Machine Learning Models for Spring Discharge Forecasting

• Published in: Geofluids Vol. 2018; no. 2018; pp. 1 - 13
• Main Authors: Gargano, Rudy, de Marinis, Giovanni, Saroli, Michele, Granata, Francesco
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cairo, Egypt Hindawi Publishing Corporation 01.01.2018; Hindawi; Hindawi Limited; Wiley
• Subjects: Algorithms; Aquifers; Artificial intelligence; Average flow; Case studies; Civil engineering; Comparative analysis; Comparative studies; Correlation analysis; Discharge; Drought; Duration; Flow rates; Flow velocity; Forecasting; Freshwater; Groundwater; Hydraulic engineering; Inland water environment; Learning algorithms; Machine learning; Mathematical models; Neural networks; Precipitation; Predictions; Rain; Regression analysis; Response time; Response time (computers); Rivers; Runoff; Sediment transport; Spring; Stormwater management; Studies; Support vector machines; Time series; Water balance; Water resources; Water resources management; Italy; China
• ISSN: 1468-8115; 1468-8123
• DOI: 10.1155/2018/8328167

Nowadays, drought phenomena increasingly affect large areas of the globe; therefore, the need for a careful and rational management of water resources is becoming more pressing. Considering that most of the world’s unfrozen freshwater reserves are stored in aquifers, the capability of prediction of spring discharges is a crucial issue. An approach based on water balance is often extremely complicated or ineffective. A promising alternative is represented by data-driven approaches. Recently, many hydraulic engineering problems have been addressed by means of advanced models derived from artificial intelligence studies. Three different machine learning algorithms were used for spring discharge forecasting in this comparative study: M5P regression tree, random forest, and support vector regression. The spring of Rasiglia Alzabove, Umbria, Central Italy, was selected as a case study. The machine learning models have proven to be able to provide very encouraging results. M5P provides good short-term predictions of monthly average flow rates (e.g., in predicting average discharge of the spring after 1 month, R2=0.991, RAE=14.97%, if a 4-month input is considered), while RF is able to provide accurate medium-term forecasts (e.g., in forecasting average discharge of the spring after 3 months, R2=0.964, RAE=43.12%, if a 4-month input is considered). As the time of forecasting advances, the models generally provide less accurate predictions. Moreover, the effectiveness of the models significantly depends on the duration of the period considered for input data. This duration should be close to the aquifer response time, approximately estimated by cross-correlation analysis.