Validation of FABDEM, a global bare-earth elevation model, against UAV-lidar derived elevation in a complex forested mountain catchment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Space-based, global-extent digital elevation models (DEMs) are key inputs to many Earth sciences applications. However, many of these applications require the use of a ‘bare-Earth’ DEM versus a digital surface model (DSM), the latter of which may include systematic positive biases due to tree canopies in forested areas. Critical topographic features may be obscured by these biases. Vegetation-free datasets have been created by using statistical relationships and machine learning to train on local-scale datasets (e.g., lidar) to de-bias the global-extent datasets. Recent advances in satellite platforms coupled with increased availability of computational resources and lidar reference products has allowed for a new generation of vegetation- and urban-canopy removals. One of these is the Forest And Buildings removed Copernicus DEM (FABDEM), based on the most recent and most accurate global DSM Copernicus-30. Among the more challenging landscapes to quantify surface elevations are densely forested mountain catchments, where even airborne lidar applications struggle to capture surface returns. The increasing affordability and availability of UAV-based lidar platforms have resulted in new capacity to fly modest spatial extents with unrivalled point densities. These data allow an unprecedented ability to validate global sub-canopy DEMs against representative UAV-based lidar data. In this work, the FABDEM is validated against up-scaled lidar data in a steep and forested mountain catchment considering elevation, slope, and Terrain Position Index (TPI) metrics. Comparisons of FABDEM with SRTM, MERIT, and the Copernicus-30 dataset are made. It was found that the FABDEM had a 24% reduction in elevation RMSE and a 135% reduction in bias compared to the Copernicus-30 dataset. Overall, the FABDEM provides a clear improvement over existing deforested DEM products in complex mountain topography such as the MERIT DEM. This study supports the use of FABDEM in forested mountain catchments as the current best-in-class data product.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".