A Multi-Sensor Comparative Analysis on the Suitability of Generated DEM from Sentinel-1 SAR Interferometry Using Statistical and Hydrological Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital elevation model (DEM) plays a vital role in hydrological modelling and environmental studies. Many essential layers can be extracted from this land surface information, including slope, aspect, rivers, and curvature. Therefore, DEM quality and accuracy will affect the extracted features and the whole process of modeling. Despite freely available DEMs from various sources, many researchers generate this information for their areas from various observations. Sentinal-1 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images are among the best Earth observations for DEM generation thanks to their availabilities, high-resolution, and C-band sensitivity to surface structure. This paper presents a comparative study, from a hydrological point of view, on the quality and reliability of the DEMs generated from Sentinel-1 data and DEMs from other sources such as AIRSAR, ALOS-PALSAR, TanDEM-X, and SRTM. To this end, pair of Sentinel-1 data were acquired and processed using the SAR interferometry technique to produce a DEM for two different study areas of a part of the Cameron Highlands, Pahang, Malaysia, a part of Sanandaj, Iran. Based on the estimated linear regression and standard errors, generating DEM from Sentinel-1 did not yield promising results. The river streams for all DEMs were extracted using geospatial analysis tool in a geographic information system (GIS) environment. The results indicated that because of the higher spatial resolution (compared to SRTM and TanDEM-X), more stream orders were delineated from AIRSAR and Sentinel-1 DEMs. Due to the shorter perpendicular baseline, the phase decorrelation in the created DEM resulted in a lot of noise. At the same time, results from ground control points (GCPs) showed that the created DEM from Sentinel-1 is not promising. Therefore, other DEMs' performance, such as 90-meters' TanDEM-X and 30-meters' SRTM, are better than Sentinel-1 DEM (with a better spatial resolution).
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".