Quantifying the Effect of Registration Error on Spatio-Temporal Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is challenging to acquire satellite sensor data with both fine spatial and fine temporal resolution, especially for monitoring at global scales. Among the widely used global monitoring satellite sensors, Landsat data have a coarse temporal resolution, but fine spatial resolution, while moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) data have fine temporal resolution, but coarse spatial resolution. One solution to this problem is to blend the two types of data using spatio-temporal fusion, creating images with both fine temporal and fine spatial resolution. However, reliable geometric registration of images acquired by different sensors is a prerequisite of spatio-temporal fusion. Due to the potentially large differences between the spatial resolutions of the images to be fused, the geometric registration process always contains some degree of uncertainty. This article analyzes quantitatively the influence of geometric registration error on spatio-temporal fusion. The relationship between registration error and the accuracy of fusion was investigated under the influence of different temporal distances between images, different spatial patterns within the images and using different methods (i.e., spatial and temporal adaptive reflectance fusion model (STARFM), and Fit-FC; two typical spatio-temporal fusion methods). The results show that registration error has a significant impact on the accuracy of spatio-temporal fusion; as the registration error increased, the accuracy decreased monotonically. The effect of registration error in a heterogeneous region was greater than that in a homogeneous region. Moreover, the accuracy of fusion was not dependent on the temporal distance between images to be fused, but rather on their statistical correlation. Finally, the Fit-FC method was found to be more accurate than the STARFM method, under all registration error scenarios.
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 | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".