Iterative Morphological Filtering for DEM Generation: Improving Accuracy and Robustness in Complex Terrains
Source abstract
Abstract
Accurate terrain modeling from high-resolution digital surface models (DSM) is critical for geosciences, geology, geomorphology, earthquake studies, and applied geology. However, existing filtering methods such as progressive morphological filtering (PMF), cloth simulation filtering (CSF), and progressive TIN densification (TIN) often struggle with complex topography and urban structures, leading to either excessive ground loss or incomplete object removal. Furthermore, some of these algorithms are only specialized for point cloud data and are not optimized for grid data. To address these limitations, we propose an iterative morphological filtering (IMF) algorithm that introduces a binary surface edge-segmentation strategy. The method refines object–ground separation by combining iterative morphological operations with block-based graph-cut stitching, thus enhancing continuity and accuracy in challenging terrain. Validation on UAV-derived DSM over the Haihe Basin in China and the ISPRS Vaihingen dataset shows that IMF achieves notable accuracy improvements: the Vaihingen test areas yielded an average Type I error of 8.93%, Type II error of 3.09%, overall accuracy of 80.85%, and Kappa coefficient of 0.7524, while the Haihe Basin test areas achieved Type I and II errors of 2.22% and 1.87%, overall accuracy of 89.32%, and a Kappa coefficient of 0.8706. These results demonstrate that IMF outperforms conventional methods by reducing both Type I and Type II errors, producing terrains highly consistent with real conditions. This innovation provides a robust and scalable solution for digital elevation models (DEM) generation from gridded DSM, offering significant value for large-scale environmental monitoring and flood risk assessment.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications · 3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage · 3D Modeling in Geospatial Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China
Research Center on Flood & Drought Disaster Reduction of the Ministry of Water Resources, Beijing 100038, China
Funding
Hunan Water Conservancy Science and Technology · Three Gorges Follow-up Work · Special Project on Basic Scientific Research Funds of China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research
References (48)
Show source-provided references
1. Guth, P.L., Van Niekerk, A., Grohmann, C.H., Muller, J.-P., Hawker, L., Florinsky, I.V., Gesch, D., Reuter, H.I., Herrera-Cruz, V., and Riazanoff, S. (2021). Digital Elevation Models: Terminology and Definitions. Remote Sens., 13.10.3390/rs13183581 ↗
2. Balasubramanian, A. (2017). Digital Elevation Model (DEM) in GIS, University of Mysore.
3. Land surveying with UAV photogrammetry and LiDAR for optimal building planning10.1016/j.autcon.2025.106092 ↗
4. Zhu, H., and Chen, Y. (2024). A study of the effect of DEM spatial resolution on flood simulation in distributed hydrological modeling. Remote Sens., 16.10.3390/rs16163105 ↗
5. Low-cost UAV in photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing: Georeferencing, DEM accuracy, and geospatial analysis10.1007/s41651-024-00176-2 ↗
6. Cirillo, D., Tangari, A.C., Scarciglia, F., Lavecchia, G., and Brozzetti, F. (2025). UAV-PPK Photogrammetry, GIS, and Soil Analysis to Estimate Long-Term Slip Rates on Active Faults in a Seismic Gap of Northern Calabria (Southern Italy). Remote Sens., 17.10.3390/rs17193366 ↗
7. UAV technique to localize landslide susceptibility and mitigation proposal: A case of Rinchending Goenpa landslide in Bhutan10.1016/j.nhres.2021.09.001 ↗
8. Tabunshchik, V., Gorbunov, R., Gorbunova, T., Pham, C.N., and Klyuchkina, A. (2023). Identification of river basins within northwestern slope of Crimean Mountains using various digital elevation models (ASTER GDEM, ALOS World 3D, Copernicus DEM, and SRTM DEM). Front. Earth Sci., 11.10.3389/feart.2023.1218823 ↗
9. Hidayat, E., Muslim, D., Wibowo, D.A., Puswanto, E., Aribowo, S., Mulyono, A., and Sudrajat, Y. (2024). Appraisal of active tectonics in Karangsambung Amphitheater: Insights from DEM-derived geomorphic indices and geological data. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, IOP Publishing.10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012092 ↗
10. Dense Image Matching vs. Airborne Laser Scanning—Comparison of two methods for deriving terrain models10.1127/pfg/2016/0288 ↗
11. Digital surface model generation from high-resolution satellite stereos based on hybrid feature fusion network10.1111/phor.12471 ↗
12. Digital surface model generation from high-resolution satellite stereo imagery based on structural similarity10.1080/10106049.2022.2057594 ↗
13. Alzaghoul, E., Al-Zoubi, M.B., Obiedat, R., and Alzaghoul, F. (2021). Applying machine learning to DEM raster images. Technologies, 9.10.3390/technologies9040087 ↗
14. Dynamic spatio-temporal flow modeling with raster DEMs10.1111/tgis.12870 ↗
15. Removing non-ground points from automated photo-based DEM and evaluation of its accuracy with LiDAR DEM10.1016/j.cageo.2012.02.013 ↗
16. Creating high-resolution bare-earth digital elevation models (DEMs) from stereo imagery in an area of densely vegetated deciduous forest using combinations of procedures designed for lidar point cloud filtering10.1080/15481603.2017.1295514 ↗
17. Sammartano, G., and Spanò, A. (2016, January 26–27). DEM Generation based on UAV Photogrammetry Data in Critical Areas. Proceedings of the GISTAM, Rome, Italy.10.5220/0005918400920098 ↗
18. Processing of laser scanner data—Algorithms and applications10.1016/S0924-2716(99)00008-8 ↗
19. Comparison of Three Algorithms for Filtering Airborne Lidar Data10.14358/PERS.71.3.313 ↗
20. Meng, X. (2005). A slope-and elevation-based filter to remove non-ground measurements from airborne LIDAR data. UCGIS Summer Assembly, 28.
21. Ground filtering and DTM generation from DSM data using probabilistic voting and segmentation10.1080/01431161.2018.1434327 ↗
22. Filtering of Laser Altimetry Data using a Slope Adaptive Filter
23. Slope based filtering of laser altimetry data
24. Capture Andevaluation of Airborne Laser Scanner Data
25. A progressive morphological filter for removing nonground measurements from airborne LIDAR data10.1109/TGRS.2003.810682 ↗
26. DEM generation from laser scanner data using adaptive TIN models
27. Zhang, W., Qi, J., Wan, P., Wang, H., Xie, D., Wang, X., and Yan, G. (2016). An Easy-to-Use Airborne LiDAR Data Filtering Method Based on Cloth Simulation. Remote Sens., 8.10.3390/rs8060501 ↗
28. Generating DTM from DSM Using a Conditional GAN in Built-Up Areas
29. Experimental Comparison of Filter Algorithms for Bare-Earth Extraction from Airborne Laser Scanning Point Clouds10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2004.05.004 ↗
30. Kasser, M., and Egels, Y. (2002). Digital Photogrammetry, Taylor & Francis.
31. Image Analysis Using Mathematical Morphology10.1109/TPAMI.1987.4767941 ↗
32. A multi-directional ground filtering algorithm for airborne LIDAR10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2008.09.001 ↗
33. Parallel image processing with the block data parallel architecture10.1109/5.503297 ↗
34. Boykov, Y.Y., and Jolly, M.P. (2001, January 7–14). Interactive graph cuts for optimal boundary & region segmentation of objects in N-D images. Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2001, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
35. Grayscale morphology10.1016/0734-189X(86)90004-6 ↗
36. A comprehensive survey on image binarization techniques
37. The connected-component labeling problem: A review of state-of-the-art algorithms10.1016/j.patcog.2017.04.018 ↗
38. Fast connected-component labeling10.1016/j.patcog.2008.10.013 ↗
39. Ismail, Z., and Jaafar, J. (2013, January 20). DEM derived from photogrammetric generated DSM using morphological filter. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 4th Control and System Graduate Research Colloquium, Shah Alam, Malaysia.10.1109/ICSGRC.2013.6653284 ↗
40. Anders, N., Valente, J., Masselink, R., and Keesstra, S. (2019). Comparing filtering techniques for removing vegetation from UAV-based photogrammetric point clouds. Drones, 3.10.3390/drones3030061 ↗
41. Ground Filtering Algorithms for Airborne LiDAR Data: A Review of Critical Issues10.3390/rs2030833 ↗
42. Comparative Analysis of DTM Extraction from Airborne LiDAR Point Cloud Data with Adaptive TIN Filter, Cloth Simulation Filter, and Progressive Morphological Filter Methods
43. Study on applicability of cloth simulation filtering algorithm for segmentation of ground points from drone LiDAR point clouds in mountainous areas
44. A fast progressive TIN densification filtering algorithm for airborne LiDAR data using adjacent surface information10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3131586 ↗
45. Chen, C., Guo, J., Wu, H., Li, Y., and Shi, B. (2021). Performance comparison of filtering algorithms for high-density airborne LiDAR point clouds over complex LandScapes. Remote Sens., 13.10.3390/rs13142663 ↗
46. Chai, C., Zhang, M., Zuo, T., Yang, Z., Liu, Y., Hou, P., and Wang, Z. (2024). Comparative Study on Point Cloud Filtering Algorithm in Constructing Mining Subsidence Model, SPIE.10.1117/12.3035652 ↗
47. Evaluation and Analysis of Ground Filtering Algorithms for Building Height Estimation on Satellite-Based High-Resolution DEM Data10.1007/s12524-022-01659-9 ↗
48. Correct formulation of the kappa coefficient of agreement