A Kriging Method for the Estimation of ALS Point-Cloud Accuracy without Ground Truth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airborne LiDAR scanning is a promising approach to providing high-resolution products that are appropriate for different applications, such as flood management. However, the vertical accuracy of airborne LiDAR point clouds is not constant and varies in space. Having a better knowledge of their accuracy will assist decision makers in more accurately estimating the damage caused by flood. Data producers often report the total estimation of errors by means of comparison with a ground truth. However, the reliability of such an approach depends on various factors including the sample size, accessibility to ground truth, distribution, and a large enough diversity of ground truth, which comes at a cost and is somewhat unfeasible in the larger scale. Therefore, the main objective of this article is to propose a method that could provide a local estimation of error without any third-party datasets. In this regard, we take advantage of geostatistical ordinary kriging as an alternative accuracy estimator. The challenge of considering constant variation across the space leads us to propose a non-stationary ordinary kriging model that results in the local estimation of elevation accuracy. The proposed method is compared with global ordinary kriging and a ground truth, and the results indicate that our method provides more reliable error values. These errors are lower in urban and semi-urban areas, especially in farmland and residential areas, but larger in forests, due to the lower density of points and the larger terrain variations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".