LiDAR topo‐bathymetry for riverbed elevation assessment: A review of approaches and performance for hydrodynamic modelling of flood plains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Topo‐bathymetric LiDAR (TBL) can provide a continuous digital elevation model (DEM) for terrestrial and submerged portions of rivers. This very high horizontal spatial resolution and high vertical accuracy data can be promising for flood plain mapping using hydrodynamic models. Despite the increasing number of papers regarding the use of TBL in fluvial environments, its usefulness for flood mapping remains to be demonstrated. This review of real‐world experiments focusses on three research questions related to the relevance of TBL in hydrodynamic modelling for flood mapping at local and regional scales: (i) Is the accuracy of TBL sufficient? (ii) What environmental and technical conditions can optimise the quality of acquisition? (iii) Is it possible to predict which rivers would be good candidates for TBL acquisition? With a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.16 m, results from real‐world experiments confirm that TBL provides the required vertical accuracy for hydrodynamic modelling. Our review highlighted that environmental conditions, such as turbidity, overhanging vegetation or riverbed morphology, may prove to be limiting factors in the signal's capacity to reach the riverbed. A few avenues have been identified for considering whether TBL acquisition would be appropriate for a specific river. Thresholds should be determined using geometric or morphological criteria, such as rivers with steep slopes, steep riverbanks, and rivers too narrow or with complex morphologies, to avoid compromising the quality or the extent of the coverage. Based on this review, it appears that TBL acquisition conditions for hydrodynamic modelling for flood mapping should optimise the signal's ability to reach the riverbed. However, further research is needed to determine the percentage of coverage required for the use of TBL as a source of bathymetry in a hydrodynamic model, and whether specific river sections must be covered to ensure model performance for flood mapping.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".