Method to Reduce the Bias on Digital Terrain Model and Canopy Height Model from LiDAR Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Underestimation of LiDAR heights is widely known but has never been evaluated for several sensors and for diverse types of ecological conditions. This underestimation is mainly linked to the probability of the pulse to reach the ground and the top of vegetation. Main causes of this underestimation are pulse density, pattern of scan (sensors), scan angles, specific contract parameters (flying altitude, pulse repetition frequency) and characteristics of the territory (slopes, stand density and species composition). This study, carried out at a resolution of 1 × 1 m, first assessed the possibility of making an adjustment model to correct the bias of the digital terrain model (DTM), and then proposed a global adjustment model to correct the bias on the canopy height model (CHM). For this study, the bias of both DTM and CHM were calculated by subtracting two LiDAR datasets: high-density pixels with 21 pulses/m² (first return) and more (DTM or CHM reference value pixels) and low-density pixels (DTM or CHM value to correct). After preliminary analyses, it was concluded that the DTM did not need specific adjustment. In contrast, the CHM needed adjustments. Among the variables studied, three were selected for the final CHM adjustment model: the maximum height of the pixel (H2Corr); the density of first returns by m2 (D_first); and the standard deviation of nine maximum heights of the neighborhood cells (H_STD9). The modeling occurred in three steps. The first two steps enabled the determination of significant variables and the shape of the equation to be defined (linear mixed model and non-linear model). The third step made it possible to propose an empirical equation using a non-linear mixed model that can be applied to a 1 × 1 m CHM. The CHM underestimation correction could be used for a preliminary step to several uses of the CHM such as volume calculation, forest growth models or multi-temporal analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".