Accuracy assessment of digital elevation models by means of robust statistical methods
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The median (50% quantile) is a robust estimator for a systematic shift of the DEM; it is less sensitive to outliers than the mean error and provides a better distributional summary for skew distributions.
“The median (50% quantile) is a robust estimator for a systematic shift of the DEM.It is less sensitive to outliers in the data than the mean error and provides a better distributional summary for skew distributions (Höhle and Höhle 2009).”
From Vertical accuracy evaluation of freely available latest high-resolution (30 m) global digital elevation models over Cameroon (Central Africa) with GPS/leveling ground control points. (2019) · cites this paper as Höhle and Höhle 2009
Not all outliers can be detected by the 3-sigma rule and the DEM accuracy measures (ME and RMS) will therefore be inaccurate.
“Not all of the outliers can be detected in this way and the DEM accuracy measures (ME and RMS) will therefore be inaccurate (Höhle and Höhle 2009;Alidoost and Samadzadegan 2013).”
From Vertical accuracy evaluation of freely available latest high-resolution (30 m) global digital elevation models over Cameroon (Central Africa) with GPS/leveling ground control points. (2019) · cites this paper as Höhle and Höhle 2009
The 95% sample quantile of vertical errors means that 95% of the errors have a magnitude within the interval [0, Q(0.95)]; the remaining 5% can be of any value, making the measure robust against up to 5% blunders.
“The 95% sample quantile of vertical errors literally means that 95% of the errors have a magnitude within the interval [0, Q (0.95)].The remaining 5% of the errors can be of any value making the measure robust against up to 5% blunders ( (Höhle and Höhle 2009).”
From Vertical accuracy evaluation of freely available latest high-resolution (30 m) global digital elevation models over Cameroon (Central Africa) with GPS/leveling ground control points. (2019) · cites this paper as Höhle and Höhle 2009
The Normalized Median Absolute Deviation (NMAD) is proportional to the median of the absolute differences between vertical errors and the median error; it can be considered an estimate for the Standard Deviation (STD) more resilient to outliers in the dataset.
“The Normalized Median Absolute Deviation (NMAD) is proportional to the median of the absolute differences between vertical errors and the median error.It can be considered as an estimate for the Standard Deviation (STD) more resilient to outliers in the dataset (Höhle and Höhle 2009;Alidoost and Samadzadegan 2013).”
From Vertical accuracy evaluation of freely available latest high-resolution (30 m) global digital elevation models over Cameroon (Central Africa) with GPS/leveling ground control points. (2019) · cites this paper as Höhle and Höhle 2009
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Bootstrap Methods and their Application
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802843 · Cited by 7,350 · see citing works
A Suggestion for Using Powerful and Informative Tests of Normality
D'agostino, R. B., Belanger, A., & D'agostino, R. B. (1990) · The American Statistician · doi:10.2307/2684359 · Cited by 1,809 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Aguilar, F., Agüera, F., Aguilar, A., 2007a. A theoretical approach to modeling the accuracy assessment of digital elevation models. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 73 (12), 1367-1379.
- Aguilar, F., Aguilar, M., Agüera, F., 2007b. Accuracy assessment of digital elevation models using a non-parametric approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 21 (6), 667-686.
- Atkinson, A.D.J., Ariza López, F.J., García-Balboa. 2005. Positional accuracy control using robust estimators. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Cartographic Conference, 09-16 July, Acoruña, Spain. Available from: http://www.cartesia. org/articulo206.html (accessed 28.01.2009).
- Carlisle, B.H., 2005. Modelling the spatial distribution of DEM error. Transactions in GIS 9 (4), 521-540.
- Daniel, C., Tennant, K., 2001. DEM quality assessment. In: Maune, D.F. (Ed.), Digital Elevation Model Technologies and Applications: The DEM User Manual, 1st ed. ISBN: 1-57083-064-9, pp. 395-440.
- Desu, M.M., Raghavarao, D., 1990. Sample Size Methodology. Academic Press, Inc.
- Fisher, P.F., Tate, N.J., 2007. Causes and consequences of error in digital elevation models. Progress in Physical Geography 30 (4), 467-489.
- Hoaglin, D.C., Mosteller, F., Tukey, J.W., 1983. Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Höhle, J., Potuckova, M., 2006. The EuroSDR test checking and improving of digital terrain models. In: EuroSDR Official Publication no. 51. ISBN: 9789051794915, pp. 10-55.
- Hyndman, R.J., Fan, Y., 1996. Sample quantiles in statistical packages. The American Statistician 50 (4), 361-365.
- Koenker, R., 2005. Quantile Regression. Economic Society Monographs. Cambridge University Press.
- Koenker, R., Mizera, I., 2004. Penalized triograms: Total variation regularization for bivariate smoothing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B 66 (1), 145-163.
- Lahiri, S.N., 2003. Resampling Methods for Dependent Data. Springer.
- Li, Z., Zhu, Q., Gold, C., 2005. Digital Terrain Modeling -Principles and Methodology. CRC Press, ISBN: 0-415-32462-9.
- Maune, D.F. (Ed.), 2007. Digital Elevation Model Technologies and Applications: The DEM User Manual, 2nd ed. ISBN: 1-57083-082-7.
- Moors, J.J.A., 1988. A quantile alternative for kurtosis. The Statistician 37 (1), 25-32.
- Zandbergen, P.A., 2008. Positional accuracy of spatial data: Non-normal distribu- tions and a critique of the national standard for spatial data accuracy. Transac- tions in GIS 12 (1), 103-130.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Accelerated global glacier mass loss in the early twenty-first century
Hugonnet, R., McNabb, R., Berthier, E., Menounos, B., Nuth, C., Girod, L., Farinotti, D., Huss, M., Dussaillant, I., Brun, F., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03436-z · Cited by 1,910 · see citing works
Yap, L., Kandé, L. H., Nouayou, R., Kamguia, J., Ngouh, N. A., & Makuate, M. B. (2019) · International Journal of Digital Earth · doi:10.1080/17538947.2018.1458163 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
- Authors
- Höhle, J., & Höhle, M.
- Affiliations
- Aalborg University (DK)
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Höhle, Joachim
- Venue
- ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 398-406
- ISSN
- 0924-2716 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2121264346
- Cited by
- 743
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 100 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 25.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (publishedVersion)
- VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Aalborg Universitet
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Satellite Image Processing and Photogrammetry
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geology › 3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geodetic Measurements and Engineering Structures
- Keywords
- robust statistical methods, laser scanning, digital photogrammetry, bare earth extraction, digital terrain model, systematic errors, outliers, median absolute deviation, sample quantiles, sample size determination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
