Efficient hybrid breaching-filling sink removal methods for flow path enforcement in digital elevation models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital elevation models (DEMs) that are used in hydrological applications must be processed to remove sinks, mainly topographic depressions. Flow enforcement techniques include filling methods, which raise elevations within depressions, breaching, which carves channels through blockages, and hybrid methods. Despite previous research demonstrating the large impact to DEMs and subsequent analyses of depression filling, it is common practice apply this technique to flow enforcement. This is partly because of the greater efficiency of depression filling tools compared to breaching counterparts, which often limits breaching to applications of small- to moderate-sized DEMs. A new hybrid flow enforcement algorithm is presented in this study. The method can be run in complete breaching, selective breaching (either breached or filled), or constrained breaching (partial breaching) modes, allowing for greater flexibility in how practitioners enforce continuous flow paths. Algorithm performance was tested with DEMs of varying topography, spatial extents, and resolution. The sites included three moderate sized DEMs (52 000 000 to 190 000 000 cells) and three massive DEMs of the Iberian Peninsula, and the Amazon and Nile River basins, the largest containing nearly one billion cells. In complete breaching mode, the new algorithm required 87% of the time needed by a filling method to process the test DEMs, while the selective breaching and constrained breaching modes, operating with maximum breach depth constraints, increased run times by 8% and 27% respectively. Therefore, the new algorithm offers comparable performance to filling and the ability to process massive topographic data sets, while giving practitioners greater flexibility and lowering DEM impact. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".