Evaluating SAR Radiometric Terrain Correction Products: Analysis-Ready Data for Users
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Operational applications for Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) are under development around the world, driven by the free-and-open access of SAR C-band observations that Sentinel-1 of Copernicus has provided since 2014. Radiometric Terrain Correction (RTC) data are key entry-level products for multiple applications ranging from ecosystem to hazard monitoring. Various open-source software packages exist to create RTC products from Single Look Complex (SLC) or Ground Range Detected (GRD) level SAR data, including the Interferometric SAR Computing Environment (ISCE), and the Sentinel-1 Toolbox from the European Space Agency (SNAP 8). Despite the growing availability of RTC software solutions, little work has been performed to identify differences between RTC products generated using different software packages. This work evaluates several Sentinel-1 RTC products and two other Sentinel-1 Analysis Ready Data (ARD) to address the following questions: (1) Which software provides the most accurate RTC product? and (2) how appropriate for analysis are other non-RTC products that are readily available? The RTCs are produced with GAMMA, ISCE-2, and SNAP 8. The other two ARD products evaluated consisted of an angular-based radiometric slope correction produced in Google Earth Engine (GEE) following Vollrath et al., and the Sentinel-1 GRD product. Products are evaluated across 10 sites in a single image approach for (1) radiometric calibration, (2) geometric corrections, and for (3) geolocation quality. In addition, time-series stacks over two sites representing varied terrain and ecosystems are evaluated. The GAMMA-derived RTC product implemented by the Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) is used as a reference for some of the time-series metrics. The results provide direct guidance and recommendations about the quality of the RTC and ARD products obtained from open source methods. The results indicate that it is not recommended to use the GRD product with no radiometric or geometric corrections for any applications given low performance in multiple metrics. The radiometric calibration and geometric corrections have overall good performance for all open-source solutions, only the non-RTC products (Vollrath et al. and GRD) portray some significant variances in steep terrain. The geolocation assessment indicated that the GRD product has the most significant displacement errors, followed by SNAP 8 with Digital Elevation Model (DEM) matching, and ISCE-2. RTCs created without DEM-matching performed better for both GAMMA and SNAP 8. The time-series results indicate that SNAP 8 products align more closely to GAMMA products than other open-source software in terms of radiometric and geometric quality. This understanding of software performance for SAR image processing is key to designing the affordable and scalable solutions needed for the operational application of SAR Sentinel-1 data.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».