## 4 Results and Discussion
### Temporal and Spatial Groundwater Level Analysis  
Figure 12 illustrates the temporal evolution of groundwater levels across 10 monitoring stations. The individual time series plots display ground displacement (blue line), groundwater level variations (red line), and precipitation levels (green bars). A consistent declining trend in groundwater levels is observed across all stations, with displacement rates varying depending on the location and the intensity of subsidence. The heatmap in the center highlights areas with the highest subsidence rates, reaching up to \(-\)180.9 mm/year, which aligns with regions experiencing the most significant groundwater depletion. The correlation between precipitation and groundwater fluctuations suggests that recharge periods are insufficient to counteract groundwater loss, leading to progressive subsidence. This subsidence results in threatening surface evidence, such as fissures located 10 m from the Naqsh-e Rustam complex (Figures 1a and 13). These findings indicate that excessive  
Figure 10: Taylor diagram using the models applied in this study.  
groundwater extraction is a primary driver of surface deformation, particularly in the most affected zones.  
Figure 11: Spatial r and RMSE distributions, and temporal variability of groundwater-level prediction residuals from deep learning architectures: (**a**–**c**) LSTM, (**d**–**f**) biLSTM, (**g**–**i**) CNN-LSTM, (**j**–**l**) Transformer, (**m**–**o**) ConvTransformer, and (**p**–**r**) Informer.  
Figure 12: Comparative analysis of water table dynamics and InSAR-derived vertical displacement time series.  
Figure 13: Google Earth 3D Image (**Left**) with red-marked surface fissures, indicating land subsidence, along with a field photograph (**Right**) of a fissure at the same location. It links a satellite-based to in situ subsidence observations at the Naqsh-e Rustam World Heritage complex.  
The spatiotemporal evolution of the groundwater level across the study area from 2016 to 2022, revealing significant fluctuations over a 7-year period (Figure 14). The maps cover approximately 1816.12 km\({}^{2}\), spanning 29.7\({}^{\circ}\)N to 30.3\({}^{\circ}\)N latitude and 52.2\({}^{\circ}\)E to 52.8\({}^{\circ}\)E longitude, with groundwater elevations ranging from 1520 m to 1620 m.  
The plain areas exhibit significant depletion, with average levels dropping by 10-15 m, and some locations--such as 29.9\({}^{\circ}\)N, 52.5\({}^{\circ}\)E--show a sharp decline from 1560 m in 2016 to 1535 m in 2022 (\(\sim\)25 m decrease). Conversely, mountainous regions maintain relatively stable levels near 1600 m, indicating their role as natural recharge zones. The northwestern section (30.2\({}^{\circ}\)N, 52.3\({}^{\circ}\)E) remains around 1600 m, exhibiting fluctuations within \(\pm\)5 m, contrasting with the south-central plains, where declines exceed 20 m. The observed depletion trends align with increasing water demand, climate variability, and over-extraction, underscoring the urgent need for localized groundwater management. The consistency of results across multiple years confirms the reliability of the applied methodology, reinforcing its applicability for both small- and large-scale hydrogeological assessments, which are critical for ensuring long-term groundwater sustainability.