A Comparison of Sentinel-1 Biased and Unbiased Coherence for Crop Monitoring and Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) holds significant potential for applications in crop monitoring and classification. Interferometric SAR (InSAR) coherence proves effective in monitoring crop growth. Currently, the coherence based on the maximum likelihood estimator is biased towards low coherence values. Therefore, the main aim of this work is to access the performance of Sentinel-1 time-series biased coherence and unbiased coherence in crop monitoring and classification. This study was conducted during the 2018 growing season (April-October) in Komoka, an agricultural region in southwestern Ontario, Canada, primarily cultivating three crops: soybean, corn, and winter wheat. To verify the ability of coherence to monitor crops, a linear correlation coefficient between temporal coherence and dual polarimetric radar vegetation index (DpRVI) was fitted. The results revealed a stable correlation between temporal coherence and DpRVI time-series, with the highest correlation observed for soybean (0.7 < R < 0.8), followed by wheat and corn. Notably, unbiased coherence of the VV channel exhibited the highest correlation (R > 0.75). In addition, we applied unbiased coherence to crop classification. The results show that unbiased coherence exhibits very promising classification performance, with the overall accuracy (84.83%) and kappa coefficient (0.76) of VV improved by 8.35% and 0.12, respectively, over biased coherence, and the overall accuracy (73.25%) and kappa coefficient (0.57) of VH improved by 7.56% and 0.14, respectively, over biased coherence, and all crop classification accuracies were also effectively improved. This study demonstrates the feasibility of coherence monitoring of crops and provides new insights in enhancing the higher separability of crops.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".