Impact of Hyperparameters on Surrogate Model Performance: Calcite Dissolution Under Geological Disposal Conditions
Source abstract
Abstract
Efficient simulation of geochemical reactions is critical for predicting the long-term chemical evolution of geological disposal repositories for radioactive waste. In large-scale reactive transport simulations, geochemical equilibrium calculations often represent a major computational bottleneck because they must be repeatedly solved for many spatial cells and time steps. This study investigates the development of machine-learning-based surrogate models that are designed to approximate geochemical equilibrium calculations and thereby significantly accelerate reactive transport simulations while reducing computational resource requirements. Calcite dissolution induced by magnesium-rich fluid inflow is used as a representative test case to evaluate the feasibility and performance of such surrogate models. Training and validation datasets were generated using the IPhreeqc C++ API, enabling the automated execution of a large number of PHREEQC equilibrium simulations across a chemically relevant parameter space. The resulting dataset captures nonlinear relationships between initial aqueous composition and outputs of interest after chemical equilibration, including aqueous species concentrations and amounts of minerals. Fully connected feed-forward neural networks were designed and implemented in TensorFlow to reproduce PHREEQC results, and the influence of key hyperparameters—such as network depth, width, activation functions, learning rate, and batch size—was systematically investigated. The results demonstrate that surrogate model accuracy and training stability are sensitive to hyperparameter selection, even for a relatively simple chemical system. Properly configured neural network architectures reproduce equilibrium geochemical responses with high accuracy and provide a computationally efficient alternative to repeated PHREEQC calculations, highlighting their potential for accelerating large-scale reactive transport modelling workflows.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions · Machine Learning in Materials Science · Radioactive element chemistry and processing
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Nuclear Engineering Laboratory, Lithuanian Energy Institute, Breslaujos 3, 44403 Kaunas, Lithuania
References (19)
Show source-provided references
1. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2002). Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste, International Atomic Energy Agency. Technical Reports Series No. 413.
2. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) (2012). The Handling of Timescales in Assessing Post-Closure Safety of Deep Geological Repositories, OECD/NEA.
3. Reactive transport codes for subsurface environmental simulation10.1007/s10596-014-9443-x ↗
4. Narkunienė, A., Grigaliūnienė, D., and Poškas, G. (2024). THC Modelling of Bentonite Barrier of Geological Repository in Granite and Its Impact on Long-Term Safety. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14177851 ↗
5. Interface COMSOL–PHREEQC for reactive transport modelling of CO2 storage10.1016/j.cageo.2014.04.011 ↗
6. Modeling coupled hydrological and chemical processes: Long-term uranium transport simulation10.2136/vzj2007.0084 ↗
7. MODFLOW/MT3DMS-based reactive multicomponent transport modeling10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.tb02588.x ↗
8. Parkhurst, D.L., and Appelo, C.A.J. (2013). Description of Input and Examples for PHREEQC Version 3–A Computer Program for Speciation, Batch-Reaction, One-Dimensional Transport, and Inverse Geochemical Calculations, U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, Book 6.10.3133/tm6A43 ↗
9. Geochemistry and machine learning: Methods and benchmarking10.1007/s12665-024-12066-3 ↗
10. Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., Brevdo, E., Chen, Z., Citro, C., Corrado, G.S., Davis, A., Dean, J., and Devin, M. (2016). TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems. arXiv.
11. Chollet, F. (2026, March 30). Keras. Available online: https://keras.io.
12. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
13. McKinney, W. (July, January 28). Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python. Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference (SciPy 2010), Austin, Texas.10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a ↗
14. Array Programming with NumPy10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 ↗
15. Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 ↗
16. Seaborn: Statistical Data Visualization10.21105/joss.03021 ↗
17. Hummel, W., Berner, U., Curti, E., Pearson, F.J., and Thoenen, T. (2002). Nagra/PSI Chemical Thermodynamic Data Base 01/01, Universal Publishers.10.1524/ract.2002.90.9-11_2002.805 ↗
18. Appelo, C.A.J., and Postma, D. (2005). Geochemistry, Groundwater and Pollution, CRC Press. [2nd ed.].10.1201/9781439833544 ↗
19. Kolditz, O., Görke, U.-J., Shao, H., and Wang, W. (2012). Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical-Chemical Processes in Porous Media: Benchmarks and Examples, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-27177-9 ↗