Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming an important tool for improving mathematical modeling and solving complex real-world problems. Traditional mathematical models have been widely used in science and engineering, but they often require more time, high computational effort, and may not perform well for complex and uncertain situations. AI techniques, especially Machine Learning and Deep Learning, can learn from data, identify hidden patterns, and make faster and more accurate predictions. As a result, AI-based mathematical modeling is now being used in many fields such as engineering, healthcare, finance, environmental science, transportation, and manufacturing. This review paper presents the recent advances in AI-based mathematical modeling and explains how AI is helping to improve the performance of mathematical models. It also discusses the main challenges, including data quality, model reliability, lack of transparency, and high computational requirements. In addition, the paper highlights future research directions, such as explainable AI, hybrid AI–mathematical models, physics-informed AI, and intelligent decision-support systems. Overall, the review shows that combining Artificial Intelligence with mathematical modeling can provide faster, more accurate, and more reliable solutions for solving complex scientific and engineering problems. This review will be useful for researchers, academicians, and professionals who want to understand the current progress, challenges, and future opportunities in AI-based mathematical modeling.

Artificial Intelligence has become an important tool for improving mathematical modeling and solving complex real-world problems. The reviewed studies show that AI techniques, such as Machine Learning and Deep Learning, can improve the accuracy, speed, and efficiency of mathematical models in many scientific and engineering applications. At the same time, challenges such as data quality, model transparency, computational cost, and reliability still need attention. Overall, the combination of Artificial Intelligence and mathematical modeling offers a strong foundation for developing smarter, faster, and more reliable solutions. Future research should focus on creating simple, explainable, and practical AI-based mathematical models that can be applied to a wide range of real-world problems.

1Bates, P. D., Horritt, M. S., & Fewtrell, T. J. (2010). A simple inertial formulation of the shallow water equations for efficient two-dimensional flood inundation modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 387(1–2), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.027 2Bentivoglio, R., Isufi, E., Jonkman, M., & Hassen, I. (2022). Deep learning methods for predictive modeling in engineering: A review. Applied Sciences, 12(19), 9725. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199725 3Bui, D. T., Tsangaratos, P., Nguyen, V. T., Liem, N. V., Trinh, P. T., & Mitra, S. (2020). Comparing the prediction performance of deep learning neural networks and machine learning models in environmental modeling. Catena, 188, 104426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104426 4Cook, A., & Merwade, V. (2009). Effect of topographic data, geometric configuration and modeling approach on flood inundation mapping. Journal of Hydrology, 377(1–2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.015 5Costache, R., Hong, H., Wang, Y., & Pham, Q. B. (2020). Flood susceptibility assessment by integrating machine learning and GIS techniques. Science of the Total Environment, 749, 141211. 6Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep Learning. MIT Press. 7Horritt, M. S., & Bates, P. D. (2002). Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river flood inundation. Journal of Hydrology, 268(1–4), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00121-X 8Khosravi, K., Pham, B. T., Chapi, K., Shirzadi, A., Shahabi, H., Revhaug, I., … & Bui, D. T. (2018). A comparative assessment of decision tree algorithms for flash flood susceptibility modeling. Science of the Total Environment, 627, 744–755. 9LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539 10Liu, Y., Zhang, H., Wang, X., & Li, Z. (2025). Artificial intelligence for scientific modeling: Recent advances, challenges and future opportunities. Artificial Intelligence Review. (Advance online publication). 11Merwade, V., Cook, A., & Coonrod, J. (2008). GIS techniques for creating river terrain models for hydrodynamic modeling and flood inundation mapping. Environmental Modelling & Software, 23(10–11), 1300–1311. 12Mosavi, A., Ozturk, P., & Chau, K. W. (2018). Flood prediction using machine learning models: Literature review. Water, 10(11), 1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111536 13Nearing, G. S., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Pelissier, C., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., & Gupta, H. V. (2024). Artificial intelligence and process understanding for hydrologic prediction. Nature Water, 2, 1–12. 14Neal, J., Schumann, G., & Bates, P. D. (2012). A subgrid channel model for improving river hydraulic simulations. Water Resources Research, 48(11), W11506. 15Nevo, S., Anisimov, A., Elidan, G., Giencke, A., & others. (2022). Data-driven forecasting using machine learning for environmental prediction. Nature Communications, 13, 4092. 16Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2019). Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378, 686–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 17Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x 18Tehrany, M. S., Pradhan, B., & Jebur, M. N. (2014). Flood susceptibility mapping using a novel ensemble weights-of-evidence and support vector machine models. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 7(9), 3567–3581. 19Teng, J., Jakeman, A. J., Vaze, J., Croke, B. F. W., Dutta, D., & Kim, S. (2017). Flood inundation modelling: A review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 90, 201–216. 20Willard, J., Jia, X., Xu, S., Steinbach, M., & Kumar, V. (2022). Integrating physics-based modeling with machine learning: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(4), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3514228 21Gupta, U.C.; Joshi, N., and Sayeed, M, (2026). Mathematical Theories and Their Applications: A Comprehensive Review. International Journal of Engineering and Techniques, 12 (1), 104-113. 22Sharma, A., Sah, S., & Sayeed, M. (2026). Evolution of agentic artificial intelligence: From classical intelligent agents to LLM-based autonomous systems. International Journal of Engineering and Techniques, 12(2), 17–27. https://ijetjournal.org/ Sayeed, M., Kumar, R., & Chaukiyal, A. (2026). The evolution of management thought: A comprehensive analysis. International Journal of Engineering and Techniques, 12(1), 195–206. https://ijetjournal.org

© 2025 International Journal of Engineering and Techniques (IJET).

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

IJET assigns a unique DOI to every accepted article via Zenodo for persistent linking and citation. Your article’s DOI: https://doi.org/{{doi}}

Open DOI About Zenodo DOI

Close