The Effects of Dry Snow on the SAR Impulse Response and Feasibility for Single Channel Snow Water Equivalent Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snow water equivalent (SWE) is an important surface parameter for understanding a number of Earth system processes. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) has considerable potential for measuring SWE of dry-snow because SAR can penetrate through the snow to the ground surface and is both amplitude- and phase-sensitive to refraction from the snow. Previous work on refraction-based SWE measurement by SAR has utilized the repeat-pass InSAR phase signal to estimate changes in SWE that occur between SAR acquisitions. These are subject to temporal decorrelation effects and consider only the refraction that occurs along the SAR beam center rather than the entire synthetic aperture. This study examines the refractive effect of dry-snow along the synthetic aperture and its impact on SAR image formation including defocusing and phase bias of the system impulse response. Snow phase compensation during time domain processing to recover the snow-free impulse response function (IRF) is described and demonstrated. The feasibility of using the mapdrift and image sharpness autofocus methods to estimate SWE is examined, and the effect of key system parameters on the estimation performance is derived. Experimental validation of the method was conducted by acquiring L-band data with the Simon Fraser University (SFU) Airborne SAR System over a pair of corner reflectors installed on the Kluane icefield in northwestern Canada. Results from both simulations and the icefield experiment are presented and compared including an analysis of errors affecting the estimation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".