Evaluation of Radar Backscattering Models IEM, OH, and Dubois using L and C-Bands SAR Data over different vegetation canopy covers and soil depths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Several algorithms have been proposed in the literature to invert radar measurements to estimate surface soil moisture. The objective of this paper is to compare the performance of the most common surface back scattering models including the theoretical integral equation model (IEM) of Fung et al. (1992), and the semi-empirical models of Oh et al. (1992, 1994, 2002 and2004) and Dubois et al. (1995). This analysis uses four AIRSAR data in L and C band together with in situ measurements (soil moisture and surface roughness) over bare soil and vegetation covers area and three different soil depths. The results show that Dubois model tend to over-estimate the radar response in both bands while IEM model and Oh model frequently over-estimate the radar response in L band but under-estimate them in C band. By evaluating of all models in different soil depths, the best results were obtained in 0–3 cm depths. For vegetation area poor correlation between models backscatter simulation and radar response was observed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".