Ranking of 10 Global One-Arc-Second DEMs Reveals Limitations in Terrain Morphology Representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At least 10 global digital elevation models (DEMs) at one-arc-second resolution now cover Earth. Comparing derived grids, like slope or curvature, preserves surface spatial relationships, and can be more important than just elevation values. Such comparisons provide more nuanced DEM rankings than just elevation root mean square error (RMSE) for a small number of points. We present three new comparison categories: fraction of unexplained variance (FUV) for grids with continuous floating point values; accuracy metrics for integer code raster classifications; and comparison of stream channel vector networks. We compare six global DEMs that are digital surface models (DSMs), and four edited versions that use machine learning/artificial intelligence techniques to create a bare-earth digital terrain model (DTM) for different elevation ranges: full Earth elevations, under 120 m, under 80 m, and under 10 m. We find edited DTMs improve on elevation values, but because they do not incorporate other metrics in their training they do not improve overall on the source Copernicus DSM. We also rank 17 common geomorphic-derived grids for sensitivity to DEM quality, and document how landscape characteristics, especially slope, affect the results. None of the DEMs perform well in areas with low average slope compared to reference DTMs aggregated from 1 m airborne lidar data. This indicates that accurate work in low-relief areas grappling with global climate change should use airborne lidar or very high resolution image-derived DTMs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".