ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Explicit Features Versus Implicit Spatial Relations in Geomorphometry: A Comparative Analysis for DEM Error Correction in Complex Geomorphological Regions.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Global Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) exhibit systematic biases constrained by acquisition geometry and surface penetration. This study aims to evaluate whether the increasing complexity of geometric deep learning (e.g., Graph Neural Networks, GNNs) is justified by performance gains over established feature engineering paradigms (e.g., XGBoost) under the constraints of sparse altimetry supervision. We established a rigorous comparative framework across four mainstream products-ALOS World 3D, Copernicus DEM, SRTM GL1, and TanDEM-X-using Sichuan Province, China, as a representative natural laboratory. Our results reveal a fundamental scale mismatch (where the ~485 m average spacing of sampled altimetry footprints dwarfs the local terrain resolution): despite their topological complexity, Hybrid GNN models fail to establish a statistically significant accuracy advantage over the systematically optimized XGBoost baseline, demonstrating RMSE parity. Mechanistically, we uncover a critical divergence in decision logic: XGBoost relies on a stable "Physics Skeleton" consistently dominated by deterministic features (terrain aspect and vegetation density), whereas GNNs exhibit severe "Attribution Stochasticity" (ρ ≈ 0.63-0.77). The GNN component acts as a residual-dependent latent feature learner rather than discovering universal topological laws. We conclude that for geospatial regression tasks relying on sparse supervision, "Physics Trumps Geometry." A "Feature-First" paradigm that prioritizes robust, domain-knowledge-based physical descriptors outweighs the indeterminate complexity of "Black Box" architectures. This study underscores the imperative of prioritizing explanatory stability over marginal accuracy gains to foster trusted Geo-AI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.