Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 51 references

Polarimetric SAR Model Fitting for Soil Moisture Retrieval: Study of PALSAR-2 data over a Heterogeneous Mine Environment in Finland

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-07-02 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Generalizing TU Wien SMI to polarimetric [T3] spaces with sediment calibration retrieves soil moisture at R²=0.67 over a heterogeneous Finnish mine site

desk verdict The paper gets R² around 0.66-0.67 for soil moisture in a Finnish mine by extending TU Wien SMI to [T3] spaces with sediment-specific calibration, but supplies almost no validation details. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.00294 v1 pith:DDQSW5GI submitted 2026-07-01 eess.IV eess.SP

Oleg Antropov , Alireza Hamedianfar , Matthieu Molinier , Ulla Salmela , Hanna Kukkula , Lauri Seitsonen , Pauliina Liwata-Kenttälä , Maarit Middleton This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVeess.SP
keywords soilmoistureretrievalpolarimetricSARPALSAR-2semi-empiricalmodelingTUWienSMIheterogeneousmineenvironmentcoherencymatrix[T3]
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

The paper tests physically interpretable semi-empirical models for surface soil moisture retrieval from nine repeat-pass ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 quad-pol images over a limestone quarry, tailing facility, and landfill. It generalizes the TU Wien soil moisture index across different representations of the polarimetric coherency matrix [T3] and benchmarks against common polarimetric observables and machine learning. The strongest results arise when temporal SMI context is combined with current PolSAR parameters or when SMI_[T3] uses sediment-specific calibration, reaching R²=0.67 and RMSE=5.65 volumetric percent. dB-based [T3] projections work best, single-polarization SMI performs worse, and sediment information markedly improves accuracy over global fits. Semi-empirical methods stay competitive with ML while highlighting the value of time-series dynamics under limited reference data.

What carries the argument

Generalization of the TU Wien SMI retrievals examined across several representational spaces derived from the polarimetric coherency matrix [T3]

What would settle it

Applying the sediment-calibrated SMI_[T3] model to an independent set of PALSAR-2 acquisitions over the same or a similar heterogeneous mine site and obtaining R² below 0.5 or RMSE above 10 volumetric percent would falsify reliable performance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The generalization of the TU Wien soil moisture index to multiple representational spaces derived from the polarimetric coherency matrix [T3], when paired with sediment-specific calibration, achieves R²=0.66 and RMSE=5.67 volumetric percent and outperforms SMI_HH or SMI_VV, while the best combined temporal-plus-current configuration reaches R²=0.67 and RMSE=5.65; both remain competitive with machine learning and demonstrate utility in complex multi-sediment environments with scarce reference data.

Load-bearing premise

The nine repeat-pass images and available reference measurements are sufficient to support reliable sediment-specific calibration while keeping the proposed [T3] generalization physically meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sediment-specific calibration dramatically improves retrieval compared with global model fitting
  • dB-based projection of [T3] outperforms linear and trace-normalized representations
  • Combining temporal SMI context with current PolSAR parameters yields the highest accuracy
  • Semi-empirical approaches remain competitive with generic machine learning when reference data are scarce
  • Time-series backscatter dynamics are important for SSM retrieval in heterogeneous settings

Reading between the lines

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

  • Polarimetric representations may allow the method to transfer to other sites with varying surface materials provided sediment maps are available
  • Choice of [T3] projection (dB versus linear) can dominate accuracy, suggesting preprocessing choices deserve explicit testing in new applications
  • The near-parity with machine learning under limited data hints that physics-based indices may generalize better than purely data-driven fits when sediment types change
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript evaluates semi-empirical and machine-learning approaches for retrieving surface soil moisture from 9 ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 quad-pol images over a heterogeneous limestone quarry, tailing facility, and landfill in Finland. It generalizes the TU Wien SMI to multiple representations of the polarimetric coherency matrix [T3], shows that sediment-specific calibration and temporal context improve performance (best semi-empirical R²=0.67, RMSE=5.65 vol.%; SMI_[T3] with sediment-specific calibration R²=0.66, RMSE=5.67 vol.%), and finds that dB-based [T3] projections outperform other representations while ML results approach but do not exceed the semi-empirical models.

Significance. If the performance metrics hold under proper validation, the work provides evidence that physics-based semi-empirical models remain competitive with ML in complex multi-sediment environments under scarce reference data, and that incorporating temporal backscatter dynamics and class-specific calibration can yield meaningful gains. The sensitivity of results to [T3] representational choices is a useful practical finding.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and Results: The headline metrics (R²=0.66, RMSE=5.67 vol.% for SMI_[T3] with sediment-specific calibration) are reported without any information on the number of in-situ reference points per sediment class, the validation procedure (cross-validation, hold-out, or temporal split), or how the nine repeat-pass acquisitions were partitioned. With only nine images over a heterogeneous site, this omission directly undermines assessment of whether the reported improvement over global fitting reflects stable parameters or sample-specific tuning.
  2. [Results] Methods/Results: The claim that sediment-specific calibration 'dramatically improved' retrieval performance is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet no table or text reports the per-class sample sizes or the distribution of reference measurements across quarry, tailing, and landfill units. Without these counts it is impossible to judge whether per-sediment fits are statistically reliable.
  3. [Methods] Methods: The generalization of the TU Wien SMI to multiple [T3] representational spaces is presented as physically meaningful, but the manuscript provides no explicit justification or sensitivity test showing that the temporal backscatter dynamics remain interpretable across sediment types in a mine environment; the dB-based projection advantage is noted empirically but not linked to a physical rationale.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that ML 'closely approached but not outperformed' semi-empirical models; a quantitative comparison table with the same validation protocol would strengthen this claim.
  2. [Methods] Notation for the different [T3] representations (dB-based, linear, trace-normalized) should be defined once in a dedicated subsection or table for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments that identify key areas where additional detail will strengthen the manuscript. We respond to each major comment below and commit to revisions that directly address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and Results: The headline metrics (R²=0.66, RMSE=5.67 vol.% for SMI_[T3] with sediment-specific calibration) are reported without any information on the number of in-situ reference points per sediment class, the validation procedure (cross-validation, hold-out, or temporal split), or how the nine repeat-pass acquisitions were partitioned. With only nine images over a heterogeneous site, this omission directly undermines assessment of whether the reported improvement over global fitting reflects stable parameters or sample-specific tuning.

    Authors: We agree that these details are necessary for readers to evaluate result robustness. The current manuscript does not report the per-class in-situ counts, the exact validation scheme, or the partitioning of the nine acquisitions. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (or table) in the Methods/Results that states the number of reference measurements per sediment class, describes the validation approach (temporal hold-out across acquisitions to maintain independence), and explains the partitioning used for fitting versus evaluation. This will allow direct assessment of whether the sediment-specific gains are stable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Methods/Results: The claim that sediment-specific calibration 'dramatically improved' retrieval performance is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet no table or text reports the per-class sample sizes or the distribution of reference measurements across quarry, tailing, and landfill units. Without these counts it is impossible to judge whether per-sediment fits are statistically reliable.

    Authors: This observation is correct; the manuscript currently lacks any breakdown of sample sizes by sediment class. We will insert a table (or explicit text) reporting the number and distribution of in-situ points for the quarry, tailings, and landfill units. The revised text will also note any limitations arising from class-specific sample sizes so that the reliability of the per-sediment calibrations can be judged directly. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods: The generalization of the TU Wien SMI to multiple [T3] representational spaces is presented as physically meaningful, but the manuscript provides no explicit justification or sensitivity test showing that the temporal backscatter dynamics remain interpretable across sediment types in a mine environment; the dB-based projection advantage is noted empirically but not linked to a physical rationale.

    Authors: We accept that an explicit physical rationale and sensitivity discussion are missing. The TU Wien SMI exploits temporal backscatter change; different [T3] representations preserve these changes to different degrees because they alter how polarimetric information is scaled. The dB projection is motivated by the fact that SAR intensity is conventionally expressed in decibels to linearize multiplicative speckle and surface-scattering effects. In the revision we will add a short paragraph in Methods that supplies this rationale and references the empirical sensitivity already shown in the results. No new computational experiments are required for this textual addition. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical model calibration against independent in-situ references

full rationale

The paper reports goodness-of-fit metrics (R², RMSE) for semi-empirical SMI generalizations and PolSAR parameters after sediment-specific calibration on 9 repeat-pass images plus reference measurements. These are direct empirical comparisons to external in-situ data, not predictions that reduce to the fitted inputs by construction. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing steps in the provided text. The generalization of the TU Wien SMI is tested across representations and compared to ML benchmarks; performance differences reflect data-driven fitting rather than definitional equivalence. This is standard remote-sensing validation practice and remains self-contained against the reference measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical fitting of semi-empirical models and the validity of extending the TU Wien SMI to polarimetric representations; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • sediment-specific calibration parameters
    The abstract states that factoring in sediment information dramatically improved retrieval performance, indicating that separate parameters were fitted per sediment class.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The TU Wien soil moisture index can be meaningfully generalized to multiple representational spaces derived from the polarimetric coherency matrix [T3]
    This generalization is proposed and tested as the core methodological contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarimetric SAR Model Fitting for Soil Moisture Retrieval: Study of PALSAR-2 data over a Heterogeneous Mine Environment in Finland." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DDQSW5GI

@misc{pith2026260700294,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarimetric SAR Model Fitting for Soil Moisture Retrieval: Study of PALSAR-2 data over a Heterogeneous Mine Environment in Finland},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DDQSW5GI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.00294}
}
abstract

This paper examines several model based approaches for retrieving surface soil moisture from ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 quad-pol imagery, over a lime stone quarry in southeastern Finland. The study primarily targets physically interpretable semi-empirical modeling approaches, with generic ML modeling used as a benchmark. Along with common polarimetric observables, we propose a generalization of the SAR time series based TU Wien soil moisture index (SMI) retrievals examined across several representational spaces derived from polarimetric coherency matrix $[T3]$. This study was conducted over a closed tailing storage facility and a landfill, with a set of 9 repeat pass PALSAR-2 images. The best semi-empirical configuration combining temporal context SMI and current observation PolSAR parameters achieved $R^2=0.67$ and RMSE $=5.65$ volumetric \% units. The strongest $SMI_{[T3]}$ approach with sediment-specific calibration, achieved $R^2=0.66$ and RMSE $=5.67$ vol. \%, which was considerably better than using $SMI_{HH}$ or $SMI_{VV}$. The proposed approach was sensitive to representations: dB-based projection outperformed linear or trace-normalized $[T3]$ representation. Factoring in sediment information dramatically improved retrieval performance compared to using global model fitting. Machine learning results closely approached but not outperformed semi-empirical model based methodologies. Similarly, they highlighted the need for sediment-specific modeling as well as the importance of including time-series/temporal backscatter dynamics during SSM retrieval. Our study demonstrated the utility of physics based SSM retrieval approaches in the complex multi-sediment mine environment under relatively scarce reference data conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00294 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Location of study site within Lappeenranta mine in south-eastern [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Studied sediment classes with varying vegetation cover: a) Organic soil covered landfill (organic+thick grass), b) organic soil covered tailings storage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Study logic and hierarchy of evaluated SSM retrieval approaches. Repeat-pass PALSAR-2 observations, in situ soil-moisture measurements, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Conceptual illustration of the wet–dry projection approach on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scatterplot illustrating performance of best approach using semi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the wet–dry matrix projection approach on polari [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scatterplot illustrating performance of best approach using temporal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Inversion of surface parameters from polarimetric SAR,

    I. Hajnsek, E. Pottier, and S. R. Cloude, “Inversion of surface parameters from polarimetric SAR,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 727–744, 2003

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Potential of estimating soil moisture under vegetation cover by means of PolSAR,

    I. Hajnsek, T. Jagdhuber, H. Sch ¨on, and K. P. Papathanassiou, “Potential of estimating soil moisture under vegetation cover by means of PolSAR,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 442–454, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Soil moisture estimation under low vegetation cover using a multi-angular polarimetric decomposition,

    T. Jagdhuber, I. Hajnsek, A. Bronstert, and K. P. Papathanassiou, “Soil moisture estimation under low vegetation cover using a multi-angular polarimetric decomposition,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 2201–2215, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Soil moisture retrieval over agricultural fields from L-band multi-incidence and multitemporal PolSAR observations using polari- metric decomposition techniques,

    H. Shi, L. Zhao, J. Yang, J. M. Lopez-Sanchez, J. Zhao, W. Sun, L. Shi, and P. Li, “Soil moisture retrieval over agricultural fields from L-band multi-incidence and multitemporal PolSAR observations using polari- metric decomposition techniques,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 261, p. 112485, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Microwave backscatter dependence on surface roughness, soil moisture, and soil texture: Part i—bare soil,

    F. T. Ulaby, P. P. Batlivala, and M. C. Dobson, “Microwave backscatter dependence on surface roughness, soil moisture, and soil texture: Part i—bare soil,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience Electronics, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 286–295, 1978

    work page 1978

  6. [6]

    An empirical model and an inversion technique for radar scattering from bare soil surfaces,

    Y . Oh, K. Sarabandi, and F. T. Ulaby, “An empirical model and an inversion technique for radar scattering from bare soil surfaces,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 370–381, 1992

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    Radar mapping of surface soil moisture,

    F. T. Ulaby, P. C. Dubois, and J. van Zyl, “Radar mapping of surface soil moisture,”Journal of Hydrology, vol. 184, no. 1–2, pp. 57–84, 1996

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    Measuring soil moisture with imaging radars,

    P. C. Dubois, J. van Zyl, and T. Engman, “Measuring soil moisture with imaging radars,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 915–926, 1995

    work page 1995

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Estimation of bare surface soil moisture and surface roughness parameter using l- band sar image data,

    J. Shi, J. Wang, A. Y . Hsu, P. E. O’Neill, and E. T. Engman, “Estimation of bare surface soil moisture and surface roughness parameter using l- band sar image data,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1254–1266, 1997

    1997

  2. [10]

    Vegetation modeled as a water cloud,

    E. P. W. Attema and F. T. Ulaby, “Vegetation modeled as a water cloud,” Radio Science, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 357–364, 1978

    1978

  3. [11]

    Soil moisture retrieval over irrigated grassland using x- band sar data,

    M. El Hajj, N. Baghdadi, M. Zribi, G. Belaud, B. Cheviron, D. Courault, and F. Charron, “Soil moisture retrieval over irrigated grassland using x- band sar data,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 176, pp. 202–218, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Incorporation of first-order backscattered power in water cloud model for improving the leaf area index and soil moisture retrieval using dual-polarized sentinel-1 sar data,

    S. K. Singh, R. Prasad, P. K. Srivastava, S. A. Yadav, V . P. Yadav, and J. Sharma, “Incorporation of first-order backscattered power in water cloud model for improving the leaf area index and soil moisture retrieval using dual-polarized sentinel-1 sar data,”Remote Sensing of ...

    2023

  5. [13]

    An improved inversion algorithm for spatio-temporal retrieval of soil moisture through modified water cloud model using c-band sentinel-1a sar data,

    V . P. Yadav, R. Prasad, R. Bala, and A. K. Vishwakarma, “An improved inversion algorithm for spatio-temporal retrieval of soil moisture through modified water cloud model using c-band sentinel-1a sar data,”Com- puters and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 173, p. 105447, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    A three-component scattering model for polarimetric SAR data,

    A. Freeman and S. L. Durden, “A three-component scattering model for polarimetric SAR data,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 963–973, 1998

    1998

  7. [15]

    Four- component scattering model for polarimetric SAR image decomposi- tion,

    Y . Yamaguchi, T. Moriyama, M. Ishido, and H. Yamada, “Four- component scattering model for polarimetric SAR image decomposi- tion,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1699–1706, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Model-based decomposition of polarimetric SAR covariance matrices constrained for nonnegative eigenvalues,

    J. J. van Zyl, M. Arii, and Y . Kim, “Model-based decomposition of polarimetric SAR covariance matrices constrained for nonnegative eigenvalues,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 3452–3459, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    A method for estimating soil moisture from ers scatterometer and soil data,

    W. Wagner, G. Lemoine, and H. Rott, “A method for estimating soil moisture from ers scatterometer and soil data,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 191–207, 1999

    1999

  10. [18]

    Dense temporal series of c- and l-band sar data for soil moisture retrieval over agricultural crops,

    A. Balenzano, F. Mattia, G. Satalino, and M. W. J. Davidson, “Dense temporal series of c- and l-band sar data for soil moisture retrieval over agricultural crops,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 439–450, 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    Sentinel-1 soil moisture at 1 km resolution: A validation study,

    A. Balenzano, F. Mattia, G. Satalino, F. P. Lovergine, D. Palmisano, J. Peng, P. Marzahn, U. Wegm¨uller, O. Cartus, K. Dabrowska-Zieli ´nska, J. P. Musial, M. W. J. Davidson, V . R. N. Pauwels, M. H. Cosh, H. McNairn, J. T. Johnson, J. P. Walker, S. H. Yueh, D. Entekhabi, Y . ...

    2021

  12. [20]

    An advanced change detection method for time-series soil moisture retrieval from sentinel-1,

    L. Zhu, R. Si, X. Shen, and J. P. Walker, “An advanced change detection method for time-series soil moisture retrieval from sentinel-1,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 279, p. 113137, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Soil moisture retrieval in agricultural fields using adaptive model-based po- larimetric decomposition of sar data,

    L. He, R. Panciera, M. A. Tanase, J. P. Walker, and Q. Qin, “Soil moisture retrieval in agricultural fields using adaptive model-based po- larimetric decomposition of sar data,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 4445–4460, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Comparison of different polarimet- ric decompositions for soil moisture retrieval over vegetation covered agricultural area,

    H. Wang, R. Magagi, and K. Goita, “Comparison of different polarimet- ric decompositions for soil moisture retrieval over vegetation covered agricultural area,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 199, pp. 120– 136, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    An approach to extended Fresnel scattering for modeling of depolarizing soil–trunk double-bounce scattering,

    T. Jagdhuber, “An approach to extended Fresnel scattering for modeling of depolarizing soil–trunk double-bounce scattering,”Remote Sensing, vol. 8, no. 10, p. 818, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    V olume scattering modeling in PolSAR decompositions: Study of ALOS PALSAR data over boreal forest,

    O. Antropov, Y . Rauste, and T. H ¨ame, “V olume scattering modeling in PolSAR decompositions: Study of ALOS PALSAR data over boreal forest,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 3838–3848, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Generating surface soil moisture at 30 m spatial resolution using both data fusion and machine learning toward better water resources management at the field scale,

    A. S. Abowarda, L. Bai, C. Zhang, D. Long, X. Li, Q. Huang, and Z. Sun, “Generating surface soil moisture at 30 m spatial resolution using both data fusion and machine learning toward better water resources management at the field scale,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 255...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Field-scale soil moisture retrieval using PALSAR-2 polarimetric de- composition and machine learning,

    X. Huang, B. Ziniti, M. H. Cosh, M. Reba, J. Wang, and N. Torbick, “Field-scale soil moisture retrieval using PALSAR-2 polarimetric de- composition and machine learning,”Agronomy, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 35, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Soil moisture retrieval over croplands using dual-pol l-band grd sar data,

    N. Bhogapurapu, S. Dey, D. Mandal, A. Bhattacharya, L. Karthikeyan, H. McNairn, and Y . S. Rao, “Soil moisture retrieval over croplands using dual-pol l-band grd sar data,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 271, p. 112900, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    A sentinel-1 sar-based global 1-km resolution soil moisture data product: Algorithm and preliminary assessment,

    D. Fan, T. Zhao, X. Jiang, A. Garc ´ıa-Garc´ıa, T. Schmidt, L. Samaniego, S. Attinger, H. Wu, Y . Jiang, J. Shi, L. Fan, B. H. Tang, W. Wagner, W. Dorigo, A. Gruber, F. Mattia, A. Balenzano, L. Brocca, T. Jagdhuber, J.-P. Wigneron, C. Montzka, and J. Peng, “A sentinel-1 sar-ba...

    2025

  21. [29]

    Four decades of microwave satellite soil moisture observations: Part 2. product validation and inter-satellite comparisons,

    L. Karthikeyan, M. Pan, N. Wanders, D. N. Kumar, and E. F. Wood, “Four decades of microwave satellite soil moisture observations: Part 2. product validation and inter-satellite comparisons,”Advances in Water Resources, vol. 109, pp. 236–252, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Advances in soil moisture retrieval from synthetic aperture radar and hydrological applications,

    K. C. Kornelsen and P. Coulibaly, “Advances in soil moisture retrieval from synthetic aperture radar and hydrological applications,”Journal of Hydrology, vol. 476, pp. 460–489, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Soil moisture prediction using remote sensing and machine learning algorithms: A review on progress, challenges, and opportunities,

    M. Lamichhane, S. Mehan, and K. R. Mankin, “Soil moisture prediction using remote sensing and machine learning algorithms: A review on progress, challenges, and opportunities,”Remote Sensing, vol. 17, no. 14, p. 2397, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Are the current expectations for sar remote sensing of soil moisture using machine learning overoptimistic?

    L. Zhu, J. Dai, J. Jin, S. Yuan, Z. Xiong, and J. P. Walker, “Are the current expectations for sar remote sensing of soil moisture using machine learning overoptimistic?”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 63, pp. 1–15, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Continuous ground moisture monitoring at limestone quarry using multi-sensor sar images and in situ iot sensors,

    O. Antropov, M. Molinier, L. Seitsonen, A. Hamedianfar, M. Middleton, K. Laakso, H. Sutinen, and P. Liwata-Kentt ¨al¨a, “Continuous ground moisture monitoring at limestone quarry using multi-sensor sar images and in situ iot sensors,” inIGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Ge...

    2024

  26. [34]

    High resolution sediment-specific surface soil moisture retrieval using sentinel-1 time series and auxiliary data,

    A. Hamedianfar, O. Antropov, M. Molinier, U. Salmela, H. Kukkula, L. Seitsonen, P. Liwata-Kentt ¨al¨a, and M. Middleton, “High resolution sediment-specific surface soil moisture retrieval using sentinel-1 time series and auxiliary data,” 2026, in Review. [Online]. Available: h...

    2026 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    Palsar radiometric and geometric calibration,

    M. Shimada, O. Isoguchi, T. Tadono, and K. Isono, “Palsar radiometric and geometric calibration,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 3915–3932, 2009

    2009

  28. [36]

    Ortho- rectification and terrain correction of polarimetric sar data applied in the alos/palsar context,

    Y . Rauste, A. Lonnqvist, M. Molinier, J.-B. Henry, and T. Hame, “Ortho- rectification and terrain correction of polarimetric sar data applied in the alos/palsar context,” in2007 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2007, pp. 1618–1621

    2007

  29. [37]

    Flattening gamma: Radiometric terrain correction for sar im- agery,

    D. Small, “Flattening gamma: Radiometric terrain correction for sar im- agery,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 3081–3093, 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    Elevation model 2 m,

    NLS, “Elevation model 2 m,” https://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/ en/maps-and-spatial-data/datasets-and-interfaces/product-descriptions/ elevation-model-2-m, National Land Survey of Finland, 2025, accessed: 2025-09-27

    2025

  31. [39]

    Alternatives to target entropy and alpha angle in sar polarimetry,

    J. Praks, E. C. Koeniguer, and M. T. Hallikainen, “Alternatives to target entropy and alpha angle in sar polarimetry,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 2262–2274, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    A time-series approach to estimate soil mois- ture using polarimetric radar data,

    Y . Kim and J. J. van Zyl, “A time-series approach to estimate soil mois- ture using polarimetric radar data,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 2519–2527, 2009

    2009

  33. [41]

    A radar vegetation index for crop monitoring using compact polarimetric sar data,

    D. Mandal, D. Ratha, A. Bhattacharya, V . Kumar, H. McNairn, Y . S. Rao, and A. C. Frery, “A radar vegetation index for crop monitoring using compact polarimetric sar data,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 6321–6335, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems,

    A. E. Hoerl and R. W. Kennard, “Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems,”Technometrics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 55–67, 1970

    1970

  35. [43]

    Nearest neighbor pattern classification,

    T. Cover and P. Hart, “Nearest neighbor pattern classification,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 21–27, 1967

    1967

  36. [44]

    Combining national forest inventory field plots and remote sensing data for forest databases,

    E. Tomppo, H. Olsson, G. St ˚ahl, M. Nilsson, O. Hagner, and M. Katila, “Combining national forest inventory field plots and remote sensing data for forest databases,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 1982–1999, 2008

    1982

  37. [45]

    Polarimetric ALOS PALSAR time series in mapping biomass of boreal forests,

    O. Antropov, Y . Rauste, T. H ¨ame, and J. Praks, “Polarimetric ALOS PALSAR time series in mapping biomass of boreal forests,” Remote Sensing, vol. 9, no. 10, 2017. [Online]. Available: https: //www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/9/10/999

    2017

  38. [46]

    A meta-analysis of remote sensing research on supervised pixel-based land-cover image classification processes: General guidelines for practitioners and future research,

    R. Khatami, G. Mountrakis, and S. V . Stehman, “A meta-analysis of remote sensing research on supervised pixel-based land-cover image classification processes: General guidelines for practitioners and future research,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 177, pp. 89–100, 2016. ...

    2016

  39. [47]

    A tutorial on support vector regression,

    A. J. Smola and B. Sch ¨olkopf, “A tutorial on support vector regression,” Statistics and Computing, vol. 14, pp. 199–222, 2004

    2004

  40. [48]

    Random forests,

    L. Breiman, “Random forests,”Machine Learning, vol. 45, pp. 5–32, 2001

    2001

  41. [49]

    Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system,

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system,” inProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2016, pp. 785–794

    2016

  42. [50]

    Development of a biomass corrected soil moisture retrieval model for dual-polarization ALOS- 2 data based on ALOS/PALSAR and Pi-SAR-L2 observations,

    C. N. Koyama, K. Schneider, and M. Sato, “Development of a biomass corrected soil moisture retrieval model for dual-polarization ALOS- 2 data based on ALOS/PALSAR and Pi-SAR-L2 observations,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGA...

    2015

  43. [51]

    Soil moisture retrieval from time series multi-angular radar data using a dry down constraint,

    L. Zhu, J. P. Walker, L. Tsang, H. Huang, N. Ye, and C. R ¨udiger, “Soil moisture retrieval from time series multi-angular radar data using a dry down constraint,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 231, p. 111237, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed July 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.