFHQ5KA

@misc{pith2026250524235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alternate Groundwater Modelling Strategies: A Multi-Faceted Data-Driven Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HFHQ5KA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24235}
}
read the original abstract

The impact of statistical methodologies on studying groundwater has been significant in the last several decades, due to cheaper computational abilities and presence of technologies that enable us to extract and measure more and more data. This paper focuses on the validation of statistical methodologies that are in practice and continue to be at the earliest disposal of the researcher, demonstrating how traditional time-series models and modern neural networks may be a viable option to analyze and make viable forecasts from data commonly available in this domain, and suggesting a copula-based strategy to obtain directional dependencies of groundwater level, spatially. This paper also proposes a sphere of model validation, seldom addressed in this domain: the model longevity or the model shelf-life. Use of such validation techniques not only ensure lower computational cost while maintaining reasonably high accuracy, but also, in some cases, ensure robust predictions or forecasts, and assist in comparing multiple models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [100]

    PLoS ONE 14 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213148

    Kim, J.M., Lee, N., Xiao, X.: Directional dependence between major cities in china based on copula regression on air pollution measurements. PLoS ONE 14 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213148

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213148 2019

  2. [1]

    Janssonium, Joannem (1665)

    Kircher, A.: Mundus Subterraneus. Janssonium, Joannem (1665)

  3. [2]

    Zektser, I.S., Everett, L.G.: Groundwater resources of the world and their use (2004)

    2004

  4. [3]

    Tata McGraw-Hill Education (1987)

    Karanth, K.R.: Ground water assessment: development and management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education (1987)

    1987

  5. [4]

    IN: Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring

    Sara, M.N., Gibbons, R.: Organization and analysis of water quality data. IN: Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. 1991. p 541-588. 16 fig, 12 tab, 14 ref. (1991)

    1991

  6. [5]

    Journal of soil and water conservation 49(2), 126–135 (1994)

    Fawcett, R.S., Christensen, B.R., Tierney, D.P.: The impact of conservation tillage on pesticide runoff into surface water: a review and analysis. Journal of soil and water conservation 49(2), 126–135 (1994)

    1994

  7. [6]

    Hydrogeology journal 10, 455–474 (2002)

    G¨ uler, C., Thyne, G.D., McCray, J.E., Turner, K.A.: Evaluation of graphical and multivariate statistical methods for classification of water chemistry data. Hydrogeology journal 10, 455–474 (2002)

    2002

  8. [7]

    Advances in Water Quality Control

    Machiwal, D., Jha, M.K., Krantzberg, G., Tanik, A., Carmo, J.S.A., Indarto, A., Ekdal, A.: Tools and techniques for water quality interpretation. Advances in Water Quality Control. Scientific Research Publishing, Inc., California, USA, 211–252 (2010)

    2010

Show all 103 references
  1. [8]

    Water resources management 21, 427–467 (2007)

    Jha, M.K., Chowdhury, A., Chowdary, V.M., Peiffer, S.: Groundwater manage- ment and development by integrated remote sensing and geographic information systems: prospects and constraints. Water resources management 21, 427–467 (2007)

    2007

  2. [9]

    Journal of Hydrology 353(3-4), 294–313 (2008)

    Cloutier, V., Lefebvre, R., Therrien, R., Savard, M.M.: Multivariate statistical analysis of geochemical data as indicative of the hydrogeochemical evolution of groundwater in a sedimentary rock aquifer system. Journal of Hydrology 353(3-4), 294–313 (2008)

    2008

  3. [10]

    Hydrogeology Journal 17, 23–35 (2009)

    Steube, C., Richter, S., Griebler, C.: First attempts towards an integrative con- cept for the ecological assessment of groundwater ecosystems. Hydrogeology Journal 17, 23–35 (2009)

    2009

  4. [11]

    Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 4, 80–110 (2015)

    Machiwal, D., Jha, M.K.: Identifying sources of groundwater contamination in a hard-rock aquifer system using multivariate statistical analyses and gis-based geostatistical modeling techniques. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 4, 80–110 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    manglaralto, ecuador

    Carri´ on-Mero, P., Qui˜ nonez-Barzola, X., Morante-Carballo, F., Montalv´ an, F.J., Herrera-Franco, G., Plaza- ´Ubeda, J.: Geometric model of a coastal aquifer to 34 promote the sustainable use of water. manglaralto, ecuador. Water 13(7), 923 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    Computers & Geosciences 56, 32–44 (2013)

    Shiri, J., Kisi, O., Yoon, H., Lee, K.-K., Nazemi, A.H.: Predicting groundwater level fluctuations with meteorological effect implications—a comparative study among soft computing techniques. Computers & Geosciences 56, 32–44 (2013)

    2013

  7. [14]

    Arabian Journal of Geosciences 11 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3449-y

    An, Y., Lu, W.: Assessment of groundwater quality and groundwater vulnerabil- ity in the northern ordos cretaceous basin, china. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 11 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3449-y

    2018 doi

  8. [15]

    Envi- ronmental Earth Sciences 77(19), 681 (2018)

    Machiwal, D., Cloutier, V., G¨ uler, C., Kazakis, N.: A review of gis-integrated statistical techniques for groundwater quality evaluation and protection. Envi- ronmental Earth Sciences 77(19), 681 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Environmental Sci- ence and Pollution Research 28, 1108–1130 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11356-020-10362-6

    Amiri, V., Kamrani, S., Ahmad, A., Bhattacharya, P., Mansoori, J.: Ground- water quality evaluation using shannon information theory and human health risk assessment in yazd province, central plateau of iran. Environmental Sci- ence and Pollution Research 28, 1108–1130 (2021) ...

    2021

  10. [17]

    Carbonates and Evaporites 36, 1–13 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s13146-021-00697-7

    Bahir, M., Ouhamdouch, S., Ouazar, D., Chehbouni, A., Ouarani, M., Moun- tassir, O.E.: Groundwater quality of the alluvial and carbonate aquifers of essaouira basin (morocco). Carbonates and Evaporites 36, 1–13 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s13146-021-00697-7

    2021 doi

  11. [18]

    Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 20, 909–921 (2020) https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2020.015

    Khedri, A., Kalantari, N., Vadiati, M.: Comparison study of artificial intelligence method for short-term groundwater level prediction in the northeast gachsaran unconfined aquifer. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 20, 909–921 (2020) https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2020.015

    2020 doi

  12. [19]

    Arabian Journal of Geosciences 9, 1–11 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-2121-z

    Movahedian, A., Chitsazan, M., Nozarpour, L.: Management of an aquifer with an emphasis on the interaction of the aquifer and river using modflow model in gotvand–aghili plain, khuzestan, iran. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 9, 1–11 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-2121-z

    2016 doi

  13. [20]

    Water resources management 20, 77–90 (2006)

    Nayak, P.C., Rao, Y.R., Sudheer, K.P.: Groundwater level forecasting in a shallow aquifer using artificial neural network approach. Water resources management 20, 77–90 (2006)

    2006

  14. [21]

    Water Resources Management 29, 5521–5532 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1132-6

    Mohanty, S., Jha, M.K., Raul, S.K., Panda, R.K., Sudheer, K.P.: Using artificial neural network approach for simultaneous forecasting of weekly groundwater levels at multiple sites. Water Resources Management 29, 5521–5532 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1132-6

    2015 doi

  15. [22]

    Geoscience Frontiers 3, 189–196 (2012) https://doi.org/10

    Magesh, N.S., Chandrasekar, N., Soundranayagam, J.P.: Delineation of ground- water potential zones in theni district, tamil nadu, using remote sensing, gis 35 and mif techniques. Geoscience Frontiers 3, 189–196 (2012) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.gsf.2011.10.007

    2012

  16. [23]

    Inter- national Journal of Advanced Research 6, 948–953 (2018) https://doi.org/10

    Kattimani, J.M., Murthy, A.B., S, R.M., Kumar, S.D., R, V.K.: Identification of ground water potential zone using remote sensing and gis techniques. Inter- national Journal of Advanced Research 6, 948–953 (2018) https://doi.org/10. 21474/ijar01/7116

    2018

  17. [24]

    Sustainability (Switzerland) 13, 1–18 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.3390/su13073788

    Azma, A., Narreie, E., Shojaaddini, A., Kianfar, N., Kiyanfar, R., Alizadeh, S.M.S., Davarpanah, A.: Statistical modeling for spatial groundwater potential map based on gis technique. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13, 1–18 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.3390/su13073788

    2021 doi

  18. [25]

    Elsevier B.V

    Rajaee, T., Ebrahimi, H., Nourani, V.: A review of the artificial intelligence methods in groundwater level modeling. Elsevier B.V. (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.037

    2019 doi

  19. [26]

    Journal of hydrology 307, 92–111 (2005)

    Lallahem, S., Mania, J., Hani, A., Najjar, Y.: On the use of neural networks to evaluate groundwater levels in fractured media. Journal of hydrology 307, 92–111 (2005)

    2005

  20. [27]

    Journal of Hydrology309, 229–240 (2005) https: //doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2004.12.001

    Daliakopoulos, I.N., Coulibaly, P., Tsanis, I.K.: Groundwater level forecasting using artificial neural networks. Journal of Hydrology309, 229–240 (2005) https: //doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2004.12.001

    2005 doi

  21. [28]

    Groundwater 46, 80– 90 (2008)

    Feng, S., Kang, S., Huo, Z., Chen, S., Mao, X.: Neural networks to simulate regional ground water levels affected by human activities. Groundwater 46, 80– 90 (2008)

    2008

  22. [29]

    Hydrological Processes: An International Journal 22, 1180–1188 (2008)

    Krishna, B., Rao, Y.R.S., Vijaya, T.: Modelling groundwater levels in an urban coastal aquifer using artificial neural networks. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal 22, 1180–1188 (2008)

    2008

  23. [30]

    Hydrological Processes: An International Journal 22, 5054–5066 (2008)

    Nourani, V., Mogaddam, A.A., Nadiri, A.O.: An ann-based model for spatiotem- poral groundwater level forecasting. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal 22, 5054–5066 (2008)

    2008

  24. [31]

    Journal of Hydroinformatics 10, 317–330 (2008)

    Tsanis, I.K., Coulibaly, P., Daliakopoulos, I.N.: Improving groundwater level forecasting with a feedforward neural network and linearly regressed projected precipitation. Journal of Hydroinformatics 10, 317–330 (2008)

    2008

  25. [32]

    Environmental Geology 58, 1239–1246 (2009)

    Banerjee, P., Prasad, R.K., Singh, V.S.: Forecasting of groundwater level in hard rock region using artificial neural network. Environmental Geology 58, 1239–1246 (2009)

    2009

  26. [33]

    Journal of Arid Environments 73, 487–492 (2009)

    Yang, Z.P., Lu, W.X., Long, Y.Q., Li, P.: Application and comparison of two prediction models for groundwater levels: a case study in western jilin province, 36 china. Journal of Arid Environments 73, 487–492 (2009)

    2009

  27. [34]

    The MathWorks, 77–81 (2010)

    Beale, M.H., Hagan, M.T., Demuth, H.B.: Neural network toolbox user’s guide. The MathWorks, 77–81 (2010)

    2010

  28. [35]

    Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 15, 624–631 (2010)

    Chen, L.-H., Chen, C.-T., Pan, Y.-G.: Groundwater level prediction using som- rbfn multisite model. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 15, 624–631 (2010)

    2010

  29. [36]

    Water resources management 24, 1845–1865 (2010)

    Mohanty, S., Jha, M.K., Kumar, A., Sudheer, K.P.: Artificial neural network modeling for groundwater level forecasting in a river island of eastern india. Water resources management 24, 1845–1865 (2010)

    2010

  30. [37]

    Environmental Earth Sciences 62, 1301–1310 (2011)

    Sreekanth, P.D., Sreedevi, P.D., Ahmed, S., Geethanjali, N.: Comparison of ffnn and anfis models for estimating groundwater level. Environmental Earth Sciences 62, 1301–1310 (2011)

    2011

  31. [38]

    Water Resources Management 25, 1143–1152 (2011)

    Trichakis, I.C., Nikolos, I.K., Karatzas, G.P.: Artificial neural network (ann) based modeling for karstic groundwater level simulation. Water Resources Management 25, 1143–1152 (2011)

    2011

  32. [39]

    Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 37, 1871–1883 (2012)

    Rakhshandehroo, G.R., Vaghefi, M., Aghbolaghi, M.A.: Forecasting groundwa- ter level in shiraz plain using artificial neural networks. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 37, 1871–1883 (2012)

    2012

  33. [40]

    Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25, 1670–1676 (2012)

    Taormina, R., Chau, K.-w., Sethi, R.: Artificial neural network simulation of hourly groundwater levels in a coastal aquifer system of the venice lagoon. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25, 1670–1676 (2012)

    2012

  34. [41]

    Hydrogeology Journal 21, 1865–1887 (2013)

    Sahoo, S., Jha, M.K.: Groundwater-level prediction using multiple linear regression and artificial neural network techniques: a comparative assessment. Hydrogeology Journal 21, 1865–1887 (2013)

    2013

  35. [42]

    Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology—AQUA 63, 671–683 (2014)

    Ying, Z., Wenxi, L., Haibo, C., Jiannan, L.: Comparison of three forecasting models for groundwater levels: a case study in the semiarid area of west jilin province, china. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology—AQUA 63, 671–683 (2014)

    2014

  36. [43]

    Journal of hydrology 529, 1060–1069 (2015)

    Gholami, V.C.K.W., Chau, K.W., Fadaee, F., Torkaman, J., Ghaffari, A.: Model- ing of groundwater level fluctuations using dendrochronology in alluvial aquifers. Journal of hydrology 529, 1060–1069 (2015)

    2015

  37. [44]

    Juan, C., GenXu, W., ChunJie, L., TianXu, M.: Seasonal dynamics of suprap- ermafrost groundwater and its response to the freeing-thawing processes of soil in the permafrost region of qinghai-tibet plateau (2015)

    2015

  38. [45]

    Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 20, 1405–1412 (2016)

    Sun, Y., Wendi, D., Kim, D.E., Liong, S.-Y.: Application of artificial neural networks in groundwater table forecasting–a case study in a singapore swamp 37 forest. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 20, 1405–1412 (2016)

    2016

  39. [46]

    Water resources management 32, 5041–5052 (2018)

    Kouziokas, G.N., Chatzigeorgiou, A., Perakis, K.: Multilayer feed forward models in groundwater level forecasting using meteorological data in public management. Water resources management 32, 5041–5052 (2018)

    2018

  40. [47]

    Journal of Hydrology 567, 743–758 (2018)

    Wunsch, A., Liesch, T., Broda, S.: Forecasting groundwater levels using nonlin- ear autoregressive networks with exogenous input (narx). Journal of Hydrology 567, 743–758 (2018)

    2018

  41. [48]

    Hydrogeology Journal 27, 567–579 (2019)

    Lee, S., Lee, K.-K., Yoon, H.: Utilizando redes neurais artificiais para previs˜ ao de n ´ ıveis de ´ aguas subterrˆ aneas e avalia¸ c˜ ao dos impactos relativos dos fatores influenciadores. Hydrogeology Journal 27, 567–579 (2019)

    2019

  42. [49]

    Journal of hydroinformatics 13(4), 867–876 (2011)

    Jalalkamali, A., Sedghi, H., Manshouri, M.: Monthly groundwater level predic- tion using ann and neuro-fuzzy models: a case study on kerman plain, iran. Journal of hydroinformatics 13(4), 867–876 (2011)

    2011

  43. [50]

    Water Resources Management 27, 419–432 (2013)

    Shirmohammadi, B., Vafakhah, M., Moosavi, V., Moghaddamnia, A.: Applica- tion of several data-driven techniques for predicting groundwater level. Water Resources Management 27, 419–432 (2013)

    2013

  44. [51]

    Water resources management 28, 5433–5446 (2014)

    Emamgholizadeh, S., Moslemi, K., Karami, G.: Prediction the groundwater level of bastam plain (iran) by artificial neural network (ann) and adaptive neuro- fuzzy inference system (anfis). Water resources management 28, 5433–5446 (2014)

    2014

  45. [52]

    Environmental Earth Sciences 73, 8357–8367 (2015)

    Khaki, M., Yusoff, I., Islami, N.: Simulation of groundwater level through artificial intelligence system. Environmental Earth Sciences 73, 8357–8367 (2015)

    2015

  46. [53]

    Water Resources Management 29, 1315–1328 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/ S11269-014-0875-9/METRICS

    Mirzavand, M., Ghazavi, R.: A stochastic modelling technique for ground- water level forecasting in an arid environment using time series methods. Water Resources Management 29, 1315–1328 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/ S11269-014-0875-9/METRICS

    2015

  47. [54]

    Water resources management 30, 375–391 (2016)

    Gong, Y., Zhang, Y., Lan, S., Wang, H.: A comparative study of artificial neural networks, support vector machines and adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system for forecasting groundwater levels near lake okeechobee, florida. Water resources management 30, 375–391 (2016)

    2016

  48. [55]

    journal of environmental engineering 139(7), 947–957 (2013)

    Orouji, H., Bozorg Haddad, O., Fallah-Mehdipour, E., Mari˜ no, M.: Modeling of water quality parameters using data-driven models. journal of environmental engineering 139(7), 947–957 (2013)

    2013

  49. [56]

    Computers & geosciences 90, 144–155 (2016)

    Yoon, H., Hyun, Y., Ha, K., Lee, K.-K., Kim, G.-B.: A method to improve the stability and accuracy of ann-and svm-based time series models for long-term 38 groundwater level predictions. Computers & geosciences 90, 144–155 (2016)

    2016

  50. [57]

    Journal of Hydroinformatics 19, 586–606 (2017)

    Huang, F., Huang, J., Jiang, S.-H., Zhou, C.: Prediction of groundwater levels using evidence of chaos and support vector machine. Journal of Hydroinformatics 19, 586–606 (2017)

    2017

  51. [58]

    Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology—AQUA 66, 15–24 (2017)

    Nie, S., Bian, J., Wan, H., Sun, X., Zhang, B.: Simulation and uncertainty analysis for groundwater levels using radial basis function neural network and support vector machine models. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology—AQUA 66, 15–24 (2017)

    2017

  52. [59]

    Journal of hydrology 558, 647–658 (2018)

    Mukherjee, A., Ramachandran, P.: Prediction of gwl with the help of grace tws for unevenly spaced time series data in india: Analysis of comparative performances of svr, ann and lrm. Journal of hydrology 558, 647–658 (2018)

    2018

  53. [60]

    Environmental Modeling & Assessment 24, 223–234 (2019)

    Guzman, S.M., Paz, J.O., Tagert, M.L.M., Mercer, A.E.: Evaluation of sea- sonally classified inputs for the prediction of daily groundwater levels: Narx networks vs support vector machines. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 24, 223–234 (2019)

    2019

  54. [61]

    Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 37, 1661–1670 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/S10706-018-0713-6/METRICS

    Tang, Y., Zang, C., Wei, Y., Jiang, M.: Data-driven modeling of groundwater level with least-square support vector machine and spatial–temporal analysis. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 37, 1661–1670 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/S10706-018-0713-6/METRICS

    2019 doi

  55. [62]

    Journal of Hydrology 407, 28–40 (2011)

    Adamowski, J., Chan, H.F.: A wavelet neural network conjunction model for groundwater level forecasting. Journal of Hydrology 407, 28–40 (2011)

    2011

  56. [63]

    Hydrology Research 43, 286–300 (2012)

    Kisi, O., Shiri, J.: Wavelet and neuro-fuzzy conjunction model for predicting water table depth fluctuations. Hydrology Research 43, 286–300 (2012)

    2012

  57. [64]

    Computers & Geosciences 46, 284–295 (2012) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cageo.2011.12.015

    Maheswaran, R., Khosa, R.: Comparative study of different wavelets for hydro- logic forecasting. Computers & Geosciences 46, 284–295 (2012) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cageo.2011.12.015

    2012 doi

  58. [65]

    Water resources management 27, 1301–1321 (2013)

    Moosavi, V., Vafakhah, M., Shirmohammadi, B., Behnia, N.: A wavelet-anfis hybrid model for groundwater level forecasting for different prediction periods. Water resources management 27, 1301–1321 (2013)

    2013

  59. [66]

    Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 39, 1785–1796 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-013-0762-3

    Moosavi, V., Vafakhah, M., Shirmohammadi, B., Ranjbar, M.: Optimization of wavelet-anfis and wavelet-ann hybrid models by taguchi method for groundwater level forecasting. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 39, 1785–1796 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-013-0762-3

    2014 doi

  60. [67]

    Water Resources Management28, 39 5297–5317 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0802-0

    He, Z., Zhang, Y., Guo, Q., Zhao, X.: Comparative study of artificial neural networks and wavelet artificial neural networks for groundwater depth data fore- casting with various curve fractal dimensions. Water Resources Management28, 39 5297–5317 (2014) https://doi.org/10.100...

    2014 doi

  61. [68]

    Neurocomputing 145, 324–335 (2014) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neucom.2014.05.026

    Suryanarayana, C., Sudheer, C., Mahammood, V., Panigrahi, B.K.: An inte- grated wavelet-support vector machine for groundwater level prediction in visakhapatnam, india. Neurocomputing 145, 324–335 (2014) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neucom.2014.05.026

    2014 doi

  62. [69]

    Hydrogeology Journal 23, 121– 141 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-014-1204-3

    Khalil, B., Broda, S., Adamowski, J., Ozga-Zielinski, B., Donohoe, A.: Short- term forecasting of groundwater levels under conditions of mine-tailings recharge using wavelet ensemble neural network models. Hydrogeology Journal 23, 121– 141 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040...

    2015 doi

  63. [70]

    Journal of Hydrology 524, 255–269 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.02.048

    Nourani, V., Alami, M.T., Vousoughi, F.D.: Wavelet-entropy data pre-processing approach for ann-based groundwater level modeling. Journal of Hydrology 524, 255–269 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.02.048

    2015 doi

  64. [71]

    Arabian Journal of Geosciences 8, 6583–6593 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1706-2

    Yang, Q., Hou, Z., Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., Delgado, J.: A comparative study of shallow groundwater level simulation with wa–ann and its model in a coastal island of south china. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 8, 6583–6593 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1706-2

    2015 doi

  65. [72]

    Journal of Hydrology 536, 10–25 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2016.02.030

    Nourani, V., Mousavi, S.: Spatiotemporal groundwater level modeling using hybrid artificial intelligence-meshless method. Journal of Hydrology 536, 10–25 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2016.02.030

    2016 doi

  66. [73]

    Hydrology Research 48, 1710–1729 (2016) https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2016.396

    Wen, X., Feng, Q., Deo, R.C., Wu, M., Si, J.: Wavelet analysis–artificial neural network conjunction models for multi-scale monthly groundwater level predict- ing in an arid inland river basin, northwestern china. Hydrology Research 48, 1710–1729 (2016) https://doi.org/10.2166...

    2016 doi

  67. [74]

    Science of The Total Environment 599-600, 20–31 (2017) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.189

    Barzegar, R., Fijani, E., Moghaddam, A.A., Tziritis, E.: Forecasting of ground- water level fluctuations using ensemble hybrid multi-wavelet neural network- based models. Science of The Total Environment 599-600, 20–31 (2017) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.189

    2017 doi

  68. [75]

    Journal of Hydro-environment Research 18, 63–76 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2017.11.004

    Zare, M., Koch, M.: Groundwater level fluctuations simulation and prediction by anfis- and hybrid wavelet-anfis/fuzzy c-means (fcm) clustering models: Appli- cation to the miandarband plain. Journal of Hydro-environment Research 18, 63–76 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher....

    2018 doi

  69. [76]

    Environmental Engineering Science 28, 217–228 (2011) https: //doi.org/10.1089/ees.2010.0174

    Nourani, V., Ejlali, R.G., Alami, M.T.: Spatiotemporal groundwater level fore- casting in coastal aquifers by hybrid artificial neural network-geostatistics model: A case study. Environmental Engineering Science 28, 217–228 (2011) https: //doi.org/10.1089/ees.2010.0174

    2011

  70. [77]

    40 Journal of Hydrology 519, 3193–3203 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol

    Tapoglou, E., Karatzas, G.P., Trichakis, I.C., Varouchakis, E.A.: A spatio- temporal hybrid neural network-kriging model for groundwater level simulation. 40 Journal of Hydrology 519, 3193–3203 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol. 2014.10.040

    2014 doi

  71. [78]

    Jour- nal of Hydrology 541, 965–976 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016

    Chang, F.-J., Chang, L.-C., Huang, C.-W., Kao, I.-F.: Prediction of monthly regional groundwater levels through hybrid soft-computing techniques. Jour- nal of Hydrology 541, 965–976 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016. 08.006

    2016 doi

  72. [79]

    Journal of Environmental Management 182, 308–321 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j

    Han, J.-C., Huang, Y., Li, Z., Zhao, C., Cheng, G., Huang, P.: Groundwa- ter level prediction using a som-aided stepwise cluster inference model. Journal of Environmental Management 182, 308–321 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2016.07.069

    2016 doi

  73. [80]

    Arabian Journal of Geosciences 9, 436 (2016) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12517-016-2454-2

    Hosseini, Z., Gharechelou, S., Nakhaei, M., Gharechelou, S.: Optimal design of bp algorithm by acor model for groundwater-level forecasting: A case study on shabestar plain, iran. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 9, 436 (2016) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12517-016-2454-2

    2016 doi

  74. [81]

    Hydrological Processes 29, 671–691 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10166

    Jha, M.K., Sahoo, S.: Efficacy of neural network and genetic algorithm tech- niques in simulating spatio-temporal fluctuations of groundwater. Hydrological Processes 29, 671–691 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10166

    2015 doi

  75. [82]

    Neural Computing and Applications 32, 7691–7708 (2020)

    Natarajan, N., Sudheer, C.: Groundwater level forecasting using soft computing techniques. Neural Computing and Applications 32, 7691–7708 (2020)

    2020

  76. [83]

    Natural Resources Research 29, 3233–3252 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11053-020-09634-2

    Banadkooki, F.B., Ehteram, M., Ahmed, A.N., Teo, F.Y., Fai, C.M., Afan, H.A., Sapitang, M., El-Shafie, A.: Enhancement of groundwater-level predic- tion using an integrated machine learning model optimized by whale algorithm. Natural Resources Research 29, 3233–3252 (2020) htt...

    2020

  77. [84]

    Journal of Hydrology 650, 132567 (2025)

    Zhu, F., Sun, Y., Han, M., Hou, T., Zeng, Y., Lin, M., Wang, Y., Zhong, P.-a.: A robust bayesian multi-machine learning ensemble framework for probabilistic groundwater level forecasting. Journal of Hydrology 650, 132567 (2025)

    2025

  78. [85]

    Scientific Reports 11, 1–18 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85205-6

    Jaafarzadeh, M.S., Tahmasebipour, N., Haghizadeh, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Rouhani, H.: Groundwater recharge potential zonation using an ensemble of machine learning and bivariate statistical models. Scientific Reports 11, 1–18 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85205-6

    2021 doi

  79. [86]

    Geocarto International, 1–35 (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10106049.2020.1870164

    Yariyan, P., Avand, M., Omidvar, E., Pham, Q.B., Linh, N.T.T., Tiefenbacher, J.P.: Optimization of statistical and machine learning hybrid models for ground- water potential mapping. Geocarto International, 1–35 (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10106049.2020.1870164

    2020

  80. [87]

    Water 11(8), 1596 (2019)

    Razavi-Termeh, S.V., Sadeghi-Niaraki, A., Choi, S.-M.: Groundwater potential mapping using an integrated ensemble of three bivariate statistical models with 41 random forest and logistic model tree models. Water 11(8), 1596 (2019)

    2019

  81. [88]

    Water resources research 37(4), 885–896 (2001)

    Coulibaly, P., Anctil, F., Aravena, R., Bob´ ee, B.: Artificial neural network mod- eling of water table depth fluctuations. Water resources research 37(4), 885–896 (2001)

    2001

  82. [89]

    Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 7, 3691–3731 (2010) https://doi.org/10

    Samsudin, R., Saad, P., Shabri, A.: A hybrid least squares support vec- tor machines and gmdh approach for river flow forecasting. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 7, 3691–3731 (2010) https://doi.org/10. 5194/hessd-7-3691-2010

    2010

  83. [90]

    Water Resources Research 43, 1–12 (2007) https://doi

    Gill, M.K., Asefa, T., Kaheil, Y., McKee, M.: Effect of missing data on per- formance of learning algorithms for hydrologic predictions: Implications to an imputation technique. Water Resources Research 43, 1–12 (2007) https://doi. org/10.1029/2006WR005298

    2007 doi

  84. [91]

    Atmospheric Research 144, 141–150 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSRES.2013.11.013

    Nastos, P.T., Paliatsos, A.G., Koukouletsos, K.V., Larissi, I.K., Moustris, K.P.: Artificial neural networks modeling for forecasting the maximum daily total precipitation at athens, greece. Atmospheric Research 144, 141–150 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSRES.2013.11.013

    2014 doi

  85. [92]

    Journal of Water and Climate Change 11, 1218–1234 (2020) https://doi.org/10

    Lian, C.Y., Huang, Y.F., Ng, J.L., Mirzaei, M., Koo, C.H., Tan, K.W.: A proposed hybrid rainfall simulation model: Bootstrap aggregated classification tree–artificial neural network (bact-ann) for the langat river basin, malaysia. Journal of Water and Climate Change 11, 1218–1...

    2020

  86. [93]

    Journal of Hydrology 349, 31–43 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2007.10.050

    Shu, C., Ouarda, T.B.M.J.: Regional flood frequency analysis at ungauged sites using the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Journal of Hydrology 349, 31–43 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2007.10.050

    2008 doi

  87. [94]

    Water Resources Management 26, 1715–1729 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-9982-7

    Sanikhani, H., Kisi, O.: River flow estimation and forecasting by using two different adaptive neuro-fuzzy approaches. Water Resources Management 26, 1715–1729 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-9982-7

    2012 doi

  88. [95]

    E3S Web of Conferences 34 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20183402014

    Tiu, E.S.K., Huang, Y.F., Ling, L.: Improving the performance of streamflow forecasting model using data-preprocessing technique in dungun river basin. E3S Web of Conferences 34 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20183402014

    2018

  89. [96]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 144, 164–173 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPAG.2017.12

    Soh, Y.W., Koo, C.H., Huang, Y.F., Fung, K.F.: Application of artificial intelli- gence models for the prediction of standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (spei) at langat river basin, malaysia. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 144, 164–173 (2018) https:/...

    2018 doi

  90. [97]

    Journal of Water and Climate Change 11, 1383–1398 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2019.295

    Fung, K.F., Huang, Y.F., Koo, C.H., Mirzaei, M.: Improved svr machine learning models for agricultural drought prediction at downstream of langat river basin, 42 malaysia. Journal of Water and Climate Change 11, 1383–1398 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2019.295

    2020 doi

  91. [98]

    Water Resources Management, 1–26 (2025)

    Weng, T.-N., Wu, R.-S., Weng, T.-H., Chen, Y.-H., Lai, T.-C., Hsieh, J.-Y., Hsu, C.-C., Lin, Y.-C.: Groundwater level prediction by wavelet deep learning with smart pumping data. Water Resources Management, 1–26 (2025)

    2025

  92. [99]

    Journal of Hydrology 636, 131250 (2024)

    Sun, W., Chang, L.-C., Chang, F.-J.: Deep dive into predictive excellence: Trans- former’s impact on groundwater level prediction. Journal of Hydrology 636, 131250 (2024)

    2024

  93. [101]

    Arabian Journal of Geosciences 14 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-08267-w

    Ouarani, M., Bahir, M., Mulla, D.J., Ouazar, D., Chehbouni, A., Dhiba, D.: Groundwater quality deterioration and recharge modes in a semi-arid coastal aquifer: Essaouira aquifer case study (morocco). Arabian Journal of Geosciences 14 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-08267-w

    2021 doi

  94. [102]

    Water resources management 33, 281–302 (2019)

    Miraki, S., Zanganeh, S.H., Chapi, K., Singh, V.P., Shirzadi, A., Shahabi, H., Pham, B.T.: Mapping groundwater potential using a novel hybrid intelligence approach. Water resources management 33, 281–302 (2019)

    2019

  95. [103]

    Mohammed, S.S., Sayl, K.N., Kamel, A.H.: Ground water recharge mapping in iraqi western desert. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodyn 17(6), 913–920 (2022) 43

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.