Evaluation of Atmospheric Correction Algorithms over Lakes for High-Resolution Multispectral Imagery: Implications of Adjacency Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atmospheric correction of satellite optical imagery over inland waters is a key remaining challenge in aquatic remote sensing. This is due to numerous confounding factors such as the complexity of water optical properties, the surface glint, the heterogeneous nature of atmospheric aerosols, and the proximity of bright land surfaces. This combination of factors makes it difficult to retrieve accurate information about the system observed. Moreover, the impact of radiance coming from adjacent land (adjacency effects) in complex geometries further adds to this challenge, especially for small lakes. In this study, ten atmospheric correction algorithms were evaluated for high-resolution multispectral imagery of Landsat-8 Operational Land Imager and Sentinel-2 MultiSpectral Instrument using in situ optical measurements from ~300 lakes across Canada. The results of the validation show that the performance of the algorithms varies by spectral band and evaluation metrics. The dark spectrum fitting algorithm had the best performance in terms of similarity angle (spectral shape), while the neural network-based models showed the lowest errors and bias per band. However, none of the tested atmospheric correction algorithms meet a 30% retrieval accuracy target across all the visible bands, likely due to uncorrected adjacency effects. To quantify this process, three-dimensional radiative transfer simulations were performed and compared to satellite observations. These simulations show that up to 60% of the top of atmosphere reflectance in the near-infrared bands over the lake was from the adjacent lands covered with green vegetation. The significance of these adjacency effects on atmospheric correction has been analyzed qualitatively, and potential efforts to improve the atmospheric correction algorithms are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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".