On the Added Value of Quad-Pol Data in a Multi-Temporal Crop Classification Framework Based on RADARSAT-2 Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polarimetric SAR images are a rich data source for crop mapping. However, quad-pol sensors have some limitations due to their complexity, increased data rate, and reduced coverage and revisit time. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the added value of quad-pol data in a multi-temporal crop classification framework based on SAR imagery. With this aim, three RADARSAT-2 scenes were acquired between May and June 2010. Once we analyzed the separability and the descriptive analysis of the features, an object-based supervised classification was performed using the Random Forests classification algorithm. Classification results obtained with dual-pol (VV-VH) data as input were compared to those using quad-pol data in different polarization bases (linear H-V, circular, and linear 45°), and also to configurations where several polarimetric features (Pauli and Cloude–Pottier decomposition features and co-pol coherence and phase difference) were added. Dual-pol data obtained satisfactory results, equal to those obtained with quad-pol data (in H-V basis) in terms of overall accuracy (0.79) and Kappa values (0.69). Quad-pol data in circular and linear 45° bases resulted in lower accuracies. The inclusion of polarimetric features, particularly co-pol coherence and phase difference, resulted in enhanced classification accuracies with an overall accuracy of 0.86 and Kappa of 0.79 in the best case, when all the polarimetric features were added. Improvements were also observed in the identification of some particular crops, but major crops like cereals, rapeseed, and sunflower already achieved a satisfactory accuracy with the VV-VH dual-pol configuration and obtained only minor improvements. Therefore, it can be concluded that C-band VV-VH dual-pol data is almost ready to be used operationally for crop mapping as long as at least three acquisitions in dates reflecting key growth stages representing typical phenology differences of the present crops are available. In the near future, issues regarding the classification of crops with small field sizes and heterogeneous cover (i.e., fallow and grasslands) need to be tackled to make this application fully operational.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".