Saturday, February 7, 2026

Digression on the Euler Characteristic (M₃): Unlocking Pore Network Topology for Non-Equilibrium Infiltration

This post extends the discussion of [Minkowski functionals] by exploring the deepest topological aspects of M₃—the Euler characteristic.
In our previous posts on Minkowski functionals, we established that M₀ (volume), M₁ (surface area), and M₂ (curvature) are purely geometric measures. They tell us about size, shape, and form. But M₃—the Euler characteristic—is fundamentally different. It's a topological invariant that captures something geometry alone cannot: how the pore space is connected.
Consider two soil samples with identical pore size distributions, identical surface areas, and identical mean curvatures. One could be a tree-like network where every pore has a unique path to every other pore. The other could be riddled with loops—alternative pathways that provide redundancy. The first three Minkowski functionals (M₀, M₁, M₂) might be identical, but M₃ would reveal the profound topological difference.

This distinction isn't academic. It's critical for understanding non-equilibrium infiltration, hysteresis, and the dynamics of water movement that Richards' equation cannot capture.


The Euler characteristic for a 3D pore network can be expressed in two equivalent ways:

Graph-theoretic form:

$$\chi = V - E + F$$
where V is the number of vertices (pore nodes), E is the number of edges (connections), and F is the number of faces (enclosed regions).

Topological form
(via Betti numbers):

$$\chi = \beta_0 - \beta_1 + \beta_2$$
where:
  • β₀ = number of connected components (separate pore clusters)

  • β₁ = number of independent loops (redundant pathways)

  • β₂ = number of enclosed voids (trapped air bubbles)
This second form, rooted in algebraic topology, is where things get interesting.

While Vogel and Roth (2001) pioneered the use of the Euler characteristic for soil pore characterization, the decomposition into Betti numbers reveals structure that χ alone obscures:

β₀ (Connected Components):

When you progressively drain water from soil, β₀ tracks how the water phase fragments. High β₀ means disconnected water clusters—poor hydraulic connectivity. This is crucial during drought or in the late stages of drainage.

β₁ (Independent Loops):

This is perhaps the most important quantity for non-equilibrium flow. Loops create:Alternative flow paths: If one pore throat becomes blocked (by air during drainage, or by swelling clay), water can route around it
Hysteresis mechanisms: The ink-bottle effect is fundamentally about loops—water trapped in a loop during drainage can only escape when all connecting throat pressures exceed the entry pressure
Air entrapment during imbibition: Loops trap air bubbles that persist even after the network is nominally saturated

β₂ (Enclosed Voids):

In most soils, β₂ ≈ 0 (isolated voids are rare), but in fractured or macroporous media, enclosed voids contribute to non-productive porosity and affect effective saturation.

The Critical Gap: C(r→r') vs. χ

As we discussed in earlier posts, the connectivity matrix C(r→r') describes the probability that a pore of size r connects to a pore of size r'. This is essential information—it tells us about local, pairwise connectivity. But C(r→r') is fundamentally a first-order descriptor. It cannot distinguish between: 
  • Linear chains : r₁ → r₂ → r₃ (tree-like, vulnerable)
  • Loops : r₁ ⇄ r₂ ⇄ r₃ ⇄ r₁ (robust, redundant)
Both might have similar C(r→r') statistics, but their hydraulic behavior under non-equilibrium conditions would be dramatically different.
The Euler characteristic χ captures this higher-order topology . But even χ is incomplete—it's a single scalar. The full story requires the Betti numbers as functions of pore size :

$$\beta_1(r_{\min}) = \text{number of loops using pores } r \geq r_{\min}$$

This size-resolved topology tells us which pore size classes contribute to network connectivity and robustness.

Persistent Homology: A New Frontier

Recent work in computational topology has introduced persistent homology to porous media analysis (Jiang et al., 2018; Moon et al., 2019). This technique tracks how Betti numbers evolve as you "fill" the pore space from small to large pores:Birth : The pore size at which a topological feature (component, loop, void) first appears
Death : The pore size at which it disappears (merges with another feature)
Persistence : Death - Birth (a measure of robustness)

Features with high persistence are geometrically significant; those with low persistence are noise.

For soil hydrology, this means:

During Drainage (Decreasing Saturation):Large loops "die" first (they contain large pore bodies that empty early)
Small loops persist longer (they're held by capillarity in small throats)
The transition χ = 0 often marks the percolation threshold where the network fragments

During Imbibition (Increasing Saturation):Small pores fill first, creating many disconnected clusters (high β₀)
As larger pores fill, clusters merge (β₀ decreases, β₁ increases as loops form)
Air becomes trapped in loops that cannot drain (high β₁ of the air phase)

Connection to Permeability: Beyond Kozeny-Carman

Scholz et al. (2012) demonstrated experimentally that permeability scales with the Euler characteristic:

$$k \propto |\chi|^\alpha \cdot f(\phi)$$

This is remarkable because it's independent of the percolation threshold —unlike Katz-Thompson and other models that require identifying a critical pore size.
Why does this work? Because χ directly encodes:Connectivity (via β₀ - β₁): How many pathways are available?
Network topology: Tree-like (low β₁) vs. loop-rich (high β₁) structures
Liu et al. (2017) extended this to 3D and found that void ratio must also be included. But the fundamental insight remains: topology, not just geometry, controls flow .

Application to Non-Equilibrium Infiltration

This brings us to the central challenge: developing a pore-network theory that replaces Richards' equation. Richards assumes:Local equilibrium : θ(ψ) and K(ψ) are unique, path-independent functions
Instantaneous capillary-gravity balance : No dynamic lag
Continuum description : Pore-scale structure doesn't matter
All three assumptions break down during rapid infiltration, preferential flow, and hysteretic cycling. A pore-network approach can address these limitations, but only if we properly account for topology .

The Role of Loops in Non-Equilibrium Dynamics

For each pore i with saturation S_i(t):

$$\frac{\partial S_i}{\partial t} = \frac{1}{V_i} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} Q_{ij}(S_i, S_j, \psi_i, \psi_j, \text{Topology})$$

The flow Q_ij depends not just on local states (S_i, S_j, ψ_i, ψ_j) but also on: Whether (i,j) is part of a loop : If yes, alternative paths exist—the flow can redistribute when one path becomes unfavorable
The saturation state of loops containing (i,j) : A fully saturated loop behaves differently from a partially saturated one
Contact line pinning : In rough or angular pores, interfaces can be pinned by geometry, creating metastable states

This requires tracking:

$$\beta_1^{\text{filled}}(t) = \text{number of loops with all pores filled at time } t$$

As infiltration progresses, new loops become active. During drainage, loops trap water. The dynamics are fundamentally topology-dependent .

The Missing Measurement

Current persistent homology applications to porous media compute β₁(r_min) globally. But for infiltration dynamics, we need:

$$\beta_1(r_{\min}, r_{\max}, S) = \text{loops using pores in } [r_{\min}, r_{\max}] \text{ at saturation } S$$

This would tell us:

  • Which pore size classes create redundant pathways?
  • At what saturation does the network transition from tree-like (β₁ ≈ 0) to loop-rich (β₁ >> 0)?
  • How does the air phase topology evolve during imbibition?
This is a critical gap in current literature. While C(r→r') and χ(r) are both measured, the explicit loop statistics connecting them—particularly as functions of saturation—remain uncharacterized.

Practical Implications

Hysteresis is fundamentally about loops. The ink-bottle effect, snap-off during imbibition, and air entrapment all require topological understanding. Empirical hysteresis models (like Scott 1983 or Luckner et al. 1989) lack physical basis. A topology-based approach could predict hysteresis from pore structure alone.
In macroporous or structured soils, flow doesn't occur uniformly—it follows preferred pathways. These pathways are defined by topology: which loops provide the path of least resistance? Traditional continuum models cannot represent this; pore networks can, if we track β₁(r,S).
During infiltration, trapped air creates additional resistance. But how much air gets trapped? Where? This depends entirely on loop structure. High β₁ in large pores means air can be trapped in those loops even after the matrix is saturated.

Upscaling:

Can we derive effective Richards-like equations from pore-network topology? Perhaps. If we can relate:

$$K(S) = K_{\text{sat}} \cdot f(S, \chi(S), \beta_1(S), \ldots)$$

then topology provides the missing link between pore structure and continuum behavior.

Methodological Challenges

Implementing this vision requires solving several problems:

Current algorithms compute Betti numbers for geometric complexes. We need algorithms that track topology by pore size class and by saturation state . This is "attributed" persistent homology—a frontier in computational topology.

During infiltration, topology evolves. We need:

$$\beta_1(r, t) = \text{loops at pore size } r \text{ and time } t$$

This requires combining persistent homology with time-dependent network analysis—an open problem.

A representative elementary volume (REV) for structured soil might contain 10⁹ pores. Current persistent homology algorithms scale poorly beyond 10⁶ elements. Optimizations are needed.

We need dynamic X-ray CT experiments that track topology during infiltration/drainage cycles. Some pioneering work exists (Armstrong & Berg 2013; Schlüter et al. 2016), but systematic topology analysis is lacking.

The Path Forward

The integration of algebraic topology into soil hydrology is still in its infancy. The foundational work exists:

  • Vogel & Roth (2001) : Introduced χ(r) for pore connectivity
  •  Scholz et al. (2012) : Connected χ to permeability
  • Jiang et al. (2018), Moon et al. (2019) : Applied persistent homology to predict flow properties
  • Lucas et al. (2020) : Multi-scale connectivity analysis

But critical gaps remain:

Loop statistics L_n(r₁,...,r_n) connecting C(r→r') to β₁(r)
Size-resolved persistent homology for two-phase flow
Dynamic topology tracking during infiltration
Topology-dependent constitutive relations for pore-network models

Filling these gaps would enable a truly mechanistic alternative to Richards' equation—one that captures non-equilibrium dynamics, hysteresis, and preferential flow from first principles.

Topology as the Fourth Dimension

We often think of soil characterization in three dimensions:Size (pore size distribution)
Shape (surface area, curvature)
Space (spatial correlations)

But there's a fourth dimension, one that geometry alone cannot capture: Topology .
M₃ and its decomposition into Betti numbers provide access to this dimension. They tell us not just what pores exist, but how they connect —and that connectivity determines everything about non-equilibrium flow.
As we move beyond Richards' equation toward pore-network theories of infiltration, topology will be as important as geometry. The Euler characteristic is our window into this hidden structure—but we're only beginning to look through it.

References
  • Jiang, Z., Wu, K., Couples, G., Van Dijke, M.I.J., Sorbie, K.S., and Ma, J. (2018). Pore geometry characterization by persistent homology theory. Water Resources Research , 54, 4150–4163.
  • Liu, Z., Herring, A., Robins, V., and Armstrong, R.T. (2017). Prediction of permeability from Euler characteristic of 3D images. Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts , SCA2017-016.
  • Lucas, M., Schlüter, S., Vogel, H.-J., and Vereecken, H. (2020). Revealing pore connectivity across scales and resolutions with X-ray CT. European Journal of Soil Science , 72, 546–560.
  • Moon, C., Mitchell, S.A., Heath, J.E., and Andrew, M. (2019). Statistical inference over persistent homology predicts fluid flow in porous media. Water Resources Research , 55, 9592–9603.
  • Scholz, C., Wirner, F., Götz, J., Rüde, U., Schröder-Turk, G.E., Mecke, K., and Bechinger, C. (2012). Permeability of porous materials determined from the Euler characteristic. Physical Review Letters , 109, 264504.
  • Vogel, H.-J., and Roth, K. (2001). Quantitative morphology and network representation of soil pore structure. Advances in Water Resources , 24, 233–242.

Friday, February 6, 2026

The Hydrology 2026 Lab

Work in progress 


The Hydrological Modelling 2026 Class

 Work in progress


The 2026 Hydrology Class

 Work in progress

Hydrology is a fascinating field because water is essential for life and human activities. It is fundamentally the Physics of the Hydrological Cycle, yet it is deeply interconnected with biochemical processes and geology due to water's crucial role in ecosystems. Here a brief introduction from a National Geographics post. A companion page is available for the laboratory exercises, where you can find all the necessary materials for hands-on practice.

The lab material is here. 

Classes and Related Materials

Available Resources

  • Storyboards – A summary of the lecture, usually in Italian.
  • Whiteboard – A detailed explanation of a specific topic, presented using Notability on an iPad.
  • Slides – Commented in English.
  • Videos – Commentary on the slides, typically recorded during lectures with no editing (as post-production would be too time-consuming).
    • 2025 Videos are available on a Vimeo Showcase [link here].
  • Additional Information & References – For those eager to explore more, supplementary details and references are provided in italics.

Class Schedule & Materials

📅 24 February 2025 – Introduction to the Course and Hydrology

  • 🔎 Complementary Reference:

Sunday, January 25, 2026

Leveraging LLMs in Hydrological Research: A Personal Workflow and Supporting Literature

In the rapidly shifting landscape of scientific research, Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as more than just productivity tools; they are powerful engines for augmenting human creativity. As a hydrologist navigating complex phenomena like percolation theory and soil water dynamics, I have developed a hybrid workflow that integrates a suite of LLMs—including Gemini, Grok, ChatGPT, and Claude—into my daily practice.

This post outlines my approach, refined through cross-model interaction, and contextualizes it within recent literature. My goal is to demonstrate how we can exploit these "information reservoirs" with ease while maintaining the rigorous standards required by the physical sciences.


The Workflow: From Intuition to Iteration

My process is built on the principle that LLMs should act as collaborative aids, not replacements. This ensures human oversight counters the inherent risks of AI hallucinations or bias.

1. Conceptualization and Targeted Drafting

Rather than starting with exhaustive preliminary reading, I begin by formalizing concepts that have been "simmering" in my mind. I draft notes with highly specific questions. Precision is the key: the more targeted the query, the more useful the response. For example, I might prompt a model to bridge adjacent fields, such as connecting Minkowski functionals to percolation theory—a link I conceive independently but use AI to flesh out and expand.

2. The Multi-Model Reasoning Loop

Once a draft is mature, I submit it to an ensemble of models to leverage their unique strengths (e.g., Claude’s nuanced reasoning, Gemini’s expansive context window, or Grok’s real-time information access):
  • Structural Refinement: Improving the logical flow and hierarchy of arguments.
  • Cross-Verification: I use a multi-model approach, asking ChatGPT to critique the mathematical derivations provided by Gemini, or vice versa.
  • Fact-Checking: Any discrepancies identified between models are looped back for revision until the logic holds across all platforms.

3. Traditional Validation

The AI output is never the final word. I validate the substance through traditional scientific means:

4. Use impressions

The use of these tools has significantly boosted my search productivity and provides real comfort through the assistance they offer. While large language models (LLMs) often capture the general ideas and broad directions quite effectively, they frequently make errors in equations and produce interpretations that can feel hallucinated—mixed among many correct suggestions.
Nevertheless, because LLMs draw from a vastly wider knowledge base than any individual can access, they enable rapid retrieval of relevant information that would otherwise take weeks (or longer) to uncover through manual searching. On balance, I consider the overall impact positive.
Recent versions of several LLMs now provide accurate references in the vast majority of cases (often 99%), which represents a major advantage. I routinely retrieve and verify each cited source one by one, then store them in my personal papers organizer. As a valuable side effect, LLMs demonstrate strong recall of older literature and can point directly to the original sources of key ideas—helping improve the accuracy and integrity of citations.

The Environmental "Metabolism" of Research

A recurring theme in my work is the tension between the "easy exploitation" of information and the environmental cost. To provide a concrete example, I have estimated the footprint required to produce a substantive research commentary, such as my recent work on the Richards Equation.

Metric
Per Standard Query
Per Reasoning Query
Total for Research Cycle (est. 15-20 interactions)
Energy
~0.34 Wh
4.3 – 33.6 Wh
~110 - 250 Wh
Carbon ($CO_2e$)
~0.15 g
~1.5 - 12.0 g
~25 - 50 g
Water Withdrawal
~0.26 ml
~3.5 - 25.0 ml
~150 - 500 ml
Contextualizing the Impact:

  • Energy: The ~150 Wh consumed is roughly equivalent to leaving a 10W LED bulb on for 15 hours.
  • Water: At the upper end, the research for a single deep-dive commentary "drinks" about 500ml of water (one standard bottle), used for cooling data centers.
  • Carbon: 50g of
    $CO_2$
    is equivalent to driving a gasoline car for approximately 250 meters.

References


1.  LLM4SR: A Survey on Large Language Models for Scientific Research Authors: Various (survey paper) arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04306, 2025 https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.04306

2.  Exploring the role of large language models in the scientific method: from hypothesis to discovery npj Artificial Intelligence (Nature Portfolio), 2025 https://www.nature.com/articles/s44387-025-00019-5

3.  A Survey of Human-AI Collaboration for Scientific Discovery \Preprints.org, 2026 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202601.0405/v1

4.  Scientific Discoveries by LLM Agents OpenReview (conference/journal paper) https://openreview.net/pdf?id=fxL6eFPsd1

5.  How Much Energy Do LLMs Consume? Unveiling the Power Behind AI ADASCI Blog / systematic reviews on LLM energy consumption Approximate figure: GPT-3 training ~1,287 MWh https://adasci.org/blog/how-much-energy-do-llms-consume-unveiling-the-power-behind-ai

6.  Embracing large language model (LLM) technologies in hydrology research IOPscience / Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, recent https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/3033-4942/addd43

7.  Large Language Models as Calibration Agents in Hydrological Modeling Geophysical Research Letters (AGU Journals), 2025 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL120043

Musical Coda



Monday, January 12, 2026

Five Paradoxes of Soil Hydrology (Observations that quietly undermine equilibrium soil physics)

Unsaturated flow theory is one of the cornerstones of hydrology. For nearly a century, the Richards equation has provided a mathematical framework for describing how water moves through partially saturated soils. At its core lies a powerful simplification: the hydraulic state of soil can be described by water content alone.

Yet decades of experiments tell a different story.

Across laboratories, field sites, and scales, soil water exhibits behaviors that contradict this assumption in systematic ways. These contradictions have become known, implicitly if not always explicitly, as paradoxes of vadose zone hydrology. They persist not because of experimental error, but because they expose limits in the classical conceptual model.

Below, we review five such paradoxes that continue to shape how hydrologists think about unsaturated flow.




1. Hysteresis

The same water content, different hydraulic states

Observation

During wetting, soils follow a different relationship between water content and matric potential than during drying. Hydraulic conductivity likewise differs between wetting and drying paths, even at identical water content.

Why this is paradoxical

Classical theory assumes a unique retention curve and unique conductivity function. Hysteresis directly violates this assumption and implies that soil retains memory of its past.


2. Rate Dependence

Why infiltration speed changes soil properties

Observation

Fast infiltration experiments routinely yield hydraulic conductivities several times larger than values obtained under slow, quasi-static conditions, even in the same soil.

Why this is paradoxical

Hydraulic conductivity is assumed to be a material property. If that were true, it should not depend on how quickly water is applied.


3. Scale Dependence

Why field conductivities exceed laboratory values

Observation

Field-scale saturated or near-saturated hydraulic conductivities are often one to two orders of magnitude larger than laboratory measurements on the same soil material. The discrepancy increases with measurement scale.

Why this is paradoxical

If conductivity is intrinsic to the soil, it should not depend on the size of the experiment.


4. Persistence of Compaction Effects

Why soils don’t recover hydraulically

Observation

Mechanical compaction reduces hydraulic conductivity dramatically. Even after bulk density and porosity appear to recover, conductivity often remains suppressed for years.

Why this is paradoxical

If conductivity depends primarily on porosity, it should recover once porosity does.


5. Non-Commutativity of Wetting and Drying

Why the order of processes matters

Observation

Wetting followed by drying does not lead to the same hydraulic state as drying followed by wetting, even if final water content is identical.

Why this is paradoxical

In classical physics, state variables are path-independent. Soil water violates this expectation.


A Shared Message from Five Paradoxes

Each paradox has often been addressed with a separate modeling fix—hysteresis rules, dynamic conductivity, macropore domains, or empirical memory terms. Taken together, however, they point to a single conclusion:

Water content alone is insufficient to describe the hydraulic state of soil.

Soils exhibit memory, path dependence, and sensitivity to forcing because internal processes do not instantaneously equilibrate.


Why Hydrologists Should Care

These paradoxes affect:

  • infiltration and runoff prediction

  • groundwater recharge estimates

  • irrigation efficiency assessments

  • land–surface and Earth system models

  • transfer of parameters from lab to field

They remind us that the vadose zone is not a passive filter but a dynamic system with internal states and history.


References

Haines, W. B. (1930). Studies in the physical properties of soil: V. The hysteresis effect. Journal of Agricultural Science, 20(1), 97–116. DOI: 10.1017/S002185960008864X

Mualem, Y. (1974). A conceptual model of hysteresis. Water Resources Research, 10(3), 514–520. DOI: 10.1029/WR010i003p00514

Smiles, D. E., Vachaud, G., & Vauclin, M. (1971). A test of the uniqueness of the soil moisture characteristic during transient, nonhysteretic flow. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 35, 534–539. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1971.03615995003500040007x

Beven, K., & Germann, P. (1982). Macropores and water flow in soils. Water Resources Research, 18(5), 1311–1325. DOI: 10.1029/WR018i005p01311

Hamza, M. A., & Anderson, W. K. (2005). Soil compaction in cropping systems: A review. Soil and Tillage Research, 82, 121–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009

Philip, J. R. (1964). Similarity hypothesis for capillary hysteresis. Soil Science, 97(3), 155–164. DOI: 10.1097/00010694-196403000-00001

Kool, J. B., & Parker, J. C. (1987). Development and evaluation of closed-form expressions for hysteretic soil hydraulic properties. Water Resources Research, 23(1), 105–114. DOI: 10.1029/WR023i001p00105


Musical Coda



Wednesday, January 7, 2026

Various resources on Evapotranspiration, as we treat it

 Following our session on Evapotranspiration, I am listing some relevant resources beyond what we have already shared. Videos from previous GEOframe Schools are available here, and recordings from this year's school will be posted soon.

Core Reading

The most mature presentation of the theory, particularly for the latter part, is D'Amato and Rigon (2025a). A brief Claude-generated summary is available here. The paper addresses more complex cases than those presented at the School, but the first part—the big leaf model—is complete and clear.
For a more extensive treatment of this material, I recommend starting with the theses by Michele Bottazzi and Concetta D'Amato.
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/gallery/evaporation-fog.html

The Resistance Model for ET

An explanation of the resistance model for evapotranspiration can be found in The Marvelous Physics of Plants, beginning at slide 33. Unfortunately, the accompanying video is in Italian.

Differentiating Soil Behavior from Transpiration

Further lectures covering the differentiation of soil behavior from transpiration are available in the BACI course materials. The advantage of this resource is that the blog page contains step-by-step references to Bottazzi's thesis.

For Those Who Want to Go Deeper

The tool to use is GEOSPACE, which is fully documented in Concetta D'Amato's thesis and in D'Amato et al. (2025b). A Claude-generated summary of this paper is also available on the shared page.

References

Musical coda