Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 34 references

An Efficient Machine Learning Framework for Forest Height Estimation from Multi-Polarimetric Multi-Baseline SAR data

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Gradient boosting maps forest height from SAR to 1.83 m

desk verdict CatBoost on 52 SAR covariance features is a sensible cheap baseline for forest height, but the headline 1.83 m RMSE is partly a smoothing artifact and the best configuration is selected on the test patches. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20798 v1 pith:X4VWYWJF submitted 2025-07-28 cs.CV

Francesca Razzano , Wenyu Yang , Sergio Vitale , Giampaolo Ferraioli , Silvia Liberata Ullo , Gilda Schirinzi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords forestheightestimationSARtomographygradientboostingCatBoostmulti-baselinepolarimetricLiDARgroundtruthcanopymodeldigitalterrain
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Forest height is a key input for carbon accounting, and multi-baseline polarimetric SAR can in principle measure it, but physics-based inversion is hard and deep-learning alternatives need large training sets and heavy preprocessing. The paper proposes FGump, a gradient-boosting framework that estimates canopy height and ground elevation from compact features extracted from the multi-polarimetric multi-baseline covariance matrix, using LiDAR profiles as ground truth. The claim is that a regression formulation with CatBoost, trained on non-calibrated data with a 49 by 49 spatial window, achieves the best canopy-height accuracy among the compared methods (1.83 m RMSE on the test patch) while training in 46 seconds and inferring a patch in 0.04 seconds. If this holds, accurate forest height mapping becomes practical at scale, with no phase calibration or LiDAR quantization in the pipeline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the polarimetric multi-baseline sample covariance matrix of size 3Nb by 3Nb, here 18 by 18 for six baselines in three polarizations. From each pixel's window-averaged covariance matrix, the framework extracts the diagonal elements plus the first-row complex entries, splitting real and imaginary parts, to form a 52-dimensional real feature vector per pixel; LiDAR canopy and terrain heights are spatially averaged with the same window to become regression targets. The learning engine is CatBoost, a gradient-boosting algorithm whose ordered boosting and symmetric-tree construction are used to fit a weighted RMSE loss, and the selected configuration is regression on non-calibrated data with a 49 by 49 window.

What would settle it

Train FGump on the described scene and apply it, without retraining, to a separate forest area with different terrain, tree heights, and acquisition geometry, then compare against local LiDAR; a canopy-height RMSE much larger than the reported 1.83 m would show that the accuracy is tied to the training scene rather than to general SAR-to-height learning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a regression-based gradient-boosting model, called FGump, reproduces canopy and ground height profiles from SAR alone as well as or better than both deep networks and classical tomographic inversion. FGump trains CatBoost on the real-valued diagonals and first-row real and imaginary elements of the 18 by 18 sample covariance matrix formed from six polarimetric P-band baselines, with LiDAR canopy height and terrain models as regression targets. The regression variant using non-calibrated input and a 49 by 49 spatial averaging window reaches a canopy-height RMSE of 1.83 m, the lowest among the FGump variants and among the compared machine-learning, deep-learning, and classical methods, with ground elevation results comparable to the best competitor. The same configuration trains in 46 seconds and runs inference in 0.04 seconds on the tested patch. The paper further argues that regression avoids the quantization artifacts of classification-based approaches and that omitting phase calibration does not degrade accuracy, so that preprocessing step can be dropped.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that a random 80/20 split within one scene, with the test patch drawn from the same acquisition as training and validation data, is enough to prove the method generalizes to other forests, sensors, and acquisition geometries.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Canopy height maps could be produced from multi-baseline SAR stacks with only a sparse LiDAR reference, skipping phase calibration and LiDAR quantization.
  • The 46-second training time makes per-region fine-tuning practical, so the same framework could be applied to new areas at low computational cost.
  • Regression-based retrieval appears preferable to classification in this setting, since it preserves continuous height values and avoids rounding artifacts.
  • Gradient-boosting methods, not just deep networks, are competitive for tomographic forest parameter retrieval when compact hand-designed covariance features are used.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The random pixel-level split the paper uses probably overstates real-world accuracy, because neighboring pixels share spatial autocorrelation; a block-holdout evaluation would give a stricter estimate.
  • Because the input features are generic covariance-matrix elements, the same pipeline could be tested on other wavelengths or spaceborne multi-baseline data with minimal changes.
  • A direct comparison of FGump against a deep network trained from scratch on the same compact feature vector would isolate whether the gain comes from the regression formulation or from the feature representation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FGump, a CatBoost-based machine learning framework for estimating forest canopy height (CHM) and ground elevation (DTM) from multi-polarimetric multi-baseline SAR data. Features are extracted from the 18×18 sample covariance matrix (3Nb = 18 for Nb = 6), and LiDAR-derived CHM/DTM serve as regression or classification targets. The authors evaluate the influence of spatial window size, calibration, and learning paradigm, then compare FGump against RF, XGBoost, LightGBM, KNN, TSNN, SKP, and GLRT on the Paracou dataset, reporting RMSE and training/inference times. The headline results are a CHM RMSE of 1.83 m and a training time of 46 s.

Significance. If the reported accuracy were trustworthy, the paper would offer a practically useful result: a lightweight gradient-boosting model that matches or beats deep learning on canopy height retrieval while being drastically cheaper to train (46 s vs 5428 s for TSNN) and faster at inference (0.04 s). The paper also provides a useful side-by-side comparison of several ML algorithms on a common feature set. However, the central accuracy claim is not currently supported because the evaluation protocol smooths the LiDAR targets with the same window used for feature extraction and selects the best configuration on the very patches later used for final reporting. These issues are fixable, but the 1.83 m figure cannot be interpreted as unbiased height-estimation error as it stands.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II-A, Tables II and III] The LiDAR CHM/DTM targets are spatially averaged with a window whose size matches the window used for covariance estimation. At the selected 49×49 window, both the input features and the regression targets are smoothed over roughly 49 m, so RMSE computed against the smoothed LiDAR reference is expected to decrease as the window grows even for a trivial local-mean predictor. The near-monotone RMSE reductions in Tables II and III are therefore partly a smoothing artifact rather than evidence of improved height estimation. Please report RMSE with respect to the unsmoothed LiDAR reference at native resolution, or at least include a baseline that predicts the window-averaged LiDAR value (e.g., the local mean) to quantify the smoothing contribution. Without this, the headline 1.83 m CHM RMSE is not interpretable as a faithful height-estimation error.
  2. [Section III-B, Figures 6 and 11] The optimal configuration (49×49 window, regression, non-calibrated data) is selected by comparing RMSE on Patch1/Patch2, and the same patches are subsequently used to report the final accuracy numbers in Figures 6, 7, 9, and 11. This is test-set selection and biases the reported results optimistically. The model configuration and any hyperparameters should be chosen on a separate validation split, and the final accuracy should be evaluated on a genuinely held-out test set (or via nested cross-validation). The paper should also report results over repeated splits with error bars, since currently all conclusions rest on a single random 80/20 split with no uncertainty quantification.
  3. [Section IV vs Section III-C and Figure 11] The conclusion states that FGump "consistently outperforms SOTA ML and DL methods in both CHM and DTM reconstruction tasks," but this is contradicted by the results in Section III-C, which state that "XGBoost yields the best performance for DTM estimation, with FGump providing comparable accuracy," and by Figure 11, where all data-driven approaches are described as nearly equivalent for DTM. The conclusion should be revised to accurately reflect the DTM comparison, or the DTM experiments should be strengthened if the authors wish to claim superiority on that task.
  4. [Section III-A and Section IV] The abstract and conclusion claim "strong generalization" and suitability for operational, large-scale monitoring, but the evaluation is confined to a single site (Paracou) and a single acquisition campaign, with training and test patches drawn from the same image stack. The random 80/20 split within one ROI does not test transfer across forest types, sensors, or acquisition geometries. Either temper the generalization claims to the single-site setting, or add cross-site/cross-acquisition experiments to support them. This is an external-validity limitation separate from the internal metric issues above, but it directly affects the operational claims.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section II-C, Eq. (7)] The regression loss in Eq. (7) is written with t_i as the target, while the surrounding text defines y_i as the ground-truth value; please make the notation consistent.
  2. [Section III-A] There is a typo: "spaceed out" should be "spaced out".
  3. [Section III-B, Figures 4 and 5] The phrase "preditced" appears in the figure captions and should be corrected to "predicted".
  4. [Section III-E] The sentence "excepted for KNN whose testing time is higher then other methods" contains two typos: "excepted" should be "except" and "higher then" should be "higher than".
  5. [Section III-D] The claim that "the traceline validation is computed over more than one million points" should be clarified: the tracelines shown are only three horizontal rows, so please specify whether the million points refer to the full test patch or to a different aggregation, and explain how the traceline analysis supports the qualitative comparison.
  6. [Figures 6 and 11] Figures 6 and 11 appear to report overlapping comparisons of RMSE values; please clarify the distinct role of each figure, for example by stating that Figure 6 includes RF, LightGBM, and KNN, while Figure 11 focuses on FGump, XGBoost, and TSNN.
  7. [Introduction] The phrase "the prsented method" in the introduction is a typo and should read "the presented method".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FGump's regression pipeline is independent of the LiDAR target; the main weaknesses are evaluation-protocol issues, not circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's claimed chain is empirical: SAR covariance features are extracted from the MPMB stack (Section II-A), CatBoost is trained to regress LiDAR-derived CHM/DTM labels, and the errors are compared on held-out spatial patches within the same Paracou scene. No physical inversion theorem is derived, so the usual circular patterns (uniqueness import, ansatz-via-citation, renaming) do not apply. The one self-citation, [13], is used only to inherit the dataset-construction workflow ('The dataset construction follows the same workflow proposed by the same authors in [13]'); this is not load-bearing for the accuracy claim, since the feature/label construction is fully described and the comparison to TSNN is a retrained external baseline. Two protocol issues are real but are not circularity: (i) the LiDAR CHM/DTM labels are spatially averaged with the same window used for covariance estimation (Section II-A), so the RMSE is measured against a smoothed target; (ii) the optimal window size, calibration setting, and regression/classification variant are selected by RMSE on the same patches (Patch1/Patch2) later used for the headline results (Section III-B, Tables II/III, Fig. 11), which introduces selection bias. Neither step defines the prediction in terms of the target, and the reported reductions are not forced by construction. Hence the score is 2, reflecting the minor non-load-bearing self-citation and protocol optimism, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model contributes no new physics or invented entities; it relies on standard domain assumptions about LiDAR ground truth, spatial averaging, feature sufficiency, and same-site representativeness. The main free parameter is the test-selected window size; CatBoost hyperparameters are unreported.

free parameters (5)
  • Spatial averaging window size W = 49x49
    Chosen as the configuration with lowest RMSE on the testing patches in Tables II and III, making the final accuracy partly a test-set fit.
  • CatBoost hyperparameters = not reported
    Number of trees, learning rate, depth, and regularization are not given, so the model configuration cannot be reproduced or audited.
  • Sample or class weights w_i = not reported
    Weighted cross-entropy and weighted RMSE losses are defined with weights w_i, but the weighting scheme is not specified.
  • SKP/GLRT offset for height mislocation = derived from LiDAR reference
    In Section III-D an offset is applied to SKP and GLRT tomographic reconstructions using LiDAR data to compensate height mislocation, so the classical methods are partly corrected with the ground truth.
  • Number of classes T for classification variant = not reported
    The classification comparison uses quantized LiDAR classes, but the quantization interval and number of classes are not stated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LiDAR-derived CHM and DTM are accurate ground truth with negligible error.
    Training and evaluation use LiDAR as the reference (Section II-A, III-A); any LiDAR error or spatial mismatch propagates into the reported RMSE.
  • domain assumption Spatial averaging of LiDAR heights to SAR resolution preserves the height signal.
    Section II-A averages LiDAR CHM/DTM with the same window as the covariance matrix; this can bias estimates near height discontinuities and forest edges.
  • domain assumption The 52-dimensional feature vector from the covariance matrix diagonal and first row is sufficient for forest height retrieval.
    The entire method relies on these features (Section II-A); discarding the rest of the covariance matrix could lose information, but no ablation or reconstruction test is provided.
  • domain assumption Random split within the same ROI yields a representative evaluation of generalization.
    Section III-A splits remaining data into 80/20 within the same Paracou scene; this assumes spatial autocorrelation does not inflate accuracy, which is questionable for canopy height.
  • standard math CatBoost's ordered boosting prevents target leakage.
    The paper cites [25] for this property; it is a standard algorithmic guarantee used to justify the training setup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Efficient Machine Learning Framework for Forest Height Estimation from Multi-Polarimetric Multi-Baseline SAR data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X4VWYWJF

@misc{pith2026250720798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Efficient Machine Learning Framework for Forest Height Estimation from Multi-Polarimetric Multi-Baseline SAR data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X4VWYWJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20798}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate forest height estimation is crucial for climate change monitoring and carbon cycle assessment. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), particularly in multi-channel configurations, has provided support for a long time in 3D forest structure reconstruction through model-based techniques. More recently, data-driven approaches using Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) have enabled new opportunities for forest parameter retrieval. This paper introduces FGump, a forest height estimation framework by gradient boosting using multi-channel SAR processing with LiDAR profiles as Ground Truth(GT). Unlike typical ML and DL approaches that require large datasets and complex architectures, FGump ensures a strong balance between accuracy and computational efficiency, using a limited set of hand-designed features and avoiding heavy preprocessing (e.g., calibration and/or quantization). Evaluated under both classification and regression paradigms, the proposed framework demonstrates that the regression formulation enables fine-grained, continuous estimations and avoids quantization artifacts by resulting in more precise measurements without rounding. Experimental results confirm that FGump outperforms State-of-the-Art (SOTA) AI-based and classical methods, achieving higher accuracy and significantly lower training and inference times, as demonstrated in our results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20798 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FGump framework: for each range-azimuth pixel of the MPMB image stack, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Paracou region of French Guiana area The data stack consists of six fully polarimetric P-band SAR images, acquired by the ONERA SETHI airborne system on August 24, 2009, during the ESA’s TROPISAR campaign. The flight lines were spaceed out vertically, providing a Fourier vertical resolution of approximately 20 meters. SAR acquisition parameters are detailed in Table I. The region of interest (ROI) is shown in [PITH… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SAR data and LiDAR-derived data. (a) Pauli RGB image of the master acquisition. (b) LiDAR-derived CHM. (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Joint distributions between LiDAR-derived DTM and CatBoost predictions. Results are shown for both classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Joint distributions between LiDAR-derived CHM and CatBoost predictions. Results are shown for both classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of RMSE values for DTM and CHM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results for CHM reconstruction. From left to right: LiDAR reference, FGump, TSNN, XGBoost, SKP, GLRT. CHM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tracelines for CHM reconstruction: LiDAR reference (black), FGump in green, XGBoost in red, TSNN in purple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results for DTM reconstruction. From left to right: LiDAR reference, FGump, TSNN, XGBoost, SKP, and GLRT. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Tracelines for DTM reconstruction: LiDAR reference (black), FGump in green, XGBoost in red, TSNN in purple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Computational performance comparison among [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    A Deep Learning Solution for Height Estimation on a Forested Area Based on Pol-TomoSAR Data,

    W. Yang, S. Vitale, H. Aghababaei, G. Ferraioli, V . Pascazio, and G. Schirinzi, “A Deep Learning Solution for Height Estimation on a Forested Area Based on Pol-TomoSAR Data,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–14, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Forest SAR Tomography: Principles and Applications,

    H. Aghababaei, G. Ferraioli, L. Ferro-Famil, Y . Huang, M. Mari- otti D’Alessandro, V . Pascazio, G. Schirinzi, and S. Tebaldini, “Forest SAR Tomography: Principles and Applications,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 30–45, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Aboveground biomass retrieval in tropical forests — The potential of combined X- and L-band SAR data use,

    S. Englhart, V . Keuck, and F. Siegert, “Aboveground biomass retrieval in tropical forests — The potential of combined X- and L-band SAR data use,” Remote Sensing of Environment , vol. 115, no. 5, pp. 1260–1271, 2011. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425711000216

    work page 2011

  4. [3]

    First demonstration of airborne sar to- mography using multibaseline l-band data,

    A. Reigber and A. Moreira, “First demonstration of airborne sar to- mography using multibaseline l-band data,” IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing , vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 2142–2152, September 2000

    work page 2000

  5. [4]

    Polarimetric sar interferometry,

    S. Cloude and K. Papathanassiou, “Polarimetric sar interferometry,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1551–1565, 1998

    work page 1998

  6. [5]

    Single-baseline polarimetric sar interferometry,

    K. Papathanassiou and S. Cloude, “Single-baseline polarimetric sar interferometry,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 2352–2363, 2001

    work page 2001

  7. [6]

    3-d time-domain sar imaging of a forest using airborne multibaseline data at l- and p-bands,

    O. Frey and E. Meier, “3-d time-domain sar imaging of a forest using airborne multibaseline data at l- and p-bands,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 3660–3664, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [7]

    Multibaseline polarimetric sar tomography of a boreal forest at p- and l-bands,

    S. Tebaldini and F. Rocca, “Multibaseline polarimetric sar tomography of a boreal forest at p- and l-bands,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 232–246, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Fornaro, G

    G. Fornaro, G. Schirinzi, A. Pauciullo, V . Pascazio, and D. Reale, Multi- Dimensional Imaging with Synthetic Aperture Radar . Elsevier, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Three- dimensional imaging of objects concealed below a forest canopy using sar tomography at l-band and wavelet-based sparse estimation,

    Y . Huang, J. Levy-Vehel, L. Ferro-Famil, and A. Reigber, “Three- dimensional imaging of objects concealed below a forest canopy using sar tomography at l-band and wavelet-based sparse estimation,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 14, pp. 1454–1458, 2017

    2017

  3. [10]

    On the use of tomographically derived reflectivity profiles for pol-insar forest height inversion in the context of the biomass mission,

    R. Guliaev, J. Su Kim, M. Pardini, and K. P. Papathanassiou, “On the use of tomographically derived reflectivity profiles for pol-insar forest height inversion in the context of the biomass mission,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–12, 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    Forest Height Mapping Using Complex-Valued Convolutional Neural Network,

    X. Wang and H. Wang, “Forest Height Mapping Using Complex-Valued Convolutional Neural Network,” IEEE Access , vol. 7, pp. 126 334– 126 343, 2019

    2019

  5. [12]

    PolGAN: A deep-learning-based unsupervised forest height estimation based on the synergy of PolInSAR and LiDAR data,

    Q. Zhang, L. Ge, S. Hensley, G. Isabel Metternicht, C. Liu, and R. Zhang, “PolGAN: A deep-learning-based unsupervised forest height estimation based on the synergy of PolInSAR and LiDAR data,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 186, pp. 123–139, 2022. [O...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Sar tomography based on deep learning,

    A. Budillon, A. C. Johnsy, G. Schirinzi, and S. Vitale, “Sar tomography based on deep learning,” in IGARSS 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium , 2019, pp. 3625–3628

    2019

  7. [15]

    A deep learning framework for the estimation of forest height from bistatic tandem-x data,

    D. Carcereri, P. Rizzoli, D. Ienco, and L. Bruzzone, “A deep learning framework for the estimation of forest height from bistatic tandem-x data,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 16, pp. 8334–8352, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Large-Scale Forest Height Mapping by Combining TanDEM-X and GEDI Data,

    C. Choi, V . Cazcarra-Bes, R. Guliaev, M. Pardini, K. P. Papathanassiou, W. Qi, J. Armston, and R. O. Dubayah, “Large-Scale Forest Height Mapping by Combining TanDEM-X and GEDI Data,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 16, p...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Mixed tropical forests canopy height mapping from spaceborne lidar gedi and multisensor imagery using machine learning models,

    R. Gupta and L. K. Sharma, “Mixed tropical forests canopy height mapping from spaceborne lidar gedi and multisensor imagery using machine learning models,” Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment , vol. 27, p. 100817, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.science...

    2022

  10. [18]

    A deep- learning approach for sar tomographic imaging of forested areas,

    Z. Berenger, L. Denis, F. Tupin, L. Ferro-Famil, and Y . Huang, “A deep- learning approach for sar tomographic imaging of forested areas,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 20, pp. 1–5, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    A Machine- Learning Approach to PolInSAR and LiDAR Data Fusion for Improved Tropical Forest Canopy Height Estimation Using NASA AfriSAR Campaign Data,

    M. Pourshamsi, M. Garcia, M. Lavalle, and H. Balzter, “A Machine- Learning Approach to PolInSAR and LiDAR Data Fusion for Improved Tropical Forest Canopy Height Estimation Using NASA AfriSAR Campaign Data,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remo...

    2018

  12. [20]

    A lidar-aided multibaseline polinsar method for forest height estimation: With emphasis on dual- baseline selection,

    Y . Xie, H. Fu, J. Zhu, C. Wang, and Q. Xie, “A lidar-aided multibaseline polinsar method for forest height estimation: With emphasis on dual- baseline selection,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 1807–1811, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Tropical forest canopy height estimation from combined polarimetric SAR and LiDAR using machine-learning,

    M. Pourshamsi, J. Xia, N. Yokoya, M. Garc ´ıa, M. Lavalle, E. Pottier, and H. Balzter, “Tropical forest canopy height estimation from combined polarimetric SAR and LiDAR using machine-learning,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 172, pp. 79–94, 02 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Forest height estimation combining single-polarization tomographic and polsar data,

    Y . Zhang, X. Peng, Q. Xie, Y . Du, B. Zhang, X. Luo, S. Zhao, Z. Hu, and X. Li, “Forest height estimation combining single-polarization tomographic and polsar data,” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , vol. 124, p. 103532, 2023. [Online]. A...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016, http://www.deeplearningbook.org

    2016

  16. [24]

    A survey of ensemble learning: Concepts, algorithms, applications, and prospects,

    I. D. Mienye and Y . Sun, “A survey of ensemble learning: Concepts, algorithms, applications, and prospects,” IEEE Access , vol. 10, pp. 99 129–99 149, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Catboost: unbiased boosting with categorical features,

    L. Prokhorenkova, G. Gusev, A. V orobev, A. V . Dorogush, and A. Gulin, “Catboost: unbiased boosting with categorical features,”

  18. [26]

    Boosted decision trees as an alternative to artificial neural networks for particle identification,

    B. P. Roe, H.-J. Yang, J. Zhu, Y . Liu, I. Stancu, and G. McGregor, “Boosted decision trees as an alternative to artificial neural networks for particle identification,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and A...

    2005

  19. [27]

    Catboost: gradient boosting with categorical features support,

    A. V . Dorogush, V . Ershov, and A. Gulin, “Catboost: gradient boosting with categorical features support,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11363

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Accuracy of small footprint airborne lidar in its predictions of tropical moist forest stand structure,

    G. Vincent, D. Sabatier, L. Blanc, J. Chave, E. Weissenbacher, R. P ´elissier, E. Fonty, J.-F. Molino, and P. Couteron, “Accuracy of small footprint airborne lidar in its predictions of tropical moist forest stand structure,” Remote Sensing of Environment , vol. 125, pp. 23–33...

    2012

  21. [29]

    Phase calibration based on phase derivative constrained optimization in multibaseline sar tomog- raphy,

    H. Aghababaee, G. Fornaro, and G. Schirinzi, “Phase calibration based on phase derivative constrained optimization in multibaseline sar tomog- raphy,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 6779–6791, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Algebraic synthesis of forest scenarios from multibaseline polinsar data,

    S. Tebaldini, “Algebraic synthesis of forest scenarios from multibaseline polinsar data,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 47, pp. 4132–4142, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    On the separation of ground and canopy scatterings using single polarimetric multi-baseline sar tomography,

    H. Aghababaee, A. Budillon, G. Ferraioli, V . Pascazio, and G. Schirinzi, “On the separation of ground and canopy scatterings using single polarimetric multi-baseline sar tomography,” Proceedings of IEEE In- ternational Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium , vol. 2019, pp. ...

    2019

  24. [32]

    Analysis of a deep learning solution for tomosar forest reconstruction,

    W. Yang, G. Ferraioli, X. Lu, V . Pascazio, G. Schirinzi, S. Vitale, and H. Aghababei, “Analysis of a deep learning solution for tomosar forest reconstruction,” in IGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium , 2024, pp. 1350–1353. THIS PAPER H...

    2024

  25. [2019]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09516

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09516

    arXiv

  26. [2020]

    Parthenope

    Graduated with laude in 1989 in Electronic Engineering at the University of Naples (Italy), pursued the M.Sc. in Management at MIT (Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, USA) in 1992. Researcher and teacher since 2004 at the University of Sannio, Benevento (Italy). Member o...

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.