Evaluate effect of 126 pre-processing methods on various artificial intelligence models accuracy versus normal mode to predict groundwater level (case study: Hamedan-Bahar Plain, Iran)

ArticleAçık Erişim

Özet

The estimation of groundwater levels is crucial and an important step in ensuring sustainable management of water resources. In this paper, selected piezometers of the Hamedan-Bahar plain located in west of Iran. The main objective of this study is to compare effect of various pre-processing methods on input data for different artificial intelligence (AI) models to predict groundwater levels (GWLs). The observed GWL, evaporation, precipitation, and temperature were used as input variables in the AI algorithms. Firstly, 126 method of data pre-processing was done by python programming which are classified into three classes: 1- statistical methods, 2- wavelet transform methods and 3- decomposition methods; later, various pre-processed data used by four types of widely used AI models with different kernels, which includes: Support Vector Machine (SVR), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Long-Short Term memory (LSTM), and Pelican Optimization Algorithm (POA) - Artificial Neural Network (POA-ANN) are classified into three classes: 1- machine learning (SVR and ANN), 2- deep learning (LSTM) and 3- hybrid-ML (POA-ANN) models, to predict groundwater levels (GWLs). Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) were used to evaluate and validate the predictive accuracy of algorithms. According to the results, based on summation (train and test phases) of AIC value of 1778 models, average of AIC values for ML, DL, hybrid-ML classes, was decreased to −25.3%, −29.6% and −57.8%, respectively. Therefore, the results showed that all data pre-processing methods do not lead to improvement of prediction accuracy, and they should be selected very carefully by trial and error. In conclusion, wavelet-ANN model with daubechies 13 and 25 neurons (db13_ANN_25) is the best model to predict GWL that has −204.9 value for AIC which has grown by 5.23% (−194.7) compared to the state without any pre-processing method (ANN_Relu_25). © 2024 The Authors

Anahtar Kelimeler

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/11772Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorSaroughi, Mohsen
dc.contributor.authorMirzania, Ehsan
dc.contributor.authorAchite, Mohammed
dc.contributor.authorKatipoğlu, Okan Mert
dc.contributor.authorAl-Ansari, Nadhir
dc.contributor.authorVishwakarma, Dinesh Kumar
dc.contributor.authorChung, Il-Moon
dc.contributor.authorAlreshidi, Maha Awjan
dc.contributor.authorYadav, Krishna Kumar
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-18T20:26:46.249713394Z
dc.date.available2026-10-18T20:26:46.249713394Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractThe estimation of groundwater levels is crucial and an important step in ensuring sustainable management of water resources. In this paper, selected piezometers of the Hamedan-Bahar plain located in west of Iran. The main objective of this study is to compare effect of various pre-processing methods on input data for different artificial intelligence (AI) models to predict groundwater levels (GWLs). The observed GWL, evaporation, precipitation, and temperature were used as input variables in the AI algorithms. Firstly, 126 method of data pre-processing was done by python programming which are classified into three classes: 1- statistical methods, 2- wavelet transform methods and 3- decomposition methods; later, various pre-processed data used by four types of widely used AI models with different kernels, which includes: Support Vector Machine (SVR), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Long-Short Term memory (LSTM), and Pelican Optimization Algorithm (POA) - Artificial Neural Network (POA-ANN) are classified into three classes: 1- machine learning (SVR and ANN), 2- deep learning (LSTM) and 3- hybrid-ML (POA-ANN) models, to predict groundwater levels (GWLs). Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) were used to evaluate and validate the predictive accuracy of algorithms. According to the results, based on summation (train and test phases) of AIC value of 1778 models, average of AIC values for ML, DL, hybrid-ML classes, was decreased to −25.3%, −29.6% and −57.8%, respectively. Therefore, the results showed that all data pre-processing methods do not lead to improvement of prediction accuracy, and they should be selected very carefully by trial and error. In conclusion, wavelet-ANN model with daubechies 13 and 25 neurons (db13_ANN_25) is the best model to predict GWL that has −204.9 value for AIC which has grown by 5.23% (−194.7) compared to the state without any pre-processing method (ANN_Relu_25). © 2024 The Authors
dc.description.sponsorshipFunding text 1: Open access funding provided by Lulea University of Technology. The work was supported by the KICT Research Program (project no. 20230166-001, Development of Coastal Groundwater Management Solution) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT.Open access funding provided by Lulea University of Technology. The work was supported by the KICT Research Program (Grant No 20240158-001, Development of Coastal Groundwater Management Solution) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT. We thank Regional Water Company of Hamedan (RWCH) warmly for their involvement in the ground water data provide.; Funding text 2: Open access funding provided by Lulea University of Technology . The work was supported by the KICT Research Program (project no. 20230166-001 , Development of Coastal Groundwater Management Solution) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT . ; Funding text 3: Open access funding provided by Lulea University of Technology. The work was supported by the KICT Research Program (project no. 20230166-001 , Development of Coastal Groundwater Management Solution) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT . We thank Regional Water Company of Hamedan (RWCH) warmly for their involvement in the ground water data provide.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29006
dc.identifier.issn2405-8440
dc.identifier.issue7
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC11004570
dc.identifier.pmid38601575
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85189466450
dc.identifier.startpagee29006
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/11772
dc.identifier.volume10
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofHeliyon
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectArtificial intelligence
dc.subjectDeep learning
dc.subjectGroundwater level
dc.subjectHybrid algorithm
dc.subjectMachine learning
dc.titleEvaluate effect of 126 pre-processing methods on various artificial intelligence models accuracy versus normal mode to predict groundwater level (case study: Hamedan-Bahar Plain, Iran)
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
rdl.citation.scopus8
rdl.departmentDepartment of Civil Engineering, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Erzincan, Turkey.
rdl.oa.statusgold
rdl.source.indexSCOPUS
rdl.source.indexPUBMED