ACIX-III Aqua: evaluation of atmospheric correction for hyperspectral PRISMA imagery over inland and coastal waters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports the outcomes of the third Atmospheric Correction Intercomparison Exercise (ACIX-III Aqua), which evaluated the performance of atmospheric correction (AC) methods for hyperspectral PRISMA satellite data over inland and coastal waters. The exercise included five AC processors (ACOLITE, hGRS, iCOR, MIP, and POLYMER), the standard PRISMA Level 2C product, and an adjacency correction tool (T-Mart) tested with ACOLITE. A total of 239 cloud-free PRISMA scenes from 2019 to 2024 were compared with in situ data of remote sensing reflectance, gathered from both hyperspectral and multispectral radiometers across eight distinct optical water types (OWTs). The accuracy of each AC method varied with spectral band, but all showed largest and lowest discrepancies with in situ data at 443 nm and 560 nm, respectively. All AC methods showed the best agreement with in situ data in greenish waters (OWT 4b) and highest uncertainties were yielded in humic-rich waters (OWT 7). Consistently with the previous ACIX-Aqua study focused on multispectral data, no single AC method outperformed the others across all OWTs. The study confirmed the ongoing challenges of AC over optically complex waters, yet the exercise allowed the community to advance in developing AC methods for hyperspectral satellite images and supporting the development of future operational hyperspectral missions, such as PRISMA Second Generation (PRISMA 2G) and CHIME.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".