Understanding Synthetic

Aperture Radar Images

Chris Oliver
Shaun Quegan

SciTEGH
PUBLISHING, INC.
© 2004 by SciTech Publishing, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27613

This is a corrected reprinting of the 1988 edition originally published by Artech House:
Boston.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any form whatsoever
without written permission from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN: 1-891121-31-6

SciTech books may be purchased at quantity discounts for educational, business, or sales
promotional use. For information contact the publisher:

SciTech Publishing, Inc.

Raleigh, NC 27613
(919) 866-1501
www.scitechpub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Oliver, Chris
Understanding synthetic aperture radar images / Chris Oliver, Shaun Quegan.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-891121-31-6
1. Synthetic aperture radar. I. Quegan, Shaun, 1949- II. Title.
TK6592.S95043 2004 97-41709
621.3848—dc21 CIP
To Betty and Sue, who understand
Foreword

Over the past few years, the development of spaceborne and airborne SAR
systems for the observation of the Earths surface has experienced a rapid
growth. The ERS-I, JERS-I, ERS-2, and RADARSAT satellite systems have
provided and continue to provide us with long time-series of high quality SAR
data. At the same time, advanced airborne SAR systems exist in many countries
of the world and provide multiple frequency and polarization observations for
both civilian and military use. The SIR-C/X-SAR shuttle missions have widely
demonstrated the advantages of having such multiple parameter systems in
space.
Despite the enormous amount of available data, little effort has been
expended in making use of the data in applications and scientific disciplines. To
achieve this, both the physical content of the data and the information content
of the SAR images, as well as the bridge between the two sources of information,
must be understood by the users of Earth observation data.
While several early volumes in radar remote sensing covered either the
physical content of SAR data, or the basics of SAR image formation and SAR
image statistical properties, there is a strong need for an integrated book that
brings together both the basic properties of SAR images related to image
formation and those related to scene properties.
In this context, this book appears very timely to fill the above mentioned
gap. It provides the readers with a synoptic understanding of SAR image
fundamental properties; these are a prerequisite for the development of models
and methods used in the interpretation and exploitation of SAR data for various
applications.
 This book deals with most aspects of SAR images on land surfaces and
contains the most up-to-date coverage of the subject, including the underlying
principles, recent developments, and future directions for research activities in
this area. The subject is treated with the breadth and depth required for use as
a reference text for graduate students, engineers, and application scientists. At
the same time, the many illustrations of the underlying theoretical principles,
contained in the different chapters, will certainly inspire the development of
new tools and stimulate new practical applications of SAR images.
The authors have been leading authorities in the field for many years.
Thus, the clear, thorough, and objective writing of the volume is a reflection of
the authors' extensive experience as scientists and teachers. In addition, the
authors have demonstrated that scientific texts can also be written in beautiful
English language.
I am confident that this book will quickly become a well-read text for
those interested in SAR images, and thus will contribute significantly to expand
the effective use of SAR data in the observation and monitoring of the Earths
environment.

Thuy Le Toan
Toulouse, September 1997
Preface

The authors have been collaborating on SAR research since 1982, when Shaun
Quegan joined Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, and Chris Oliver was at
the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, Malvern (later to become part of the
Defence Research Agency (DRA), which is now the Defence Evaluation and Re-
search Agency (DERA)). At that time the status of SAR as a means of producing
images of the Earths surface was very different from the present. Only the short-
lived Seasat mission had provided spaceborne data, and few airborne systems were
in operation. Images were not widely available (although the DRA X-band SAR
provided us with a data source) and in most cases suffered from various types of
defect. Image quality issues often overshadowed the task of information extrac-
tion so that, in common with many other researchers, we invested considerable
time and effort on methods of data correction. The success of this work (such as
the signal-based motion compensation schemes described in Chapter 3) in com-
bination with significant progress in system engineering and calibration has en-
sured that close to ideal quality SAR data is now to be expected from modern
systems. We have also seen the development of new techniques, such as polarimet-
ric and interferometric SAR, and the advent of a diversity of SAR data providers,
including spaceborne systems (ERS-I and 2, JERS, and Radarsat) and flexible
multifrequency polarimetric systems carried on aircraft or the Space Shuttle.
As the accent has changed from data correction, the information con-
tained in SAR images has come to occupy its rightful place as the purpose of
data acquisition. The investigation of methods for information extraction has
formed the second and continuing strand in our long collaboration. In this we
have been much helped by the complementarity of our interests. Chris Oliver
 has primarily been concerned with the development of image-interpretation
tools (usually for high resolution SAR in a military context), while Shaun
Quegan has concentrated more on their impact on remote sensing applications.
Necessarily, there has been significant overlap in our work. This combination of
interests means that we can go some way towards crossing the cultural divides
that hamper SAR development, in particular those that separate military from
civil applications and applications from algorithm development.
Military applications are primarily concerned with detecting and recogniz-
ing targets, which usually demands imagery of the highest resolution. Civil
applications, on the other hand, may require information about many diverse
aspects of the environment, normally at lower resolution. The two have com-
mon ground in the need to understand the properties of distributed scatterers:
in the military case because this constitutes the background clutter against
which target detection takes place; in the civil case because this clutter is often
the primary object of interest. More generally, both types of application have an
interest in scene understanding. However, military needs, where cost may not
have been a dominating issue, have given rise to sophisticated techniques that
are potentially of considerable value to the civil field. These have become
accessible due to the reduction in the cost of computing. Such is true of many
of the developments described in this book.
The divide between remote sensing applications and algorithm develop-
ment is symptomatic of the fact that SAR imaging presents many opportunities
for formulating mathematical problems that can be pursued in an almost
abstract way. Linking the problem and its solution to what is really needed by
an application may be much harder; not enough attention has been paid to this
issue. This does not mean that a rigorous approach should be avoided in the
development of image-interpretation tools. On the contrary, such tools must be
well grounded in the principles of optimization or conservation if they are to be
of any general value. Ad hoc methods rarely prove robust. We tried to adopt
such a rigorous approach throughout this book, but always with concern for
validation of a technique and its relevance to applications.
In our attempt to bridge these cultural divides, the process of information
extraction is viewed as a whole, from sensor parameters and their impact on
image properties, through data models describing image statistics and the char-
acteristics of the terrain, to the output information required by the application.
This approach is tempered by our knowledge of the scattering process, based on
physical understanding, models, and experimental findings. Such a complete
view of what makes up the image is essential in identifying which properties of
the scene affect the data. From this we can recognize those features (if any) that
carry the information required by the application. The role of image analysis is
to provide an optimum representation of these features. To achieve this, we
 formulate a series of models that represent our best attempt to encapsulate the
properties of the imaging process and those of the scene. Optimality can then
often be defined in a framework such as that provided by a Bayesian analysis,
although other criteria are possible. Always, the effectiveness of these optimal
solutions must be judged by the user, whose requirements should impinge on
every stage in the design of image-interpretation tools. Put briefly, we believe
that these tools should be firmly based in an understanding of the nature of the
SAR image; that their performance must be quantified and the best tools
recognized; and that these best tools should be made available to the image
interpreter, who is the final arbiter of their efficacy.
Although this sets out our philosophy, the reader may be helped by a more
specific guide to the main structural components of the book. Fundamental
aspects of how SAR images are formed, their basic characteristics arising from
the imaging process, and their statistical properties are covered in Chapters 2,
4, and 5. These chapters underlie much of the later material. Chapter 3 is
concerned with the recovery of nearly ideal images from imperfect systems; since
its emphasis is on the SAR processing, it can be omitted by those readers
interested only in working from the given data. Its purpose is to illustrate that
current techniques should ensure that the data are of the highest quality. Image
analysis tools for scene understanding in single-channel data form a central core
of the book and are developed in Chapters 6 to 9. Chapter 10 deals with target
detection in an overtly military context. The purpose of Chapters 11 and 12 is
to cast much of the content of Chapters 5 to 9 into the forms required to handle
multitemporal, multifrequency, polarimetric, and interferometric data and to
explore the much enhanced range of information available when such mul-
tichannel data are available. Real examples and contact with applications are a
recurrent theme throughout, but Chapter 13 becomes more closely oriented
with applications because it considers image classification. This is a central
concern in remote sensing. It provides a focal point where image analysis,
physical understanding, scene properties, and user requirements all interact.
Finally, in Chapter 14 we present our view of the current status and
prospects for further development. This ultimately depends on the extent to
which the material of this book finds its way into applications. It will be obvious
that currently available techniques show considerable promise and that in many
cases preferred approaches can be identified. We hope that readers are persuaded
to exploit the most powerful image analysis tools available, leading to more
effective use of the data and thus allowing the analyst to concentrate more time
on the real task of image interpretation. By the ensuing interplay of algorithms
and applications, the shortcomings of our current understanding and methods
will be exposed. This is the engine that will drive further development of
techniques for extracting information from SAR images.
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s

This book reflects many years of SAR research during which the authors have
had the good fortune to work with, learn from, and disagree with each other
and numerous associates at our own and other research establishments. It has
been an exciting time. On many occasions we seem to have been forced back to
re-examine our fundamental assumptions, often in heated discussion. One of
the first questions we asked each other before this undertaking was, "Can you
take criticism?" The give and take involved in being joint authors has only been
possible because we thought (correctly) that the answer was "Yes." This book
represents the fruits of this often painful but ultimately rewarding interaction.
We hope our efforts are better for it.
Chris would like to extend his grateful thanks to a large number of
friends and colleagues in the DRA who have contributed to the research pro-
gram. Chris Baker, Dave Belcher, Dave Blacknell, Alan Blake, Ian Finley, An-
drew Home, Richard White, and Jim Wood shared in the research into
autofocus and signal-based motion compensation for SAR imaging. Dave
Blacknell, Alan Blake, Eric Jakeman, Robert Tough, Keith Ward, and Richard
White all contributed to the understanding of data models. Steve Luttrell
provided exciting collaboration on super-resolution. Dave Blacknell, Alan
Blake, and Richard White are all involved in despeckling filters and segmen-
tation methods. Pierfrancesco Lombardo enjoyed a productive year at the
DRA working on texture analysis before returning to the University of Rome,
La Sapienza.
 InfoSAR has been engaged in the development of real-time SAR
autofocus processing and image-understanding techniques for the DRA. Chris
would like to acknowledge the contributions of Mike Delves and Rod Cook,
who are involved with the entire program; Keith Beckett and Gordon Pryde,
who developed the real-time SAR processor and autofocus software; and Ian
McConnell and Dave Stewart, who made significant progress in implementing
and developing the image-understanding algorithms. Indeed, many of the algo-
rithms described in this book, with subsequent development, are available in
the InfoPACK software package from InfoSAR.1
Chris would like to acknowledge the considerable investment made by the
DRA and the Ministry of Defence, in terms of staff, equipment, and funding
for the SAR research team. He is also grateful for the encouragement to under-
take a review of the whole topic over the last two years that was initially reported
in DRA Technical Reports Nos. DRA/LS2/TR96016 to 96021. Many illumi-
nating discussions with Dave Blacknell and Richard White assisted in their
preparation. Chapters 3 and 5 to 10 in this book are largely based on this
material and are British Crown Copyright 1997/DERA (with the exception of
Figures 6.12(a) and 8.1 and Table 10.2). So also are Figures 1.1, 4.1, 4.9,
12.11 (d—j), and 12.12. These are published with the permission of the controller
of Her British Majesty's Stationary Office.
Past and present members of Shaun Quegan's SAR Research Group within
the Sheffield Centre for Earth Observation Science (SCEOS) contributed enor-
mously to the overall research program and in putting this book together. Kevin
Grover not only did most of the work on change detection in Amazonia but was
willing to visit SCEOS long after his Ph.D. was completed in order to put the
images in good order for Chapter 12. Jiong Jiong Yu is helping to extend the
theoretical treatment of change detection and its applications. Ron Caves played
a central role in developing algorithms for segmenting multidimensional SAR
data and in producing quantitative measures of segmentation performance.
Mike Preston moved this work forward on both fronts. Ian Rhodes, Coomaren
Vencatasawmy, and Fraser Hatfield carried out much of the analysis of the
MacEurope data; I am grateful to Coomaren for supplying Figure 11.6, which
is taken from his M.Sc. dissertation. Mark Williams did much to improve our
understanding of the relationship between backscattering models and image
texture.
As far as the preparation of this book itself is concerned, we are grateful for
many important contributions. From DRA, Alan Blake provided the image
simulation and analysis software used throughout Chapters 5 to 9, Tony Currie

1. Many images from this book, as well as other examples, can be found at the InfoSAR
website: http://www.infosar.co.uk/.
 the interferometric image shown in Figure 4.9, and Mark Williams the simulation
in Figure 5.8. Les Novak, of MIT Lincoln Laboratories, provided Table 10.2,
which is taken from one of his many informative papers on target detection and
recognition. A crucial input was that of Ian McConnell and Dave Stewart of N A
Software who processed all the examples of reconstruction filters and segmenta-
tion algorithms illustrated in Chapters 6 to 8 as well as Figures 12.11 and 12.12.
This involved a great deal of effort and was essential to the value of those chapters.
Special thanks must go to Mike Preston and Jiong Jiong Yu of SCEOS for
producing many of the figures and displaying remarkable patience when Shaun
realized he had asked for the wrong thing. Mike, in particular, devoted much time
to solving the numerous problems that arose in getting images to Chris in the
right form. Members of SCEOS were also willing to liaise with colleagues else-
where who were kind enough to allow access to data and images. Geoff Cook-
martin took care of the data provided by ESA-ESTEC that forms Figures 13.1
and 13.2. Jiong Jiong Yu did most of the hard work involved in transferring data
from CESBIO and DCRS, while Mike Preston took the lead with ESA-ESRIN.
Shaun's unreserved thanks must go to Mari Bullock, who, as SCEOS
secretary, not only typed his parts of the manuscript but also took care of so
many of the detailed tasks involved in putting all the material together. Her
initiative, care, and sheer devotion to getting the job done played a large part in
making it possible. She also managed to run SCEOS very effectively while
Shaun made himself incommunicado in order to write (which tells you some-
thing about how the organization really works).
A symptom of the coherence and sustained nature of the research program
from which this book springs is the sharing of staff between SCEOS, DRA, and
N A Software. DRA provided support for Dave Blacknell and Mark Williams
while they worked in Sheffield; both are now at DRA, as is Kevin Grover. Ron
Caves spent two years with N A Software before returning to Sheffield, and Ian
McConnell joined N A Software from Sheffield.
The extent of the SAR research program within SCEOS would have been
impossible without the continuing support of the UK Science and Engineering
Research Council and later the National Environmental Research Council,
when they took over responsibility for Earth Observation.
In preparing this manuscript we had tremendous help from colleagues in
other research groups who have been willing to give data, advice, and time when
we sought it, providing an excellent and refreshing example of the sense of
community within the field.
From CESBIO, Toulouse, we must particularly thank Thuy Le Toan for
advice that vastly improved Chapter 13 (though any blemishes are our respon-
sibility) and for providing data. Florence Ribbes and Oscar Casamian did an
excellent and difficult job in rendering color images into informative black-and-
 white forms for our purposes. Their efforts became Figures 13.6 and 13.8. At a
deeper level, Thuy's insistence on understanding what we see in SAR images was
a continual spur to the spirit; she knows measurement is easier than knowing
what we have measured.
The Danish Centerfor Remote Sensing (DCRS), Department for Electromag-
netic Systems (EMI) of the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) provided help
in two very substantial ways. First, they provided the EMISAR images; our
thanks go to Soren Madsen for permission to use them and Erik Lintz for
comments on the text while providing that permission. Second, much of the
analysis of the EMISAR images was carried out by Jesper Schou of DCRS
during a four-month individual course at Sheffield. Thanks must go to his
supervisor, Henning Skriver, for instigating what turned out to be a very fruitful
visit and to Jesper, for the quality of his work at Sheffield and his willingness to
help in preparing material after his return to Denmark.
Colleagues from DLR who helped us include Richard Bamler and Man-
fred Zink. Richard supplied material on SAR processing and copies of unpub-
lished work done with Keith Raney (now of Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns
Hopkins University) on the linear system model for SAR imaging. Manfred gave
advice on SAR calibration.
We have several reasons to thank the European Space Agency. First and
foremost they supplied data. All the ERS images shown were provided by ESA.
Those from the Tapajos site in Amazonia were given to us under the auspices of
the TREES program organized by the Joint Research Centre of the European
Union, Ispra, whose support we would like to acknowledge. All other ERS images
were provided in the framework of the First ERS Announcement of Opportunity.
In addition, ESA provided access to data from two airborne campaigns. The
SAREX images used in Chapter 8 were collected in the framework of the ESA
South American Radar Experiment, while the NASA/JPL AirSAR data informing
Chapters 11 to 13 were acquired during the 1992 MacEurope campaign. In the
latter case, ESA was a formal partner of NASA and we would like to thank both
organizations. Other contributions to this book include Figures 13.1, 13.2, and
13.7, which are reproduced from ESA publications.
Individual ESA scientists also helped us greatly. Maurice Borgeaud of
ESA-ESTEC made available the figures and data that form Figures 13.1 and
13.2. Henri Laur, Giorgio Emiliani, and Jose Sanchez of ESA-ESRIN provided
the imagery and the calibration target analysis shown in Figure 2.9. In both
cases, this was not straightforward and we gratefully acknowledge the time and
effort expended on our behalf.
Most of the work we describe using data from the Tapajos site would not
have been possible without the support of colleagues in the Instituto Nacional
Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE), Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil. Special thanks must go
to Corina Yanasse for many years of advice, discussion, and help. We are
indebted to Sidnei Sant'Anna, Alejandro Frery, and Corina for permission to
use Figure 13.7. This opportunity to display information on forest types using
texture measured from the Radarsat satellite arose only a week before comple-
tion of the manuscript during a visit to Sheffield by Corina and Sidnei, and we
were delighted by it. More generally, effective collaboration with INPE was
greatly aided by discussion and material help from Luciano Dutra and Thelma
Krug.
Shaun must give particular thanks to Rob Brooks, Ralph Cordey, and Paul
Saich of Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow. Rob introduced me to the
fascinating field of SAR research. Ralph has been a continual source of critical
appraisal, encouragement, and financial support and he and Paul have been
welcome collaborators on several projects. MRC must also be thanked for
seconding Dave Blacknell to Sheffield for the duration of his doctoral studies.
This book would never have been completed (almost) on schedule with-
out the continual involvement of Susanna Taggart at Artech House in London.
She managed to make her demands in such a pleasant manner that it was
impossible to take offense.
When he started writing this book Chris had no conception of the
demands it would make on his time and energy. He especially wishes to thank
his wife Betty for her understanding and patience over the whole period, but
particularly the last few hectic weeks. In contrast, Shaun knew perfectly well
what was involved and went like a lamb to the slaughter. He has no words that
can do justice to the forbearance of his wife Sue.
About the Authors

After earning a degree in physics from Worcester College, Oxford, Chris Oliver
conducted his doctoral research into low-energy nuclear structure at Liverpool
University. In 1967, he joined the photon statistics group at the Royal Signals and
Radar Establishment (RSRE), Malvern [later the Defence Research Agency (DRA)
and now the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA)]. He was one of
the joint inventors of the technique of single-clipped photon-correlation spec-
troscopy exploited in the Malvern Correlator, for which he won the MacRobert
Award for Engineering Achievement in 1977.
Chris Oliver led a section at the DERA (Malvern) undertaking long-term
research on the extraction and processing of information from SAR images since
1981; from 1991 until 2000, he took on a consultancy role to free him from man-
agement responsibilities. He was appointed Visiting Professor of Physics at
King's College London in 1987. In 1996, he was invited to become a Visiting Pro-
fessor in Electronic Engineering at University College, London. He has also been
a Visiting Professor at "La Sapiensa," the University of Rome, in 1999 and 2001.
Chris Oliver has published in excess of 100 papers and holds 7 patents,
many in both Europe and the United States in addition to the United Kingdom.
His academy status was recognized within the DERA, where he was an Individ-
ual Merit Deputy Chief Scientific Officer. In 2000, he was appointed a Com-
mander of the British Empire (CBE) in Her Britannic Majesty the Queen's
Birthday Honors as recognition of his contribution to radar. Since his retire-
ment, Chris has set up InfoSAR Ltd. (www.infosar.co.uk), which offers consul-
tancy and training in SAR exploitation. The company has produced a SAR image
interpretation software suite, InfoPACK, which exploits and extends the princi-
ples described in this book and offers significantly greater sensitivity than any
others.
Shaun Quegan received his BA in mathematics in 1970 and M.Sc. in mathe-
matical statistics in 1972, both from the University of Warwick. After teaching
for several years (and running a large mathematics department) an ever-growing
interest in physics led him to undertake research into large-scale modeling of the
ionosphere and upper atmosphere at the University of Sheffield, leading to a
Ph.D. in 1982. He then joined Marconi Research Centre as a research scientist,
becoming Remote Sensing Applications Group Chief in 1984. This was a
fortunate opportunity to work with an excellent team involved in SAR research,
from which many fruitful long-term collaborations sprung, including that with
Chris Oliver. The offer of a post at the University of Sheffield in 1986 provided
an chance to build an academic SAR research group, whose activities have
flourished. In 1993 he was awarded a professorship, in the same year helping to
instigate the Sheffield Centre for Earth Observation Science and becoming its
first director. In this role he plays a central part in coordinating and developing
the wide range of remote sensing skills in the University and in bringing them
to bear on environmental science and application problems.
 Contents

Foreword ................................................................................ xvii

Preface ................................................................................... xix

Acknowledgments .................................................................. xxiii

About the Authors ................................................................... xxviii

1. Introduction .................................................................... 1

2. Principles of SAR Image Formation ............................. 11

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 11
2.2 SAR System Parameters ................................................. 12
2.3 The Range Dimension – Processing a Single
Pulse ................................................................................. 14
2.4 Linear FM (Chirp) Pulses and Pulse Compression ......... 18
2.5 The Azimuth Dimension ................................................... 25
2.6 SAR as a Linear Measurement System ........................... 29
2.7 Calibration ......................................................................... 34
2.8 Summary .......................................................................... 38
References .................................................................................. 39
Appendix 2A Azimuth Processing for an Orbital SAR ................ 40

3. Image Defects and Their Correction ............................ 43

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 43
3.2 Defocus ............................................................................. 45
3.2.1 Autofocus Methods ........................................ 48

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation. vii
viii Contents

3.2.2 Limiting Accuracy of Autofocus

Techniques .................................................... 52
3.2.3 The Effect of Scatterer Properties on
Autofocus ....................................................... 53
3.3 Geometric and Radiometric Distortion ............................. 55
3.3.1 Physical Cause and Associated
Distortion ....................................................... 55
3.3.2 Signal-Based MOCO ..................................... 58
3.3.3 Antenna Stabilization ..................................... 59
3.4 Residual SAR Imaging Errors .......................................... 60
3.4.1 Residual Geometric and Radiometric
Distortion ....................................................... 60
3.4.2 Excess Sidelobe Levels ................................. 62
3.5 Refinements to Signal-Based MOCO .............................. 63
3.5.1 Iterated Autofocus with Phase
Correction ...................................................... 63
3.5.2 High-Frequency Tracking with Low
Distortion ....................................................... 64
3.5.3 Combined Signal-Based and
Conventional MOCO ...................................... 66
3.6 Conclusions ...................................................................... 69
References .................................................................................. 72

4. Fundamental Properties of SAR Images ..................... 75

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 75
4.2 The Nature of Information in SAR Images ....................... 77
4.3 Single-Channel Image Types and Speckle ...................... 84
4.4 Estimating the RCS: Multilook Data ................................. 93
4.5 The Multiplicative Noise Model for Speckle ..................... 96
4.6 Estimating the RCS – the Effects of Imaging and
Noise ................................................................................. 99
4.7 Consequences of the Imaging Model for SAR
Measurements .................................................................. 102

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 Contents ix

4.8 The Effects of Spatial Correlation on Multilooking ........... 105

4.9 Compensating for System-Induced Spatial
Correlation ........................................................................ 107
4.9.1 Subsampling .................................................. 107
4.9.2 Pre-Averaging ................................................ 108
4.9.3 Interpolation ................................................... 109
4.10 Estimating Spatial Correlation: Stationarity and
Spatial Averaging ............................................................. 110
4.11 Limitations in the Speckle Model ...................................... 113
4.12 Multidimensional SAR Images ......................................... 114
4.13 Summary .......................................................................... 118
References .................................................................................. 119

5. Data Models .................................................................... 123

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 123
5.2 Data Characterization ....................................................... 126
5.3 Empirical Data Distributions ............................................. 128
5.4 The Product Model ........................................................... 130
5.4.1 The RCS Model ............................................. 131
5.4.2 The Intensity PDF .......................................... 133
5.5 Comparison of Distributions ............................................. 135
5.6 Imaging RCS Fluctuations with Finite Resolution ............ 138
5.7 Limitations of the Data Model ........................................... 142
5.8 Simulation ......................................................................... 145
5.9 Conclusions ...................................................................... 151
References .................................................................................. 154

6. RCS Reconstruction Filters .......................................... 157

6.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 157
6.2 The Speckle Model and Quality Measures ...................... 159
6.3 Bayesian Reconstruction .................................................. 161

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

x Contents

6.4 Reconstruction Using the Speckle Model ........................ 162

6.4.1 Multilook Despeclding .................................... 162
6.4.2 Minimum Mean-Square Error
Despeckling ................................................... 164
6.5 Reconstruction Using the RCS Model ............................. 165
6.5.1 Gamma MAP Despeckling ............................. 166
6.6 Correlated Neighborhood Model ...................................... 167
6.6.1 Correlated Neighborhood ML (CML)
Despeckling ................................................... 168
6.6.2 Correlated Neighborhood Gamma MAP
(CMAP) Despeckling ...................................... 169
6.7 Structural Adaptive Filtering ............................................. 170
6.8 Reconstruction Using Nonlinear Iterated
Processing ........................................................................ 171
6.8.1 Iterated MMSE Despeckling ........................... 171
6.8.2 Iterated Gamma MAP Despeckling ................ 172
6.8.3 Iterated Correlated Neighborhood ML
(CML) Despeckling ........................................ 173
6.8.4 Iterated Correlated Neighborhood
Gamma MAP (CMAP) Despeckling ................ 174
6.9 Reconstruction by Iterating the Structured
Neighborhood Model ........................................................ 175
6.9.1 Simulated Annealing and the Structured
Neighborhood Model ...................................... 176
6.9.2 Constant RCS Model ..................................... 179
6.9.3 Sloping RCS Model ........................................ 180
6.9.4 Discussion of Structured Annealing
Results ........................................................... 181
6.10 Comparison of Reconstruction Algorithms ....................... 184
6.10.1 Image Quality ................................................. 184
6.10.2 Execution Times ............................................ 187
6.10.3 Algorithm Selection ........................................ 188

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 Contents xi

6.11 Discussion ........................................................................ 189

References .................................................................................. 192

7. RCS Classification and Segmentation ......................... 195

7.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 195
7.2 RCS Classification ............................................................ 195
7.3 The Cartoon Model and Segmentation ............................ 197
7.3.1 Edge Detection .............................................. 199
7.3.2 Region Merging ............................................. 202
7.3.3 ML Split/Merge Theory ................................... 203
7.3.4 Implementation of ML Split/Merge
Theory ........................................................... 207
7.3.5 Region Fitting ................................................. 208
7.4 Comparison of Segmentation Algorithms ........................ 212
7.4.1 Image Quality ................................................. 212
7.4.2 Execution Times ............................................ 217
7.4.3 Algorithm Selection ........................................ 217
7.5 RCS Exploitation .............................................................. 218
7.5.1 Algorithm Properties ...................................... 218
7.5.2 Application Example ...................................... 221
References .................................................................................. 225

8. Texture Exploitation ...................................................... 229

8.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 229
8.2 Model-Free Texture Exploitation ...................................... 231
8.2.1 The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ....................... 231
8.2.2 Estimating Moments ...................................... 232
8.2.3 Optimum Selection of Moments ..................... 234
8.2.4 Estimating the PDF ........................................ 235
8.3 Model-Based Texture Parameter Estimation ................... 235
8.3.1 Derivation of MLEs for Different PDFs ........... 236

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

xii Contents

8.3.2 Uncertainty in Order Parameter

Estimates ....................................................... 240
8.3.3 Texture Estimation Example .......................... 244
8.4 Texture Classification ....................................................... 245
8.4.1 Classification by Fitting .................................. 245
8.4.2 Direct Classification ....................................... 246
8.4.3 Annealed Texture Classification ..................... 247
8.5 Texture Segmentation ...................................................... 249
8.5.1 Edge Detection .............................................. 249
8.5.2 Model-Based Segmentation ........................... 251
8.5.3 Annealed Segmentation ................................. 251
8.6 Discussion ........................................................................ 253
References .................................................................................. 255

9. Correlated Textures ....................................................... 259

9.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 259
9.2 Model-Based Parameter Estimation ................................ 261
9.3 Texture Classification ....................................................... 266
9.3.1 Classification by Fitting .................................. 266
9.3.2 Direct Spectrum Classification ....................... 266
9.4 ML Correlated Texture Edge Detection ........................... 271
9.4.1 ML Edge-Detection Theory ............................ 271
9.4.2 Edge-Detection Performance ......................... 272
9.5 Discussion ........................................................................ 274
References .................................................................................. 275

10. Target Information ......................................................... 277

10.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 277
10.2 Introduction to Target Detection ....................................... 279
10.3 Constant Target and Background RCS ........................... 282
10.3.1 Standard CFAR Target Detection .................. 282
10.3.2 Optimized Target Detection ........................... 284

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 Contents xiii

10.4 Effect of Background and Target Statistics ...................... 285

10.4.1 Standard CFAR Target Detection .................. 287
10.4.2 Optimized Detection for the Textured
Target Model .................................................. 289
10.5 Further Refinements to Target Detection ......................... 294
10.6 Introduction to Target Recognition ................................... 296
10.7 Target Discrimination ........................................................ 299
10.8 Target Classification ......................................................... 305
10.9 Target Super-Resolution .................................................. 308
10.9.1 Super-Resolution Theory ............................... 308
10.9.2 Super-Resolution Example ............................ 311
10.9.3 Conclusions about Super-Resolution ............. 313
10.10 Summary .......................................................................... 313
References .................................................................................. 315

11. Information in Multichannel SAR Data ......................... 319

11.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 319
11.2 Polarimetric Measurements .............................................. 320
11.3 Polarimetric Data Distributions ......................................... 322
11.3.1 Theoretical Formulation ................................. 324
11.3.2 Relation to the One-Dimensional
Multiplicative Noise Model for Speckle ........... 326
11.4 The Multidimensional Gaussian Distribution .................... 328
11.4.1 Real and Complex Gaussian
Distributions ................................................... 332
11.4.2 Moments ........................................................ 333
11.5 Single-Look Distributions Involving Two
Polarimetric Channels ...................................................... 333
11.6 Properties of the Distributions .......................................... 336
11.6.1 The Phase Difference Distribution .................. 336
11.6.2 The Amplitude Ratio Distribution .................... 340

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

xiv Contents

11.7 Estimation of Polarimetric Parameters ............................. 341

11.7.1 The Multilook Phase Difference
Distribution ..................................................... 344
11.7.2 The Multilook Coherence Distribution ............ 345
11.7.3 The Multilook Intensity Ratio .......................... 346
11.8 The Stokes Scattering Operator Formulation of
Polarized Scattering ......................................................... 347
11.9 Texture in Polarimetric Data ............................................. 350
11.9.1 Multilook Textured Data ................................. 351
11.9.2 Parameter Estimation .................................... 351
11.9.3 Texture Observations in Polarimetric
Data ............................................................... 352
11.10 Interferometric, Multifrequency, and Multitemporal
Data .................................................................................. 355
11.11 Summary .......................................................................... 356
References .................................................................................. 357
Appendix 11A Number Fluctuations and the Generalized
Product Model ................................................................... 360

12. Analysis Techniques for Multidimensional SAR

Images ............................................................................ 365
12.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 365
12.2 Polarimetric Reconstruction Filters .................................. 367
12.2.1 Multilook Reconstruction ................................ 368
12.2.2 MMSE Reconstruction ................................... 368
12.2.3 Gamma MAP Estimation ................................ 373
12.3 Speckle Reduction by Polarimetric or Multichannel
Filtering ............................................................................. 375
12.3.1 Using Covariance Matrix Data ....................... 375
12.3.2 Using Intensity Data Only .............................. 380
12.3.3 Principal Components Analysis in
Multichannel SAR Data .................................. 383

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 Contents xv

12.4 Measuring and Detecting Differences between Two

Images .............................................................................. 385
12.4.1 Pixel-Based Change Detection ...................... 385
12.4.2 Area-Based Difference Measures .................. 388
12.5 Multichannel Segmentation .............................................. 391
12.5.1 Multidimensional RGW Segmentation ............ 393
12.5.2 Multidimensional Annealed
Segmentation ................................................. 395
12.6 Comparison of Algorithms – A Case Study ..................... 399
12.7 Concluding Remarks ........................................................ 409
References .................................................................................. 409

13. Classification of SAR Imagery ...................................... 413

13.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 413
13.2 The Empirical Basis for Classification .............................. 416
13.2.1 Spaceborne Multitemporal Data ..................... 418
13.2.2 Polarimetric Data ........................................... 421
13.2.3 Texture in Classification ................................. 425
13.3 Decision Rules for Classification ...................................... 426
13.4 Data-Driven Methods of Classification ............................. 427
13.4.1 Gaussian MAP Classification ......................... 427
13.4.2 Single-Frequency Polarimetric
Classification ................................................. 430
13.4.3 Repeat-Pass Interferometry ........................... 430
13.4.4 Uncorrelated Channels .................................. 431
13.4.5 Applications of MAP Classification ................. 432
13.4.6 Other Data-Driven Approaches ...................... 433
13.5 Classification Based on Scattering Mechanism ............... 434
13.6 Knowledge-Based Classification ...................................... 437
13.7 Using SAR Properties to Refine a Classification ............. 442
13.8 Concluding Remarks ........................................................ 444
References .................................................................................. 445

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

xvi Contents

14. Current Status and Future Prospects .......................... 451

14.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 451
14.2 Are the Models Complete? ............................................... 453
14.3 Are the Models Accurate? ................................................ 456
14.4 Are the Models Tractable? ............................................... 456
14.5 Are the Models Useful? .................................................... 457
14.6 Future Developments ....................................................... 459
References .................................................................................. 461

Index ...................................................................................... 465

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

1

Introduction

In the last few years, high quality images of the Earth produced by synthetic
aperture radar (SAR) systems carried on a variety of airborne and spaceborne
platforms have become increasingly available. Two major leaps forward were
provided by the launch of the ERS-1 satellite by the European Space Agency
in 1991 and the advent of very flexible airborne systems carrying multifre-
quency polarimetric SARs, of which the NASA/JPL AirSAR provides perhaps
the single most influential example. These systems ushered in a new era of
civilian radar remote sensing because of their emphasis on SAR as a measure-
ment device, with great attention being paid to data quality and calibration.
This emphasis continues to play a major part in the development, deployment,
and application of current systems.
ERS-I was the first in a series of orbital SARs planned to have long
lifetimes and semioperational capabilities. The JERS-I, ERS-2, and Radarsat
satellite systems are currently in orbit, with ENVISAT planned for launch in
1999. By providing a long time series of accurate measurements of the backscat-
tering coefficient, these satellites allow dynamic processes to be observed over
most of the Earths surface, with impacts in many areas, such as vegetation
mapping and monitoring, hydrology, sea-ice mapping, and geology. The unique
capability of SAR to exploit signal phase in interferometry has given rise to
completely new tools for glaciology and the study of tectonic activity.
Because of the constraints imposed by deploying a radar in space, these
systems are simple, in the sense of using single frequencies and polarizations
with modest resolution. By contrast, airborne systems have been able to dem-
onstrate the advantages of having multiple frequencies and polarizations avail-
 able. These advantages were further demonstrated, but from space, by the
SIR-C/X-SAR mission of the Space Shuttle. In addition, the AirSAR system
indicated that longer wavelength radars can have a special role in Earth ob-
servation due to their ability to penetrate vegetation canopies and interact
with structural elements of trees and the underlying soil. Much longer wave-
length systems are now in operation and promise to provide effective methods
for reconnaissance and remote sensing over heavily vegetated areas.
While civilian systems have concentrated on radiometric accuracy and
investigation of natural targets, the priority of military systems is the detection
and recognition of man-made targets (often vehicles) against a clutter back-
ground. The need for rapid reconnaissance has placed considerable emphasis
on airborne systems that can be deployed on demand. By its nature, the
military recognition task usually demands resolution better than Im and sys-
tems that can operate at long range, for survivability. These two requirements
enforce long synthetic apertures that, because airborne systems are preferred,
have needed the development of sophisticated motion-compensation (MOCO)
techniques.
While an enormous amount of effort has been expended on systems to
acquire SAR data, comparatively little has been expended on making the best
use of those data. Two lines of attack are needed to achieve this. One is the
investigation of the physical content of the data, by means of experiment,
observation, and modeling. The other is to examine the actual properties of the
data in light of what is known about the physics, the general properties of the
world, and the applications of interest, to identify and extract optimal estimates
of the information-bearing components of the data. This bridging role between
what we know about the data and how we best get at the information they
contain is the subject of this book.
Radar systems are capable of producing very high quality images of the
Earth, as demonstrated by the high-resolution image shown in Figure 1.1. In
order for this imagery to have value it must be interpreted so as to yield
information about the region under study. An image analyst soon learns to
recognize features such as trees, hedges, fields (with internal structure and
texture), shadows, and buildings, which encompass a range of natural and
man-made objects. However, it is a time-consuming task to extract the informa-
tion, particularly when large areas must be examined. Furthermore, there is no
guarantee of consistency between analysts or measure of the performance they
achieve. These limitations motivate the search for automatic algorithms to
derive the relevant information more quickly and reproducibly, or, in some
circumstances, more sensitively.
The need for automatic or semiautomatic methods becomes even more
pressing when polarimetric, multifrequency, and/or multitemporal images are
Figure 1.1 High-resolution (< 1m) DRA X-band SAR image of typical rural scene. (British
Crown Copyright 1997/DERA.)

available. For such multidimensional data it is first necessary to define the

quantities to be made available to the analyst: which parameters carry the infor-
mation? When there are more independent pieces of information at each pixel
than can be sensibly represented, for example, by color overlays, how should the
data be organized and displayed to pick out its salient points? In such circum-
stances, it may be better to let some of the decisions be made automatically as
long as they have a solid basis in understanding how information is embodied in
the data. This is particularly true when there are time constraints and large
amounts of data to analyze.
 Automatic image understanding must take place on two different scales.

• Low-level analysis provides a series of tools for identifying and quanti-

fying details of local image structure.
• High-level analysis then uses this detail to construct a global structural
description of the scene, which is the information required by the image
analyst.

Note that low-level algorithms are not sufficient; local details have to be
incorporated into some overall form of understanding. This demands methods
for overcoming defects in the detailed picture, for example, by joining edges
across gaps or merging regions where appropriate. On the other hand, sophisti-
cated high-level techniques are of no value if the underlying tools are incapable
of bringing out the information with sufficient sensitivity. The aim of this book
is to develop and relate the tools needed at both these levels. It is comprised of
the following six principal components:

• The imaging process (Chapters 2 and 3);

• Properties of SAR images (Chapters 4 and 5);
• Single-image exploitation (Chapters 6 to 10);
• Multiple-image exploitation (Chapters 11 and 12);
• Application in image classification (Chapter 13);
• Further developments (Chapter 14).

Radar images have properties that are unfamiliar to those of us more

used to optical data and photographs. Anyone intending to make effective use
of SAR needs to understand and appreciate some of these basic properties.
Those connected with the sensor-scene geometry and the signal processing
involved in image formation are described in Chapter 2. Here the basic prin-
ciples of SAR image formation are outlined and used to define two funda-
mental characteristics of the system and the impact they have on the images
being produced. The first of these is the spatial resolution of the imagery. The
azimuth resolution of the SAR is independent of range, but the range resolu-
tion varies with position if an image is displayed in a map reference frame.
This has important consequences for the visibility of objects in the images and
the number of pixels available to measure their properties. The second funda-
mental quantity is the point spread function (PSF), which determines the cor-
relation and sampling properties of the imagery. It is an essential concept when
describing the properties of images of both point and distributed targets. The
 interplay of these two generic target types is shown to be central in calibrating
the SAR. Calibration is essential if accurate measurements of the geophysical
quantities known as the radar cross section and radar backscattering coefficient
are to be made. Only by working in terms of such sensor-independent quan-
tities can measurements from different sensors, images gathered at different
times, or measurements from different parts of an image be sensibly compared.
The treatment in Chapter 2 assumes an ideal SAR system, but, in practice,
images can suffer from a number of defects. Inadequate calibration leading to
radiometric or phase distortion forms only part of the problem. Particularly for
airborne systems, unknown or uncorrected perturbations of the sensor position
(on the scale of fractions of a wavelength) about its expected trajectory can cause
defocusing, geometric and radiometric distortion, and increased (unpredictable)
sidelobe levels. In Chapter 3 we show how autofocus techniques can be com-
bined with a simple dynamics model for the sensor platform to recover nearly
ideal image quality, as epitomized by Figure 1.1. This signal-based motion-
compensation scheme is equally applicable to airborne and satellite systems.
Chapter 3 is atypical in that the techniques it describes use the raw (unproc-
essed) SAR data, whereas elsewhere we start from image data. However, it
should be noted that the methods involve postprocessing algorithms that can be
applied whenever full bandwidth complex data are available. For example, they
are applicable in principle to the ERS-I SLC product. Readers with no desire
to become embroiled in the details of SAR processing may prefer to ignore this
chapter. They should nonetheless be aware that images of the highest quality can
be routinely produced, even by airborne systems operating at high resolutions
and long ranges, by making use of the techniques set out here. This is particu-
larly important where high-resolution data are essential to enable the detailed
structure and position of objects within the scene to be determined.
Succeeding chapters deal with the issue of extracting information from the
images themselves. Chapter 4 is concerned with the fundamental properties of
SAR images and how we represent the nature of information within them. It
sets up a framework within which the properties of the data are described in a
series of physical and empirical models (data models). Prior knowledge is encap-
sulated in a series of world models that can be applied to different image-inter-
pretation functions. Both types of model can be combined in a Bayesian
approach in which the output takes the form of a maximum likelihood (ML) or
maximum a posteriori (MAP) solution, given the data and the world models.
After setting up this framework, we examine the consequences of the fact
that the SAR is a linear measurement system providing an estimate of the
complex reflectivity at each pixel. There are then various ways of representing
the SAR data, all based on the complex image. These different image types all
contain different manifestations of the phenomenon known as speckle, which
 results from interference between many random scatterers within a resolution
cell. Speckle influences our ability to estimate image properties and thus is
central to information retrieval from individual SAR images. For many purposes
the phase inherent in the single-look complex imagery carries no useful infor-
mation and can be discarded. The information at each pixel is then carried by
the radar cross section (RCS) or backscattering coefficient a 0 . For distributed
targets, where resolution is not a critical issue, discarding the phase allows for
the incoherent averaging of pixels or independent images to provide better
estimates of a 0 (a process known as multilooking). Finally, we introduce the
image types that become available when multichannel data are available. In
doing so, the nature of speckle as a true electromagnetic scattering phenomenon
becomes manifest through its exploitation in polarimetry and interferometry.
Figure 1.1 indicates that information about the scene is contained in the
variations of the RCS. These can be at large scales (e.g., the hedgerows, shadows,
and bright areas of woodland present in this image) or at a smaller scale where
they provide a textural effect within a single type of land cover. In Chapter 5 we
discuss models that describe this latter type of image property. Most impor-
tantly, we introduce the product model that describes SAR images, particularly
those arising from natural clutter, as a combination of an underlying RCS and
speckle. A gamma-distributed RCS is shown to lead to a K-distributed intensity
or amplitude that provides a good description of many natural clutter regions.
This model provides the crucial component in our approach to extracting
information from single SAR images, as described in Chapters 6 to 10.
From Figure 1.1 it is obvious that the overall structure in the scene is
dominated by the deterministic manner in which the RCS varies as a function
of position. Strong returns correspond to identifiable objects, such as individual
trees. In Chapter 6 we introduce a series of world models (discussed in Chapter
4) and exploit them in reconstructing this deterministic RCS by separating it
from the speckle. In Chapter 7 we introduce the cartoon model, which asserts
that the image is made up of regions of constant RCS, leading to segmentation.
The role of the exploitation tool is then to define the position and strength of
the different segments within the scene. We compare both the reconstructions
(from Chapter 6) and the segmentations (from Chapter 7) in terms of a quality
measure based on the speckle model. This enables a quantitative assessment of
the different algorithms to be made.
The underlying variation of RCS is not the only source of information
within a SAR image. Many of the fields in Figure 1.1 show texture, correspond-
ing to plowed furrows. In this context the presence of furrows, indicating a
property of the field, is often more important than their individual positions. The
same is true for many types of natural clutter, such as woodland. Again, we are
not so much concerned with the positions of individual trees but with the
 texture properties that characterize large regions of woodland. These properties,
encapsulated in the single-point statistics (described in Chapter 8) and the
correlation properties (discussed in Chapter 9), can then be exploited for region
classification or segmentation.
In Chapter 10 we introduce a new model that is intended to describe
man-made objects, such as targets in a military application. Extracting informa-
tion about these can be factorized into processes of detection, discrimination,
and classification. These functions operate on the detailed local level to provide
a global picture of the presence of targets within the scene. Initially we introduce
a Bayesian treatment of target detection and apply it to a uniform or textured
RCS applied to both background and targets. We discuss suitable simple dis-
criminants capable of rejecting false detections, leading to a formulation of
classification based on a Bayesian approach. In practice, this may be too com-
plicated and associated suboptimum classifiers may be preferable. Man-made
objects generally comprise only a few individual scatterers, so the deterministic
interference between these becomes crucial. This can be exploited in super-
resolution.
Earlier chapters deal with individual SAR images for which speckle can be
treated as a noiselike phenomenon dominating information extraction. How-
ever, increasingly important are multichannel data in which images of the same
scene are acquired under different operating conditions. Multidimensional data
types form the subject matter of Chapter 11. We concentrate initially on the
properties of polarimetric SAR, since this type of data illustrates many of the
major issues involved in combining images, in particular those properties asso-
ciated with interchannel coherence. As would be expected, the existence of extra
channels provides an enhanced capacity for extracting information from the
images. Indeed, fully polarimetric systems provide a complete description of the
scattering properties of the scene for a given operating frequency. Physically,
different polarization configurations interact differently with the various com-
ponents of the scattering medium. Particularly when used in combination with
frequency diversity, polarization provides a means of probing the physical prop-
erties of the medium. We provide strong theoretical and experimental evidence
to illustrate that the one-dimensional product model for texture extends readily
to polarimetric data, and this reveals that the multidimensional Gaussian model
plays a central role in representing the data. All the important image types
needed to capture the information in the data follow immediately from this data
model. We examine the properties of these images and develop a complete
theory of the distributions involved, including the estimation properties of the
important parameters. These theoretical results are verified by comparison with
measurements from multifrequency polarimetric systems. We also develop the
theory needed to take account of fluctuations in the number of scatterers
 contributing to the polarimetric signal and examine the textural information
present in data as a function of frequency. Finally, the theory developed for
polarimetric data is related to other multifrequency data types, in particular
those encountered in interferometric, multifrequency, and multitemporal
images.
Chapter 12 is concerned with using the image model derived and verified
in Chapter 11 to develop techniques for extracting information from a variety
of multidimensional images. We first deal with the tools needed to estimate the
key parameters defined by the product model. These are very much based on
methods developed for single-channel data; it is very satisfying to see how
readily these extend to higher dimensional data. However, the extension is not
entirely straightforward. In particular, the concept of speckle that permeated
almost all the work for single-channel data has no obvious counterpart in higher
dimensions, unless all the channels are uncorrelated. This changes the nature of
some of the optimization problems that must be posed and solved to get at the
information in the data. However, the distinction between structural and para-
metric information that runs as a thread through all the work on single channels
is just as pertinent here. Methods are described that improve our ability to
perceive structure, by forming intensity images with reduced normalized vari-
ance compared with single-channel speckle. Change detection is an important
process when handling multiple images gathered at different times. This is, in
principle, a higher level process since it exploits joint properties of different
images. The information in this type of data can take two forms: statistical
information that describes individual regions, such as the return from a distrib-
uted target, and structural information that is concerned with the boundaries
between these regions. We show how the type of information required has a
direct impact on the methods used to interpret the data. The ultimate test of
any image-understanding technique is the extent to which it brings out the
information required in a given application. A high-level approach is adopted
in Section 12.6, which describes a case study comparing the ability of different
algorithms to provide useful information in tropical forest monitoring.
Throughout this book our approach consists of building optimized tools
for information extraction based on our best understanding of the data and
world models underlying the observations. These are continually modified as we
apply them to real data and assess their performance. A focal point of this effort
occurs in Chapter 13, which addresses one of the central issues for many
applications, namely, image classification. Here much of our work on learning
image structure and making optimal estimates of the parameters describing
objects in the scene comes face to face with attaching meaning to these con-
structs. In particular, we wish to associate parameter values at a pixel or within
a region to empirically defined classes of objects in the scene, such as fields,
 woods, and towns. Approaches to this problem fall into three broad categories:
(1) purely data-driven, whose fundamental weakness is their unknown scope for
generalizability; (2) classification purely on scattering mechanism, which in
principle gives considerable insight into what the classification means but pro-
vides no discrimination when desired target classes are dominated by similar
mechanisms; and (3) rule-based methods based on an understanding of the
physical processes underlying observations. Many of the most promising meth-
ods fall into this latter category, which combines pragmatism with insight to
provide robust, transferable classification schemes. We also show how the par-
ticular properties of SAR can allow an initial classification to be refined to
retrieve more information about individual classes in the scene.
In the final chapter we review the extent to which our model-based
approach provides a complete, accurate, tractable, and useful framework for
information extraction from SAR images. In doing so we establish the status of
our best methods and algorithms and indicate directions for progress in light of
the real-world examples encountered throughout the book. In our view, the key
issue is the extent to which this work becomes embodied in applications of SAR
data. The tools have been brought to a high level of refinement but must be
judged by their ability to help in the use of the data. The interplay of tools and
the tasks to which they are applied will provide the major motivation for any
further development.
2

Principles of SAR

Image Formation

2.1 Introduction

When trying to extract information from SAR images, we need to distinguish

two types of image property. The more important is where properties of the
scene (e.g., its dielectric constant, its geometry, its motion, etc.) produce effects
in the image; measurements or examination of the image then can provide
information about the scene. The second is generated purely by the system
and the signal processing. This is important for anyone interested in charac-
terizing system performance, but within the context of this book, its primary
significance is in how it affects our ability to recognize image properties gen-
erated by the external world. The system can modify, distort, or produce
uncertainties in these properties. An important distinction is between intrinsic
properties of the imaging system, which cannot be overcome, and artifacts
produced by errors or inadequacies in the system behavior and the signal
processing. In this chapter, our main concern will be to establish an ideal
model for SAR imaging and to show that many of the intrinsic properties
are determined by a small number of choices in the system design. Effects
due to system failings and how to overcome them are dealt with in Chapter
3. The remainder of the book is mainly concerned with data free from such
problems. The treatment of SAR processing underlying this chapter is delib-
erately simplified so that the key issues in how image properties are dependent
on system decisions are not obscured. Readers who desire a more sophisticated
approach will find several excellent texts [1—4]; simpler treatments are given
in [5,6].

2.2 SAR System Parameters

The basic geometry of a SAR is shown in Figure 2.1. A platform moving with
velocity K at altitude h carries a side-looking radar antenna that illuminates the
Earths surface with pulses of electromagnetic radiation. The direction of travel
of the platform is known as the azimuth direction; distance from the radar track
is measured in the range direction. For simplicity, we deal only with the case
where the antenna is oriented parallel to the flight line, not squinted.
Typically the antenna is rectangular with dimensions da X de, where a and
e denote azimuth and elevation, respectively. These dimensions are significant
because they determine the area illuminated by the antenna. As a rule of thumb,
the radiation from an antenna of length d spreads out over an angle

i|/ = K/d [radians] (2.1)

where K is the radar wavelength. This relation determines both the azimuth and
elevation beam widths, \\fa and \\fe; only the former is marked on Figure 2.1.
Wavelength is related to the radar carrier frequency^ (in Hz) by

^f0 = c (2.2)

where c is the speed of light. Although we will use (2.1) when describing basic
properties of SAR images, other definitions of beamwidth are often used. More
complete descriptions of the two-dimensional antenna pattern are also important
because high-quality SAR imaging must account for the spatial variation of the il-
lumination pattern [2,4]. Later sections in this chapter deal with these issues.
While the radar beam sweeps over a fixed scatterer X, the distance R
between the scatterer and the platform will vary symmetrically about its mini-
mum value R0. For the case of interest to us, the scatterer will be imaged at an
azimuth position determined by this broadside position of closest approach and
at a range determined by R0. The corresponding ground range R (see Section
2.3) is also marked on Figure 2.1.
Important parameters of the pulses that modulate the carrier signal are the
pulse length T^, the bandwidth B, and the pulse repetition frequency (PRF). Values
of these parameters for the ERS-I satellite SAR and representative values for an
airborne SAR are given in Table 2.1. Also recorded in the table is the polarization
configuration of the systems. This design choice affects the nature of the radar
Figure 2.1 The basic flat-Earth geometry of an airborne SAR.

response but, for a single-channel system, has no significance as far as the

processing goes or for the system-induced image properties discussed in this
chapter. However, when multiple polarizations are simultaneously available, the
range of possible image types increases, as described in Chapter 4.

Table 2.1
System Parameters for Satellite and Airborne SAR Systems

ERS-1 DRA Airborne SAR

Wavelength (X) 5.67 cm (C-band) 3.1 cm (X-band)

Polarization VV HH
Bandwidth (B) 15.5MHz 100MHz
Transmitted pulsewidth (TP) 37.1 |xs 5 |xs
PRF 1,680Hz adjustable-1.1 kHz
Antenna size (azimuth x elevation) 10m x 1m 1.8m x 0.18m
Altitude 785 km <14km
2.3 The Range Dimension—Processing a Single Pulse

A simplification implicit in Figure 2.1 is that it illustrates the airborne case, in

which for most purposes the Earth can be treated as flat. This is true even for
long-range airborne systems. However, many applications of SAR rely on space-
borne radar data, for which Earth curvature is important. The spherical geome-
try needed in this case is illustrated in Figure 2.2(a) and, for our purposes, is
particularly relevant to the range dimension of the SAR image.
In this figure, as in Figure 2.1, T^ denotes the distance of closest approach,
Rg and h are as defined in the previous figure, and the other symbols are defined
later. Figure 2.2(b) is an illustration of how a pulse of duration 7p spreads out
from the radar, viewed along the azimuth direction, for a spherical geometry.
Also shown is the polar diagram that indicates how much power is transmitted
in each direction. In this schematic there is a direction of maximum power (the
beam center or boresight) in the main beam and lower power sidelobes. This
angular distribution of power from the antenna means that the power per unit

(a) (b)

Figure 2.2 (a) The spherical geometry appropriate to spaceborne SAR and (b) illustration of a
spreading pulse of duration 7p; also indicated is the elevation antenna pattern.
area received at a point on the ground depends on which part of the beam is
illuminating that point. The square law decrease of energy with range further
affects the power at the ground. Similar considerations apply to the received
signal. For the monostatic geometry of most interest to us, the transmit and
receive antenna patterns will normally be the same (but this may not be the case
for systems using active phased array antennas).
The radiated pulse spreads out as a growing shell of thickness cip. A point
object whose distance from the radar is R0 will therefore return a signal of
duration T\ that will arrive back at the platform with the time delay

Tj=IR0Zc (2.3)

after transmission. By time-gating the received signal, scatterers at different

ranges can be separated. The minimum and maximum ranges (usually referred
to as near and far range and marked as TV and F in Figure 2.2(b)) are
determined by the time between the pulse transmission and the start and
end of the reception period. The difference between these ranges is the swath-
width (more correctly, the slant swathwidth). The swath is always selected to
lie within the main lobe of the elevation beam. Since transmission and re-
ception cannot overlap, the swathwidth is restricted by the PRF, and the con-
dition

slant swathwidth < (2.4)

2 X PRF

must hold. As we shall see, the PRF cannot be chosen freely but must exceed a
lower limit imposed by the azimuth processing. A slight complication in the case
of spaceborne radar, where ranges are very long, is that the reception period does
not correspond to the previous pulse. For example, the reception period of the
ERS-I radar following the /Vth pulse corresponds to the (TV— 9)th preceding
pulse [4].
For a SAR, two different range measurements are commonly used. Cor-
responding to the slant range R0 is the distance from the subplatform track on
the Earths surface, known as the ground range Rg (see Figure 2.2(a)). The
ground range may also be referenced to some other locus, such as that of the
beam center or of the first near range pixel. Note that the ground range requires
a reference surface or projection for its measurement. We treat only the simple
case of a perfectly spherical Earth (of radius RE = 6,370 km). Other important
quantities marked on Figure 2.2(a) are the platform altitude h and the local
incidence angle 0.
 Conversion between variables is straightforward by means of the relations

^ =(**+*) 5 ^ " far + * ) T * 7 (15a)

sint) sint)

Ri = i?J + ( ^ + /?)2 - 2i?£ ( ^ + h) cos 7 (2.5b)

Rg=REl (2.5c)

7 = 0- a (2.5d)
r>
sin a = —sinO (2.5e)
RE + h

where the approximation in (2.5a) is for 7 small. The slant range R0 is inferred
directly from the time delay using (2.3), but given any one of R0, Rg) 0, a, or 7,
the other four can be found. For airborne platforms, h <^ RE, in which case
(2.5a,b) reduce to the flat-Earth approximations

R
R0 = -L- (2.6a)
sin0

Rl = h2 + Rj (2.6b)

An important concern is the resolution of the time measurement rt> since

this determines the spatial resolution of the instrument in the slant range
direction. A fundamental relation in radar theory is that the best attainable time
resolution is inversely proportional to the bandwidth B of the transmitted
signal. This is explained further in the next section where it is shown that in the
ideal case the constant of proportionality can be taken to be 1, so that

rt=\/B (2.7)

From (2.3), the slant range resolution corresponding to a time change of

r,is

rs = cllB (2.8)
The ground range resolution r is the change in ground range associated with a
slant range change of rs. Using (2.5a-c) yields

V,^'- ** - 1 (29)
r ^ ( ^ +/;)sin7 sin 9

so the ground range resolution varies nonlinearly across the swath. This can have
important consequences for image properties, particularly for spaceborne or
short-range airborne systems, as will be seen later in this chapter.
To illustrate these relations, we shall use parameters from ERS-I, as
summarized in Table 2.1. The time delays for near and far range are selected so
that the incidence angle 0 varies from 19.3 to 26.4 degrees between near and far
range. This gives a total ground swath of 99.3 km; the equivalent slant swath-
width is 38.6 km. Since the transmitted signal bandwidth is 15.5 MHz, the slant
range resolution is fixed at 9.68m, but the ground range resolution degrades
from 21.8m at far range to 29.3m at near range.
For short-range airborne systems, the resolution change across the swath
can be much greater. As an example, a system operating with incidence angles
between 15 and 60 degrees would have ground range resolutions at far range
that are a factor 0.3 of the near range resolution. In image terms, such changes
in resolution can have serious consequences. Features that are clearly distin-
guishable at far range can become nearly invisible at near range. Within distrib-
uted targets, such as agricultural fields, there are fewer measurements available
to estimate target properties at near range. In this airborne example, fields at
near range would contain only 30% as many pixels as at far range, despite having
the same size on the ground.
These effects are less significant for long-range airborne systems, such as
those of most importance in military applications, which operate over a range
of incidence angles much nearer grazing angle. For example, if an aircraft is
flying at an altitude of 10 km the incidence angle at a slant range of 100 km is
84.3 degrees. If this is near range and the ground swath is 10 km wide, the
incidence angle at far range is 84.8 degrees, corresponding to a change in ground
range resolution of—0.1% across the swath. The difference between slant range
and ground range resolution in this case is less than 0.5%.
When displaying SAR data, there is therefore a choice between handling
slant range or ground range data. In slant range, each pixel corresponds to the
actual SAR measurement (subject to any calibration corrections made in the
processing), but the geometry is distorted relative to a map projection. Alterna-
tively, the data can be resampled to ground range so that the geometry is correct
in the map projection. Assuming a sensible interpolation scheme (this is not
 always the case [7]) the interpolated measurements will have the correct values,
but considerable spatial correlation may have been introduced between pixels.
This correlation will be higher at near range than at far range simply as a
consequence of there being fewer actual measurements per unit length at near
range.
Data from ERS-I illustrate these effects well. These data are available
both in slant range complex (SLC) format, with a slant range spacing of 7.9m,
and in the standard precision image (PRI) format, which is resampled to a
ground spacing of 12.5m. The geometry of these two types of data is shown in
Figure 2.3, where the same region on the ground is depicted as derived from
(a) SLC data, (b) SLC data in which pixels have been averaged in blocks of five
along azimuth, and (c) PRI data. Azimuth here runs from the top to the
bottom of the page. The SLC pixel spacing is 4m in azimuth, so the range and
azimuth pixel dimensions are very different on the ground, leading to the
obvious distortion. The PRI data are geometrically correct, while the azimuth
averaged data are close to correct geometry. (Figure 2.3(b) is discussed further
in Section 4.9.)
The spacing in the PRI data is 57.3% of the ground range solution at far
range and 42.7% at near range. The higher degree of correlation at near range
is not visually obvious but can be seen in the range correlation coefficients
shown in Figure 2.4. The four panels in this figure show intensity correlation
coefficients (see Section 4.6) calculated from slant range data at near (Figure
2.4(a)) and far (Figure 2.4(b)) range and the corresponding quantities measured
from PRI data (Figure 2.4(c,d)). For slant range, the system-induced correlation
is independent of location in the image, having values around 0.25 at lag one
and effectively zero thereafter. For the PRI data, at near range the correlation
coefficient at lag 1 exceeds 0.6 and is near 0.2 at lag 2; at far range, the
corresponding value at lag 1 is ~0.5 and the lag-2 correlation is indistinguish-
able from the noise.

2.4 Linear FM (Chirp) Pulses and Pulse Compression

Before considering the azimuth direction, it is worthwhile to describe in more

detail the basis for relation (2.7) that connects time resolution to bandwidth.
From Table 2.1, one will note that for ERS-I, Tp = 37.1 JULS, giving the pulse a
spatial extent of cip = 11.13 km, which is approximately one-third of the total
slant swathwidth. For simple pulses, this would imply a slant range resolution
of 5.56 km. The means by which this long pulse is compressed to yield
resolutions of the order of 1 Om makes use of the form of the transmitted pulse.
 (b)

(O)

(a)

Figure 2.3 ERS-1 images of an agricultural region derived from (a) SLC data, (b) SLC data
averaged (in intensity) in blocks of 5 pixels along azimuth, and (c) PRI data. All
images are shown in amplitude (see Chapter 4). (Copyright ESA, 1992.)
 Corr. Coeff.
Corr. Coeff.

(a) (b)

Corr. Coeff.
Corr. Coeff.

(C) (d)
Figure 2.4 Intensity correlation coefficients calculated in the range direction for ERS-I data
from an agricultural area: (a) SLC, near range; (b) SLC, far range; (c) PRI, near
range; and (d) PRI, far range.
 In many SAR systems the transmitted waveform p(t) is of the form

p(t) = exp{i(av " P* 2 )} for \t\<Tp/2 (2.10)

where co0 is the carrier frequency of the radar expressed as radians/s" 1 . The phase
of the signal is therefore

<fr(t) = u>ot - fit2 [radians] (2.11)

and the instantaneous frequency (given by the time derivative of the phase) is

f(t) = (o)0 - 2 [ 3 ; ) / 2 I T [Hz] (2.12)

Since the frequency changes linearly with time, this sort of signal is
referred to as linear frequency modulation (FM) or chirp, with an FM rate of
(3/TT H Z / S " 1 . Plots of the phase, the real part, and the instantaneous frequency
of the complex envelope exp(— ifit2) against distance are shown in Figure
2.5, where time has been converted to distance units using the relation x =
ct. The total frequency sweep or bandwidth is seen to be

B = PT/TT [HZ] (2.13)

(A more exact treatment of bandwidth is given in [8,9].) The pulse shown in

Figure 2.5 has B = 100 MHz and Tp = 10~6 sec.
Processing the returned signal involves stripping off the carrier frequency
and performing a correlation with a copy of the transmitted signal (this is
known as matched filtering [10]). To establish the temporal resolution associ-
ated with this operation, we need to know the response it elicits from a point
scatterer (the slant range PSF). For the pulse given by (2.10) this is straightfor-
ward. Since the return from a point scatterer is a delayed, scaled version of the
transmitted pulse, after matched filtering it produces a response whose shape is
given by

h\t) = J^/2/2 exp(/(352)exp(-ip[5 + ;f)rect ^ 2 L (2.l4a)

= ( T , - H)sine ( % [ T ^ - k|])rect(; / T,) (2.14b)

 <) (x) [radians]

(a)

r(x)[v]

(b)
f(x) [cycles m2]

(C)

Figure 2.5 (a) Plots of phase, (b) real part of signal, and (c) frequency of signal for the complex
envelope of a chirp signal with bandwidth B = 100 MHz and pulse length Tp = 10~6
sec. Time (t\ is converted to distance (x) units by the relation x = ct.

where

[I \t\ < \ j . ,v sin TT t

rect (t) = J 0 y > f and sine [t) = — —

Because hr(i) is formed by correlating the signal modulation k(t) =

exp(—i$t2) with itself, it is often referred to as the autocorrelation function
(ACF) of k(t), which we will write as Rk(t). This concept will be used further
in Section 4.6.
The first positive zero of this signal (and others of related type) is often
taken as a measure of the time resolution rt. This is controlled by the sine
function and occurs when fit {ip — i) = TT, with solution

Since imaging radars are designed so that the time-bandwidth product BTp is
large, a good approximate solution is rt ~ XlB, which is the basis for (2.7).
The ratio of the resolution after processing to the original pulse length is
known as the compression ratio. Using (2.7) we see that

compression ratio = — = BT (2.15)

so the compression ratio is equal to the time-bandwidth product. For ERS-I,

the compression ratio is 575, so the 37.1-fxs pulse has resolution equivalent to
a simple pulse of duration 64.5 ns.
Note that for a large time-bandwidth product, hjj) can be written to a
good approximation as

hr(t) = 7p sine ( p - y / i r ) = Tp sine (Bt) (2.16)

We will often refer to this as the ideal form of the SAR PSF. Plots of the pulses
described by (2.14b) and the ideal pulse (2.16) are given in Figure 2.6, where,
as previously, we have used the parameters B = 100 MHz and Tp = 10~6 sec.
We have also converted to distance units [m] by the replacement x = ct and
scaled each plot by XITp.
The effects of matched filtering when there is more than one target present
are illustrated by Figure 2.7. The top panel shows the real part of the complex
envelope of the returned signal, while the bottom panel plots the amplitude of
the output signal after filtering. In this simulation, the scattering was taken to
be from two point objects of amplitudes 1 and 2 at positions x = — 5 and x =
5. Although they are invisible in the uncompressed envelope, they are clearly
Figure 2.6 Plots of the exact (dashed curve) and ideal (solid curve) compressed chirp pulse
for B = 100 MHz and ip = 10~6 sec, with conversion to distance units using
x = ct

resolved at the right positions and with approximately the right magnitudes after
the processing.
This treatment has ignored two important processing aspects. First, the
point target response shown in Figure 2.6 has significant sidelobes. These are
often reduced by applying a weighting to the correlation operation described by
(2.14a). This tends to degrade the resolution from the ideal value of XlB.
Second, in modern digital systems the compressed signal is sampled (at the
Nyquist rate or above), so each pulse yields a vector of measurements. Sub-
sequent operations on the compressed pulse are therefore inherently digital.
Note also that it is not mandatory to use a frequency-modulated pulse to
gain good range resolution. Short simple pulses can be used instead, but very
 (a)

(b)

Figure 2.7 (a) The real part of the uncompressed signal envelope when there are two scat-
terers present and (b) the output signal after pulse compression. The scatterers
are of amplitude 2 at x = 5 and 1 at x = -5.

high power transmitters are then required. The fundamental determinant of

resolution is still the signal bandwidth [H].

2.5 The Azimuth Dimension

The pulse compression in the range direction is often carried out on a pulse-by-
pulse basis and is a standard form of processing used in many sorts of radars.
The particular technology of SAR (and the source of much of its complexity)
manifests itself in the azimuth direction.
After range processing on a single pulse, the measurement in each range
gate contains a contribution from each scatterer in an azimuthally extended and
curved strip whose width is controlled by the azimuth beamwidth. We ignore
the range curvature and treat the strip as straight (see Figure 2.1); for a full
treatment see [1,4]. A real aperture radar simply outputs the power measured at
each range to produce an image whose azimuth resolution would be R^a, where
R0 is the slant range at the position of closest approach and \\ta is the azimuth
beamwidth. A single point scatterer at range R0 would effectively be smeared
across a distance R0^a in the azimuth direction. Using Table 2.1, a quick
calculation indicates an associated resolution of the order 5 to 6 km for ERS-I.
Even for an airborne X-band (3-cm wavelength) radar using a 1-m antenna at
a range of only 15 km, the azimuth resolution is 450m. These values greatly
exceed the available range resolution and would significantly hamper the value
of radar for reconnaissance and mapping.
The essence of the SAR processing is the exploitation of the nearly quad-
ratic range variation of a point scatterer as the beam passes over it. This variation
is easily calculated for the airborne flat-Earth geometry shown in Figure 2.1.
(The corresponding treatment for an orbital SAR is given in Appendix 2A.) The
slant range R0 defines a line on the ground (see Figure 2.1). For a scatterer Xon
this line we use a coordinate system whose X-axis points along the direction of
travel and whose origin is fixed at X If the azimuth coordinate is x, it is easy to
see that the distance R between the platform and Xsatisfies R2 = R01 + x2. For
a narrow beam, X is only illuminated when x <^ R0, in which case

R - R0 + — (2.17)
2R0

The corresponding two-way phase delay at the carrier frequency is

^x) = _ ^ _ 2 ^ i (2J8)
X XR0

with an associated rate of change of phase with distance given by

^ = - ^ (2.19)
dx KR0

This is equivalent to linear FM in the distance variable. In spatial coordinates,

the equivalent of the pulse length is the synthetic aperture length Ds, which is the
azimuth distance illuminated at range R0. From Figure 2.1 it is readily seen that
 D1 = R0^ (2.20)

Applying results for the chirp pulse from Section 2.4 we therefore have a spatial
bandwidth given by

- L X -^L X D = — [cycles m" 1 ]

2TT KR0 da

where we have used the relation \\fa = X/da, and an associated spatial resolution

ra = ^ L (2.21a)

The corresponding expression for an orbital SAR is [12]

ra=~^-^- (2.21b)
' RE + h 2

where RE is the Earths radius, and h is the platform altitude (see Appendix 2A).
This critical result (2.21) shows that the SAR azimuth resolution is half
the real antenna dimension in the azimuth direction (and better than this in the
orbital case) and independent of range and wavelength. For ERS-I, we therefore
expect azimuth resolutions of the order of 4.45m, while aircraft can achieve
resolutions of the order 0.5m. Notice that these resolutions assume a fixed
pointing direction of the antenna, broadside to the platform track, so the SAR
is operating in strip map mode. A higher resolution is obtainable if the beam is
steered (normally electronically) to keep a target in the beam for a larger time
and thus to form a longer synthetic antenna. This is known as spotlight mode
SAR and is capable of improving the azimuth resolution considerably, at the
expense of spatial coverage [3].
The azimuth processing is often described by the term SAR focusing, and
we will refer to the coefficient of the quadratic phase term (3 as the focusing
parameter. SAR focusing is equivalent to synthesizing a large antenna, of length
Ds given by (2.20), from all the pulses impinging on a given scatterer as the beam
passes over it. Since v|i^ is proportional to X, this means that Ds is linearly
proportional to both the slant range and the wavelength. Hence, increasing the
range or wavelength gives a longer effective antenna, which is the fundamental
reason why SAR produces resolution independent of either range or wavelength.
There is, however, an associated cost. The data are sampled in the azimuth
direction, and the Nyquist condition means that the sample spacing must not
exceed the resolution length [2,5]. This constraint imposes a lower limit on the
PRF, as already noted in Section 2.3. Hence, the number of samples that must
be stored and processed is directly proportional to both range and wavelength.
The above formulation of the azimuth processing in terms of distance
illustrates that the motion of the platform is not fundamental, only that samples
are gathered coherently along the synthetic aperture. However, for a moving
platform, it is common to make use of equivalent temporal expressions, by
means of the relation x = Vt. These are summarized in Table 2.2. Of particular
note is the expression

/ a = f f = ~ [Hz] (2.22)
2TT at KR0

This temporal rate of change of phase is equivalent to a Doppler shift, and

azimuth processing is often described in these terms [2,12].
Quoted resolutions are usually not as good as expected from (2.21), for
two reasons. The first is the result of weighting introduced in the processing to
reduce sidelobes (just as in the range direction), which increases the width of
the main lobe of the response. Most engineering definitions of resolution are
based on this width rather than on the first zero of the PSF used in (2.7).
Relating this value to that given by (2.21) therefore depends on the details of
the processing and of the precise definition used for resolution. The second

Table 2.2
Azimuth Processing Parameters (Flat Earth)

Time Coordinates Space Coordinates

FM rate, P/TT 2V2IXR0 [Hzs~1] 2/XR0 [cycles m~2]

27TV2f2 2lTx2
Phase history Mt)- [rads] Mx) ~ [rads]
XR0
XRQ
Frequency [Hzl fd(x) = --?£- [cycles m-1]
W - T T T XR0
Synthetic aperture time X H0
(TP) and length (Ds) Roi\fa [m]
Bandwidth B 2V/da [Hz]
2/da [cycles m"1]
Ideal compressed signal ha(t)=R^s\nc2Vt
(azimuth PSF) V da /7a(x) = /?oi|iasinc —
d
a
reason is that it may be preferable to sacrifice resolution to combat speckle using
a process known as multilooking. In this technique, the set of samples used for
the full synthetic aperture is split into several adjacent subsets. Each of these
subsets can be used to form a separate image, known as a look, each of which
views a given point from a slightly different angle (equivalently, each one
occupies a different part of the Doppler spectrum). By averaging the looks in
power, the radiometric accuracy of the measurements is improved (see Section
4.3) but at the price of resolution. Splitting the synthetic aperture into L
nonoverlapping sections means that each has an effective aperture of length
DJL, so the resolution is degraded by a factor L. The ERS-I PRI image uses
three looks, with an azimuth resolution of the order of 18m [13]. Degraded
resolution compared to the ideal may also occur because the processing is not
perfect. Such issues are addressed in Chapter 3.

2.6 SAR as a Linear Measurement System

The prior simplified treatment dealt with the response of an isolated point target
mainly as a means of discussing system resolution. However, radiometric prop-
erties of the image are also important, and we now consider how the radar
reflectivity of the scene is translated into image brightness. In doing so, we will
provide a more general and flexible description of the SAR processing than that
given in Section 2.5.
For a point target, the most general description of its scattering behavior
at a single frequency is provided by the complex scattering amplitude, Spq, which
we will also refer to as complex reflectivity. This quantifies the scattering into
polarization state p of an incident plane wave with polarization q through the
relation [14]

Here we assume orthogonal polarizations, p and q, and free-space propagation

to the observation point at distance R in the far-field of the scatterer. The
incident electric field has complex (p, q) components given by E* and E1; the
scattered field components Es and Es are defined similarly (for a full discus-
sion, see [14]). The 2 X 2 matrix on the right-hand side of (2.23) is known as
the scattering matrix. A completely general treatment would take into account a
bistatic geometry, but we will only treat the monostatic backscattering case. For
many purposes, the phase of a point scatterer is of less interest than its backscat-
tered power, so a more commonly used descriptor is the RCS defined by [14]
 Vn=H5^r (224)

Polarimetric data are treated in Chapter 11. In the early chapters of this book,
where we are mainly dealing with single-channel data, we will omit the sub-
scripts and write the complex scattering amplitude and RCS simply as 5 and o\
Consider now a point scatterer with complex reflectivity S at azimuth
position x'and slant range R when the platform is at azimuth position x. If a
pulse is emitted at time t= 0, after pulse compression the received signal is

E{x) = S K'{R)hr (t-—)a (l^L) e-4mR/x (2.25)

Here K' (R) accounts for the elevation antenna pattern, processing gain during
the range compression, and the range spreading loss, which is proportional to
Rr2; while the two-way amplitude azimuth antenna pattern is a(§). The term
hr(t — 2RJc) describes the time delay in the range PSF (see (2.14)) and hence
allows the target to be positioned in the range direction. The terms K' (R), hr(t
— 2RJc), and a(x/R) vary much more slowly with range than the phase of the
exponential term AmRIX. We therefore make the simplification that in these
three terms, R can be replaced by R0, the range of closest approach.
The range R has a variation with along-track separation x — x described
by (2.17) and can be written

R= R0+^(x-xf
AlT
where (3 is the focusing parameter. Expressions for (3 in the spaceborne and
airborne cases are given by (2A.1) or Table 2.2, respectively. With the further
assumption of negligible range migration (or its correction in the processing) we
can write the received signal appropriate to range R0 as

E(x) = K(R0)SaI^^]exp(-/p[x - xf) (2.26a)

where

K(R0) = KXRJhAt ~ 2R0Zc)exp(-4nr^A) (226b)

(More refined treatments taking account of the coupling between range and
azimuth in the processing will be found in [1,3,4,15].)
By considering the azimuth strip at range R0 to be made up of point targets
(represented by delta functions) or elementary scattering areas, the expression
(2.26) can be generalized to include a continuous complex reflectivity function
S(x, R). For the strip of interest, R = R0 and we shall abbreviate this to S(x).
Then the received signal is a convolution:

E{x) = K(R0) £s(x')4 ^ - ^ exp(-43[x - xf)dx'

= K(R0)S(x)*k(x) (2.27)

where

k(x) = J — exp(-/(3x 2 ) (2.28)

We can regard k(x) as a prefilter containing two effects, the beam weighting given
by the polar diagram a(<$) of the antenna in the azimuth direction and the range
variation or Doppler shiftterm caused by relative motion of the platform and the
scatterer [8,16,17].
In treating S{x) as continuous we move from point to distributed targets.
A key property of such targets is that the phase of the scattered field has a
correlation length that is much shorter than the resolution of the radar meas-
urement. At scales comparable with this correlation length the target has a
well-defined RCS and we can define a differential backscattering coefficient a° as

v°kA = 4TTR2 ^- (2.29)

where A^4 is the elemental area or facet over which the phase is coherent
(effectively constant), Pi is the incident power per unit area, and Ps is the power
per unit area scattered from the facet, observed at range R. However, since
different facets contribute independent phases, the observed electric field is
dominated by interference effects, giving rise to the phenomenon known as
speckle (see Chapter 4). For distributed targets, the quantity of interest is the
average value of a ° within a pixel; from (2.29), this requires normalization by
the illuminated area (see Section 4.6 for a fuller discussion). A target is described
as uniform if a° is constant within it.
The range-compressed raw data E(x) is digital, being built up sequentially
at each range by gathering pulse returns and saving them in memory. As we have
seen, the azimuth processing is a correlation with this stored data and, hence,
can be represented as a second filtering operation, giving the output

%(x) = E(x) * l(x) = K(R0)S(X) * ha(x) (2.30)

where

ha{x) = Kx) * l(x) (2.31)

The quantity ha(x) is known as the azimuth PSF. Typically the SAR processing
filter l(x) will contain an amplitude weighting term W(x/R0), but it will always
have as its main purpose the removal of the quadratic phase term [8]; that is,
l(x) will have the form

Kx) = W (-£• \exp($x2) (2.32)

Hence,

ha(x) = exp{$X^f00 a\~Mw\^A^V{-2i^xy)dy (2.33)

7
V W V ^o J

To relate (2.30) and (2.33) to earlier results, note that a unit strength point
target can be represented as S(x) = 8(x), where b(x) is the Dirac delta function,
so

%{x) = 8(x) * ha(x) = ha(x)

For a beamshape that is uniform over the beamwidth \\fa and zero else-
where and the same processor weighting, we can set a($) = W(<$>) = rect(4>/i|; J .
Then the point target response ha(x) gives the same result as (2.14) except for
the range dependent term 13,RQ). The associated values for the FM rate and
aperture length are 2/XR0 and R0\\fa, as given in Table 2.2.
 To complete the system description, we must include system noise. The
model for the azimuth processing at range R (see Figure 2.8) then becomes

%{x) = (C(R)S (x)*k(x) + n(x))*l(x)

= C(R) S(x) * ha{x) + n(x) * l(x) (2.34)

The range-dependent system terms found in (2.26b) are absorbed into the
coefficient C(R) whose magnitude is given by

^ - ^ i

where PT is the peak transmitted power, GR is the one-way power gain of the
antenna pattern at the specified range, L allows for system losses, and GP is the
processing gain due to the range compression. The system noise appearing in
each range gate after the range compression is unaffected by the antenna pattern
or the Doppler shifts present in signals scattered from real targets and so appears
in the system diagram after the prefiltering by k(x). It would be expected to be
white, zero-mean, and Gaussian. However, because the noise in the image has
passed through the range compression, it will usually exhibit range dependence
because of corrections carried out in the processing.
Although the voltage equation (2.34) is applicable to any form of target,
for single-channel observations of distributed targets it is more useful to deal
with the backscattered power. As will be explained in Chapter 4, the mean
power in the received signal from a uniform distributed target with backscatter-
ing coefficient a ° can then be written

(]%(xf) = \C(Rf<j°Eha +NE1 (2.36)

Figure 2.8 Schematic representing the azimuth processing at a fixed range.

where Eh = \ \ha(x)\ dx is the energy in ha (often referred to as the SAR
processor gain in this context) and E1Is defined similarly. This equation connects
the observed power to the geophysical quantity cr°. Since Eh is approximately
linearly proportional to R, the mean power from a uniform distributed target
exhibits an R~5 dependence. In contrast, (2.34) and (2.35) imply that, after
imaging, the returned power from a point target falls off as R~4. This is dealt
with in more detail in Section 4.6.
This treatment has shown that the slant range image can be approximated
by the two-dimensional convolution

%(x, R) = C(R) S(x, R)** h (*, R) (2.37)

where the two-dimensional SAR PSF, h(x, R), can be separated into the slant
range and azimuth PSFs as

h{x,R) = ka{x)hr{R) (2.38)

This implies that the PSF is independent of position, which is the design aim
of most SARs. For a less well-designed system, the PSF may vary slowly with
position, but (2.38) still provides a useful and meaningful local approximation.
Equations (2.14) and (2.33) show that the azimuth and range PSFs can
be derived theoretically for known beam patterns and processor weighting and
(2.38) implies that the complete SAR PSF is known if the range and azimuth
PSF are known separately. In practice, uncertainties in the real antenna pattern
and effects in the processing motivate investigation of the performance of the
system by direct measurements of the (local) PSF using pointlike calibration
devices. Figure 2.9 shows an example of such a measurement together with cuts
through the peak response in both range and azimuth. This figure was provided
by ESA-ESRIN, Frascati, and is based on measurements by the ERS-I satellite
from a calibration target [18]. The sample spacing is 7.9m in slant range and
4m in azimuth.

2.7 Calibration

Applications of SAR data can exploit two aspects of SAR images. On the one
hand, we have image structure making up the features we see. This is the critical
issue in SAR as a mapping or target detection device. In this case, resolution and
geometric accuracy are the important concerns, at least for single images;
 (a)
Amplitude

(b)

Figure 2.9 Measured ERS-1 PSF using a calibration target shown (a) in the PRI amplitude
image (Copyright ESA, 1995); (b) two-dimensional plot of the amplitude of the SLC
PSF and its corresponding three-dimensional representation; (c) profiles through
the peak response in the range and azimuth dimensions, interpolated by a factor
of 2.
 Range Profile

(C)
dB

Sample

Azimuth Profile
dB

Sample

Figure 2.9 (continued).

radiometry and phase integrity only become important when feature detection
relies on methods that combine information from different images. On the
other hand, SAR is a measuring instrument providing estimates of the complex
radar reflectivity or backscattering coefficient of the scene. Here radiometry and
phase preservation are critical. Without accurate estimates, there is no basis for
meaningful comparisons of target properties measured at different positions,
incidence angles, polarizations, frequencies, or times.
The process of converting measured voltages in the in-phase (I) and
quadrature (Q) channels of the radar into accurate estimates of complex reflec-
tivity normally requires very careful calibration. A full treatment of this subject
is beyond the scope of this book, but an excellent review article and reference
list is provided in [19]. However, the essence of the problem is contained in
(2.34) and (2.36), where it can be seen that the effects of noise, azimuth
processing (as described by ha(x)), and the gain term C (which contains range
antenna pattern, propagation, and range compression terms; see (2.35)) must
all be accounted for in estimating the complex reflectivity or backscattering
coefficient from the measured voltages.
 For single-channel data, spatially dependent image effects associated with
the gain term C include:

• The range-dependent spreading loss;

• Systematic variations in image brightness in the range direction due to
inadequate compensation for the range antenna pattern, possibly
caused by aircraft roll;
• "Yaw bands" caused by variations in the pointing direction of the real
or synthetic antenna relative to the flight track.

The first of these is easy to correct, since the range is known from the
timing, and any worthwhile processor would remove this effect. The latter
effects are both often obvious, particularly in airborne images. They are fre-
quently removed by ad hoc methods assuming thatCT°should show no system-
atic variation with range or azimuth throughout the image of interest [20,21].
In doing so, real physical effects are lost (such as variation of cr° with incidence
angle or genuine variation in scene content), and such methods should only be
considered as a last resort. They can provide a form of relative calibration within
a single image but are of little value if quantitative values for a° are desired.
A much more satisfactory approach to removing antenna pattern effects is
to make use of accurate estimates of the range antenna pattern and the elevation
pointing angle of the beam center, if they are available. Acquiring this informa-
tion often relies on measurements using targets of known RCS spaced across the
swath. The accurate deployment of such devices is a time-consuming task, but
failure to provide sufficient information to allow the correction of antenna
effects has been a repeated cause of problems in extracting meaningful informa-
tion from SAR data [22].
Given that the system gain term C can be accurately derived at each
position in the image, the effects of processing need also to be considered. In
(2.36) we see that processing acts as a multiplicative term affecting the estimate
of a° from the measured power; this is often referred to as processor gain [17].
As noted in [19], the SAR processor may perform many functions in addition
to the basic SAR correlation (e.g., slant range to ground range conversion, look
extraction, and antenna pattern correction) and errors in any of these may affect
the processor gain. Different processors will normally give different outputs even
on the same data. Probably the most comprehensive and successful treatment of
this problem has been that applied to data from the ERS-I satellite. Relatively
simple corrections taking account of the processing strategies at different proc-
essing centers are available and have been shown to produce great consistency
in the measurements [23].
 Detailed structure is important when imaging point objects, and this is
dependent not just on the processor gain (see (2.36)) but on the PSF itself (see
(2.34)). This distinction is important, since the latter is much more sensitive to
errors in the processing than the former. As a result, the appropriate method by
which to measure a depends on the quality of the SAR focusing. For well-
focused data, a can be measured directly from the peak response of the point
target. However, errors in the focusing (which can occur particularly as a result
of unknown or uncorrected platform motions; see Chapter 3) have motivated
the development of methods based on the integrated point target response.
These are comparatively insensitive to the accuracy of the focusing parameter
[24,25] and are therefore often preferred, particularly when dealing with air-
borne data. When high-performance autofocus algorithms are used (see Chap-
ter 3), this is a less telling consideration.
In many cases, precise measurements of a for an unknown point target are
not of interest. Instead, point targets with known a are used to infer the
quantitative behavior of the system term Cha{x) in (2.34). It can be seen,
however, from (2.36) that, for measurements of cr°, the important quantity is
ICI2 times the energy in the SAR PSF. Hence, where calibration is carried out
for the purposes of measuring the properties of distributed targets, integrated
energy methods are to be preferred.
The interplay of point and distributed targets is also important when faced
with the extra problems associated with calibrating polarimetric data. This will
be discussed in Chapter 11.

2.8 Summary

This chapter dealt with a number of key concepts in SAR image formation. The
geometry of SAR images creates possible problems for display and for data
analysis. The natural coordinate system of a strip-map SAR is in terms of time
delay and the azimuth position of closest approach (zero Doppler frequency).
This implies a distortion compared to a map projection that gets worse in a
nonlinear fashion toward near range as incidence angles decrease. Resampling
to a map projection leads to varying resolution and interpixel correlation across
the swath, whose effects may be very significant.
A central concept is the SAR PSF, which describes how a point scatterer is
imaged by the SAR and how energy due to the point target becomes spread into
surrounding pixels. In the ideal case, its properties are simply linked to basic
system parameters. The PSF provides the basis for defining SAR resolution. We
have here adopted fairly simple measurements of resolution, and many others
are possible, but any such measure is essentially a way of describing the width
 of the PSF. Other manifestations of the PSF are sidelobes and ambiguities,
which provide known and quantifiable effects on image quality. In addition,
there are image defects that are hard to classify but are often visually obvious,
particularly in airborne images. These include azimuth banding (which can be
caused by antenna yaw or varying azimuth pixel size), interference by alien
radars, and fringes caused by multipath effects, due to reflections off the plat-
form. Such effects can often be very difficult to deal with satisfactorily and are
not considered further (but see [26]).
The SAR PSF is fundamental in the linear system description of SAR
imaging, which provides the basis for relating the imaging of point scatterers to
that of distributed scatterers and for dealing with system noise. The PSF also
plays a key role in the use of SAR as a measuring instrument attempting to
provide accurate estimates of the RCS (a) for point scatterers or the backscat-
tering coefficient (<r°) for distributed scatterers because accurate estimates rely
on image calibration, which is often provided by point scatterers of known RCS
deployed in a scene. To characterize targets comprising a few point scatterers,
typical of man-made objects, the PSF is seen to be the important quantity, while
for distributed targets the energy in the PSF is more useful.

References

[1] Curlander, J. C , and R. N. McDonough, Synthetic Aperture Radar: Systems and Signal
Processing, New York: J. Wiley & Sons, 1991.
[2] Ulaby, E T., R. K. Moore, and A. K. Fung, Microwave Remote Sensing: Active and Passive,
VoIs. 1-2, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981, 1982.
[3] Carrara W. G., R. S. Goodman, and R. M. Majewski, Spotlight Synthetic Aperture Radar:
Signal Processing Algorithms, Norwood, MA: Artech House, 1995.
[4] Bamler, R., and B. Schattler, "SAR Data Acquisition and Image Formation," SAR Geocod-
ing: Data and Systems, G. Schreier (ed.), Karlsruhe: Wichmann, 1993, pp. 53—102.
[5] Kovaly, J. J., "Radar Techniques for Planetary Mapping with an Orbiting Vehicle," Synthetic
Aperture Radar, J. J. Kovaly (ed.), Dedham, MA: Artech House, 1976, pp. 32-54.
[6] Elachi, C., Spaceborne Radar Remote Sensing: Applications and Techniques, New York: IEEE
Press, 1988.
[7] Quegan, S., "Interpolation and Sampling in SAR Images," IEEE Trans, on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing Vol. 28, 1990, pp. 641-646.
[8] Brown, W. M., and C. J. Palermo, Random Processes, Communications and Radar, New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
[9] Rihaczek, A. W , Principles of High Resolution Radar, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
[10] Papoulis, A., Signal Analysis, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977.
[11] Woodward, P M., Probability and Information Theory, with Applications to Radar, Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1953.
[12] Raney, R. K., "Considerations for SAR Image Quantification Unique to Orbital Systems,"
IEEE Trans, on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 29, 1991, pp. 754-760.
[13] Laur, H., and G. M. Doherty, "ERS-I SAR Calibration: History and Results," CEOS
Workshop on SAR Calibration, 1992.
[14] Van ZyI, J. J., and F. T. Ulaby, "Scattering Matrix Representation for Simple Targets," Radar
Polarimetry for Geoscience Applications, E T. Ulaby and C. Elachi (eds.), Norwood, MA:
Artech House, 1990, pp. 17-52.
[15] Jin, M. Y., and C. Wu, "A SAR Correlation Algorithm Which Accommodates Large Range
Migration," IEEE Trans, on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 22, pp. 592—597.
[16] Harger, R. O., Synthetic Aperture Radar Systems, Theory and Design, New York: Academic
Press, 1970.
[17] Raney, R. K., and R. Bamler, "Comments on SAR Signal and Noise Equations," Proc.
IGARSS 94, Pasadena, 1994, pp. 298-300.
[18] Woode, A. D., Y-L. Desnos, and H. Jackson, "The Development and First Results from
the ESTEC ERS-I Active Radar Calibration Unit," IEEE Trans, on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, Vol. 30, 1992, pp. 1122-1130.
[19] Freeman, A., "SAR Calibration: an Overview," IEEE Trans, on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, Vol. 30, 1992, pp. 1107-1121.
[20] Quegan, S., C. C. F. Yanasse, H. de Groof, P. N. Churchill, and A. J. Sieber, "The
Radiometric Quality of AgriSAR Data," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 12, pp. 277-302.
[21] Begin, D., Q. H. J. Gwyn, and F. Bonn, "Radiometric Correction of SAR Images: a New
Correction Algorithm," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 8, 1987, pp. 385-398.
[22] Yanasse, C. C. E, S. Quegan, and R. J. Martin, "Inferences on Spatial and Temporal
Variability of the Backscatter from Growing Crops Using AgriSAR Data," Int. J. Remote
Sensing, Vol. 13, 1992, pp. 493-507.
[23] Laur, H., P. Bally, P Meadows, J. Sanchez, B. Schaettler, and E. Lopinto, "ERS SAR
Calibration: Derivation of the Backscattering Coefficient CT° in ESA ERS SAR PRI Prod-
ucts," ESA Document ES-TN-RS-VM-HL09, Issue 2, Rev. 4, 1997.
[24] Gray, A. L., P. W Vachon, C. E. Livingstone, and T. I. Lukowski, "Synthetic Aperture Radar
Calibration Using Reference Reflectors," IEEE Trans, on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol.
28, 1991, pp. 374-383.
[25] Ulander, L. M. H., "Accuracy of Using Point Targets for SAR Calibration," IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst., Vol. 27, 1991, pp. 139-148.
[26] Massonet, D., "Radar Image Quality White Paper," CEOS SAR Cal/Val Working Group,
1991.

Appendix 2A A z i m u t h P r o c e s s i n g for an Orbital SAR

A treatment of the azimuth processing in terms of quadratic range variation and

linear FM was carried out for a flat-Earth geometry in Section 2.5. Here we
develop the analogous expressions for an orbital SAR, with essentially similar
results. The relevant geometry is shown in Figure 2.2(a), with a convenient
coordinate system in which the orbital plane of the satellite lies in the yz plane.1
A point Xfixed on the Earths surface can then be used to define the xz plane,
in which it has position X—RE (sin 7, 0, cos 7), where RE is the Earths radius
and 7 is as shown in Figure 2.2(a). Ignoring Earth rotation, the satellite sweeps
past Xwith angular velocity £1 rads s"1. The position of the satellite at time t is
therefore

P = (RE + h) (0, sin CLty cos CLt)

given that X is broadside to the satellite at time 0. The distance R between the
satellite and X is

R cosyS^
* 2R,(RE+h)

where R0 is the range of closest approach of the satellite to X and s = (RE + h)

CLt is the distance along the satellite track. This approximation assumes that the
azimuth beamwidth is small, so only small values of CLt (when Xis in the radar
beam) are of interest, and hence s < R0. It can be seen that the distance between
the satellite and X has a variation that is approximately quadratic in both time
and along-track distance. The corresponding two-way phase delay is given by

m_^_^RE{RE+h)cos,W {2A2)
XX R0

This is equivalent to linear FM, in which the frequency variation

2TT dt X R0

can be interpreted as Doppler shift.

The time for which X is illuminated is found by noting that the beam-

1. In most other places in this book we use a coordinate system for which x is in the azimuth
direction.
width on the ground is approximately R0^a and that the velocity of the beam
on the ground is V— RE£l cos 7. Hence the illumination time is

M, = _^L (2A.4)
' V RED, cosy

We can now apply the results for the chirp pulse from Section 2.4. The
azimuth (Doppler) bandwidth is

B = -{RE+b)Cltya [Hz] (2A.5)

A

with associated time resolution HB. In this time the beam moves a ground
distance VlB, so the azimuth resolution on the ground is

RE
r = cosy — (2A.6)
1
* RE+h I^

Using the approximation \\ta = \lda and noting that 7 is small, we find

ra = - A - cos Y ^ - - - ^ S - i (2A.7)
" 7?£ + A 2 RE + h 2

These results should be compared with (2.17) to (2.22) and Table 2.2.
3

Image Defects and Their Correction

3.1 Introduction

Following the SAR image formation procedures outlined in Chapter 2 should, in

principle, result in focused images with a resolution independent of range or
wavelength and depending only on the length of the real aperture. In practice,
however, a number of factors can degrade image quality by causing either ampli-
tude or phase modulation of the signal. The former is a consequence of a failure of
antenna stabilization. Platform roll or yaw can change the pointing angle of the
antenna, as mentioned in Section 2.7, resulting in varying illumination. This is
more significant at the extremes in both range and azimuth. The latter is a conse-
quence of an unpredicted change in the range between the object and antenna.
This gives rise to unknown Doppler modulation of the received signal, which im-
pinges considerably on the pulse azimuthal compression, as we shall show.
Unpredictable amplitude modulation is mainly evident in the image
through:

• Radiometric distortion;

• Increased sidelobe levels;

whereas unwanted phase modulation leads to:

• Image defocus;
• Geometrical distortion;
 • Radiometric distortion;
• Increased sidelobe levels.

Image defocus, radiometric distortion, and increased sidelobe levels re-

strict target detection and recognition capability, including enhanced perform-
ance using super-resolution, as discussed in Chapter 10. Geometrical distortion
prevents direct pixel-to-pixel comparison of SAR images, which is required for
techniques such as multichannel registration, relevant to Chapter 12, and target
change detection, discussed in Chapter 10. It also prevents the direct image/map
comparison or matching of SAR with other forms of imagery, such as optical
data. In terms of significance to the military user, target detection and recogni-
tion performance is primarily characterized by the geometrical structure within
images, that is, by image defocus, radiometric distortion, and increased sidelobe
levels. Remote sensing applications, on the other hand, in many cases depend
on knowledge of absolute backscattering coefficient and often need to relate the
SAR data to other spatial information and so can be severely hampered by
radiometric and geometric distortion.
Some forms of amplitude modulation can be corrected by signal-based
methods. However, it is preferable to minimize this effect in the original radar
sensor. We return to this issue in Section 3.3.3. Once the signal data have been
gathered, radiometric correction requires careful and time-consuming calibra-
tion relying on external devices, as mentioned in Section 2.7.
The effects of phase modulation can be reduced considerably if unex-
pected motions of the sensor are measured by accurate accelerometers and
Inertial Navigation Units. The received signal can then be compensated before
SAR processing. However, we shall show in this chapter that, even after such
motion compensation (MOCO), there are still residual unknown phase modula-
tions that degrade images appreciably. If the user has access to complex data at
the full bandwidth, it is possible to apply post-processing techniques to derive
accurate motion correction. In this chapter we describe such an approach to
restoring the ideal PSF and derive the consequent residual errors in image
quality, expressed in terms of the aforementioned four classes of effect. Users
who do not have access to the complex data are unable to make these corrections
and achieve the quality of information that can be derived from the ideal SAR
image. Note that these techniques are not confined to specific radars but have
been applied successfully to airborne [1], spaceborne (ERS-I) [2], and Spotlight
[3] SAR systems.
Users who are already satisfied with the quality of the SAR imagery that
they receive may find this chapter irrelevant to their needs. Others, particularly
those concerned with making high-resolution measurements at long ranges in
airborne systems, should find the material important since it demonstrates that
the full theoretical image quality can be recovered through a series of post-proc-
essing operations on the original complex data without modification to the
radar sensor.
From this point, we concentrate on techniques for correcting the unpre-
dicted phase modulation that leads to fluctuation in the apparent focus parame-
ter. Exploiting the variations in this estimated focus parameter provides a
signal-based M O C O scheme to overcome image quality deficiencies. The ap-
proach we adopt can be summarized as follows [4]:

• Demonstrate the problem;

• Identity the physical cause;
• Describe and analyze the techniques for correcting the deficiency.

We will not be concerned with the effect of deterministic factors, such as

range and azimuth ambiguities, or details of the predicted sidelobe structure.
Nor will we be concerned with absolute radiometric accuracy, which we assume
to be ensured by calibration.
In Section 3.2 we introduce the defocus problem, describe autofocus
methods (Section 3.2.2), derive theoretical limits on the determination of the
focus parameter (Section 3.2.3), and examine the effects of scene properties on
autofocus performance (Section 3.2.4). Various types of distortion are discussed
in Section 3.3, leading to a scheme for signal-based M O C O in Section 3.3.2.
In Section 3.4 we consider the residual imaging errors. Some refinements to the
autofocus and phase correction methods that enable them to realize their full
potential are discussed in Section 3.5. In particular, we introduce a progressive
coherent autofocus scheme that allows long-term geometric distortion to be
minimized.

3.2 Defocus

A striking example of image defocus is shown in Figure 3.1. This image was
obtained with the DRA airborne X-band SAR at a range of about 40 km using
the nominal value for the focus parameter with no conventional M O C O
applied. The physical reason for the defocus is the occurrence of unknown
fluctuations in the microwave path length between the antenna and the scene.
One possible cause is a variation of atmospheric refractive index [5,6], which
can be significant for high-resolution systems with long atmospheric paths. An
important feature of atmospheric effects is that it is not enough to know the
Figure 3.1 Defocused image formed by processing data with the expected focus parameter.

sensor track perfectly; only a measurement of the actual microwave path will
suffice. A second cause of fluctuations in path length is the failure of the sensor
to follow a defined trajectory, to within a small fraction of a wavelength, over
the entire synthetic aperture. We here analyze the implications of these un-
known path length fluctuations and compare means for correcting for them by
autofocus processing. In practice, there is no need to distinguish the actual
mechanism, since both give rise to apparent range fluctuations. However, the
following discussion will be couched in terms of unknown trajectory variation
since this is usually the dominant contribution.
Defocus stems from the erroneous assumption that the antenna phase
center traversed a straight path at known velocity during image formation. Any
departure from this defined track degrades the reconstruction. In Figure 3.2 we
illustrate the impact of such an irregular track on the difference between the
actual distance from a scatterer O and that if there were no unknown motions.
As shown in Chapter 2, focusing the SAR involves knowing this distance
accurately and correcting for the associated phase delay.
Suppose that an object, O, is imaged by a sensor traveling along the actual
track AC from origin A (O, 0) at time 0 to position C (x, y) with range R at
time t and broadside range R0, as shown in Figure 3.2. Approximate displace-
ments x and y, can be obtained by expansion up to the order of acceleration in
each direction such that x ~ (V + AV)t + aj2/2 and y ~ Vrt + art2/2
where Vand Vr are along-track and radial velocities, ax and ar the corresponding
accelerations, and A Kan along-track velocity mismatch. The expected track is
AB, with the sensor ending at position B (x0, 0) where X0 = Vt, with range R.
The difference between the expected and actual ranges would be given by Ai?
Figure 3.2 A comparison of path length for expected and actual tracks.

= R — R\ with an associated phase difference for the two-way path of

Ac)) = -4TTAR/K. Provided that Vt < R0, Vrt < R0, and AV < V, the phase
difference from the distance of closest approach can be evaluated in terms of a
Taylor expansion such that

Mt)=-^\Vif+JYL+^+YLAv\] £ -at-Q+ww (3.i)

K L V2^o 2
^o v
J J

to second order in t, where a (= 4TT VJVX) is known as the Doppler centroid

parameter and (3 (= 277V2IR0K) the focus parameter, as in Table 2.2. In
recognition of the fact that ar and A Kmay vary along track, the discrepancy in
the focus parameter AfJ, is made time-dependent. The fractional discrepancy in
the focus parameter is given by

p v2 v
From (3.1), the instantaneous frequency, or phase gradient, would be given by

C0(J) = # W = - a - 2 ( P + Ap); (3.3)

dt

In sideways-looking SAR the image is formed at the position where this fre-
quency is zero. Thus a nonzero value of the Doppler centroid term, a, shifts the
image in azimuth, resulting in azimuthal distortion. If the axis of this synthetic
aperture is not aligned with the real antenna there will also be a resultant
modulation in the power in the SAR image. Thus, changes in a yield both
geometric and radiometric distortion. However, a nonzero value of a does not
degrade the focus directly. This is caused by an error in the quadratic focus term,
so Ap T^ 0. Note that indirect degradation can be caused if the full bandwidth
is not retained.
In the following sections we will consider methods for overcoming these
deviations from the expected trajectory. In the first stage, autofocus processing
is used to determine a correction to the quadratic focus term. In the second, this
is associated with a time-dependent phase correction that resamples the phase
of the received signal to match that of the reference. We will demonstrate that
this approach is capable of yielding focused, geometrically undistorted imagery.

3.2.1 Autofocus Methods

In this section we shall consider a representative set of robust autofocus tech-
niques that typifies the wide range of proposed methods in the literature (see
[7-20]). A description of the implementation of most of these can be found
elsewhere [7]. Our treatment concentrates on the theoretical analysis of their
performance. Where strong targets exist, they can be exploited in prominent
point processing (PPP) autofocus [8]. We will show that this method is potentially
capable of the highest performance. However, since the method depends on the
existence of dominant scattercrs throughout the scene, it is somewhat less robust
than techniques that merely require contrast variations. Other methods can be
broadly subdivided into two categories, either coherent or incoherent. Coherent
methods operate on the received signal before azimuthal compression to form
the image. Phase gradient (PG) [9-11] and phase difference (PD) [12] methods
fall into this category. Incoherent techniques, on the other hand, operate on the
intensity of the compressed image and lose all phase information. These are
typified by the Hughes Map Drift technique [13,14], which we will refer to as
multilook registration (MLR), and contrast optimization (CO) [15—20]. The
principle of operation of each of these autofocus methods, applied over a
synthetic aperture of duration T> is summarized as follows. Note that this
analysis is based on discretely sampled data rather than the continuous form
adopted in Chapter 2.
PPP provides a direct measure of the phase fluctuations that characterize
the azimuthal PSF when the signal is almost noiseless. Where there is more
noise, or interference from other scatterers, the received field can be fitted to the
appropriate reference with an unknown focus parameter.
The PG of a complex signal can be defined in terms of the imaginary
part of the product of the complex conjugate of the received signal and its
derivative such that &(j) = <j>(y) = lm[E*(j)E(j)}/\E(j)\ [9-11], where E
is the complex received signal after pulse compression. The time derivative
of the signal has to be estimated from neighboring samples leading to a time
dependence across the aperture illustrated in Figure 3.3. We fit this phase
history to a quadratic with unknown focus parameter, leading to the best fit
phase gradient line illustrated in Figure 3.3.
PD is closely related to PG. Rather than estimating the PG between
neighboring samples, it constructs the PD between samples separated by half
the aperture length. On taking the Fourier transform (FT) of the crosscorrelation
between these samples, the £th spectral component for a scatterer in the center
of the aperture is given by [12]

sin — — pAfA T
A{k) = exp[nr(aMAT-kkT + (W2AT2)] LA/A71M Jj {U)

s i p A r
TO" ^ Jj

Data Expected co(t)

Fit

Figure 3.3 A comparison of estimated phase gradient, co(>), with best fit and expected
reference as function of time.
where M is the number of samples of separation A T in the aperture T. The
second part describes an envelope that has a peak when k = (3Af2A 7/2, from
which the focus parameter can be derived.
As already noted, PPP, PG, and PD are coherent techniques that operate
directly on the complex received signal. Both MLR and CO, on the other
hand, depend on the intensity of the compressed image and are therefore
incoherent methods. Following Chapter 2, azimuthal compression is performed
by crosscorrelating the received signal with a reference of the form
Eref(j) = exp[—f(a/A7" + (3/ 2 Ar 2 )] over aperture T. This differs from the
unperturbed reference in adopting unknown values of the Doppler centroid
and focus parameters, a and (3. The compressed image intensity is then formed
by taking the square modulus of the received field. Multilook registration and
contrast optimization exploit different aspects of this compressed image.
The MLR technique detects the difference between the actual and speci-
fied focus parameters in two (or more) subapertures. As shown in Figure 3.4,
the gradient of the reference is determined by its specified focus parameter, (30.
However, if the actual focus parameter is (3, the compressed image will not form
at the origin but will be shifted by A tl2 in each subaperture, where A(3 ~
2(3A^/ T. The second subaperture yields an equivalent shift for the same scatterer.
The displacement between the two image positions (= A ^) is directly measur-
able and is caused by a change in the Doppler frequency between the subaper-
tures, where At = Aa/2(3 from (3.3), so the mismatch in the focus parameter

Actual

Expected

Figure 3.4 Effect of focus parameter on image formation position for two-look MLR.
is related to the change in the Doppler centroid by A (3 ~ Aa/ T over the
aperture T.
In the CO method, the focus parameter (3 is varied for the complete
aperture Twith consequences illustrated in Figure 3.5. If the data have the same
focus parameter as the reference, that is, (30, the compressed peak for any object
in the scene has high contrast, as shown. At other values of (3 the image is
defocused with a lower contrast peak. Thus, CO is based on the simple obser-
vation that focusing the image yields features that are both narrower and of
greater intensity. The algorithm estimates the optimum value of the focus
parameter by iterating over a set of reference functions with varying values of (3.
PPP is restricted since it operates only on dominant scatterers. The other
four autofocus processes are performed on several (e.g., 32) different range gates.
This improves the accuracy of the measured focus parameter since individual
estimates are independent.
Once autofocus is implemented, the blurred image in Figure 3.1 is im-
proved as shown in Figure 3.6. In order to achieve this result, the scene was
divided into eight strips along track that were focused independently (using
CO) and the image displayed using the estimated (3 for each strip. It is apparent
that defocus effects to the right of the original scene have been removed while
focus on the left of the scene has been improved. Note that the horizontal line
about a quarter of the way up each image is a range marker, not a feature of the

low contrast

high contrast

low contrast

Figure 3.5 Effect of varying focus parameter on the compressed image in CO.
Figure 3.6 Strip autofocused version of Figure 3.1 after using the CO autofocus method.

actual image. This autofocus process is signal-based; the effect of the unknown
motion on image quality is used to correct itself.

3.2.2 Limiting Accuracy of Autofocus Techniques

In comparing the sensitivity of these autofocus techniques, various aspects of
performance need to be considered, namely:

• Fundamental limits imposed by clutter;

• Dependence on aperture length;
• Robustness to the nature of the scene.

The choice of method depends on each aspect, including an assessment of

its importance [1,21-24]. The complexity of implementation is also an issue,
but given the rapid advance of computing and signal processing, this is not the
most telling consideration.
Initially we concentrate on fundamental clutter-limited sensitivity. We
analyze the simple case of a single point target in a background of uniform
clutter. Assuming correct focusing, we define the ratio of the peak compressed
signal for the full aperture 7^ to the mean clutter background as the signal-to-
clutter ratio (SCR); see (4.39). Here T0 is the transit time of an object through
the illuminating beam. Changes on a faster time scale demand the use of shorter
apertures of duration T ( < T0) over which (3 remains approximately constant.
An estimate of (3 is obtained within each aperture. Perturbation expansions of
the appropriate equations for each algorithm, in terms of the unknown parame-
ters and the estimated quantities, then lead to a common expression for the
mean-square uncertainty in the focus parameter estimate given by [21-24]

(8p 2 ) r « ^ (3.5)
SCR x r 5

for an aperture of duration T Thus, all five methods have the same form for
their statistical uncertainty, differing only in the value of c, which is 40 for PPP,
80 for PGA and PD, 96 for MLR, and 90 for CO.
This result applies to a single look within the aperture. However, there are
T0I T uncorrelated looks that can each be exploited for autofocusing over an
aperture T If the algorithm uses all available looks, the mean-square error in (3
for aperture 7" would be reduced by Tl T0 to [24]

(8p 2 ) r - (3.6)
X /T
SCR X T4

The mean-square error in (3 can be further reduced by a factor Nr by performing

autofocus over Nr different range lines. It is apparent that this error is minimised
by increasing the aperture duration to the maximum possible, that is, T0. Of
course, this is only possible if (3 is approximately constant over this time.

3.2.3 The Effect of Scatterer Properties on Autofocus

We previously assumed a single point object in a background of weak clutter. A
more realistic scenario might require autofocus on extended objects that occupy
more than a single resolution cell. In addition, the spatial density of objects
within the scene can affect autofocus.

3.2.3.1 Extended Objects

Many natural objects, such as bushes and trees, can be described in terms of a
large number of random scatterers spread over several pixels, equivalent to a
region of clutter with a higher cross section. The received signal is then derived
from interference between all the scatterers that make up that object. If it
occupies b pixels in the azimuth direction, its scattered field covers a frequency
range 1/ ^A T that reduces the maximum effective integration time from T0 to
T0Ib. The focus parameter will then be estimated with a mean-square error over
the full aperture T0, obtained from (3.5), of
 /8p2\ « CbI (3J)
X
^0 SCR X T04

where c takes the values given previously. This is a factor b5 worse than for a
point target and indicates the importance of using point targets for autofocus
wherever possible. This conclusion applies equally to all autofocus techniques
and so does not differentiate between them from either theoretical or practical
considerations.

3.2.3.2 Object Spatial Density

Let us now consider the effect of the spatial density of objects in the along-track
direction. Suppose there are Na randomly positioned objects within the same
range line over the full aperture T0, with an average temporal spacing of Ta =
T0/Na. Both PPP and PG depend on extracting the phase history of a single
object in each range line. Interference from another object at some unknown
spacing will compromise the ability of the algorithms to follow the phase
variations. It is necessary to filter out these interfering contributions [9—11] by
restricting the available time to approximate the mean separation around each
object so that the aperture length becomes 7"~ ia. If we utilize all the resulting
Na possible looks, the error in the focus parameter will be given by

2 r/Va4
(8p )rr - (3.8)
° SCR X Tl

where c = 40 for PPP or c = 80 for PG, which represents a considerable reduction

in potential focus accuracy compared with a single object, that is, Na = 1.
PD has an important advantage over PPP and PG in that it can accommo-
date multiple scatterers [12] since each scatterer provides an independent focus
estimate. Similarly, objects in MLR and CO provide independent information as
long as they are resolved in the original compressed image. Thus PD, MLR, and
CO lead to a mean-square error in (3 over the full aperture T0 given by

(Sp 2 L - (3.9)
K X SCR X T\

where c = 80, 96, and 90, respectively.

This discussion of scatterer properties has demonstrated the importance
of applying autofocus to pointlike objects wherever possible. For a sufficiently
dominant scatterer PPP yields the best performance. However, the analysis has
shown the superiority of the PD, MLR, and CO techniques over PPP and PG
wherever a high density of objects is encountered. This would certainly be the
case within urban areas. However, the effect might not be of overriding impor-
tance in those situations since individual objects would tend to have large values
of SCR leading to an error in (3 that might be adequate for a given application.

3.3 Geometric and Radiometric Distortion

Variations in both a and (3 not only affect image defocus, as discussed in the pre-
vious section, but also give rise to geometric and radiometric distortion in the
SAR image. In this section we demonstrate how all three effects can be related to a
mismatched focus parameter. Initially we consider azimuthal geometric distor-
tion. To illustrate the problem, Figure 3.7 shows a strip SAR image of length
7.2 km and swathwidth 4.7 km at a range of 37 km, with antenna length da —
1.8m and X — 0.031m. Under these conditions the illuminated azimuth beam-
width at the center of the swath is 678m, so the strip subtends 10.6 full apertures.
The image has undergone autofocusing that was applied in strips of 192m, so
there are about 3.5 strips per full aperture. The local focus appears good, but over-
laying the scene with map data registered at the center of the strip reveals that the
image is distorted in azimuth by hundreds of meters toward the edges.

3.3.1 Physical Cause and Associated Distortion

One might expect that the same mechanism would give rise both to the defocus
visible in Figure 3.1 and the geometrical azimuthal distortion in Figure 3.7. We
have already demonstrated in (3.2) that the dominant causes of defocus are a
mismatch between nominal and actual along-track velocities, AV/V, or an
across-track acceleration component, ^(corresponding to variations in Doppler
centroid). For the along-track velocity error the azimuthal distance traveled
during time t is increased from Vt by the along-track distortion contribution

t
Ax, (*) = J &V(t'W (3.10)
o

which is independent of range. The across-track acceleration makes itself appar-

ent through the angular displacement in the antenna beam, given by — VJ V,
where motion toward the sensor is positive. The along-track distortion due to
radial acceleration is thus given by

A ^ ) = -« = _4f., W -WW (3J1)

V V0 V
Figure 3.7 Azimuthal distortion after strip autofocus processing. The image dimension is
7.2 km by 4.7 km covering 10.6 illuminated beamwidths. The overlay is taken from
map data and registered at the center.

which introduces a range-independent skew of the image without affecting the

focusing capability. For convenience, Vr(0) is normally selected to be the average
radial velocity over the required strip length. However, this choice is somewhat ar-
bitrary. A different value would modify image skew without degrading resolution.
Unfortunately it is not possible to combine (3.10) and (3.11) with (3.2) to
express azimuthal distortion unambiguously in terms of a change in the focus
parameter, A(3. The only way to resolve the ambiguity is to make an independent
measurement of one component so that the residual can then be attributed to the
other. For example, slaving the radar PRF to along-track velocity, measured by an
Inertial Navigation System (INS) or Global Positioning System (GPS), greatly re-
duces the along-track contributions so that the defocus error is almost entirely due
to radial acceleration. The final distortion then depends on the accuracy of the
system used to determine this azimuthal sample spacing.
It is instructive to quantify typical defocus and distortion caused by radial
and along-track uncertainties. These depend on fluctuations in the focus parame-
ter, whose fractional variation, A(3/(3, derived from the first autofocus pass, is
plotted in Figure 3.8. It is apparent that changes of 10% can sometimes occur
between neighboring samples, separated by 192m (or about 1 sec for V =
200 ms' 1 ). Based on (3.2), the defocus visible on the right of Figure 3.1 could be
caused by either a radial acceleration of 0.1 ms~ 2 or an azimuthal velocity mis-
 Fractional error in focus parameter

Position (km)

Figure 3.8 Plot of the fractional focus parameter variations derived during the first pass of
strip autofocus processing.

match of 10 ms" 1 . The change between focused imagery on the left of Figure 3.1
and the defocused output on the right could be attributed to an azimuthal
acceleration of 10 ms~ 2 or a change in radial acceleration of 0.1 ms~ 2 . The former
is unrealistic, so it is reasonable to interpret errors in (3 as predominantly due to
radial acceleration in this instance. Indeed, if a SAR sensor includes conventional
M O C O and INS that reduce unknown motions to effectively the same order in
azimuthal and along-track directions, this result suggests that the azimuthal
velocity contribution to image distortion can be ignored. Accordingly, in the
following discussion we attribute all changes in focus parameter to radial motion,
leading to an azimuthal distortion of [20,25—27]

w.vjt&iv+tm. ( 3. 12 )

The across-track distortion after time t will be given by

Ay(t) = ]) ar(t")dt"dt' + Vr(0)t = — J J ^ ^ dt"dt' + Vr(O)t (3.13)

00 ^O 0 0 P
with an associated phase error [18,25-27]
 AW , ^ ^ = ^LZi JJJJ » ^ + H t (3.14)
X \* 0 00 p X

Equation (3.11) showed that azimuthal distortion was the product of the
range and the pointing angle offset, — VJ V. Assuming that the real antenna was
stabilized to be orthogonal to the assumed track, this would result in reduced
energy in the compressed peak. The ratio of this offset angle to the real beam-
width at time t is then given by

,M = H j M ^ + W,
Rak{ fi VX

for aperature length da. Assuming a rectangular antenna weighting for simpli-
city, the power in the compressed image would then be reduced by a factor

P= psimre/iy (3J6)
V ire J

which relates radiometric distortion directly to fluctuations in the focus

parameter.

3.3.2 Signal-Based MOCO

Since autofocus errors can be related to radial acceleration, they can be treated
as inputs to an extended M O C O system. The phase correction derived in (3.14)
can be applied to each sample to shift it to a straight line trajectory [26]. When
this signal-based M O C O is applied to the data used to form the SAR image in
Figure 3.7, the resulting image, in Figure 3.9, is seen to be largely free from the
effects of distortion.
There may still be some distortion arising from the angular dependence
in elevation of across-track acceleration, particularly for incidence angles far
from grazing. Autofocusing estimates the radial acceleration component along
a given line-of-sight that corresponds to a particular range in the SAR image.
For given sensor acceleration components the projection at different ranges
within the swath will vary in a deterministic fashion [20] allowing a range-
dependent phase correction to be applied.
Figure 3.9 SAR image following signal-based MOCO using autofocus results for phase cor-
rection.

3.3.3 Antenna Stabilization

The described autofocus techniques provide a history of the variation in focus
parameter caused by changes in the Doppler centroid. This history can be used
in a variety of ways to correct different image quality deficiencies. One impor-
tant aspect of the signal-based M O C O scheme in Section 3.3.2 is its impact on
antenna stabilization.
Suppose the antenna orientation is locked to the axis of the sensor plat-
form, for example, normal. If the platform then describes an arc of a circle, with
its axis lying along the track, the pointing angle and associated Doppler centroid
will vary and the real and synthetic apertures will have different axes leading to
radiometric errors, as described in Section 3.3.1. Doppler tracking is often used
to correct the data, so zero Doppler occurs at the center of the real beam. This
removes radiometric variation but, unfortunately, leaves geometric distortion. If
the geometric distortion corrections previously outlined are applied to the data,
the trajectory of the synthetic aperture is converted to a straight line, as desired.
However, the antenna retains the same orientations so that the pointing angles
of the real and synthetic beams are mismatched with consequent radiometric
distortion. Thus, it is incorrect to stabilize the antenna with respect to the sensor
platform if geometric and radiometric corrections are both required. The pre-
ferred technique for simultaneously minimizing geometric and radiometric
distortion adopts antenna stabilization to the desired average track. The relative
angle of the sensor platform and antenna then vary as the platform describes a
curved track. However, on resampling the track to a straight line, the real and
synthetic apertures become aligned. The only discrepancy between their tracks
is due to V^(O), the unknown average radial velocity contribution over the total
strip duration. Provided this difference is sufficiently small, it is possible to
correct the image intensity appropriately using (3.16).

3.4 Residual SAR Imaging Errors

The autofocus methods in Section 3.2 typically reduce the phase error across
the aperture to about TT/20 radians, corresponding to about 1 % degradation in
the 3-dB width of the PSF, which is comparatively insignificant. In this section
we derive the effect of the residual error in the focus parameter 8(3, following
signal-based M O C O , on geometric and radiometric distortion.

3.4.1 Residual Geometric and Radiometric Distortion

The residual azimuthal distortion after signal-based M O C O can be derived
from (3.5) and (3.12). The distortion over the aperture T is given by
bx ~ VT 8(3/(3, so that the root mean square (rms) cumulative distortion over
the full aperture, made up of T0/ 7" independent apertures, will be given by

(&x>)»2 - V T ^ £ J S = <L 1 c Il
r 3
° p vr 2TT v SCR x yv; r
From distortion considerations, therefore, it is important to maximize the
subaperture duration. Thus, autofocusing on extended clutter and using the
phase gradient estimator in crowded environments is to be avoided.
This prediction is compared with measured distortions in Figure 3.10,
using results obtained by performing independent autofocus and phase correc-
tion of a second SAR image of the same scene. Displacements between objects in
the two scenes were then measured directly, after the scenes had been suitably
registered [I]. Since the scenes suffer from independent sources of error, the rms
error in a single SAR image would be reduced by a factor of V 2 from about 1.5m
between both images to 1. Im in a single image. The residual structure in the plot
indicates that slow fluctuations are not being properly corrected, probably caused
by range-dependent effects. If we ignore these, the rms distortion over the strip
 Along-track shift# m

Position, km

Figure 3.10 Residual azimuthal distortion after signal-based MOCO.

would be about half the total, that is, 0.55m. From (3.17), the predicted distor-
tion for da = 1.8m, N7. = 32, and c = 90 (for contrast optimization auto focus),
assuming the full aperture is used (so that T= T0), would be 1.6/v SCR over the
whole image strip. The observed performance indicates an SCR of about 10 dB,
which is consistent with these images. A comparison with Figure 3.7 shows that
phase correction has reduced distortion by about two orders of magnitude. Note
that if it was not possible to use the full aperture for autofocus the residual
distortion would be increased by (T0/ T)312.
The corresponding result for across-track distortion is obtained from
(3.5) and (3.13). The distortion over the aperture T is given by
8j/ ^ V2T2bfi/2$R0, so the rms cumulative distortion over the full aperture
is given by

(8/V/2 - ^ i ! * 5 = A. I
x /T
c T^ (318)
° 2R0 P VT 4ir V S C R X Nr T

Assuming the same conditions as given previously for Figure 3.7, the predicted
across-track distortion over a single aperture would be 0.0013m, leading to a
value of 0.0042m over the full strip, which is negligible compared with the range
resolution.
The residual radiometric distortion depends on the ratio of the residual
angular skew to the real beamwidth. It can be derived from (3.5) and (3.15).
During the aperture time T the fractional pointing angle difference is given by
Se ~ VTda 8(3/(3 i? 0 \, so the rms cumulative relative skew over the full aperture
is given by

T
° R0X (3 2TTR0\ \ SCR X Nr T3

Under the same conditions as for Figure 3.7, the predicted skew is 0.00023
of the full beamwidth over the full aperture and 0.00071 beamwidths over the
strip, which causes a negligible reduction in image intensity. The difference
between the predicted track and the average over the strip is likely to be much
more significant. This is determined by the stability of the sensor platform. If
the trajectory could be defined by combined INS and GPS, the angular uncer-
tainty for the average track might be about 1.5 mrad, corresponding to a
fractional skew of about 0.09 for a 1.8-m antenna, which completely dominates
random effects. From (3.16) we find that even this would only contribute a
radiometric error of about 1%. In fact, this could be further reduced by correct-
ing for the angular difference once the average track had been calculated during
the signal-based M O C O stage.

3.4.2 Excess Sidelobe Levels

Random uncertainties in the estimated focus parameter lead to errors in the
phase correction, which become evident through excess sidelobes in the PSF.
Since the position and strength of these sidelobes are both random, they are best
characterized by the integrated sidelobe ratio (ISLR), which is the ratio of the
increase in sidelobe energy to the peak energy. Carrara et al. [7] show that the
ISLR can be related to phase errors within the synthetic aperture such that

I S L R - exp[(8c|) 2 )]-l (3.20)

for small phase errors, 8(f). From (3.1), the phase error at time t within the
aperture due to uncertainty in the focus parameter is given by 8(() ~ 8(312.
Hence, following (3.14), the mean-square residual phase error over A^rangelines
within the aperture t = ± 772 would be given by
 772
(8(|)2}r - (8p 2 ) r -i- f t*dt = - (3.21)
X lT N /T
T JTI2 80 X SCR XNr

with c taking the values derived in Section 3.2.3. This residual phase error is
independent of aperture duration, provided that all possible looks are used in
the signal-based M O C O .
For the same operating conditions as for Figure 3.7, (3.21) predicts rms
residual phase errors of 0.059 rads leading to an ISLR of —24.5 dB. Typical peak
sidelobe levels in a SAR system would be comparable with ISLR values about
10 dBs greater. Thus, the random integrated sidelobe power introduced by phase
errors is about an order of magnitude less than the deterministic contribution.
This random ISLR component could be further reduced by averaging over a
larger number of rangelines, provided they contain strong scatterers.

3.5 Refinements to Signal-Based MOCO

The discussion of residual errors in the previous section has shown the importance
of using the full aperture for autofocus to minimize all forms of image quality deg-
radation. However, if the unknown motion varies on a short time scale, this will
not be possible and we must use shorter apertures whose duration ^represents the
time over which the focus parameter is approximately constant. Even when this
condition is satisfied, the response of the autofocus process will be a function of
the rate of change of the focus parameter. Iterative autofocus, described in Sec-
tion 3.5.1, helps to circumvent the nonuniform frequency response of a given ap-
erture by progressively removing motion contributions until only random
contributions remain. Nevertheless, the most significant limitation to autofocus
processing is the requirement to use short apertures to compensate high-fre-
quency components. As demonstrated in Section 3.4, treating each aperture inde-
pendently can result in appreciable distortion and cumulative phase error for
small apertures. However, in Section 3.5.2 we describe a coherent, iterative, auto-
focus technique that allows us to realize long-term low distortion, corresponding
to the full aperture, while simultaneously correcting higher frequency compo-
nents. Finally, in Section 3.5.3 we describe how a combined conventional and sig-
nal-based M O C O scheme can be implemented offering optimum performance.

3.5.1 Iterated Autofocus With Phase Correction

An effective approach to removing any motion contributions that exceed the
residual uncertainty is to iterate the autofocus and phase correction process [I].
Typical results are illustrated in Figure 3.11, which shows a sequence of plots of
autofocus correction as a function of iteration number for the original data of
Figure 3.7, where Figure 3.11 (a) is a repeat of Figure 3.8. A conventional
depth-of-focus (DOF) criterion [20] corresponds to a phase error of TT/2 at the
edge of the aperture, so §(3DOF/(3 = d\^j R0X, where deffi the effective antenna
length, is twice the intended resolution. Since the latter was 1.5m in Figure 3.11,
the corresponding DOF limit on 8(3/(3 is 0.007. This is included in Figure 3.11
for comparison.
The original correction from the first iteration (a) shows fractional vari-
ations of ±0.15, considerably greater than the DOF limit. During the second
iteration (b), fluctuations are considerably reduced by incorporating the correc-
tion from the first stage. However, there is a strong residual peak at an azimuthal
position of about 4.3 km and also evidence of correlations between errors,
indicating that the correction process is not complete. By the last iteration (c)
the fluctuations are basically random with a fractional standard deviation of
about 0.0007, an order of magnitude better than the DOF limit. Residual
fluctuations for many systems are found to become negligible after three or four
iterations. The residual errors in the last iteration in Figure 3.11 can be com-
pared with predictions from (3.6). For the same operating conditions as for
Figure 3.7, the predicted rms error in the focus parameter would be 0.0006,
which is reasonably consistent with measurement. The corresponding rms ac-
celeration error at this range would be 7 X 10~4 ms~ 2 , while at twice the range
it would be 1.8 X 10~4 ms~ 2 if the aperture duration was also doubled. The
latter is about an order of magnitude smaller than can be achieved with a
conventional accelerometer. This illustrates the considerable reduction in long-
term distortion that can be attained using autofocus-based phase correction.
This advantage increases progressively as range and integration time increase.

3.5.2 High-Frequency Tracking With Low Distortion

We have indicated the importance of adopting the maximum duration aperture
to minimize the error in (3. If the sensor undergoes radial motion variations on
a scale shorter than the synthetic aperture, this unknown motion cannot be
corrected since the autofocus response is negligible. This demands a shorter
aperture to track high-frequency changes, leading to degraded image quality.
However, a technique that combines both high-frequency response and low
distortion [3,22,24] comprises the following stages:

1. The focus parameter is estimated over a sequence of apertures of

duration T sufficiently short to correct for high-frequency motions.
 (a)

(b)

(C)

Figure 3.11 Estimated autofocus correction, 8(3/3, as a function of along-track position after
(a) first, (b) second, and (c) tenth autofocus iteration.
 The estimated correction then has the form A|3 + T], where A (3
represents the true focus mismatch and T| the estimation error.
2. The signal is phase-corrected using the focus parameters in (3.14).
This has the effect of removing the true focus mismatch A(3 with a
residual error T].
3. The aperture length is doubled and the process repeated. The residual
focus errors from the previous two apertures are now averaged and
contribute to the correction for the new aperture. The new residual
error in (3 corresponds to the double-length aperture and so is a factor
of 16 smaller than the previous value, from (3.6), assuming that all
possible looks are used for autofocus. The cumulative along-track
distortion and phase error are now determined by this larger aperture.
4. The process of doubling the aperture is repeated until it attains the full
aperture length.

This technique can be applied to the PD, MLR, and C O algorithms under
all circumstances and PPP and PG in a sparse scatterer environment. The final
error in the focus parameter for the full aperture is then as expected from (3.6)
when T = T0. Thus, this approach yields the maximum sensitivity for the full
aperture without compromising high-frequency tracking performance. How-
ever, the rms error in phase and azimuthal position of each sample is determined
by the shortest aperture used.

3.5.3 Combined Signal-Based and Conventional MOCO

Signal-based M O C O operates most successfully when the focus parameter is
changing only slowly, whereas conventional M O C O responds better to more
rapid changes. There is thus an advantage in combining conventional M O C O ,
following well-tried methods [28,29] discussed in detail in Carrara et al. [7],
with subsequent signal-based M O C O . The overlap between the ability of con-
ventional M O C O to remove high-frequency effects and that of the autofocus-
based approach to compensate for slow drifts is quantified in this section. The
output of the autofocus filter for aperture T and a sensor acceleration power
spectral density (PSD) S{f), will be given by

AT(f) = S»2(/)(l - HT(f)) + N»2(f) (3.22)

where Nj(f) is the PSD of the uncertainty introduced in the autofocus process
given by NT{f) ~ ( 8 ^ | ) . The form of the response for CO, PG, and PD
autofocus methods has been shown to be given by [24,30]
 mf)
^ ~ r h \ [ l ~ rT^l s i n *f + —fcos *f (3 23)
-
while the response for MLR has a similar shape [24]. For subsequent iterations
the autofocus filter operates on the output of the previous iteration, following
phase correction. Hence

A2(/) * A1 (/Xl - HTi(/)) + N^{f) (3.24)

Repeating the process for progressively doubled aperatures allows the final
power spectrum of the sensor accelerations after autofocus and phase correction
to be calculated for a specified sensor acceleration spectrum and autofocus filter
duration. Figure 3.12 plots the predicted residual power spectrum after signal-
based M O C O for the DRA Canberra system. In an earlier study [24] the
approximate acceleration power spectrum for the Canberra SAR was found to
be of the form

S(f) « 0.0025/- L 4 (3.25)

which is shown as curve (a) in Figure 3.12. A typical X-band SAR system was
assumed to have a resolution of Im and a range of 100 km. The full aperture
length would be 1.5 km, corresponding to a duration T0 = 7.5 sec for V =
200 ms" 1 . The predicted performance for the combined system can be derived
by supposing that the progressive autofocus and phase correction scheme de-
scribed in Section 3.5.2 was implemented, commencing with the shortest
aperture of 0.47 sec (= T0I16, length 94m) in curve (b) and incrementing in
powers of two up to the full aperture in curve (f).
Increasing aperture duration reduces low-frequency components by
12 dBs for each aperture doubling, as predicted in (3.6). A reduction of about
90 dB in the original uncompensated aircraft acceleration spectrum is expected
at low frequencies. However, at high frequencies, additional spectral contribu-
tions are introduced by the estimation errors in the autofocus process. These
cannot be removed by subsequent iteration since the autofocus response is near
zero at these frequencies. If signal-based M O C O had commenced with a longer
subaperture, however, high-frequency degradation would be significantly re-
duced. For example, the contributions introduced by an aperture of 0.94 sec
would be a factor 12 dBs smaller. Thus, an initial stage in designing such a
signal-based M O C O would begin with an aperture duration that only degraded
the original high-frequency acceleration spectrum slightly.
 PSD(f)

Frequency, f
Figure 3.12 Predicted residual acceleration power spectrum after autofocusing: (a) original
PSD, (b) after autofocus with T = 0.47 sec, (c-f) subsequent iterations with
progressive doubling of aperture to T= 7.5 sec.

On combining signal-based and conventional MOCO we require the

conventional MOCO to remove high-frequency components to the right of the
response in Figure 3.12. The engineering design of such a system would inves-
tigate the compromise of introducing conventional MOCO to correct for
high-frequency effects and increasing the minimum aperture to ensure that
autofocus uncertainty does not degrade the result. Note that the response shown
in Figure 3.12 would indicate low long-term distortion and resolution degrada-
tion, with only a slight increase in the ISLR due to phase errors.
An example of this combination of conventional and signal-based MOCO
is shown in Figure 3.13. An airborne SAR was operated at long range while
encountering turbulence. The original "compressed" image (a) shows little trace
of a target at all. Applying conventional MOCO (b) improves the situation.
However, the phase error is clearly much greater than the DOF limit. When
autofocus-based MOCO (c) is included, image quality improves significantly,
though it still has not achieved ideal sidelobe levels. This extreme example
 Power (dB)

, x Azimuth (m)
(a)
Figure 3.13 Measured azimuthal PSF at long range while encountering turbulence: (a) uncor-
rected response, (b) with conventional MOCO, and (c) with conventional and
signal-based MOCO.

illustrates the different roles in two-component M O C O . The conventional

stage removes high-frequency effects, hopefully reducing the phase error toward
the DOF limit. The signal-based stage then removes most of the residual effects,
allowing high-quality imagery to be achieved.

3.6 Conclusions

In this chapter the basic physical principles governing SAR image formation
using signal-based M O C O techniques have been discussed. A series of algo-
rithms has been developed to rectify SAR image defects caused by variations in
 Power (dB)

/fo\ Azimuth (m)

Figure 3.13 (continued).

range due to unknown sensor motion. In each case, analysis establishes the
performance limits imposed by the algorithm and the radar data themselves.
Initially image defocus was corrected using autofocus methods. These
yield a time-dependent focus parameter error that was shown to be the source
of:

• Azimuthal and radial geometric distortion;

• Radiometric distortion;
• Excess PSF sidelobe levels.

By employing this focus-parameter error in a phase-correction M O C O

process, we can simultaneously correct all these effects, leaving only very small
residual data-dependent errors.
 Power (dB)

, . Azimuth (m)
(c)
Figure 3.13 (continued).

Signal-based M O C O cannot derive information about amplitude modu-

lation caused by antenna directional instability. It is therefore important that the
antenna should be accurately stabilized to remove pointing angle errors. Signal-
based M O C O can be combined with conventional M O C O for greatest effect
in correcting phase modulation due to unknown sensor motion. Conventional
accelerometers provide high sensitivity for rapid changes in phase, whereas
signal-based M O C O is better for slow drifts. Thus, a combined system can be
designed, as described, which incorporates the best of each method.
Signal-based M O C O is a post-processing stage that can be applied to raw
complex SAR; it is not restricted to airborne systems and has been used with
ERS-I, for example. Indeed, in this case it permits image quality similar to that
attained using the high-definition orbit parameters to be achieved by correcting
imagery derived using the initial low-definition orbit parameters [2]. In princi-
ple, the same process could be applied to azimuthally compressed complex data,
such as the ERS-I SLC product. Signal-based M O C O can be applied without
any modification to the original radar system and offers significant image
quality improvements. Subsequent information extraction processes can thus be
applied to high quality imagery, characterized almost entirely by the theoretical
properties of the SAR system, rather than being corrupted by unknown errors
in the PSE

References
[1] Belcher, D. P, R. G. White, C. J. Baker, and C. J. Oliver, "The Residual Distortion of
Phase-Corrected Autofocused SAR images," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 14, 1993,
pp. 769-781.
[2] Muff, D., A. M. Home, and C. J. Baker, "Spaceborne SAR Autofocus," SPIE Conf. on SAR
image analysis, simulation and modeling, Paris, 1995, pp. 7-17.
[3] Belcher, D. P, A. M. Home, and C. J. Baker, "Spotlight Mode SAR Autofocus," IEE Conf.
SAR 93, Vans, 1993.
[4] Oliver, C. J., "Problems in SAR Image Formation," DRA Tech. Report
DRA/LS2/TR96016, 1997.
[5] Porcello, L. J., "Turbulence Induced Phase Errors in Synthetic Aperture Radar," IEEE
Trans. Aerospace Electron. Systems, Vol. AES-6, 1970, pp. 636-644.
[6] Rondinelli, L. A., and G. W. Zeoli, "Evaluation of the Effect of Random Tropospheric
Propagation Phase Errors on Synthetic Array Performance," Eighth Annual Radar Symp.
Record, University of Michigan, 1962, pp. 235—256.
[7] Carrara, W. G., R. S. Goodman, and R. M. Majewski, Spotlight Synthetic Aperture Radar:
Signal Processing Algorithms, Norwood, MA: Artech House, 1995.
[8] Werness, S. A., W G. Carrara, L. S. Joyce, and D. B. Franczak, "Moving Target Imaging
Algorithm for SAR Data," IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electron. Systems, Vol. 26, 1990,
pp. 57-67.
[9] Eichel, P. H., D. C. Ghiglia, and C. V. Jakowatz, "Speckle Processing Method for Synthetic-
Aperture-Radar Phase Correction," Optics Lett., Vol. 14, 1989, pp. 1-3.
[10] Eichel, PH., and C. V. Jakowatz, "Phase-Gradient Algorithm as an Optimal Estimator of
the Phase Derivative," Optics Lett., Vol. 14, 1989, pp. 1101-1109.
[11] Wahl, D. E., P. H. Eichel, D. C. Ghiglia, and C. V. Jakowatz, "Phase Gradient Auto-
focus—a Robust Tool for High Resolution SAR Phase Correction," IEEE Trans. Aerospace
Electron. Systems, Vol. 30, 1994, pp. 827-834.
[12] Yoji, G. N., "Phase Difference Auto Focusing for Synthetic Aperture Radar Imaging,"
United States Patent No. 4999635, 1991.
[13] Swiger, J. M., "A Digital Autofocus Method for Synthetic Array Spotlight Radar Using Map
Drift," Hughes Aircraft Invention Disclosure, 1976.
[14] Mancill, C. E., and J. M. Swiger, "A Map Drift Autofocus Technique for Correcting Higher
Order SAR Phase Errors," 27th Annual Tri-Service Radar Symp. Record, Monterey, CA,
1981, pp. 391-400.
[15] Vant, M. R., "A Spatially-Variant Autofocus Technique for Synthetic Aperture Radar,"
Radar '82, London: IEE, 1982, pp. 159-163.
[16] Bendor, G. A., and T. W. Gedra, "Single-Pass Fine-Resolution SAR Autofocus," Proc. IEEE
National Aerospace and Electronics Conf. NAECON, Dayton, OH, New York: IEEE, 1983,
pp. 482-488.
[17] Finley, I. E, and J. W. Wood, "An Investigation of Synthetic Aperture Radar Autofocus,"
DRA Memorandum No. 3790, 1985.
[18] Wood, J. W, "The Production of Distortion-Free SAR Imagery," Radar '87, IEE Conf.
Publ. No. 281, London: IEE, 1987, pp. 471-473.
[19] Wood, J. W, "The Removal of Azimuthal Distortion in SAR Images," Int. J. Remote
Sensing, Vol. 9, 1988, pp. 1097-1107.
[20] Oliver, C. J., "Review Article—Synthetic-Aperture Radar Imaging," /. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.,
Vol. 22, 1989, pp. 871-890.
[21] Green, J. E, and C. J. Oliver, "The Limits on Autofocus in SAR," Int. J. Remote Sensing,
Vol. 13, 1992, pp. 2623-2641.
[22] Oliver, C. J., "High-Frequency Limits on SAR Autofocus and Phase Correction," Int. J.
Remote Sensing, Vol. 14, 1993, pp. 495-519.
[23] Blacknell, D., A. P. Blake, C. J. Oliver, and R. G. White, "A Comparison of SAR Multilook
Registration and Contrast Optimisation Algorithms Applied to Real SAR Data," Radar
"92, IEE Conf. Publ. No. 365, London: IEE, 1992, pp. 363-366.
[24] Oliver, C. J., D. Belcher, A. R Blake, and R. G. White, "Algorithms for Focused Linear
Synthetic Aperture Radar Imaging," SPIE Conf. on Algorithms for SAR Imagery, Orlando,
FL, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2230, 1994, pp. 60-71.
[25] Blacknell, D., I. P. Finley, A. Freeman, C. J. Oliver, S. Quegan, I. A. Ward, R. G. White,
and J. W Wood, "Geometrical Accuracy in Airborne SAR Images," IEEE Trans. Aerospace
Electron. Systems, Vol. AES-25, 1989, pp. 241-256.
[26] Finley, I. P., C. J. Oliver, R. G. White, and J. W Wood, "Synthetic Aperture Radar—Auto-
matic Change Detection," UK Patent No GB 2,234,13OB, 1988, and US Patent No.
4,963,877, 1990.
[27] Wood, J. W, R. G. White, and C. J. Oliver, "Distortion-Free SAR Imagery and Change
Detection," Proc. U.S. National Radar Conf, Ann Arbor, MI, 1988, pp. 95-99.
[28] Mims, J. H., and J. L. Farrell, "Synthetic Aperture Imaging with Manoeuvers, "IEEE Trans.
Aerospace Electron. Systems, Vol. AES-8, 1972, pp. 410-418.
[29] Kirk, J. C , "Motion Compensation for Synthetic Aperture Radar, "IEEE Trans. Aerospace
Electron. Systems, Vol. AES-Il, 1975, pp. 338-348.
[30] Blacknell, D., "SAR Motion Compensation Using Autofocus with Implications for Super-
Resolution," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sheffield, UK, 1990.
4

Fundamental P r o p e r t i e s of S A R Images

4.1 Introduction

Chapters 2 and 3 have shown that a SAR is essentially a complicated device

whose purpose is simply to measure the local interaction between the Earths
surface and an incident wave and that very high quality SAR images of this
interaction can be produced by modern systems. Turning this two-dimensional
set of measurements into information about the scene is what concerns us in the
rest of the book, and the purpose of this chapter is to clarify the framework
within which information is to be discussed.
In a certain sense, information can only be defined in the context of
an application: does an image tell the user something of interest to them?
In another sense, since the image is simply a representation of the local scat-
tering properties of the Earth, all the information is carried by our knowledge
of electromagnetic theory. Between the excessive particularity of the first and
the over-generality of the second lies a wide range of theory and technical
development whose purpose is to provide a general approach to image analysis
and understanding. It is rooted principally in the fact that human beings
bring a large amount of world knowledge and experience into their interpre-
tation of images. Methods to extract information from SAR data must take
account of or emulate this high-level knowledge of how the world is. Fun-
damental to this approach is the establishment of viable data models, in which
information can be related to measurable parameters and their spatial dispo-
sition. The rationale for adopting this approach to information is developed
further in Section 4.2.
 A primary difficulty in exploiting this or any other approach to informa-
tion in SAR imagery is that all measurements or inferences from the data must
take account of coherent speckle. Sections 4.3 to 4.5 are concerned with the
basic properties of speckle and how it manifests itself in the different image types
that can be formed when complex SAR data are available. The well-developed
theory for single-channel speckle is presented and confirmed by observations in
Section 4.3. This leads to a data model in which the information is carried by
the average intensity or RCS at each speckled pixel. However, the information
content per pixel is very low within a distributed target, since in this case very
large numbers of pixels can be characterized by a small number of parameters.
Increasing numbers of pixels serve only to improve the accuracy of the parameter
estimates. When the useful scale of variation of RCS is larger than the resolu-
tion, it can therefore be advantageous to preaverage the supplied data. This
process, known as multilooking, is dealt with in Section 4.4. It reduces spatial
resolution in order to improve the accuracy of the RCS estimate at each
individual pixel. Section 4.5 closes this basic discussion of speckle by introduc-
ing the multiplicative noise model in which single-channel SAR data is treated
as the product of an underlying RCS and a stationary noiselike process, corre-
sponding to speckle. This is a very useful representation that will be much
exploited in succeeding chapters.
The treatment in the earlier sections of this chapter ignores the imaging
process, but this impacts significantly on the procedures needed to recover the
information in the data. Section 4.6 extends the linear imaging equations
developed in Chapter 2 to deal with distributed targets. This lays bare the
imaging effects, which include scaling of the desired geophysical quantity, a°,
an additive bias in the measurement, and induced spatial correlation. Sections
4.7 and 4.8 examine the consequences for SAR measurements, developing the
clutter-to-noise, signal-to-clutter, and signal-to-noise ratios, and examining the
effects of correlation on multilook estimates of RCS. Because of its adverse effect
on parameter estimation and image analysis techniques, methods to remove
system-induced spatial correlation are discussed in Section 4.9. Practical consid-
erations in estimating the complex correlation function from image data are
dealt with in Section 4.10. We close the discussion of single-channel SAR by
pointing out limitations in its formulation in Section 4.11.
The treatment of speckle as a multiplicative noise is of most use in the
context of single-channel data, but interference phenomena are still a dominant
influence on the measurements made by multichannel radars. This is illustrated
in Section 4.12 in the context of the much extended range of images available
from interferometric or polarimetric radars. The number of parameters needed
to describe the behavior of a pixel or a region is now greatly increased. Hence,
unlike single-channel data, the use of different image types is not simply to
improve visual image quality but is an essential part of conveying the informa-
tion available in the data.

4.2 The Nature of Information in SAR Images

The basic quantity measured by a single-frequency single-polarization SAR at

each pixel is a pair of voltages in the in-phase and quadrature channels. As
discussed in Chapter 2, these measured values represent the effects of the scene
on the transmitted wave, but not in a direct way First, the finite bandwidth of
the system in both range and azimuth implies that measured values are weighted
averages from a region determined by the point spread function of the SAR.
Second, numerous weightings need to be applied in the processing to convert
the measured voltages to "geophysical" units corresponding to the complex
reflectivity, RCS, or backscattering coefficient of the scene. With these provisos,
the measurements made by the SAR are fundamentally determined by electro-
magnetic scattering processes.
As such, the most basic description of information in SAR images may be
considered to be in terms of solutions of Maxwells equations for the propaga-
tion geometry and the scattering scene. However, both on theoretical and
practical grounds, this viewpoint provides only a partial contribution to our
understanding of the information available.
From the point of view of electromagnetic theory, two approaches are
relevant. The first of these is the Forward Problem, in which the properties of
the scattering medium and the incoming wave are specified and used to predict
the scattered field. Solutions to this problem are currently available only by
imposing considerable restrictions on the scattering medium, for example, by
assuming that all length scales in the medium are large (or small) relative to the
wavelength, or that only surface (not volume) scattering is occurring (or vice
versa), or that occultation (shadowing) effects can be ignored. Even with such
restrictions, full wave solutions are in most cases unavailable, and a more
phenomenological approach based on energy flows (radiative transfer) provides
the only way of making progress. Numerous books and papers are devoted to
this Forward Problem [1—5], with increasingly sophisticated solution techniques
and descriptions of the scattering medium.
Nonetheless, there is still a huge gap between the scattering medium as it
is described in most models and the actuality of what is contained in the
scattering cell because some quantities needed for the scattering models may be
very difficult to measure reliably, such as the leaf angle distribution in a plant
canopy or the detailed dielectric properties of the medium. Other quantities,
such as the correlation length of natural surfaces, may exhibit rapid spatial
variation, so it may be hard to define a meaningful representative value for
insertion into a scattering model. Other weaknesses of most modeling ap-
proaches include:

• The assumption of infinite plane waves and infinite media, instead of

the imaging situation where we have a structured scene;
• Their ability to produce only low-order moments of the scattered field
(often only the mean backscattering coefficient), whereas later chapters
make clear the importance of higher moments as sources of informa-
tion, especially the fourth-order field moments needed to describe
intensity variance and correlation, which are critical in texture analysis.

The descriptions provided by current models are therefore incomplete.

Nonetheless, progress in solving the Forward Problem has led to scattering
models becoming increasingly important in SAR image interpretation. This is
because, for all their shortcomings, they contain our best currently available
descriptions of the physical processes occurring as the radar wave interacts with
the medium. Their chief role is in most cases as semiquantitative explanatory
tools, identifying the dominant scattering mechanisms and highlighting failures
in our representation of the medium or in the solution procedure. Without such
models, we only have phenomenology, and our ability to understand or gener-
alize observations is severely weakened.
However, they provide only one part of the corpus of knowledge needed
to discuss information in SAR images and can often be nearly irrelevant (e.g.,
when the scene or structures within it are very heterogeneous). Even within the
context of electromagnetic theory, the Forward Problem is not the real issue
when dealing with information in SAR images. Far more important is the
Inverse Problem: what properties of an unknown scene can be inferred from the
observed backscattered signal? A weaker version of the Inverse Problem may also
include prior knowledge of various forms; for example, we may wish to know
what can be inferred about forest properties from the backscatter, given that we
know we are looking at forest.
Methods to solve the Inverse Problem mathematically are, naturally,
couched in terms of the same models as the Forward Problem, with all the same
limitations, and are normally difficult. However, the real source of the difficulty
in the Inverse Problem is not the mathematics but that there is rarely enough
information to provide a unique solution. In other words, the number of
parameters needed to characterize the target in the scattering model exceeds the
number of independent measurements available at the sensor. In this case, the
dimensionality of the parameter space may be reduced by assuming some
 parameters are known or the solution is insensitive to them (these parameters
then remain unmeasurable from the observations, but access to the other pa-
rameters becomes possible) [6]. Even when a proper inversion is possible [7],
measurements have often failed to confirm the theory, reflecting in some way
the failure of the theory to capture the relevant physics of the scattering process.
It is also the case that direct mathematical inversion is often not the
preferred route to solving the Inverse Problem because of its difficulty. Instead,
repeated solution of the Forward Problem for different values of the input
parameters can be used to achieve consistency with observations. Such methods
only become of intrinsic merit when the dimensionality of the observations
(e.g., their diversity in polarization, frequency, and/or incidence angle) is suffi-
cient to provide tight constraints on the solution space.
These approaches to describing information in SAR images through elec-
tromagnetic theory have the apparent advantage that they map the observed
signal onto physical properties of the scene, such as dielectric constant, geomet-
rical factors (e.g., size, height, and roughness), and polarizability. In doing so,
they provide a link between observations and measurable quantities on the
ground. (This is often very difficult to turn into practice because of the problem
of providing measurements that are truly representative of the scattering me-
dium.) However, implicit in their use is another layer of information, which is
that of image structure. Typically, both the Forward and Inverse Problems
require some a priori knowledge before they can be invoked. The prime require-
ment is that the region to which they are being applied is homogeneous in some
sense—it is a single target type. In all practical applications at present much
stronger knowledge is needed, such as knowledge that the region is woodland
or ocean or ice.
A central theme of this book is that this type of a priori knowledge can in
many cases be inferred from the image itself. This then provides the framework
within which physical understanding can be brought into full play. Far more
than this, however, image structure provides our first, immediate response when
confronted with an image, and we can infer many aspects of the scene without
any recourse to physics. Few of us would have problems recognizing Figure 4.1
as a rural scene containing fields and field boundaries, roads, and woodland. In
some sense we have a high-level understanding of the scene due solely to visual
impressions and prior experience of related map representations and aerial
photography. Mapping, change detection, target detection, and object recogni-
tion are essentially concerned with image understanding (although physical
understanding clearly has something to say about the conditions under which
these operations may be carried out successfully). Object classification provides
scope for stronger interplay of physics with image properties, both in terms of
how to classify and the generalizability of any adopted methods. Ultimately,
Figure 4.1 High-resolution airborne DRA X-band image of a rural area. (British Crown Copy-
right, 1997/DERA.)
 image understanding is rooted in experience and empiricism, both as regards
our broad understanding of how the world is and in experimental findings that
guide our perceptions of what aspects of the image should be examined. As an
illustration, most people not used to radar images would not immediately
recognize the region at the lower left of the image in Figure 4.1 as an urban area,
but this sort of skill is quickly learned.
At this highest level of image information, our understanding of processes
is rudimentary. What we do know is that the brain attaches high information
content to vertices, linear structures, and edges [8] and "fills in" areas to
characterize the image by regions (segments). The eye/brain system is very
sensitive to texture and can segment images by texture alone [9,10]. It is also
very flexible in its choice of scale, characterizing whole regions as a single type
(e.g., woodland), while capable of seeking structure within a type. In this it is
greatly aided by context; human beings often know what to expect and can use
this information to recognize and classify features (e.g., towns have roads asso-
ciated with them). Current attempts to encapsulate the processing power of the
human visual system have been successful only in fairly constrained circum-
stances and are out of the scope of this book.
Between the electromagnetic scattering view of the world and the high-
level perceptions of human cognition lies the substance of this book. The
links to the former are inescapable: the image is formed by a coherent elec-
tromagnetic scattering process, of which at least one manifestation, whatever
the model, is interference between scatterers. Interference and its image mani-
festation as speckle constitutes a central issue in SAR image understanding
and analysis. The links to the latter are equally inescapable. In many instances
a prime consideration in assessing the performance of a technique is whether
it fails to recognize or preserve an image property obvious to the eye. (Do
small targets disappear? Has a thin line been lost? Is a segment fragmented
into many pieces?)
However, these links are not boundary conditions. Visual methods rapidly
run into trouble when multidimensional data are available; indeed, the whole
question of how to visualize the data then becomes a key issue. For small target
detection, machine methods are often superior to those of a human observer.
Assessment of whether a technique preserves image radiometry requires careful
measurement, which is often more sensitive than the capabilities of the eye.
Equally, establishing a proper theoretical bridge between imaging, texture, and
scattering theory is a matter of concern to us, since this provides the fundamen-
tal understanding about the scene property or properties about which we are
gaining information when we measure image texture.
A primary concern in succeeding chapters is measurement, approached
through a series of data models that are essentially statistical in nature. This
reinforces the central place of our subject matter. Physical theory without an
associated theory of measurement is not physical at all [H]; capturing visual
perception in measurements, if possible, opens the way to quantitative image
understanding. The data models are in most cases dependent on a small number
of parameters, which provides several major advantages, as long as they are
consistent with the data:

• All the available information is represented by those few parameters.

• It is possible to develop soundly based estimation procedures and
quantify the accuracy with which the parameters can be extracted.
• There is a rigorous basis on which to develop image analysis techniques,
such as filtering, classification, and target detection.

A fourth advantage to this approach is that it strengthens and expands the

links to physical models. If the data are described by a few parameters, that
circumscribes what needs to be explained physically; it is the task of physics to
provide a meaning for the parameters. As we shall see, this task is currently
incomplete.
Our approach to data models is systematic and progressive (Figure 4.2).
Starting from image properties we derive physically based and/or pheno-
menological descriptions of the data that provide our data model. We examine
the types of image feature to which this model is applicable; this normally varies

Image
Data
Image interpretation Information Applications
feature
techniques

Data World
model model

Physical or
phenomenological
description

Figure 4.2 Flow chart showing the interrelation of measurements, data models, and informa-
tion.
 with sensor characteristics, resolution being particularly important. In combi-
nation with a "world model" embodying general types of knowledge about the
scene (e.g., that an agricultural area is likely to contain fields of a single crop),
the data model is exploited to formulate image interpretation techniques that
are optimal in some sense. These provide a modified image in which the
"information" is more clearly portrayed than in the original image. An impor-
tant issue here is one of scale. When the interpretation techniques are local, we
are concerned with the reconstruction of some underlying image property
(parameter); this is essentially image filtering of some form. When the data
model imposes a large-scale description, we are more concerned with image
structuring. These two scales are not clearly distinct and there is continual
interplay between local and global scales in several of the algorithms. However,
whichever scale is chosen, the final determinant of information is in the context
of an application: what properties of the world become detectable or measurable
as a result of the interpretation technique?
While exploiting each model to its limit, we identify where those limits
are and develop the models to encompass progressively more demanding data
properties. Each such development is then again worked through to its limit.
Initially we focus our attention on single-frequency, single-polarization systems
for the sake of simplicity and to bring out some of the main issues as clearly as
possible. Later chapters are more concerned with methods applicable to mul-
tichannel systems. Large amounts of the single-channel theory and approach can
be successfully cast into a multidimensional framework, but new insights and
problems arise, many of which still await a complete solution.
Although we described measurement as a central issue, this needs some
interpretation, dependent on our application. For small target detection in
single-channel data, image calibration is often unnecessary because we are not
concerned with precise measurements of RCS or backscattering coefficient, only
the contrast between the target and its background. Even slow drifts in radiome-
try within the image are often of no importance in this context. Similar consid-
erations apply if our concern is structural mapping. For small target recognition,
especially if multiple channels are to be combined, calibration becomes a far
more pressing concern, although relative calibration may be more important
than absolute calibration. When our application deals with distributed targets,
accurate radiometry is nearly always an issue, with ensuing demands on system
accuracy and post-processing. A major exception, whose importance becomes
clear in Chapter 8, is when the predominant information is carried not by the
single-channel mean backscattering coefficient but by image texture. This image
property is independent of the mean and hence of radiometric calibration,
unless the radiometric distortions occur on scales comparable with the scale
lengths of textured regions.
 The notion of information and its relation to measurement also needs
some qualification. Particularly at large scales, we begin to encounter difficulties
in consistency between an exploitable data model and human world knowledge.
From Figure 4.1, it is clear that an observer will automatically classify whole
regions as single entities, labeled perhaps as fields or woodland, without being
concerned about local drifts in radiometry or features within a region (see, for
example, the large area of woodland above the center of the image). Other world
knowledge is also automatic to the observer, such as expecting field boundaries
to be approximately straight over reasonable distances. This large-scale view can
easily come into conflict with results generated by algorithms whose perspective
is much more local. As we will see, algorithms can provide image structure
(segmentation) that a human being may instantly perceive as too detailed (or
omitting important features). However, within the algorithm it will be guaran-
teed that the inferred structure is supported by measurement. The observer can
override measurement when it conflicts with the description thought to be
appropriate. The distinction between information described by measurement
and that derived from knowledge and application needs then becomes acute.
Much of the work described throughout this book attempts to identify this
distinction and lessen it where possible.

4.3 Single-Channel Image Types and Speckle

Figure 4.1, seen purely as an image, conveys information primarily through

structure. We immediately recognize shapes, objects, lines, and regions, some
of which are distinguished by their brightness, others by their textural qualities.
If we now transfer our attention to one of the larger regions (e.g., one of
the several fields in the image), we observe that individual pixels show con-
siderable variability. Therefore, it is pertinent to ask what the source of this
variability is and whether an individual pixel in a distributed target can be
said to carry information.
Before answering these questions, however, we need to recognize that the
image in Figure 4.1 involves a choice of how the measurements made by the
SAR should be displayed. We have already seen in Chapter 2 that the primary
geophysical quantity determining the SAR data is the complex radar reflectivity
of the scene and that the SAR provides a measurement of this reflectivity. The
complex reflectivity has been defined for a point target in (2.23) and the notion
extended to distributed targets in Section 2.6. Qualitatively, this concept ex-
presses the fact that when an electromagnetic wave scatters from position (x, y)
on the Earth's surface, the physical properties of the terrain cause changes in
both the phase, §(x, y), and amplitude, A(x, y), of the wave. The SAR, in fact,
 measures the number pair (A cosc|), A sincf)) in the in-phase and quadrature
channels of the receiver, weighted by the SAR PSE This estimate of the local
reflectivity at each pixel can also be represented by the complex number A№\ in
this form, the SAR data are known as the complex image.
From the complex image a variety of other products can be formed—for
example, images of the real part A cos 4> (the in-phase component), the imagi-
nary part A sin 4> (the quadrature component), the amplitude A, the phase c(), the
intensity / = A2, or the log intensity log /. The use of the word "intensity" is by
analogy with measurements at optical wavelengths and is synonymous with
power or energy. The log image is also sometimes referred to as the "dB" image,
since for calibrated data each pixel corresponds to a linearly scaled estimate of the
backscattering coefficient o~°, in dBs. The scaling will be unity only when the log
image is formed by taking 10 log 10 of each pixel in the calibrated intensity image.
For a properly calibrated system, these are all true measurements of the
scattering properties of the Earths surface (except for those effects caused by
system noise), but visually they produce quite different representations, as
illustrated in Figure 4.3. Typically, the real and imaginary images show some
structure but appear extremely noisy, the phase image is noiselike and shows no
structure, while the amplitude, intensity, and log images, though noisy, are
clearly easier to interpret. Of these latter three image types, the amplitude and
log images are often preferred since the large dynamic range of the intensity
image can reduce the perception of detail.
The noiselike quality characteristic of these types of images (and of those
produced by other coherent imaging systems using lasers, sonar, or ultrasound)
is known as speckle. (It must be stressed that speckle is noiselike, but it is not
noise; it is a real electromagnetic measurement, which is exploited, for example,
in SAR interferometry.) Given that the SAR is making true measurements of the
Earths scattering properties, why do such effects arise? A simple model of how
the world might appear to the radar suggests an answer. In distributed targets
we can think of each resolution cell as containing a number of discrete scatterers
(Figure 4.4). As the wave interacts with the target, each scatterer contributes a
backscattered wave with a phase and amplitude change, so the total returned
modulation of the incident wave is

TV
%
Ae* = X V (4- 1 )
k=\

This summation is over the number of scatterers illuminated by the beam;

it includes the weighting imposed by the SAR PSF and any attenuation effects
caused by the scattering and propagation processes. The individual scattering
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 4.3 Different representations of the complex SAR image of a rural scene using ERS-I
SLC imagery (Copyright ESA, 1992): (a) in-phase (real) component, (b) quadrature
(imaginary) component, (c) phase, (d) amplitude, (e) intensity, and (f) log intensity.
Note the geometric distortion as in Figure 2.3(a).
 Transmit/Receive
Antenna

Figure 4.4 Schematic representation of a distributed scatterer as a layer of discrete point

scatterers.

amplitudes Ak and phases §k are unobservable because the individual scatterers

are on much smaller scales than the resolution of the SAR, and there are
normally many such scatterers per resolution cell. This model has already been
introduced in terms of small scattering facets in Section 2.6 and can also be
considered in terms of elementary scattering volumes [12].
This simple discrete scatterer model is capable of much elaboration, form-
ing the basis of the Neumann series expansion and approaches springing from
it, such as the Born and distorted Born approximations [13-15]. These provide
a means of relating the observations to the physical properties of the scattering
layer, such as the dielectric constant, shape, and orientation of the scatterers. We
do not exploit these possibilities here but simply note that they can all be
embodied in the formulation given as (4.1).
An immediate conclusion from (4.1) is that the observed signal will be
affected by interference effects as a consequence of the phase differences be-
tween scatterers. In fact, speckle can be understood as an interference phe-
nomenon in which the principal source of the noiselike quality of the observed
data is the distribution of the phase terms $k. To infer this distribution, note
that the slant range resolution is typically many wavelengths across. Hence
scatterers at different parts of the resolution cell will contribute very different
phases to the return (4.1) even if their scattering behavior is identical. As a
result, we can in practice think of the phase $k as being uniformly distributed
in [—7T,TT] and independent of the amplitude Ak. The sum (4.1) then looks
like a random walk in the complex plane, where each step of length Ak is
in a completely random direction. This problem has been thoroughly treated
in [16] (see also Appendix HA). For large numbers of statistically identical
scatterers, the analysis reveals that:
1. The observed in-phase and quadrature components, Z1 = A cos c() and
Z2 — A sin 4>, will be independent identically distributed Gaussian
random variables with mean zero and whose variance a/2 is deter-
mined by the scattering amplitudes Ah that is, they will have a joint
probability density function (PDF) given by

W*i'*2> = — e x p f - ^ ^ ^ l (4.2)
1 2
TTCT v o- J

2. The observed phase ()) will be uniformly distributed over [—TT,IT].

3. The amplitude A will have a Rayleigh distribution

PA(A) = —**$(-^] A>0 (4.3)

with m e a n value a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n J l - — o~. A n o t h e r

2 VV 4)
commonly used statistic is the coefficient of variation (CV) defined as
the standard deviation divided by the mean. Hence, for amplitude
data this takes the value ^/4/TT — 1 .
4. The observed intensity or power I=A2 will have a negative exponen-
tial distribution

P1(I) = ± a p ( - ± - ) / > 0 (4.4)

(J V (JJ

with mean value and standard deviation both equal to (J, so that in
this case CV = 1.
5. The log intensity Z) = In /has a Fischer—Tippett distribution [17]

PD(D)=e—^[-e—\ (45)
a V a J

whose mean value and variance are In a — 7 E and IT2/6, respectively. The
symbol 7 E denotes Euler s constant whose approximate value is 0.57722
[18]. This distribution is easily converted to that for a properly normal-
ized dB image, since we can set Dn = 10log 10 / = (10log10 e)D and
 hence PD (Dn) = — Pn(Dn/K) where K= 10 log 10 * Notice that for

the log intensity data, the variance is independent o£ the mean value, un-
like the distributions (4.2) to (4.4). Hence, log data is often preferred as
a means of standardizing or stabilizing the variance, which is a common
first step in statistical analysis [19].

The distributions 1 to 5 are of fundamental importance in handling SAR

data. Notice that, with the exception of the phase distribution, they are com-
pletely characterized by a single parameter a, which carries all the available
information about the target. From (4.4) we can see that o~ corresponds to the
average intensity.
These distributions apply to each speckled pixel in the scene. Hence, a
comparison of theory with observations would require many realizations of
the scene, each with an independent speckle pattern. Since these are rarely
available, and often we have just single images, we are instead obliged to test
the theory by examining distributed targets assumed to have constant backscat-
tering coefficient. Only very seldom do we have enough a priori knowledge
to assert with confidence the uniformity of a target. Nonetheless, many studies
support the consistency of this speckle model with observed data [20,21]. To
illustrate this, Figure 4.5 shows histograms of the observed values from an
agricultural field, corresponding to the distributions described in 1 to 5. These
measurements are derived from ERS-I SLC imagery. The theoretical curve is
shown as the solid line in each case, and the fit with theory is obviously very
good.
It is now clear why the different representations of the data shown in
Figure 4.3 convey different amounts of information about distributed targets in
the scene. Phase supplies nothing because its distribution is target independent.
The real and imaginary channels supply information but require the eye to
estimate the local standard deviation to detect differences between regions.
Twice as many samples are needed to estimate the standard deviation with the
same standard error as the mean (in a normal distribution) [22]; the eye may
also be better at seeing mean differences rather than changes in standard devia-
tion. The amplitude data carries the information in its mean value, though
noisily because the Rayleigh distribution is quite wide. The intensity data has a
wider dynamic range than the amplitude data and appears noisier than ampli-
tude because the coefficient of variation is higher for the exponential distribu-
tion than for the Rayleigh distribution; for amplitude data it is 0.52, while for
intensity data it is 1. The log data also has a reduced dynamic range compared
with the intensity. In this image the eye is clearly reacting to mean value
differences because the log operation standardizes the variance.
 Frequency
Frequency

Real component Imaginary component

(a) (b)
Frequency

Phase Amplitude

(C) (d)
Frequency

Frequency

Intensity Log intensity

(e) (f)

Figure 4.5 Comparison of theoretical distributions (solid curves) with observations (histo-
grams) for a visually homogeneous area from ERS-I SLC imagery: (a) in-phase
component, (b) quadrature component, (c) phase, (d) amplitude, (e) intensity, and
(f) natural log.
 The implications of this speckle model are important. If our interest is in
single images of distributed targets and, hence, phase provides no information,
we can get rid of it and use only amplitude, log, or intensity data. Hence the
initial chapters in this book are concerned almost exclusively with image data
for which phase has been discarded. Phase becomes important when we turn to
polarimetric and interferometric data in Chapter 11. For such data, pairs of
phase images, each having a uniform distribution, can nonetheless carry infor-
mation in their phase difference (see also Section 4.12 and Figures 4.9 and
4.10). In Chapter 10 we also demonstrate that phase information is critical
when we wish to carry out high-performance imaging of deterministic (man-
made) targets.
The observation that many distributed targets obey the simple speckle
model allows us to provide a partial answer to our question about whether an
image pixel carries information. Considered in isolation, each pixel supplies a
real measurement of backscattered power or amplitude. When the pixel is made
up of many elementary scatterers, the observed power is an estimate of an
underlying RCS whose true value is being masked by interference effects. If the
pixel is part of a uniform distributed target, the information per pixel is low
since the collection of pixels in the target can supply only one useful number,
a. All that greater numbers of pixels do is to reduce the estimation error in a
when averaging pixels. For nonuniform but textured targets, this conclusion
needs only slight modification; more parameters than the mean may be needed
to characterize the region, but typically their number will be few (see Chapter
5). The information content of a pixel only becomes high when a pixel is not
speckled (e.g., a single bright point scatterer) or the distributed target is made
up of objects of large enough size and sufficient contrast to be resolved. A
noteworthy example of the latter is when high-resolution images of urban areas
are acquired.
The interpretation of the parameter a in (4.2) to (4.5) needs a number
of comments. First of all, we saw in Chapter 2 that the geophysical quantity
corresponding to an intensity measurement by the SAR is an RCS (or) for
point targets or average backscattering coefficient (<r°) for distributed targets.
Working in terms of a or a° in standardized units means that measurements
from different sensors (which may have different resolutions, transmitted pow-
ers, and processing gains, for example) can be directly compared. Since we
are here dealing with distributed targets, cr° is the relevant quantity. As dis-
cussed in Section 2.7, converting measured powers to <r° values requires careful
calibration and characterization of the system, and the supplied data may
need some form of preprocessing to derive <r°. However, for the purposes of
mapping, target detection, and texture measurement (see Chapter 8), calibra-
tion may not be necessary as long as radiometric distortions are changing
slowly relative to the features of interest in the scene. There are numerous
examples, particularly of airborne missions, where the calibration has been
dubious, but meaningful information has been extracted from the data
[23,24]. The intensity value at each pixel of a distributed target should there-
fore be regarded as a scaled estimate of a° or, if the area correction has not
been made, to the mean RCS of each pixel. With this proviso and to avoid
convoluted descriptions, we will often use the terms "RCS" or "cross section"
to refer to the mean intensity even when the data have not been properly
calibrated. This viewpoint is adequate for most of the early chapters in this
book, but a more careful approach relating observed intensity to underlying
a° is given in Section 4.5.
A second important point is that we need to distinguish the measured
value at a pixel and the parameter value o~. Figure 4.4 and (4.1) both indicate
that the observed value at each pixel is the resultant of interfering Huygens
wavelets unless a single scatterer completely dominates the return. Hence the
value of a is specific to each pixel; the measured value is just a sample from the
distribution parameterized by a. To make this clearer, note that the mean
intensity at a pixel is given from (4.1) by

(I) = (A2) = tt(AJAke^r^)

j=ik=i

Assuming that the amplitude and phase of each scatterer are independent of
each other and that the phases of different scatterers are independent and
uniformly distributed we have

(Z) = I ( A 2 ) (4-6)
k=l

Hence, the mean intensity is determined by the incoherent sum of the

mean intensity of all the scatterers and is independent of their geometrical
configuration (assuming their orientations are unchanged). However, changes
in the positions of the scatterers will change all the phase relationships, in the
process altering the observed intensity, but without altering the parameter a. In
this sense, the observedintensity at a pixel is deterministic and repeatable but for
the purpose of measurement is best considered as random and as an estimate of
a. This is a crucial distinction underlying most of the later parts of this book
and all work on SAR filtering and reconstruction.
4.4 Estimating the RCS: Multilook Data

Since a is the information-bearing parameter, it is pertinent to ask how best to

estimate it for a given pixel. An elementary calculation using (4.2) shows that,
given the in-phase and quadrature components (^1, Z2), the maximum likelihood
estimate (MLE) of a is given by

a = z\ + z\ = / (4.7)

that is, the observed intensity. Since the distributions (4.3) to (4.5) are all
transformations of the number pair (zx, Z2), they will all lead to the same
estimate [25]. Hence, in the absence of any further knowledge or assumptions,
the best estimate of a at every pixel is to form the intensity image.
Improved estimates of a at a pixel can be gained by combining measure-
ments at that position. Since a is the mean power, this suggests that the correct
approach, given Z independent measurements, is to average the measurements
in intensity (often called incoherent averaging because all phase information is
discarded). From (4A), this will preserve the mean value cr while reducing the
variance of the measurements by a factor Z to become a/Z. Indeed, it is easy to
show that this provides the maximum likelihood estimator of a given Z inde-
pendent exponentially distributed measurements each with the same mean value
a (see Chapter 6). Other methods (e.g., averaging in amplitude or in log
intensity) provide inferior estimates of a. Note also that averaging the complex
data is of no value, since averaging Z independent complex samples, each of
which is zero-mean Gaussian with variance a/2 in the / and Q channels, leads
to a zero-mean Gaussian variable with variance a/(2Z) in each channel. Thus
there is no speckle reduction and the information-bearing parameter has been
scaled by the factor 1IL.
Independent measurements can be provided by splitting the synthetic
aperture Doppler bandwidth, as described in Section 2.5. The separate images
are referred to as looks, so that this process of averaging in intensity is known
as multilooking, and the resultant image is known as Z-look. The underlying
premise of multilooking is that each look should be estimating the same RCS,
so it is important that the looks should be at the same position, nearly simul-
taneous, and without relative radiometric distortion. They also need to be at
the same frequency and polarization configuration. Nonetheless, marked dif-
ferences between looks can occur because of the slightly different viewing angle
used by each look. For example, the mean RCS over extended regions defined
by field boundaries showed differences exceeding 20 dB between looks in
P-band (68 cm) data produced by the NASA/JPL AirSAR system [26]. In this
 case, the angular separation between looks was about 1 degree. Smaller differ-
ences occurred at L-band (24 cm), and differences were not significant at
C-band [26].
A second approach to improving estimates of a at a given position relies
on making assumptions about the spatial properties of a. Perhaps the simplest
such assumption is that the RCS is constant over some neighborhood surround-
ing the pixel of interest. In this case, given L independent pixel values, the
situation is statistically identical to that previously described, where inde-
pendent looks at the same point are formed in the processor. Hence, again the
measurements should be combined by averaging in intensity. Both cases are
therefore referred to as multilooking, but they suppress different types of infor-
mation in order to improve radiometric accuracy. In the first case, angular
variation in RCS is neglected; while in the second, spatial variation is lost. Both
provide equally accurate estimates of a over a uniform target, but in heteroge-
neous regions the two methods may provide different estimates of the mean
RCS at a given position due to the differing widths of the PSE The use of pixel
averaging clearly requires larger data volumes to be supplied but has the advan-
tage that the averaging window can be adapted to adjust to heterogeneity in the
scene. This is exploited in the filtering and segmentation procedures discussed
in Chapters 6 and 7.
Note that in both cases the resolution will have been degraded. In the
first case this is because each look uses only a fraction \lL of the available
bandwidth, so the resolution degrades by a factor L (see Section 2.5). The
second case is more complicated, since the averaging acts as a low-pass filter;
the value assigned to the resolution after the filtering depends on the precise
definition of the resolution being used. Both cases become complicated when
the looks are not independent, such as will occur if the looks are formed with
overlapping Doppler bandwidths in the frequency domain or if pixels are
correlated in the spatial domain [27]. This is far more likely in spatial averag-
ing, since here sampling conditions or interpolation will often ensure that
significant interpixel correlation occurs. We ignore this complication for the
moment, but see Section 4.4.
A fortunate circumstance is that not only is averaging in intensity the
correct way to carry out multilooking for preservation of the information-
bearing parameter, but the resulting measurement has a well-known analytic
PDF (unlike averaging in amplitude or dB, for example). The Z-look average
intensity

I = \th (4-8)
where the Ik are independent variables each exponentially distributed with mean
o~ is known to obey a gamma distribution with order parameter L [16]

PAI) = —J— (-] IL-'e-LI/° / >0 (4.9)

7
T(L)WJ

(Note that we often denote the average given in (4.8) by / ; the overbar is
omitted here for notational simplicity.) The average intensity has moments

r<£) U J
with special cases (/) = a and var(/) = a2/L. The latter relation motivates the
definition of the equivalent number of looks (ENL) as

£NL = Onean)i (4n)

variance

where the averages are carried out in intensity over a uniformly distributed
target. The ENL is equivalent to the number of independent intensity values
averaged per pixel. It is often applied not just to describe the original data but
also to characterize the smoothing effects of post-processing operations such as
image filtering. Even for the original data it may be noninteger if the looks being
averaged are correlated.
When resolution is not considered critical, data are often supplied in
multilook form because of the ensuing reduction in data volume. For display
purposes, it may also be preferable to use the square root of multilook intensity,
A = v / , since this has reduced dynamic range. The data then have what is
known as a square root gamma distribution, which is readily derived from (4.9)
using the change of variable relation

P^A) = IAP1(A2)

This yields

PA(A) =-1-(-^ A2L-le-LA2/° A>0 (4.12)

For example, the ERS PRI data are supplied in this form, with L = 3. This
distribution has moments

Note that putting m — 2k in (4.13) yields the £th moment of intensity

(4.10) and that putting L = 1 in (4.9) and (4.12) produces the exponential and
Rayleigh distributions with the appropriate moments as derived for (4.3) and
(4.4). Comparisons of the distributions (4.9) and (4.12) with ERS PRI data are
given in Figure 4.6, where the original amplitude image is shown as (b) while
its square is shown as (a). Theoretical curves of the three-look gamma and square
root gamma distributions are displayed in (c) and (d), respectively, as solid
curves superimposed on histograms of measured values. There is obviously a
good fit of data to theory.

4.5 The Multiplicative Noise Model for Speckle

The discrete scatterer model for distributed targets implies that all the informa-
tion at each pixel in single-channel data is carried by the mean incoherent power,
a, appropriate to its particular set of scatterers. The observed intensity at each
pixel then has the conditional probability

P1(I](T) = ^e-1'* / > 0 (4.14)

a

Making the change of variable

I = vn (4.15)

leads to the PDF

PnM = e~n n>0 (4.16)

Hence, the observed intensity at each point can be regarded as a deterministic

RCS value multiplied by unit mean exponentially distributed speckle. (The
choice of the symbol n for speckle in this section is for consistency with the
notation used in much of the literature and to reflect its noiselike properties, as
discussed below. It must not be confused with true system noise, for which we
 (a) (b)
Frequency

Frequency

(C) (d)

Figure 4.6 ERS PRI image displayed in (a) intensity and (b) amplitude. (Copyright ESA, 1992.)
(c) Comparison of three-look gamma distribution with histogram of squared PRI
data from an agricultural field, (d) Corresponding comparison of original PRI data
with square root gamma distribution with L = 3.

also use the symbol n in Chapter 2 and Section 4.6.) Equivalently, the complex
reflectivity at each pixel can be written as

S = S1 + IS2 = Va (mx + Im1) (4.17)

where the (voltage) speckle contribution m — mx + Im1 has PDF

 P
mx mMv™2) = -exP(~K " rn\) (4.18)

that is, the in-phase and quadrature speckle components are independent zero-
mean Gaussian random variables each with variance 1/2. Notice that we have not
included a deterministic phase term in the formulation of the complex reflectivity
because it would be completely randomized by the uniform phase of the speckle
term. (For coherent image pairs, where phase differences are information bearing,
this model is inadequate; see Chapter 11.) Again, we see that the observed signal
can be regarded as the product of an underlying RCS term and a speckle term.
Similarly, for Z-look data, the decomposition (4.15) is possible, where n is now a
unit mean gamma distributed variable with order parameter L.
This formulation of the SAR image as a deterministic RCS modulating a
random stationary speckle process has led to the description of speckle as
multiplicative noise, even though it is a repeatable interference phenomenon.
We will see in Chapter 11 that, when dealing with multidimensional SAR data,
the meaning of speckle becomes much less obvious, and its treatment as station-
ary signal-independent noise does not seem viable. In this sense, we regard
speckle as a term most useful in the context of single-channel SAR data.
Although the RCS underlying the observed values is essentially determi-
nistic, its magnitude is unknown and normally is most usefully described by a
probabilistic model. Given a set of TV pixels, we therefore need to consider the
joint distribution of the RCS (T = ((T1, . . . , a ^) and the speckle values n = (nv
. . . , n^). If we assume the speckle values are independent of each other and of
RCS, we can write

k=l

The corresponding intensity values / = (I1, . . . , /^) are given by Ik = &knk' A

change of variables yields the joint distribution of intensity and speckle as

PfJI,n) = PMni,...,IN/nN)f[^!hl
*=i nk

Integrating out the speckle terms yields the joint PDF of intensity as

P1(I) = JPMn1,...,IN/nN)f[Z^- dn (4.20)

k=\ nk
Next Page

Hence, we can, in principle, find the joint distribution of intensity correspond-

ing to any joint distribution of RCS; examples of bivariate distributions are
given in Chapter 5.
It is clear from (4.19) that, in general, the intensity values are not inde-
pendent, but clearly will be so if the a i are. A special case of this occurs when
the a- are all constant, with the same value (J, so that

Pa(a) = f[^-ak)

Then

P1(D = U-e~Ik/(T (421)

This speckle model for uniform targets underlies much of the existing work on
SAR image analysis and is used extensively in later parts of this book (e.g., in
the "cartoon" model for SAR segmentation in Chapter 7).

4.6 Estimating the RCS—The Effects of Imaging and Noise

The analysis in Sections 4.3 to 4.5 was in terms of the given data and ignored
how the imaging process affects the information carried by the data. Essentially
there are three imaging effects that must be taken into account when trying to
recover the backscattering coefficient cr°, namely: (1) a scaling of <r° due to
propagation, antenna pattern, and processing effects; (2) a bias in a ° due to
system noise; and (3) spatial correlation induced by the processing. To see this,
we start from the linear imaging equation (2.34) that relates the observed
voltage, %(x), to the complex reflectivity, S(x), by

%(x) = (C(X0)S(X^k(X) + n(x))*l(x)

= C(R0) S(x)* ha(x) + n(x)* l(x) (4.22)

where the terms in the equation are as defined in Chapter 2. (Particular note
must be taken, however, of the symbol R0 for range, in order to avoid confusion
with the ACF notation used below.)
For distributed targets, the rapid spatial variation of phase in S(x) causes
the complex reflectivity to have the same characteristics as white zero-mean
Previous Page

Hence, we can, in principle, find the joint distribution of intensity correspond-

ing to any joint distribution of RCS; examples of bivariate distributions are
given in Chapter 5.
It is clear from (4.19) that, in general, the intensity values are not inde-
pendent, but clearly will be so if the a i are. A special case of this occurs when
the a- are all constant, with the same value (J, so that

Pa(a) = f[^-ak)

Then

P1(D = U-e~Ik/(T (421)

This speckle model for uniform targets underlies much of the existing work on
SAR image analysis and is used extensively in later parts of this book (e.g., in
the "cartoon" model for SAR segmentation in Chapter 7).

4.6 Estimating the RCS—The Effects of Imaging and Noise

The analysis in Sections 4.3 to 4.5 was in terms of the given data and ignored
how the imaging process affects the information carried by the data. Essentially
there are three imaging effects that must be taken into account when trying to
recover the backscattering coefficient cr°, namely: (1) a scaling of <r° due to
propagation, antenna pattern, and processing effects; (2) a bias in a ° due to
system noise; and (3) spatial correlation induced by the processing. To see this,
we start from the linear imaging equation (2.34) that relates the observed
voltage, %(x), to the complex reflectivity, S(x), by

%(x) = (C(X0)S(X^k(X) + n(x))*l(x)

= C(R0) S(x)* ha(x) + n(x)* l(x) (4.22)

where the terms in the equation are as defined in Chapter 2. (Particular note
must be taken, however, of the symbol R0 for range, in order to avoid confusion
with the ACF notation used below.)
For distributed targets, the rapid spatial variation of phase in S(x) causes
the complex reflectivity to have the same characteristics as white zero-mean
Gaussian noise. Hence, %(x) is also zero-mean and Gaussian. In this case, the
most useful statistical descriptor of % (x) is its spatial ACE Assuming S(x) and
n(x) are wide-sense stationary, so also will be % (x); its ACF is then defined as

R%{x) = {%(x + y)V(y)) (4.23)

with ^ ) denoting an expectation over the joint distribution oi%(x + y) and

^(j/). Since %{x) has mean zero, its variance or mean power is given by R%(0).
Similar definitions apply to S{x) and n{x). Well-known results from linear
system theory [28—30] applied to (4.22) allow us to write

R%{x) = (\C\2Rs(x)*Rk(x) + Rn(x))* Rt(x) (4.24)

where we have assumed that noise and signal are independent. The range
dependence of C is not explicitly shown to avoid any confusion with the ACF
notation. The deterministic ACF of k(x) is denoted R^(x) and is defined by

Rk(x) = [j(x + y)k'(y)dy (4.25)

with a similar definition for R[(x). Rk(0) = I \k(y)\ dy is known as the energy
in k(x).
Since S(x) and n(x) are both white, we can write

Rs{x) = a°8(x) (4.26)

and

Rn(x) = Nb(x) (4.27)

where Af is the mean noise power. Hence,

R%{x) = ICf(J0R^xTR1M + NR1(X) = \C\2v°Rh^x) + NR1M (4.28)

This is the fundamental equation describing the imaging of uniformly

distributed targets. A number of important consequences follow from it:

1. The mean power in the processed signal has the value

 /Z8(O) = \C\2a°RK (0) + NR1(O) (4.29)

Hence to estimate cr° from the observed power requires knowledge of

the energies in the various filters, the mean noise power, and the range
dependent term C.
2. When the noise is negligible, the correlation properties of %(x) are
determined completely by the SAR PSE
3. Equation (4.28) takes on a particularly simple form in the ideal case,
for which l(x) ^k\~x) and

*,(*) = ^f, sine ( ^ j

(See discussion following (2.14); also (2.16) and Table 2.2.) Under
these conditions Ri(x) = A smc(2xl d), where A is a constant, and

\(x) = Rk{x)*Rt{x) = A^sInJ ^) (4.30)

where the substitution \\fa = Wda was used. Hence, the ACF of the
returned signal is

R%(x) = f | C | V ^ + N)R1(X) (4.31)

and the signal and noise components in the complex image have
identical statistical properties; the only difference is the power in the
two contributions. Signal and noise are therefore inseparable at the
pixel level.
4. Since the data are in fact sampled, of most interest are the correlations
at multiples of the pixel spacing, x0. The complex (field) correlation
coefficient at lag k in the azimuth direction is defined by

+
p W J ^ W > (4 32)
p lJ
- m*y\)
where we used the fact that % (x) is mean-zero and assumed stationarity.
 In the ideal case, with sample spacing dj2 (Nyquist sampling), the cor-
relation coefficient would be given by (see (4.30))

pa [k] = sine {k) = — =< , (4.33)

K u
irk \y ^

so no correlation would be observed between pixels in a uniformly

distributed scatterer. In more realistic cases, the data will be oversam-
pled and pixels will be correlated. Measured values of the ERS-I
azimuth correlation coefficients are shown in Figure 4.7. These plots
should be compared with the corresponding range correlation coeffi-
cients shown as Figure 2.4. Note that values are only available at the
pixel lags (indicated by the squares) and the full curves are based on
interpolation. Note also that the correlation coefficients shown are for
the intensity data, defined by / = \%\ . The correlation coefficients of
complex and intensity data are related by the Siegert relationship [31]

^ . ^ - , . W f ,4.34)
var(7)

where var(7) = {I2} - (I)2.

It needs to be stressed that throughout this section we have been dealing

with uniformly distributed targets. The effects of fluctuations in the underlying
RCS will be considered in Chapter 5.

4.7 Consequences of the Imaging Model for SAR

Measurements

Expressions (4.22) and (4.29) are fundamental in quantifying the ability to

detect small targets against a distributed background and system noise and in
assessing the effects of system noise on measurements of cr°. We can see from
(4.29) that in the latter case, noise introduces a bias into the measurement. The
level of this bias is often parameterized by the clutter-to-noise ratio (CNR), given
by the ratio of the distributed target and noise terms in (4.29):

\C\2<J°R, (0)
CNR = — ^— (4.35)
NR1(O)
 Corr. Coeff.
Corr. Coeff.

(a) (b)

Corr. Coeff.
Corr. Coeff.

(C) (d)

Figure 4.7 Intensity correlation coefficients calculated in the azimuth direction for ERS-1 data
from an agricultural area: (a) SLC, near range; (b) SLC, far range; and (c) PRI, near
range; and (d) PRI, far range.

In the ideal case (see 4.31)

CNR = H ^ L (436)
IN
The CNR varies widely in many SAR scenes because of variations in range and
in <r°. Since ICI is proportional to R0'2 (see (2.35)), the CNR can be signifi-
cantly worse at far range, particularly for airborne systems. Systems are normally
designed with sufficient transmitted power to prevent this from being a major
problem for most targets. However, regions of low a°, such as water bodies
under windless conditions, can often give noise-dominated responses especially
when they occur at far range.
The use of the word clutter to describe the power from a distributed target
is an indication that small target detection is hampered by this component of
the returned signal as well as by the system noise. The extent of this problem is
often described in terms of the square of the peak response from a point target
of RCS a compared to the powers from the clutter and noise background in
which it is embedded. In (4.22), a point target of RCS a and associated phase
i— i—
c|) is represented by S(x) = V a ^ 8(#), giving the response C\cre*bha(x). The
corresponding signal-to-clutter ratio (SCR) is therefore

S C R = * * (4.37)

where we have assumed that the peak response occurs at x = 0. In the ideal case,
this reduces to

SCR = -?--£• (4.38)

The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is given by

fl(0)
SNR = SCR X CNR = ^ ^ ' (4.39)
NR1(O)

reducing, in the ideal case, to

SNR = Ml^L (4.40)

Nda

The signal-to-clutter relations (4.37) and (4.38) display the critical fact
that detectability of targets in clutter is not affected by the distance from the
radar, which is in marked contrast to the behavior of, for example, normal
surveillance radars where the SCR is inversely proportional to range. However,
since C is inversely proportional to R02, the SNR falls off in proportion to R05.
Nonetheless, in most cases, clutter is the dominant factor affecting target detec-
tion and more general analysis of scene structure. Even in those instances where
noise dominates over clutter, the similarity of the properties of noise and clutter
(see consequence 3 of Section 4.6) allows a unified treatment of both cases.
Note that these expressions for CNR, SCR, and SNR have been developed
by an analogue treatment, but the data are sampled. This entails no modifica-
tion to the expressions but only to how they are calculated, in two ways.

1. The values Rh (0) and Rt (0) correspond to the energies of ha(x) and
l(x). For adequately sampled data with spacing X0, the energy of ha(x)
is given by

with a similar result for l(x).

2. The peak response ha(0) needed to calculate the SCR (4.37) and SNR
(4.39) will normally require interpolation between samples.

A direct digital analysis is given in [32].

4.8 The Effects of Spatial Correlation on Multilooking

As indicated by (4.28), spatial correlation is an intrinsic feature of the imaging

process, that must be taken into account when estimating parameters. As an
illustration, consider the estimation of the mean intensity of an M X TV block
of data from a uniformly distributed target with true mean value a. The normal
multilook estimate of a is the sample average / , given by

i M N

where the intensity at position (i, j) is denoted I1-. Hence, the expected value of
/ is a, but its variance depends on the spatial correlation of the pixels and is
given by
where pIa and pIr are the azimuth and range intensity correlation coefficients.
Note that the correlation coefficients may here include both system effects
and correlation induced by the underlying RCS. Hence the same expression
applies for textured data (see Chapter 5). If the pixels are independent, the
correlation coefficients are zero at all lags except lag 0, so (4.42) reduces to
the familiar result

var(7) = — ^ - var(/) (4.43)

MN

equivalent to MN independent looks.

If we use the values for ERS-I PRI data indicated by Figures 2.4 and 4.7,
the correlation coefficients are only significant at lag 1 in each direction, with

P1,a [1] ~ P/>r[l] ~ 0.5

in which case

W(/)~^(4-A-_2_+_n
MN K M N M N J

The effect of correlation is clearly dramatic. For M= N= 10 , the standard

error is inflated by a factor V3.61 (i.e., 1.9) compared to uncorrelated data. For
M and TV bigger than about 10, and in the case where only the first lag is
significant in each direction, we can write

var(7) ~ ^ l (1 + Ip1Jl] + 2p/>r[l] + 4PlJHp1Jl])

MN
Hence, the equivalent number of independent samples (or looks; see (4.11)) is

ENL = MV JJL
(1 + 2P7 J l ] + 2p /r [l] + 4 P / Jl]p / r [l]) var(7)

which takes the value 3 MN/4 for the three-look ERS-I data, when we use the
measured correlation coefficients noted previously. (Notice that this analysis
assumes a uniform target. If the RCS varies within the target, the spatial
correlation coefficients may be altered, as described in Chapter 5, with the effect
of increasing var(/) and reducing the ENL.)
Spatial correlation also implies that the multilook average (4.41) is no
longer the MLE of the mean intensity. In fact, it can be shown that the MLE
requires complex data and is given by

a - - i - H - ( V S S + ) = —— S 1 Tt 1 S
MN MN

where Rs is the correlation matrix of the TV complex samples S = (S 1 ,. . . , SMI^,

t denotes conjugate transpose, and tr denotes trace. (The data vector S can be
used to represent a two-dimensional data block using any desired ordering of
the data.) Hence, any estimate of a using only intensity data is suboptimal
except when the samples are uncorrelated, since Rs is then the identity matrix.
A final problem with spatial correlation is that most SAR image analysis tech-
niques are based on theory developed for uncorrelated data, and it would be
difficult to modify them to take account of the increased complexity of the joint
PDF when correlation is present. As a result, we next consider ways to deal with
data known to be correlated by the system.

4.9 Compensating for System-Induced Spatial Correlation

Equations (4.32) and (4.34) have shown that both the complex and intensity
data will normally be correlated due to the SAR processing. However, the
bandwidth of the data is doubled by the squaring operation needed to form
intensities. Hence, preserving the information requires that the spatial sampling
of the intensity data be twice that of the complex data. (Since the data are now
real, the memory requirement is the same.) For this reason, correctly sampled
intensity data always exhibit significant spatial correlation. Clearly p[k] or p£k]
are known if the PSF is known. (Since the same considerations apply to range
and azimuth, we have omitted the corresponding subscript on the correlation
coefficients.) However, uncertainties in the PSF often make it preferable to
measure p[k] from the data. Methods to do this are discussed in the next section;
here we are simply concerned with removing system-induced correlation. Possi-
ble approaches are described in the following subsections.

4.9.1 Subsampling
If the system-induced correlation becomes negligible beyond a certain lag k0, the
data can simply be subsampled at this spacing. This method clearly discards
information and degrades resolution but does not distort the single point PDF.
When used as a precursor to edge or segment detection it may be acceptable
since the objects of interest are large and the image structure found in this way
can be reimposed on the original data. However, single pixels may contain most
of the relevant information when small objects or detailed structure are of
interest, and this approach is then not suitable.

4.9.2 Pre-Averaging
Averaging blocks of nonoverlapping pixels reduces correlation at the expense of
resolution. For example, if the data are averaged in azimuth in blocks of TVto form

. /TV

1\ k=(i-l)N+l

then the correlation coefficient of neighboring values of J[i\ is given by

Z(I-WN)Pi[N-k]
X ( i - W / ^ ) P/W
\k\<N

For the ERS-I PRI values shown in Figure 4.7, taking N =" 2 would lead
to a correlation coefficient of 1/6, while with N = 3 this drops to a value of
1/10. Figure 4.8 shows measured azimuthal intensity correlation cofficients
Corr. Coeff.
Corr. Coeff.

Azimuth lag (SLC) Azimuth lag (SLCx5)

(a) (b)

Figure 4.8 Azimuthal intensity correlation coefficients for (a) ERS SLC data and (b) SLC data
that were first averaged in intensity in blocks of 5 pixels along azimuth.
based on (a) original ERS SLC data and (b) SLC data that have been averaged
in intensity in blocks of 5 pixels in azimuth [33] (see Figure 2.3). The reduced
correlation at lag 1 is obvious; the peak at lag 3 (corresponding to lag 15 in the
original data) is not significant.
Using this method of reducing correlation will clearly change the PDF of
the data. For example, the averaged data will have reduced variance (see (4.42)).
Exact expressions for the PDF of averages of correlated intensity data can be
derived using methods described in [16]. These require that the complex ACF
be available; this can be inferred from the ACF of the intensity data, using the
Siegert relationship (4.34), only when the complex ACF is known to be real and
positive. This approach to reducing correlation therefore leads to considerably
increased complication if rigorous analysis is to be applied to the averaged data.

4.9.3 Interpolation
For data sampled at or above the Nyquist rate, the original analogue signal can
be reconstructed from the samples and a new set of samples taken with spacing
chosen to remove correlation or reduce it to negligible levels. This is equivalent
to interpolating a new set of samples whose spacing exceeds that of the original
data. The classical method for carrying out this operation uses the Shan-
non-Whittaker sampling theorem and is based on interpolation using sine
functions. When the spacing of the new samples is related to the old spacing by
an integer multiple of 2~n (e.g., 3/2, 5/4, etc.), this operation can be carried out
efficiently using the fast Fourier transform (FFT). In this method, the data are
first interpolated onto a finer grid and then samples are discarded.
To illustrate this, assume that we wish to increase the sample spacing to
9/8 times the original, in one dimension only. A data sample of length M (which
must be a power of 2 for FFT methods) is Fourier transformed. The transformed
data vector is made eight times longer by appending 7Af zeros to it {zero-
padding), and the inverse transform of this lengthened data set is taken. This
yields data interpolated onto a grid eight times denser than the original. Finally
we discard eight out of every nine samples. Extending this approach to two
dimensions is straightforward, either directly by using two-dimensional FFTs or
by carrying out the interpolation first in one dimension, and then the other.
A full discussion of interpolation methods would be lengthy, involved, and
out of place in this text, but we note the following points:

• When the reduced sample spacing is not a multiple of 2~n, other

methods are required based on sine interpolation or other forms of
interpolation, such as cubic convolution [34]. This requires care if
information is not to be distorted [35].
 • The discussion here has made no distinction between complex and
intensity data because the principles are the same in both cases. How-
ever, we have already noted that the correlation of samples is expected
to be significantly greater for intensity data. Also, most of the image
analysis methods discussed in this book are applied to intensity data
(more generally, to second-order products of complex data in the con-
text of polarimetric data). An important distinction between interpola-
tion of complex and intensity data is that in the former case the single
point distribution is unaltered (assuming a simple condition on the
interpolation coefficients is satisfied) whereas in the latter case the
distribution and moments are normally changed [35].
• Resampling the intensity data to remove correlation inevitably leads to
loss of information, because this will give rise to sampling below the
Nyquist limit. However, this will be less, in general, than when we
simply discard samples.
• The complete removal of correlation requires an ACF with uniformly
spaced zeros and sampling at this spacing. Only for the ideal case with
rectangular weighted processing and a sine PSF is this condition satis-
fied because then the complex correlation coefficient is given by (see
(4.33))

P > ) = SinC
(f]

and zeros occur at spacing dal2. (For simplicity, we only describe the
azimuth direction.) More usually, this condition will be only approxi-
mately satisfied. Where the ACF varies across an image (as will always
occur, for example, in an image that has been resampled to ground
range, such as the ERS PRI product), only approximate methods are
available unless unequal spacing is adopted, with consequent adverse
geometric effects.

4.10 Estimating Spatial Correlation: Stationarity and

Spatial Averaging

The analysis in Section 4.6 assumed a wide-sense stationary [30] target in order
to define the spatial correlation induced by the system. Here we make a more
careful treatment that has considerable practical consequences for estimating
this correlation. In essence, the imaging equation (4.22) tells us that the complex
image, %(x), is zero-mean and Gaussian [28]; hence, its statistical properties are
entirely described if we know the two-point correlation function

R%(x,x') = {%{x)V{x')) = [jd(u))h(x - u)h\x' - u) du (4.44)

(Although written in one dimension, the discussion here is equally valid if x is

regarded as a two-dimensional variable. It is based on the noisefree version of
(4.22), from which we have omitted multiplicative factors since they have no
impact on the argument.) If d(x) is stationary (which in the context of a
deterministic RCS model implies that the target is uniform), then

R%{x,x') = {<j)Rh(x-x') (4.45)

The assumption of stationarity allows us to separate out the RCS term \oj from
the speckle term and to regard the speckle as a correlated unit mean process
(assuming that h{x) is normalized to unit energy) multiplying the mean RCS.
A consequence of (4.45) is that the distribution of the Gaussian process
%(x) is known, so the joint distribution of intensity and phase can be written
down for an arbitrary set of pixels, using the change of variables

%(x) = y[7{x)e^

To obtain the joint PDF of intensity alone requires the phase to be integrated
out, but this rapidly becomes very complicated. Fortunately we have little need
for the multipoint joint distribution of intensity, although extensive use will be
made of two-point statistics. For a pair of pixels the analysis is identical to that
carried out in Chapter 11 when analyzing the joint distributions of correlated
polarimetric channels. Analogous treatments for the spatial and temporal do-
mains will be found in [16,28]. A detailed analysis of the intensity correlation
function and the effects of RCS variations is given in Section 5.6.
From (4.45), it can be seen that the ACF of the complex data is stationary
and proportional to the deterministic ACF of the PSF as long as the mean RCS
is stationary within the target. Similarly, fourth-order moments of the complex
data depend on the stationarity of the second-order moments of RCS (see
Chapter 5). These statements need some comment. The data model used when
we discuss image filtering and segmentation in Chapters 6 and 7 is that at each
pixel in the image there is a well-defined RCS that we are trying to estimate. In
that sense, the RCS is deterministic and speckle due to interference effects is the
 only source of fluctuation. While speckle is stationary, RCS varies from place to
place, so ensemble statistics (over many speckle patterns) and spatial statistics
are equivalent only in regions of constant RCS. That being the case, (4.45)
would be true only over such uniform targets.
This becomes of concern when (4.45) is used to estimate Rh(x). It is
obvious from Figure 4.1 that most images are nonstationary at large scales.
When we consider individual scene components, such as fields or woodland
areas in Figure 4.1, it is no longer at all clear whether stationarity holds or not.
In some cases, trends in mean brightness across a field may be visible, but tests
on visually uniform targets often display statistically significant trends [36].
These tests rely on least squares fitting of a polynomial form (for example, a
linear polynomial) to observations. Tests based on distributional fitting were
found to be less sensitive to trends in the mean RCS [36].
This appears to call the usefulness of (4.45) into question. However, it can
be shown that (4.45) is valid if (a) is interpreted as the average RCS across a
region as long as (1) the RCS varies slowly on a scale comparable with the length
over which the PSF takes values significantly different from zero and (2) the test
region is much bigger than the scale length of the PSF. Hence, an estimation of
the complex ACF does not rely on knowing that the test region is stationary.
The intensity moments relevant in texture analysis (Chapter 8) are not so
robust to target heterogeneity. In this case, an important consideration is the
scale of variation in the target compared with the region used for estimation. If
the RCS is assumed to have a correlation length that is comparable to or greater
than the region used for estimation, trends will normally occur across the region
and the estimate will be distorted. If the correlation length is much shorter than
the estimation region, a proper sampling of the distribution of RCS is available
and accurate estimates will be possible. Scale lengths of variation in mean or
texture properties will also be seen to have considerable importance in the
segmentation procedures developed in Chapters 7 and 8.
When dealing with textured regions, methods for testing stationarity have
received little attention as yet, and visual inspection is normally used. The eye
is often very good at detecting lack of stationarity. For example, a human
interpreter would certainly recognize a dark feature running from top to bottom
in the woodland region in Figure 4.1 and so determine that the region is not
stationary. However, as noted, statistical tests may prove stronger than human
perception in some cases. Nonetheless, later chapters in this book will deal
extensively with statistical properties of regions selected to be stationary mainly
on the basis of visual inspection. A target will be referred to as homogeneous if
there are no significant trends in the spatial average properties within the target.
Stronger assumptions (e.g., ergodicity) are irrelevant when only single images
are available at a given time. The equivalence of ensemble and spatial statistics
is only of importance in those sections of this book dealing with simulation in
Chapter 5. Here inferred fluctuations in RCS from observations over a class of
objects (e.g., woodland) are used to provide a probabilistic model from which
to construct test images with similar properties.

4.11 Limitations in the Speckle Model

The speckle model developed previously is based on (4.1) with the assumption
that TV is very large at every pixel and that the scatterers within each pixel are
statistically identical. However, the same model can also be used to represent
other important situations.

1. One scatterer dominates the return, which is the case of interest for
target detection when a strong scatterer is embedded in weak clutter.
The ensuing PDF of intensity is then a modified Rician distribution
[16]

P1(D = ^expf-^ - s C R l / o f J ^ ^ I / * 0 (4.46)

a V (J J \ V a J

where I0 is a modified Bessel function of the first kind. Then

(/) = a(l + SCR) and var(/) = a 2 ( l + 2 X SCR), so the coeffi-
cient of variation is given by

c y _ Vl + 2 X SCR
1 + SCR

For large values of SCR, CV ~ -Jl/SCR , so the target exhibits little

fluctuation about its true value. The phase of the target also becomes
effectively noisefree for large values of SCR, exhibiting a standard
deviation given approximately by ^j2 X SCR [16]. Hence, bright
targets in weak clutter do not exhibit speckle fluctuations.
2. In (4.1) not only are the amplitudes Ak and phases <\)k random vari-
ables, but so also is the number of scatterers N. In some circumstances
TV may become small (the Rician distribution with a single target and
an infinite SCR represents an extreme case of this). For example, very
long wavelength radars imaging forests may display behavior appropri-
ate to small varying numbers of scatterers. This situation has been
 studied extensively in light scattering [37,38], but its relevance to SAR
is still under investigation.
3. A quite different scenario occurs when Af is a random variable whose
mean value is large. Then the single-channel field distribution be-
comes indistinguishable from a fluctuating RCS multiplied by a
Gaussian speckle term. This model is developed at length in Chapter
11 (Appendix 1 IA) in the context of polarimetric data. The important
point is that for a single channel it can be treated exactly like multipli-
cative speckle.
4. Mixed families of scatterers can be treated by methods based on
extensions of the standard speckle model or of the previous three cases.

4.12 Multidimensional SAR Images

Until now we have been mainly concerned with the formation and properties of
single SAR images, but recent developments in SAR technology have made the
use of multiple SAR images of the same scene increasingly important. An impor-
tant distinction is whether the different images are mutually coherent or not. By
this we mean that the phase relations in the images can be meaningfully com-
pared. We noted in Section 4.3 that the interference effects giving rise to speckle
are noiselike but represent true electromagnetic scattering. In the absence of ac-
tual system noise, an identical sensor viewing an unchanged scene with the same
geometry would measure an identical complex image. Changes in the scene or the
sensor geometry, operating frequency, or polarization will cause the complex im-
age to change. However, in certain important cases the changes give rise to images
that are correlated and in which the phase properties of image pairs contain useful
information. Particularly important are SAR interferometry and SARpolarimetry.
In SAR interferometry, the same scene is viewed from slightly different
directions by a SAR carrying two antennas or by a single-antenna SAR viewing
the scene at different times (repeat-pass interferometry). Under certain condi-
tions [39], the phase difference between the scenes can be used to infer the
height of scatterers within the image so that a digital elevation model for the
scene can be constructed. For repeat-pass interferometry, a requirement is that
the geometrical arrangement of scatterers (at the subpixel level) should be
essentially unchanged between the times of gathering the two images, otherwise
the phase difference between the images will carry no information. Figure 4.9
shows an amplitude (a) and phase difference (b) image produced by the DRA
C-band dual antenna system. Interferometric fringes are very well defined over
most of the phase difference image, except where coherence is lost in the radar
 (a)

(b)

(C)

Figure 4.9 Interferometric image of the Brecon Beacons, Wales, produced by the DRA
C-band dual antenna SAR: (a) amplitude image, (b) phase difference image with
gray-scale cycle corresponding to a change in altitude of 150m, and (c) inferred
image of the relief. (British Crown Copyright, 1997/DERA.)
 shadow areas (the hill on the right side of the image) and the reservoir (lower
left). Each complete cycle of phase corresponds to an altitude change of 150m
at the center of the image, allowing the relief in the image to be inferred with
an accuracy of ± 5m, as shown in Figure 4.9(c).
In SAR polarimetry, nearly simultaneous images of the scene are formed
with different polarization configurations. Typically the radar transmits and
receives radiation that is linearly polarized in the horizontal (H) and vertical
(V) planes (relative to the plane defined by the wave vector and the normal
to the surface being illuminated), giving rise to four images—HH, HV, VH,
and W , where, for example, HV refers to transmitting horizontally polarized
radiation and receiving the vertically polarized component of the backscatter.
Depending on the physics of the interactions with the target, the phase dif-
ferences of polarimetric images can be information bearing (see Chapter 11).
There are also several other image types not available for a single image. To
illustrate this, in Figure 4.10(a—d), we show L-band amplitude images of a
region in Jutland, Denmark, produced by the HH, HV, VH, and W channels
of the Danish Centre for Remote Sensing (DCRS) EMISAR polarimetric system.
The complex channels can be combined in pairs in a number of ways, but
particularly useful prove to be phase difference (e), correlation coefficient (f)
(see Chapter 11 for a discussion of this parameter), and amplitude ratio ((g)
and (h) show the I H H / W l and IHV/Wl ratio images). The images shown
as Figure 4.10(e,f) were formed by combining the H H and W channels.
Other useful images can be formed by combining all the polarimetric channels
in a variety of ways, as discussed in Chapter 12.
Although system or scene changes may prevent images from being mutu-
ally coherent, much information can be gained from incoherent images of the
same scene. A particularly important example is multitemporal data, which can
be used for change detection. As we shall see in Chapter 12, ratio images like
those in Figure 4.10(g,h) play an important role for such data but provide only
one of numerous possibilities for displaying information when multiple data sets
are available.
Although multidimensional SAR data offer new types of information and
give rise to new image types, the processing involved is essentially no different
from that already described in Sections 2.2 to 2.5. Each image is processed
independently and, in isolation, displays the speckle and correlation properties
explained in Sections 4.3 to 4.6. In particular, the spatial correlation produced
by the system should be identical in the four channels unless the H and V
antenna patterns are substantially different. Clearly, when coherence between
images is an issue, great care must be taken to preserve phase throughout the
processing chain and issues such as system phase noise become relevant. How-
ever, this involves no new fundamental concepts.
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 4.10 (a-d) HH, HV, VH, and VV L-band amplitude images of an agricultural region in
Jutland, Denmark, produced by the DCRS EMISAR; (e) HH-VV phase difference;
and (f) correlation coefficient images, together with the (g) HH/W and (h) HV/VV
amplitude ratio images.

One other image type deserves to be mentioned in order to indicate the

flexibility of the SAR processing. In Chapter 2 it was shown that one way of
interpreting the azimuth processing is that the SAR uses Doppler frequencies to
achieve enhanced azimuth resolution. This Doppler sensitivity can in some cases
be exploited to detect moving objects. In this case, the Doppler spread caused
by the different objects in the beam defines the frequency and hence velocity
resolution of the moving target indicator (MTI) system. In fact, the clutter band
(zero Doppler-frequency) in an MTI radar contains the information that is used
 (e) (f)

(g) (t)
Figure 4.10 (continued).

in the normal SAR imaging mode. This book will confine its attention to SAR
processing of the clutter band alone. Readers with an interest in MTI applica-
tions are referred to [40].

4.13 Summary

When trying to infer properties of the world from SAR data, only those
properties that leave noticeable or measurable effects in the image are of interest.
Our first visual response to these effects is in terms of image structure; armed
with experience and our knowledge of the world we can recognize information
 carried by shapes, linear features, and objects in the scene. A loose distinction
can be made between small and distributed targets. For the latter, coherent
speckle caused by interference between elementary scatterers is a dominant
aspect of their expression in the image. A well-developed theory and much
experimental evidence indicates that, in single-channel data, speckle can be
treated as a stationary noiselike quantity multiplying the underlying RCS. The
true nature of speckle as a repeatable electromagnetic scattering phenomenon
only becomes manifest when multiple channels can be combined, as in SAR
interferometry or polarimetry.
For distributed targets, the speckle model (and more refined RCS models
developed in Chapter 5) indicates that all the available information is carried by
a small number of parameters that characterize the observed distributions. At
the simplest level, there is only a single parameter, which is the mean intensity.
The viability of this simple speckle model provides a solid basis for the image
analysis methods developed in the following chapters. The imaging process
complicates the extraction of geophysical properties from the SAR measure-
ments because it induces scaling of the backscattering coefficient, a bias due to
system noise and spatial correlation. Post-processing is needed to calibrate the
data. Spatial correlation must be accounted for both in parameter estimation
and in subsequent image analysis techniques. For the latter, it is often necessary
first to decorrelate the data.
Parameter estimation, either locally or over extended targets, plays a cen-
tral role in extracting information from SAR data, which is a reflection of its
function as a bridge between world knowledge (carried both in recognition of
image structure and in the empirical basis for describing distributed targets) and
physical understanding. Single images provide an important introduction to the
issues it raises and give rise to the highly developed theoretical and methodo-
logical treatment of Chapters 5 to 10. The understanding gained in this simpler
case then helps to bring insight to the more complex task of defining and
extracting the information carried by multidimensional SAR data in later
chapters.

References

[1] Ulaby, F. T., R. K. Moore, and A. K. Fung, Microwave Remote Sensing: Active and Passive,
Vol. 3, Norwood, MA: Artech House, 1986.
[2] Tsang, L., J. A. Kong, and R. T. Shin, Theory of Microwave Remote Sensing, New York:
Wiley-Interscience, 1985.
[3] Fung A. K., Microwave Scattering and Emission Models and Their Applications, Norwood
MA: Artech House, 1994.
 [4] Kong, J. A. (ed.), Polarimetric Remote Sensing, New York, Amsterdam, and London:
Elsevier, 1990.
[5] Kuga, Y., M. W Whitt, K. C. McDonald, and F. T. Ulaby, "Scattering Models for
Distributed Targets," Radar Polarimetry for Geoscience Applications, F. T. Ulaby and C.
Elachi (eds.), Norwood, MA: Artech House, 1990, pp. 111-190.
[6] Frison, P. L., E. Mougin, and P. Hiernaux, "Observations and Interpretation of Seasonal
ERS-I Wind Scatterometer Data over Northern Sahel (Mali)," Remote Sensing ofEnviron-
ment, submitted 1997.
[7] Oh, Y, K. Sarabandi, and F. T. Ulaby, "An Empirical Model and an Inversion Technique
for Radar Scattering from Bare Soil Surfaces," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 30,
1992, pp. 370-381.
[8] Resnikoff, H. L., The Illusion of Reality, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989.
[9] Julesz, B., E. N. Gilbert, and J. D. Victor, "Visual Discrimination of Textures with Identical
Third-Order Statistics," Biol. Cybern., Vol. 31, 1978, pp. 137-140.
[10] Julesz, B., H. L. Frisch, E. N. Gilbert, and L. A. Shepp, "Inability of Humans to Discrimi-
nate Between Visual Textures That Agree in Second-Order Statistics—Revisited," Percep-
tion, Vol. 2, 1973, pp. 391-405.
[11] Brillouin, L., Science and Information Theory, New York: Academic Press, 1956.
[12] Whitt, M. W, F. T. Ulaby, and K. Sarabandi, "Polarimetric Scatterometer Systems and
Measurements," Radar Polarimetry for Geoscience Applications, F. T. Ulaby and C. Elachi
(eds.), Norwood, MA: Artech House, 1990, pp. 191-272.
[13] Frisch, U., "Wave Propagation in Random Media," Probabilistic Methods in Applied Mathe-
matics, Vol. 1, A. T. Bharrucha-Reid (ed.), New York: Academic Press, pp.75-198.
[14] Lang, R. H., and J. S. Sidhu, "Electromagnetic Backscattering from a Layer of Vegetation:
a Discrete Approach," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 21, 1983, pp.62—71.
[15] Taylor, J., Scattering Theory, New York: Wiley, 1972.
[16] Goodman, J. W, "Statistical Properties of Laser Speckle Patterns," Laser Speckle and Related
Phenomena, J. C. Dainty (ed.), New York: Springer-Verlag, 1984, pp. 9-75.
[17] Arsenault, H. H., and G. April, "Properties of Speckle Integrated with a Finite Aperture
and Logarithmically Transformed,"/. Opt. Soc. Amer., Vol. 66, 1976, pp. 1160-1163.
[18] Abramowitz, M., and I. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, New York: Dover,
1965.
[19] Kendall, M. G., and A. Stuart, The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 1, London: Charles
Griffin and Co., 1958.
[20] Bush, T. F, and F. T. Ulaby, "Fading Characteristics of Panchromatic Radar Backscatter
from Selected Agricultural Targets," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Electron., Vol. 13, 1975,
pp. 149-157.
[21] Lee, J.-S., "A Simple Speckle Smoothing Algorithm for Synthetic Aperture Radar Images,"
IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 13, 1983, pp. 85-89.
[22] Spiegel, M. R., Statistics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.
[23] Yanasse, C. C. F, S. Quegan, and R. J. Martin, "Inferences on Spatial and Temporal
Variability of the Backscatter from Growing Crops Using AgriSAR Data," Int. ]. Remote
Sensing, Vol. 13, 1992, pp. 493-507.
[24] Beaudoin, A., M. Deshayes, S. Hardy, T. Le Toan, and D. Girou, "Use of Airborne SAR
Data for the Mapping of Shifting Cultivation in French Guiana," Proc. SAREX-92, ESA
WPP-76, 1992, pp. 185-191.
[25] DeGroot, M. H., Probability and Statistics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[26] Quegan, S., "Parameter Estimation for Polarimetric Measurements from Vegetated Areas,"
Proc. Third International Workshop on Radar Polarimetry, Nantes, 1995, pp. 626-635.
[27] Wilson, J. J. W, "The Radiometric Resolution for a SAR Employing Correlated Range and
Azimuth Looks," Marconi Research Center Doc. No. ER-TN-MRCAM-0241, 1986.
[28] Davenport, W. B., Jr., and W. L. Root, An Introduction to the Theory of Random Signals and
Noise, New York: IEEE Press, 1987.
[29] Papoulis, A., Signal Analysis, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977.
[30] Papoulis, A., Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes, Singapore: McGraw-
Hill, 1984.
[31] Siegert, A. J. E, MIT Rad. Lab. No. 465, 1943.
[32] Raney, R. K., and R. Bamler, "Comments on SAR Signal and Noise Equations," Proc.
IGARSS '94, Pasadena, CA, 1994, pp. 298-300.
[33] Caves, R. G., "Automatic Matching of Features in Synthetic Aperture Radar Data to Digital
Map Data," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sheffield, UK, 1993.
[34] Keys, R. G., "Cubic Convolution Interpolation for Digital Image Processing," IEEE Trans.
Acoust. Speech, Signal Processing, Vol. 29, 1981, pp. 1153-1160.
[35] Quegan, S., "Interpolation and Sampling in SAR Images," IEEE Trans, on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, Vol. 28, 1990, pp. 641-646.
[36] Horgan, G., and H. Meena, "An Investigation of the Variability of SAR Data and Its Effect
on Classification," Proc. Final Workshop on MAESTRO/Agriscatt: Radar Techniques for
Forestry and Agricultural Applications, ESA WPP-31, 1992, pp. 149-153.
[37] Schaefer, D. W, and P. N. Pusey, "Statistics of Non-Gaussian Scattered Light," Phys. Rev.
Lett., Vol. 29, 1972, pp. 843-845.
[38] Pusey, P. N., D. W. Schaefer, and D. E. Koppel, "Single-Interval Statistics of Light Scattered
by Identical Independent Scatterers," /. Phys. A: Math. Nucl. Gen., Vol. 7, 1974,
pp. 530-540.
[39] Rodriguez, E., and J. M. Martin, "Theory and Design of Interferometric Synthetic Aper-
ture Radars," IEE Proc. F, Vol. 139, 1992, pp. 147-159.
[40] Klemm, R., and J. Ender, "New Aspects of Airborne MTI," (FGAN - FFM) IEEE Int.
Radar Conf Proc, 1990, pp. 335-340.
5

Data M o d e l s

5.1 Introduction

The nature of information in SAR images was discussed in Chapter 4. Deriving

information from these images is a process in which image data are interpreted
in light of prior knowledge that is encapsulated in models for both the data and
scene properties. In the following chapters we will demonstrate how different
data models can be combined with world models in providing optimized
information extraction for image interpretation.
To focus the discussion, consider the SAR image in Figure 5.1. The
resolution is 1.5m by 1.5m, so details such as a road, clumps of trees, and hedges
with associated shadow are clearly visible. In addition, extended areas of clutter,
such as the field and woodland areas delineated by white borders are made up
of scattering from unresolved objects. Let us start by considering the properties
of these two clutter regions.
We have shown in Chapter 4 that speckle arises if the scattering elements
within a pixel are randomly distributed. The intensity fluctuations within the
field region in Figure 5.1 appear consistent with such a model. We shall discuss
the implications of speckle in Section 5.4 in the context of a product model that
we exploit in Chapters 6 and 7 in deriving information about the underlying
cross section in a SAR image, cr. This is estimated from the observed intensity
in a pixel and is proportional (rather than identical) to the definitions of RCS
or differential cross section in Chapter 2. Nevertheless, we shall (loosely) refer
to a as the RCS.
Figure 5.1 DRA C-band SAR image of a rural scene illustrating typical natural clutter, with se-
lected sample regions: (a)field and (b) woodland. Resolution is 1.5 m, single-look.

Speckle itself conveys very little information about a scene other than that
it contains many randomly positioned scattering elements. However, in the
wooded region it is apparent that there are fluctuations in addition to speckle.
Physically, these appear to correspond to strong returns from the crowns of trees
with shadows behind them. If we disregard the deterministic positions of these
light and dark fluctuations, we can treat this type of natural clutter as a noiselike
texture. Note that texture is a consequence of fluctuations in the RCS; a clutter
sample comprised of speckle alone is not considered textured. Texture measures
will take the form of spatial average properties describing the depth of fluctua-
tion of the RCS within the local region. These can be single-point statistics, such
as the probability density function (PDF). More information is contained in
two-point properties such as the power spectrum or ACF. Texture will be
exploited in Chapters 8 and 9, both for characterizing the clutter within a
homogeneous region and identifying boundaries between regions. The former
conveys information that may enable a user to identify cover type, for example,
while the latter carries information about the structure within the scene.
One of the most important classes of information within an image is
contained in its structure. This comprises features such as the boundaries of
large areas of texture, for example, fields or woods, as well as discrete objects,
such as individual trees, hedges, roads, and buildings. The former can be
identified readily by exploiting the texture model. However, a simple noise
 model would be an inappropriate description for an urban area that is made up
of discrete objects. The relative positions of objects in man-made clutter are
constrained by rules; for example, houses lie along streets, or trees in orchards
are arranged in rows. It follows that spatial average properties over a region do
not encapsulate the relevant information optimally. In this chapter we shall
confine our attention largely to data models for natural clutter.
Let us now identify measures that can provide discrimination between
such classes of texture. The mean intensities of the field and woodland regions
in Figure 5.1 differ by an order of magnitude in RCS, which would certainly
enable one to differentiate between them. Suppose, however, that the brightness
of the field was the same as the wood, as is often the case in SAR images. A
second discriminant could then be the contrast f = -^/var //(I)), which takes the
values 1.003 and 1.41 for the field and woodland regions in Figure 5.1, respec-
tively. The result for the field region is close to unity, as expected for pure
speckle, while the woodland region has increased fluctuations. Urban areas
typically display even stronger contrast. A third distinguishing characteristic is
the spatial extent of image features. In the field region, only speckle fluctuations
are observed, with a scale corresponding to the PSF. The woodland sample also
includes variation on a scale consistent with tree size and separation. While
many objects in urban areas, such as individual houses, are of similar size to
isolated trees, some buildings can be on a much larger scale. Each of these
general properties might aid image interpretation. The specific measure that
optimizes the information about these properties then depends on the detailed
form of the data model.
This chapter is concerned with introducing realistic models for SAR image
data. The problems inherent in data characterization are considered in Section
5.2, initially restricted to the PDF. A few widely used empirical PDFs are
introduced and compared in Section 5.3. The implications of the product
model, which separates the physically based speckle model from the pheno-
menological RCS model, are described in Section 5.4. This extends the basic
treatment given in Chapter 4. A comparison of predicted with measured prop-
erties for empirical and product models is given in Section 5.5. The product
model has the advantage that it contains correlation properties implicitly, as
outlined in Section 5.4.1. These are applied in an analysis of the effect of system
resolution on measured clutter properties in Section 5.6. This discussion high-
lights the importance of including the interaction of RCS correlation properties
and the PSF in any rigorous clutter analysis. This is an aspect that is omitted
from analysis based on fitting clutter PDFs alone and illustrates some of the
dangers of artificially restricting the scope of the data model. The discussion of
data models then concludes, in Section 5.7, with a summary of circumstances
under which they fail.
 Having established a reasonable model for natural clutter textures, we then
describe techniques for simulating textures with these properties in Section 5.8.
Simulation is an important topic in seeking to understand SAR images, for two
primary reasons. First, provided simulated textures encapsulate all the properties
of the data model, a visual comparison with original textures will reveal failures
in that model. For example, a model based on single-point statistics could not
reproduce correlation properties. Furthermore, we will demonstrate that one
can discriminate between textures with different higher order correlation prop-
erties that would not be represented in any model based on the ACF and
single-point statistics alone. Second, once a model is validated it can provide a
number of sample images that differ randomly but are based on an identical
scene. It is clearly not possible to achieve this with real SAR data. There is a
danger that image-interpretation algorithms might be designed to provide ex-
cellent response to a specific example image but fail to provide robust generic
solutions. By allowing a very large number of realizations of the same scene to
be investigated, accurate performance statistics can be compiled.

5.2 Data Characterization

Historically, SAR data models have been largely directed at describing single-
point statistics through the PDF. Initially, therefore, it is important to consider
whether typical SAR images are actually capable of representation in such simple
terms. In this section we show that such an approach is at best only an
approximation. There are fundamental problems in terms of the nature of the
scene being imaged, the physical properties of the imaging process, and finally
the analysis of measured data. Let us begin by considering the scene itself. On
the coarsest scale the scene is not homogeneous because a map of the area would
define boundaries between regions with different properties, such as fields/
woodland in Figure 5.1 compared with perhaps land/sea or forest/mountains at
lower resolution. Determinism prevails at the limit of fine resolution where it
would be possible, in principle, to represent every scattering element within the
scene and derive a unique image under defined conditions. Representation in
terms of texture can only apply as an approximation on an intermediate scale
when the scatterer spatial distribution appears random.
Image formation also introduces variability through physical differences
in the imaging process. SAR images depend on the system wavelength due to
differing foliage penetration, for example. The response to polarization also
varies, as discussed in Chapter 11. Geometrical effects due to the incidence angle
will influence the scene through processes such as shadowing. Finally, the
resolution of the imaging system will have a strong effect on the appearance of
 the clutter because it will average out features on a smaller scale than the
resolution while preserving larger ones. In view of the number of processes that
contribute to differences between images, it is doubtful whether it is ever worth
attempting to define data models with great precision. We need only be con-
cerned with general properties that can be exploited in image interpretation.
Let us next address the issue of the level of complexity needed to represent
the data PDF. We are faced with a compromise between choosing a simple
model (characterized by few degrees of freedom) that fails to reproduce the
observed PDF accurately and a more sophisticated model (with many degrees
of freedom) that fits the data. A region of untextured speckle is characterized by
a single degree of freedom corresponding to the mean intensity, as discussed in
Chapter 4, consistent with the field example in Figure 5.1. However, the
associated negative exponential intensity, or Rayleigh amplitude, distribution is
not capable of representing some natural clutter, such as the woodland sample
in Figure 5.1. A variety of PDFs having two degrees of freedom have been
proposed, such as the Weibull, lognormal, and K distributions. The additional
degree of freedom allows them to represent different contrasts in the data;
contrast has already been identified as a potential texture discriminant. How-
ever, there are occasions where even this two-parameter PDF fails to provide a
reasonable match to the data and it is necessary to introduce more parameters.
We expect this approach to yield a better fit because there are additional degrees
of freedom. However, there is often no physical justification, since it merely
represents a more complicated parameterization. The process could be repeated
indefinitely, using mixture distributions for example, until an exact match to the
measured PDF, within statistical errors, was obtained. The resultant PDF would
not encapsulate any knowledge about the data but would merely provide a
(smoothed) alternative representation. It would provide no indication of how
properties might vary as imaging conditions change, for example.
There is a sense, however, in which some classes of PDF have a better
phenomenological basis than others. Analysis based on these models should
provide a better fit to the observed data with the same number of parameters.
The product model in Section 5.4, which separates speckle and RCS properties,
provides a physically based factorization of clutter that yields an effective com-
pact representation. Other empirical PDFs, such as the lognormal PDF, have
nonphysical properties that restrict their value.
Despite these reservations, let us now consider how to verify the data
model. The first requirement is that the test sample should be homogeneous.
How is this to be tested? One could adopt a nonparametric approach, such as
the Kolmogorov—Smirnov (K-S) test [I]. We will show later that using a test
based on the appropriate data model would be more sensitive. However, this
model cannot be verified until a suitable homogeneous sample is available.
Thus, the issues of model verification and homogeneity testing cannot be
separated. In the absence of a model, the human observer effectively provides
the test of homogeneity, as in the selection of the test regions in Figure 5.1.
A second issue concerns region size. It is important that it should be large
enough to characterize the statistical properties of the region completely; that is,
it must be on a much larger scale than any correlations. This is particularly
important if there are large-scale effects, such as ground undulations, that might
still be represented by a homogeneous texture if a large enough region is selected.
In addition, it needs to contain sufficient independent samples to provide good
statistical accuracy. This requirement for large regions conflicts with the obser-
vation that the real world does not normally consist of large homogeneous areas.
Thus we end up with some compromise choice of region size that approximates
homogeneity over a sufficiently large area for adequate statistical accuracy.
Once the sample has been selected the different data models can be
investigated. The PDF of the sample intensity, for example, can be compared
with the different candidate PDFs. This raises the question of how appropriate
parameters to describe the PDF are to be estimated. We might match some
arbitrary moment of the measured and theoretical PDFs. However, it is desirable
to identify the most sensitive measure for characterizing the data. Since the form
of the candidate PDFs is known, we can try to derive the MLE for optimum
discrimination. We discuss these issues in detail in Chapter 8 when we consider
texture characterization. In any event, the method adopted to estimate parame-
ter values will influence the quality of fit. It is also necessary to select the method
for characterizing the goodness of fit between data and model. Initially we derive
MLEs for the parameters required by each model, followed by a K-S test to
establish if the sample is consistent with that theoretical model. The K-S
hypothesis test is not dependent on any model and is determined by the
maximum difference between the cumulative probability distributions.

5.3 Empirical Data Distributions

Early distributional measurements on radar data were carried out at low resolu-
tion so that objects, such as trees and houses, were much smaller than a
resolution cell. Contributions from RCS fluctuations averaged out so that no
spatial variations or correlation effects were visible. The resultant complex field
PDF was then Gaussian with Rayleigh amplitude and negative exponential
intensity PDFs, respectively, as discussed in Chapter 4.
In order to describe higher resolution data, it was necessary to introduce
a second parameter to characterize image contrast. The log normal and Weibull
are two such distributions that have been widely applied. For example, the
amplitude of low-resolution sea clutter has been fitted to the Rayleigh distribu-
tion, corresponding to pure speckle; while the log normal has been applied at a
higher resolution [2-4]. A wide range of ocean measurements at different
resolutions were shown to be consistent with the Weibull distribution [5—7].
Land clutter was found to be Rayleigh distributed over uniform regions [8] but
log normal over built-up areas [8,9]. The Weibull distribution has also been
applied extensively to land [5,10,11], weather [12], and sea-ice [13] clutter.
These distributions can be fitted to either amplitude or intensity data.
The log normal distribution is given by

PM= i_exJ- ( l n "~ P ) 2 l (5.1)

where x is a generic observable, and (3 and Kare the mean and variance of In x.
The mean value and nth normalized moment of this distribution are

(x) = expTp + ^ l and *<»> = ^ fn = exp|~w(» - I ) - I (5.2)

L 2J (x) L 2J

The log normal distribution predicts zero probability of the observable having
a value zero. As such it is a very poor representation of single-look intensity
speckle. However, it usually provides a better match to amplitude PDFs, par-
ticularly if it is used to represent regions of strong spatial variation such as urban
areas [8,9].
The Weibull distribution is given by

P(x) = —— exp - - (5.3)

bc [ \bJ _

where b is a scaling parameter, and c controls the shape. The mean and nxS\
normalized moment of this distribution are

(x) = flf 1 +1 I *>d *W = F(! + H/C\ (5.4)

w
K c J r»(i + i/c)
The Weibull distribution is identical to a Rayleigh PDF when c = 2 and to a
negative exponential when c = 1. Thus, it can describe single-look speckle
precisely for either amplitude or intensity. Unfortunately, it cannot represent
multilook speckle exactly. The effect of increasing RCS variations is represented
by reducing the value of c.

5.4 The Product Model

A significant breakthrough in the understanding of radar image properties was

the appreciation that many types of clutter derive from two unrelated processes
that can be encapsulated in a product model [14]. In its simplest form, intro-
duced in Chapter 4, this combines an underlying RCS a, with an uncorrelated
multiplicative speckle contribution n\ so the observed intensity /, in a SAR
image could be expressed as the product I = (Tn. For Z-look intensity data, /
can be represented as the product of a with a speckle contribution n, whose
PDF is given by

P(n) = ^-^p[-Ln] (5.5)

This model forms the basis of reconstruction filters and segmentation methods
described in Chapters 6 and 7 that are designed to derive specific values of a
associated with an observed value /. Note that, in order to exploit this model, it
is essential that the speckle and RCS fluctuations have very different spatial
scales. Normally we resample the SAR image so that speckle contributes little
correlation between samples, as discussed in Chapter 4. Any RCS fluctuations
on a larger spatial scale can then be separated out for further study.
The next component of the product model is to incorporate an RCS
model that describes the underlying fluctuations. For a given RCS distribution
P((T), the product model asserts that the PDF of the observed intensity is
given by

P(I) EE 1 P(I\(T)P((T) du = ^-^ J ^ expf- ^ W ) (5.6)

o H Z ) o (JL L a J

The product model represents an important extension to clutter modeling in

that it separates two distinct processes. Speckle is purely a consequence of the
random distribution of scattering elements, whereas the RCS depends on the
physical properties (such as dielectric constant) of those elements. Notice that
this form of product model is only appropriate for single images. It is inadequate
for multidimensional sources, such as those encountered in polarimetry or
interferometry, since it ignores correlations between the images in different
dimensions. Modifications in describing multidimensional data are introduced
in Chapter 11.

5.4.1 The RCS Model

Having defined the speckle contribution to the product model, the next stage
is to discuss the RCS model. Studies of sea clutter by Ward [14,15] showed that
the detected amplitude was Rayleigh-distributed in regions of negligible swell,
corresponding to pure speckle as expected. Swell has a much larger spatial scale
than speckle, allowing the speckle contribution to be averaged out without
appreciably degrading the swell component. The underlying swell RCS was
usually consistent with a gamma PDF, given by

( Y F
^a) = U - £!^ exp _v2L (5.7)
P
[(Cr)) T(v) [ (a)J
where v is an order parameter, with moments given by

Vv J T(y)

This PDF is completely characterized by two variables: the mean RCS (a) and
the order parameter v. The square of the contrast, that is, the normalized
variance, is a useful quantity to describe such data and is given by
var cr/(a) — 1/v.
Jakeman and Pusey [16] proposed a theoretical model that provided
important insight into the basis for this empirical form of clutter PDF. The
simple speckle model in Chapter 4 showed that the field within a pixel could be
represented as the sum of the contributions from the elementary scatterers
N
within the resolution cell, so % — ^ A. exp\i^>. , as in (4.1). Gaussian speckle

then arises from the random interference of many scatterers and corresponds to
the limit as TV —> °o. However, Jakeman and Pusey investigated the effect of
assuming that the effective number of scatterers TV was itself a random number.
If the population TV is controlled by random processes of birth, death, and
migration, the consequent population statistics would be negative binomial
[17]. Under these conditions the resultant intensity was shown to be K-distrib-
uted [18-20], rather than the negative exponential form expected from the
central limit theorem. This derivation suggests that non-Gaussian clutter statis-
tics can be attributed to the fluctuation in the effective number of scatterers
within a resolution cell (see also Appendix 1 IA).
An equivalent formulation for complex reflectivity could be provided
[20,21] using a Fokker—Planck rate equation to describe the RCS. This can be
identified as the continuum analogue of a population operated on by processes
of birth, death, and migration. The solution to the resulting rate equation yields
a gamma-distributed RCS with an order parameter given by the ratio of migra-
tion to birth rates and a correlation coefficient at lag X given by [21]

pa(X) = exp[- 7 X] (5.9)

where y is the migration rate. While this allows all values of order parameter, it
restricts the correlation function to a negative exponential form since it is
fundamentally a Markov process. However, it is consistent with the choice of a
gamma PDF as a description of the RCS [22,23].
The gamma distribution has the convenient mathematical property that it
can be regarded as the resultant of a Gaussian random walk process with the final
complex reflectivity at a given position expressed as a vector in 2v dimensions,
that is, S = (S1, S2, . . . , S2v), representing independent real and imaginary
contributions. Note that each of the contributions S1, S2, . . . , Siv represents a
one-dimensional Gaussian random walk. The total RCS is then given by cr =
ISI2, which is equivalent to summing v independent RCS contributions. For
simplicity we assume that the correlation properties of each complex reflectivity
component are identical. Any form of valid correlation can be adopted, unlike
the solution to the Fokker-Planck equation. However, it is only strictly applica-
ble for half-integer values of v. One consequence of this formalism is that all the
higher order correlation properties of S and a can be derived by exploiting the
factorization properties of Gaussian processes [23,24].
Alternatively, these can be derived directly for joint Gaussian processes.
For example, the bivariate PDF for correlated RCS samples separated by a
distance X is given by [17,25]

A
' 2"*(i-n,p0)r(v)l (,.(X) J

1 2(l-pa(X))J ' - [ 1-P17(X) J

where / J - ] is the modified Bessel function of the first kind of order n (Section
9.6 in [26]), and p a (X) is the RCS correlation coefficient at lag X defined by

( a 2 ) - (a)

Hence, the ^th-order normalized two-point moments are given by [25]

(((T(O)(T(X)Y) +9 Y2U+ V)
^^=2^(i-Pa(x)y^
((J) Y2(v)

where 2 ^i(') is the Gaussian hypergeometric function (Section 15.1 in [26]).

The results for # = 1 , 2 are identical to expressions derived by exploiting the
factorization properties of the Gaussian random walk [24].

5.4.2 The Intensity PDF

If we now combine the speckle PDF with the gamma RCS PDF, the observed
intensity PDF will be given by [27]

P(I) = \P(I\(i)P((j)dj = ? -^
} U } K}
{ Y(L)Y(V)I(I))
( Y/2~

for Z-look SAR, where Kv_L [•] is the modified Bessel function of order v — L
(Section 9.6 in [26]). Note that this tends to the gamma distribution for Z-look
speckle as v —> °o. The intensity moments are given by

w
i-r(£) vr<v)
Equation (5.14) can be separated into two, formally similar, parts describing the
speckle and cross-section contributions. The normalized variance is given by
v a r / / ( / ) 2 = \/L + l/v + I/Lv, which reduces to v a r / / ( / ) 2 = 1 + 2 / v for
single-look SAR.
 The PDF of the amplitude IA = -Jl j is also K-distributed such that
/ \(L+v)/2

P(A) = \P(A\<j)P(<j)ch = - —
KUK)
i T(L)TiV)Ul))
( Y/2~
x AL+V-1KVL 2A\^-\ (5.15)

with moments given by

{A,) = {I).nni + n/2)T(, + n,2)

Hence, var A/(A)2 = LT2(L)/(T2(L + ±)) X vr 2 (v)/(r 2 (i; + ^)) - 1 is the

normalized variance, which reduces to 4vr 2 (p)/^7rr 2 (v + ^)) ~~ 1 f° r single-
look SAR.
These derivations for both intensity and amplitude assume that the RCS
fluctuations are on a much greater spatial scale than speckle so that multilooking
averages speckle without affecting RCS fluctuations. If the contributions were
not separable in this way the result would no longer be K-distributed.
The properties of the K-distributed intensity clutter model arising from a
gamma-distributed RCS model can be summarized as follows:

• A gamma-distributed RCS can be derived by solving the appropriate

rate equation resulting in arbitrary values of v but with a correlation
coefficient restricted to a negative exponential form.
• The RCS can also be regarded as the resultant of a 2v dimension
Gaussian random walk requiring half integer v but allowing arbitrary
correlations.
• The gamma PDF has the attractive property that it represents a general
noise process, of which thermal noise is the special case when v — 1.
• The gamma distribution is the only form of PDF for the RCS discussed
in this chapter that yields a closed-form analytic distribution for the
detected intensity, that is, the K distribution.

However, the issue that determines the acceptance of this model is the
extent to which it is consistent with samples of natural clutter. Previous investi-
gation has shown that the K distribution is consistent with a large number of
coherent scattering experiments, over wavelengths from optical to sonar, and
types of scatterer from atmospheric turbulence to natural radar clutter
[14-16,23,24,28-33]. In the radar field the K distribution has been used
extensively to represent both sea clutter [14-16,18,34-36] and land clutter
[22-24,31-33,37-39]. Note that the observed statistics would be modified by
any additive input noise in the radar receiver [40,41].

5.5 Comparison of Distributions

Having introduced the K, Weibull, and log normal PDFs, we now establish
which provides the best fit to the examples of SAR image data in Figure 5.1.
Following the discussion in Section 5.2, we shall determine ML parameter
values for the candidate distributions and then perform a K-S test for goodness
of fit. The best-fit theoretical PDFs are compared with histograms of the
original data in Figure 5.2. The parameter values and fit probability for the
different distributions to the field region are summarized in Table 5.1 and those
for the woodland region in Table 5.2.
We expect the field sample to correspond to pure speckle with a negative
exponential PDF. From Table 5.1 it is apparent that the log normal PDF provides
a very poor fit whereas the exponential, Weibull, and gamma distributions have a
high probability of being correct. The predicted exponential, Weibull, and
gamma distributions are sufficiently close that they can all be represented by the
single (exponential) line in Figure 5.2(a). The Weibull shape parameter, rand the
gamma order v, are slightly less than 1.0 (which corresponds to pure speckle).
Since the data represent an estimate of the PDF, it would not be expected to have
the exact form. Hence, models with an additional parameter, such as Weibull or
gamma PDFs, would be expected to yield a higher probability of fit to the
estimated histogram, as observed. The distinction between the last three distribu-
tions in Table 5.1 is therefore probably insignificant. However, the incorrect form
of the log normal in Figure 5.2(a), particularly near the origin, is apparent. Fitting
a K distribution to the data was impossible because the estimated PDF actually
had a lower contrast than that predicted by the speckle model alone. This would
be expected for about half the samples taken over regions of constant RCS. When
this condition is observed, it is reasonable to assume that the sample actually
contains a constant RCS such that v = °°.
The K distribution provides an excellent fit to the example of woodland
clutter, as shown by the results of the K-S test in Table 5.2 and the comparison
of PDFs in Figure 5.2(b). All other distributions have a negligible probability of
being correct over this sample size. Physically, the exponential would be ex-
pected to be incorrect since it cannot describe RCS fluctuations with speckle.
 P(D

Intensity, I
(a)
Figure 5.2 Comparison of the intensity PDF with theoretical best fits for (a) field and (b) woo
land regions from Figure 5.1. Log plots of data histogram (full); theoretical PDFs fo
(a) log normal (short dashes) and exponential (longer dashes); and (b) K, log norm
Weibull, and gamma (progressively increasing dash length) distributions.

The log normal predicts a probability of zero at zero intensity that conflicts with
the speckle model. The Weibull PDF, on the other hand, yields an incorrectly
large probability for zero intensity. The gamma distribution matches the low
intensities well but predicts probabilities for large intensities that are too high.
One might therefore conclude that only the K distribution should be
retained as a clutter model, with v = °° assumed where the statistics appear
smoother than speckle fluctuations. This would be premature since, while these
results are typical of natural clutter at this resolution for a C-band SAR, many
other experimental comparisons have been conducted at differing wavelengths,
resolutions, and polarizations. The log normal has been found to be appropriate
for urban clutter [8,9] while the difference between Weibull and K PDFs is
sufficiently small that slight changes in clutter properties make the Weibull
 P(D

Intensity, I
(b)
Figure 5.2 (continued).

preferable under some circumstances [5,10—13,39]. The final choice of PDF

must depend on the observed statistics in the specific clutter sample. However,
we shall retain the product model because of the physical insight it gives into
the speckle process, together with a gamma distribution to describe any RCS
fluctuations.

Table 5.1
Summary of ML Fit Parameters for Candidate Distributions and K-S Fit
Probability for the Field Region in Figure 5.1

Distribution Parameter Values Probability

Log normal p = 10.689; V= 1.6484 6.8 X 10~11

Exponential [x = 78329 0.572
Weibull b = 78227; c = 0.99695 0.781
Gamma |JL = 78329; v = 0.99641 0.683
 Table 5.2
Summary of ML Fit Parameters for Candidate Distributions and K-S Fit
Probability for the Woodland Region in Figure 5.1

Distribution Parameter Values Probability

Log normal p = 12.668; 1/= 2.2955 6.6 X 10~106

Exponential \x = 737700 0
Weibull b = 641430; c = 0.79237 2.1 X IO"12
Gamma \L = 737700; v = 0.71488 1.4 X IO"54
K fx = 738990; v = 2.0335 1.000

Another reason for not rejecting log normal and gamma distributions for
natural clutter is that they can be useful as approximations to the K distribution
as sample size becomes small. Thus, in discussing texture edge detection and
segmentation in later chapters, which should be applied to the smallest window
size possible, analytic log normal and gamma approximations can be applied
with only minor degradation, compared with using K distributions that can
only be evaluated numerically.

5.6 Imaging RCS Fluctuations With Finite Resolution

In the previous section we ignored the effect of the PSF on the observed
intensity; we now deal with this issue. Suppose we image a region of extended
clutter, whose RCS is represented by a correlated gamma-distributed process.
Following Section 4.6 and retaining a one-dimensional treatment for simplicity,
the intensity image at position x, I(x), arising from a scene with complex
scattering amplitude, S(£), at position ^ is given by

O
O O
O
Kx) = \%(xf = J Id^2SH1)S*H2)h{x - Z1W(X - y (5.17)
— OC
O
-O
Upon taking the ensemble average over all speckle realizations, we observe that
the crossterms between the scattered field at different positions average out
because of the random phase of scattering elements. Hence,

O
C
(/)= jdl-(\S(1-f)\Hx-Zf=(V) (5.18)
O
-O
where the PSF is normalized to unit energy and the ensemble average is assumed
to be position-independent. In Chapter 4 we showed that the complex ACF was
effectively independent of fluctuations in the RCS. The intensity ACF is given by

00 00 O
C 00
(Kx)Kx + X)) = J J J \d^di2d^A(S{QS*{QS*{Qs{^))
—O C—0—0
— 0
X h{x - Qh*(x - Z2)h*(x + X- Qh(x + X-Z4) (5.19)

As before, upon taking the ensemble average, crossterms between different

scatterers average to zero. The dominant nonzero terms correspond to the special
cases ^1 = £ 2 , £3 = ^ 4 and ^1 = £ 3 , ^2 = ^ 4 . In addition, we note that a is
stationary with an ACF given by

WtMt2)) = <<r)2(l + P.fe - *,)/v) (5-20)

for the gamma model, so (5.19) becomes

r =0 2
2
{I(x)l(x + X)) = (a) h + JdWx - Qh* (x + X-Z)
[ -OO
00 OC /£. t. \

+ J J d^2 -^—^ -\h{x - ix)\

— OCO-O ^
2
x \h{x + X- y

+ ))di&2 *&LZMKx- Z1)

X h*(x +X-Z1W(X-Z2)Kx +X-Z2)I (5.21)

If there are no RCS fluctuations, that is, v = °°, only the first two terms remain
and (5.21) reduces to the Siegert relation [42], as in Chapter 4, with

(Kx)Kx + X)) = (cr}2(l + |p(X)|2) (5.22)

The first two terms in (5.21) describe a constant background plus a

contribution from the coherent imaging of individual point scatterers. The third
term yields appreciable contributions for all X, when pCT (X) > 0, if ^1 ~ x and
^ 2 ~ x + X. The fourth term, on the other hand, reduces to zero unless X ~
0. Thus, information about the RCS correlation properties, as well as both order
parameter and correlation coefficient, is contained in this third term, which is
equivalent to incoherent imaging of RCS fluctuations; the fourth term describes
coherent imaging. Note that the third term describes how imaging modifies the
observed intensity properties from those of the RCS. Thus, the intensity result-
ing from imaging a correlated gamma-distributed RCS with finite resolution
would not generally be K-distributed. A similar derivation can be made for the
higher order moments of the intensity within a single pixel resulting in

for Z-look images. The integral over the n-po'mt correlation function within a
single pixel yields the effect of the PSF on RCS moments. If the RCS is
gamma-distributed, only a rectangular PSF yields a K-distributed output, albeit
with modified order parameter and correlation properties.
Equations (5.21) and (5.23) represent the effect of the PSF on the ACF and
single-point statistics, respectively. Unfortunately no closed analytic form is avail-
able for the filtered PDF itself. In common with other forms of RCS, the intensity
distribution can only be derived numerically, which removes one of the advan-
tages suggested for the gamma-distribution RCS model [43].
We may use (5.21) to calculate the form of intensity ACF we would expect
for the woodland region in Figure 5.1. The two-dimensional correlation coeffi-
cient for a is assumed to be given by

Pa(x,y) =exp-M-M ( 5. 2 4)
* y

where x and y denote lag values in azimuth and range directions, respectively,
and £x and € are the corresponding l/e correlation lengths. This type of
correlation property has been reported for other examples of woodland texture
[24,33]. It is also consistent with the previous Markov model derivation that
allowed arbitrary values of v. In addition, the PSF is assumed, for simplicity, to
have a two-dimensional Gaussian envelope defined by

|^,7)| = exp - 4 ~ 4W W
< 5 - 25 )
I x y
with lie widths of wx and wy in azimuth and range directions. While this is an
oversimplification, it allows the required integrations to be performed more
easily. Appropriate parameter values for the woodland example from Figure 5.1
were estimated from the ACFs of both complex and intensity image leading to
tx = 8.0 pixels, € = 4.5 pixels, wx — 1.36 pixels, and w = 1.13 pixels. The
predicted form for the intensity ACF was then calculated from (5.21) and is
compared with measured data in Figure 5.3. Imaging averages out some of the
contrast, so the order parameter for the RCS has to be selected to yield the
observed ACF value at zero lag. In this case a value of 1.52 was deduced, which
would yield an ACF zero-lag value of 3.32 if there were no averaging effect on
imaging, rather than the value of 2.932, which was actually observed. While this
comparison is only approximate and is based on oversimplistic assumptions, the
consistency indicates the general validity of the product model for natural SAR
clutter, based on a correlated gamma-distributed RCS.
The same set of parameters can also be used to predict higher single-point
moments based on (5.23) [24]. Values for the second to fourth normalized
ACF(r)-l

ACF lag, r

Figure 5.3 Log plot of predicted and measured normalized ACFs for the azimuthal direction of
woodland texture in Figure 5.1.
 Table 5.3
Comparison of Different Predicted Moments of the Woodland Intensity Distribution

Normalized Intensity, Intensity,

Intensity Equivalent RCS Delta-Function Gaussian
Moment Data Simple K (Gamma) PSF PSF

2 2.932 2.932 1.658 3.32 2.92

3 16.5 17.0 3.84 23.0 17.3
4 147.0 163.0 11.5 276.0 174.0

intensity moments of the woodland texture from Figure 5.1 are shown in
column 2 of Table 5.3. In column 3 we show the moments derived by assuming
that the observed intensity was K-distributed, as actually indicated by the K-S
test. The order parameter could then be estimated directly from the second
moment, since (/ 2 )/(7) = 2(1 + l/v), using (5.14), leading to an effective
value of 2.15. RCS moments, consistent with the predicted ACF for a correlated
RCS in Figure 5.4, are listed in column 4. If these fluctuations were imaged by
a system that has a delta-function PSF so that there was no averaging, the
expected intensity moments would have the form of column 5. The results in
column 6 were obtained using (5.25) to derive the averaged intensity moments
after imaging. Comparing columns 5 and 6 it is apparent that the imaging
process has reduced the moments as expected, yielding results that are reason-
ably consistent with the data.
The success of the correlated gamma-distributed RCS model in predicting
both the ACF and single-point moments of the image intensity demonstrates
that the model provides a valid representation of these samples of natural clutter.
A similar approach has been applied to a variety of radar clutter samples
[24,33,37], yielding similar consistency between prediction and data. This
consideration of the effect of the imaging process demonstrates that it is not
sufficient to provide arbitrary parameterized fits of a K distribution to measured
single-point statistics. The interaction between the RCS fluctuations and the
PSF must be properly estimated. Only this approach can predict the properties
of the image of a given scene as the system PSF is changed.

5.7 Limitations of the Data Model

The correlated K-distributed data model is intended to describe extended areas

of homogeneous clutter textures, which can be regarded as single realizations of
 stationary noise processes. Thus, it was tested against the homogeneous samples
identified in Figure 5.1. Of course, the model contains no information about
the location of the boundaries of particular textures; this could be provided by
independent structural information derived, for example, from a map. Image
interpretation based on this model uses spatial average properties, measured over
some local neighborhood, to define image properties. While this is appropriate
inside extended clutter areas, averaging across boundaries mixes the properties
in the overlap region, which is obviously undesirable. We shall demonstrate in
Chapters 8 and 9 how detecting texture anomalies can be used to estimate the
position of such boundaries.
Despite the success of this correlated noise model, it is important to
identify its limitations. The first arises from the fact that there is a large
number of individual features in SAR images that cannot be described in
terms of homogeneous texture at all. Hedges, isolated trees, and farm build-
ings, with associated shadows, are best represented as deterministic structures
recording the position and cross section of individual objects within the scene,
that is, as in a map. In a military context, isolated objects such as vehicles
and bridges clearly belong in the same category. These may require a totally
deterministic solution that models the full physics of the scattering process.
For example, deterministic images of dielectric objects, such as houses, can
be simulated based on physical optics combined with the Geometrical Theory
of Diffraction [44,45]. While this represents a solution of the Forward Prob-
lem, it is not clear to what extent it is useful in image interpretation. Iden-
tifying suitable techniques for extracting information about man-made objects
against an extended clutter background represents a combination of textural
and deterministic properties. We shall provide some discussion of target de-
tection and classification in Chapter 10.
The second limitation emerges when nominally homogeneous regions are
analyzed in more detail, particularly as the resolution is increased. For five of the
selected regions in Figure 5.4 the probability of being K-distributed is very small
(<10~ 7 ) [46]; only the top region is consistent with a K distribution. Detailed
study of the individual textures suggests that, though they appear homogeneous,
they contain more than one component. Upon fitting the PDF to a combina-
tion of two K distributions, described by five parameters instead of two, the
average probability rose to 8 1 % over all samples. Of course, additional degrees
of freedom would be expected to improve the fit; nevertheless, this improvement
seems significant. These textures were actually represented equally well by a
two-component log normal mixture. This differs from the results for the wood-
land texture in Figure 5.1, where the single-component log normal was mark-
edly poorer. Increasing the number of degrees of freedom tends to make the
form of the PDF less critical. This result establishes that a mixture of processes
Figure 5.4 High-resolution (< 1m) DRAX-band SAR image.
may be required to describe high-resolution natural SAR clutter where the
single-component K distribution model fails.
This demonstrates the importance of representing different populations
within a scene individually. While each may be individually K-distributed, their
combination may not be. A similar effect has been observed with real aperture
radar sea clutter [36]. At grazing incidence the H H polarized return from sea
swell is dominated by the phenomenon of sea spikes, so the swell is hardly visible
[47-49]. It proves impossible to represent both the ACF and single-point
statistics of this process successfully with a single K-distributed correlated com-
ponent. However, introducing separate components to represent swell and
spikes enables both the predicted moments and ACF to be fitted to the data
[36]. The sea spikes are represented by a process with a short correlation length,
whereas the swell corresponds to a periodic process of longer correlation length.
Adopting a physically based description of the process then allows the effect of
changed instrument resolution, for example, to be predicted, as discussed in
Section 5.6.

5.8 Simulation

An important way to demonstrate that the properties of SAR images are well
understood is to simulate them based on the models available. A human ob-
server is often capable of observing differences that tests based on specific
models would not detect and so assessing the validity of the model. Further-
more, once a model has been validated, simulation can be used to generate large
quantities of statistically identical examples with which to develop and test
image-interpretation algorithms. Finally, both structural and textural informa-
tion could be combined in a SAR simulator that could be used for training both
human observers and automatic algorithms. The scene would then be regarded
as consisting of regions of homogeneous texture. The edges of these regions
might either be defined by structural features, such as known boundaries, or
arise from small changes in parameter values. Isolated objects would require a
more deterministic approach. In this section we confine our attention to the
simulation of homogeneous textures with the required properties.
A set of simulated textures is compared with an original SAR image of a
young plantation made up of rows of trees in Figure 5.5, where the original SAR
texture is the second from the left. The simulation technique is designed to
reproduce the mean and ACF of the original sample. Both the RCS and speckle
in each simulation are different realizations with identical parameters. It is
difficult to discriminate between the four examples either visually or using
statistical tests [33]. Simulation generates a texture in which the underlying
Figure 5.5 Comparison of measured SAR texture from a plantation of young trees (second
from left) with three example simulations. Single-look image, 3-m resolution.

positions of bright features, assumed to correspond to trees in the original

image, vary randomly. The speckle also varies randomly, so each realization
represents a scene that has identical statistics but different detailed structure.
Since the product model describes a SAR image as the result of applying
a defined imaging filter to an unknown RCS, it seems intuitively reasonable to
design simulation methods to mirror these different processes, though this is not
essential [50,51]. Simulation then comprises two stages. In the first a correlated
gamma-distributed RCS variable is generated. The second stage, corresponding
to introducing speckle in the imaging process, is readily achieved by generating
a pair of independent zero-mean Gaussian-distributed samples to represent real
and imaginary components, %t and %[y of a complex image. The variance of the
Gaussian random number generator is defined by \%>2r(j)) = (^?C/)) = °"-/2,
where cr • represents the simulated RCS of the jth pixel. Passing the complex
image through a filter defined by the PSF introduces the correct correlated
speckle into the final intensity image.
Three different approaches have been proposed for simulating correlated
gamma-distributed noise to represent the RCS:
• Filtering uncorrelated gamma-distributed noise;
• Applying the random walk model;
• Resampling methods.

The sample shown in Figure 5.5 is actually derived by an approximate linear

filter method [21] in which uncorrelated gamma-distributed noise is convolved
with a weighting function designed to reproduce the desired correlation proper-
ties in the output. Though this method reproduces the two-point statistics pre-
cisely, it fails to reproduce the single-point PDF and higher order statistics and has
moments that can be expressed in terms of the original uncorrelated gamma
distribution and the moments of the filter. Only where the weight is rectangular
is the output gamma-distributed. This problem can be overcome by representing
the desired filter weight as the sum of rectangular components [52,53]. Each
component then yields gamma-distributed noise with a triangular autocorrela-
tion function. The combination is gamma-distributed with the desired ACE
However, this approach is limited because of the difficulty of representing arbi-
trary desired ACFs in terms of sums of rectangular components.
The random walk model, introduced in Section 5.4.2, has the advantage
that all the higher order statistical properties of the output can be expressed in
terms of the two-point statistics [23]. However, it is only strictly applicable to
half-integer values of order parameter and so is of little value for reproducing
arbitrary textures.
Resampling from correlated variables that have either exponential or
Gaussian distributions forms the basis of the third category of simulation
methods. Correlated exponentially distributed random variables can be gener-
ated by taking the sum of the squares of two correlated Gaussian random
numbers. If the correlation coefficient for the Gaussian process is p G , then that
for the exponential variable is given by pe = lpGl2. Thus, only the modulus of
the correlation coefficient of the Gaussian process can be derived for a specified
negative exponential correlation coefficient. However, this information is all
that is required because (5.10) shows that the joint probability for two correlated
gamma-distributed samples depends only on the modulus. Armstrong and
Griffiths [25] showed that the appropriate resampling scheme to convert a
negative-exponential variable y to a gamma variate a is to invert the expression

y(v, a ) = T(v) 1 - exp - ^- (5.26)

where 7(#) is the incomplete gamma function (Section 6.5 in [26]). The corre-
lation coefficient for the gamma-distributed output pCT, which represents the
desired cross section, can be related to that for the negative-exponential input
Py, by [25]

((1,(J1) — (o~) f/ \v+2 r -i "I

=V (1+P 2 1+vA+v;v;p
* = (^)-(V { ^ ^ ^ H (5-27)
where ((X1(T2/ is the ACF of a for pixels 1 and 2. The modulus of the correlation
coefficient of the corresponding Gaussian process lpGl, can now be derived from
P7. Problems can be encountered in performing the numerical inversions from
(5.26) and (5.27), which involve extensive computation. More significantly, the
square root of an arbitrary correlation function is not necessarily itself a valid
correlation function (e.g., if p^ were triangular).
A limitation of all methods that are based on resampling or filtering negative
exponential or gamma processes is that, since both the input and the output must
be positive, the correlation coefficients or filter weights must also be positive. This
restricts realizable ACFs to those for which (Cr1CT2) > (a) , so only positive
correlation coefficients can be produced. This inability to reproduce anticorrela-
tions may be significant in attempting to simulate effects such as shadowing, as
illustrated in Figure 5.6, which shows a comparison of simulated textures with
part of an original SAR image of a mature woodland known to contain well-sepa-
rated large trees (on the right). A visual inspection reveals that the original texture
shows more evidence of dark blobs, presumably associated with shadowing, than
the three simulations. Shadows would be expected to correspond to anticorrela-
tions that could be produced by the Gaussian resampling method described next.
Sechtin et al. [54] simulated correlated gamma noise by resampling corre-
lated Gaussian random noise onto a rectangular PDF using the error function.
These correlated samples were then mapped onto a gamma PDF using the inverse
gamma cumulative distribution function (CDF), yielding correlated gamma-dis-
tributed random numbers. Both stages involved nonlinear transformations with
attendant numerical difficulty. Tough and Ward [55] proposed a similar scheme
except that they resampled the correlated Gaussian process directly onto a gamma
distribution. Since this comprises only a single nonlinear transformation, it is
inherently less numerically complicated. The mapping is defined by equating the
CDFs of input and output variables. Thus, for a Gaussian (yQ) to gamma ((T0)
transformation, the mapping is defined by equating random numbers at the same
cumulative value. Hence

Figure 5.6 Comparison of measured SAR texture from mature woodland (on right) with three
sample simulations. Single-look image, 3-m resolution.
 T r J e 4 ~ T \ d y s ^vVJ WTexp["V(T]*" (5 28)
*
V2TT _i L 2 J o T(y)
This defines both .F(CT0), the forward mapping function for y0 —> cr0, and its
inverse i7" 1 Ij 0 ), describing the inversion y0 <— (T0. In principle, there are no
restrictions on the range of order parameter values that can be achieved with this
method, although the numerical inversion process has to be handled carefully.
The relationship between the desired correlation coefficient for the
gamma-distributed variable p a , and that for the underlying Gaussian process py,
can then be derived from the single- and two-point moments of a, defined by

CC
(a»)= \dy(F-\y))nP{y) (5.29)
— cc

where

and

X CO

(V1V2) = J \dyxdy2F^{yx)F-\y2)P{yvy2) (5.31)

where

TX \ i [ -Ti-2W2 +
yi\ , ™
p ex
( Ji ' J 2 ) = /, P -r ^ (5-32)
The inverse mapping F~l(y) can be solved numerically from (5.28).
Hence, the correlation coefficient for the correlated gamma variable, defined in
(5.27) can be evaluated from (5.29) to (5.32). This allows the underlying
Gaussian correlation coefficients at all lag values to be defined from the desired
gamma values. However, this correlation function may again not be valid, so an
approximate version that is close to the required form has to be derived. The
desired filter amplitude spectrum then corresponds to the square root of the FT
of this correlation function.
 The simulated correlated K-distributed image is then generated as follows:

1. An image consisting of uncorrelated Gaussian random variables (GRV)

is formed.
2. Correlated GRVs are generated by multiplying the FT of the uncorre-
lated data by the filter spectrum and taking the inverse FT.
3. Each correlated GRV is resampled to correlated gamma pixel values
using the numerical mapping F~x{y) in (5.28).
4. Speckle is incorporated as described earlier in the section.

In the previous exponential resampling transformations, the output was

obtained from the product of a correlated gamma variable with an uncorrelated
speckle contribution. However, simulating correlated exponential variables is gen-
erally easier than gamma-distributed variables. Indeed, deriving correlated exponen-
tial variables is sometimes a step in the previous methods. An equivalent
K-distributed correlated output to represent single-look intensity could be obtained
by adopting a new uncorrelated gamma variable x, and introducing a new correlated
negative exponential term z, such that / = xz [50]. Alternatively, / could be
represented as the product of an uncorrelated beta-distributed variable b, and two
correlated exponential variables Zx and Z2, so that / = bzlz2[5l]. Both these methods
require the derivation of the underlying Gaussian correlation properties previously
described. Both fail to model anticorrelations, and both can only be applied to a
restricted range of order parameters. Thus, they are generally not as useful as the
Gaussian resampling transformation.
The simulation methods described here are designed to reproduce the
single-point statistics and the ACF of the original sample texture. This has two
important consequences:

• The higher order correlation properties are not specified and so will
vary between methods.
• The methods cannot reproduce the directional effect of shadowing
because this is not represented in the ACF.

Differences in higher order correlation properties, resulting from the choice

of simulation technique, can cause visible differences in the resulting texture [55].
In the random walk simulation method all higher order correlation properties can
be expressed in terms of the two-point statistics. This is not true of any other
method, so the higher order properties will be determined by the simulation
technique. In Figure 5.7 we compare examples of simulated textures with identi-
cal gamma PDFs (v = 0.5) and ACFs (negative exponential). Figure 5.7(a) is the
 result of applying the random walk simulation; Figure 5.7(b) corresponds to the
Gaussian resampling transformation. A negative exponential PDF ensures an
exact filter function, so no approximations are introduced in the resampling
method. Though the defined quantities are identical, higher order correlations
differ for the two techniques. A visual comparison reveals that Figure 5.7(b)
appears to reconstruct distinctive large dark regions that are not visible in Figure
5.7(a). A study of the bivariate histogram reveals differences in the symmetry
properties of the two simulations [56]. Thus, the human observer is able to
discriminate between simulated textures that have the same PDF and ACF but
differing higher order properties. Measurements based on appropriate higher
order statistics reveal that tests can be devised to perform this task automatically.
Simulation based on a data model is thus capable of revealing inadequacies in that
model to the human observer. Establishing which particular high-order moment
conveys the appropriate information is more difficult. However, in principle, this
could be established and a corresponding constraint built into the clutter model
and associated simulation.
In order to overcome the failure to reproduce directional shadowing, a
more deterministic approach to simulating woodland can be used that includes
a defined radar direction and probabilistic representation of tree position and
size [57]. Figure 5.8 contains a comparison of observed C-band SAR woodland
clutter, in Figure 5.8(a), with an example of simulated texture based on a
simple deterministic model [58]. Trees with varying sizes and separations make
up the simulated scene. The tree crowns intersect to form a canopy that is
discretized into facets, each of which is assigned a backscatter coefficient using
the mean field/discrete scatterer model. The effects of shadowing for radar
illumination at the specified angle of incidence are also introduced. This yields
an effective RCS for which simulated imaging is calculated as described earlier.
Both simulated and real data yield a probability of 1.0 of being K-distributed
when a K-S test is applied. The order parameters of the two textures are 3.58
(real) and 3.70 (simulated). Since no attempt was made to match the prop-
erties of the original data precisely, the agreement is striking. In particular,
the deterministic modeling of shadowing has overcome the disadvantages of
the noise-based simulation in Figure 5.6.

5.9 Conclusions
In this chapter we introduced a correlated K-distributed noise model that seems
to represent natural clutter well. The discussion of simulation in Section 5.8
reveals that this model is capable of representing both the single-point statistics
and ACF of SAR texture correctly. However, the important physical property of
 (a)

(b)

Figure 5.7 Comparison of different simulation techniques for correlated gamma-distributed

noise (v = 0.5): (a) random walk model and (b) Gaussian resampling transforma-
tion.
 (a)

(b)
Figure 5.8 Comparison of a sample of (a) C-band SAR woodland clutter with (b) simple
deterministic simulation. Resolution 1.5m by 1.5m, single-look.

shadowing is not contained within the ACF and cannot be represented by these
noise models. Image interpretation based on texture, described in Chapters 8
and 9, is based on the same model and similarly fails to take account of
shadowing. While many important remote sensing properties, such as tree size
and spacing, will be contained in the ACF, this cannot represent the optimum
description. However, we will demonstrate that much useful information can be
extracted even with an incomplete model.
 References

[1] Press, W H., S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in C,

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[2] Trunk, G. V., "Radar Properties of Non-Rayleigh Sea Echo," IEEE Trans., Vol. AS-8, 1972,
pp. 196-204.
[3] Trunk, G. V, and S. E George, "Detection of Targets in Non-Gaussian Sea Clutter," IEEE
Trans., Vol. AES-6, 1970, pp. 620-628.
[4] Schleher, D. C , "Radar Detection in Log Normal Clutter," Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Conf.
Radar 75, 1975, pp. 262-267.
[5] Schleher, D. C , "Radar Detection in Weibull Clutter," IEEE Trans., Vol. AES-12, 1976,
pp. 736-743.
[6] Fay, E A., J. Clarke, and R. S. Peters, "Weibull Distribution Applied to Sea Clutter," Int.
Conf. Radar 77, IEE Conf. Pub. No. 155, London: IEE, 1977, pp. 101-104.
[7] Sekine, M., T. Musha, Y. Tomita, T. Hagisawa, T. Irabu, and E. Kiuchi, "Weibull-Distrib-
uted Sea Clutter," IEE Proc. F, Vol. 130, 1983, p. 476.
[8] Valenzuela, G. R., and M. B. Laing, "Point-Scatterer Formulation of Terrain Clutter
Statistics," Naval Research Laboratory Report 7459, Washington DC, 1972.
[9] Warden, M. P, "An Experimental Study of Some Clutter Characteristics," AGARD Conf
Proc. on Advanced Radar Systems, No. 66, 1970.
[10] Booth, R., "The Weibull Distribution Applied to the Ground Clutter Backscatter Coeffi-
cient," U.S. Army Missile Command, Tech. Report RE-TR-69-15, ASTIA Doc. AD
691109, 1969.
[11] Sekine, M., S. Ohtani, T. Musha, T. Irabu, E. Kiuchi, T. Hagisawa, and Y. Tomita,
"Weibull-Distributed Ground Clutter," IEEE Trans., Vol. AES-17, 1981, pp. 596-598.
[12] Sekine, M., T. Musha, Y. Tomita, T. Hagisawa, T. Irabu, and E. Kiuchi, "On Weibull-Dis-
tributed Weather Clutter," IEEE Trans., Vol. AES-15, 1979, pp. 824-830.
[13] Ogawa, H., M. Sekine, T Musha, M. Aota, M. Ohi, and H. Fukushi, "Weibull-Distributed
Radar Clutter Reflected from Sea Ice," Trans. IEICEJapan, Vol. E70, 1987, pp. 116-120.
[14] Ward, K. D., "Compound Representation of High Resolution Sea Clutter," Electron. Iett.,
Vol. 17, 1981, pp. 561-565.
[15] Ward, K. D., "A Radar Sea Clutter Model and Its Application to Performance Assessment,"
Int. Conf. Radar '82, IEE Conf. Pub. 216, London: IEE, 1982, pp. 203-207.
[16] Jakeman, E., and P N. Pusey, "A Model for Non-Rayleigh Sea Echo," IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propagation, Vol. 24, 1976, pp. 806-814.
[17] Jakeman, E., "Statistics of Integrated Gamma-Lorentzian Intensity Fluctuations," Opt.
Acta, Vol. 27, 1980, pp. 735-741.
[18] Jakeman, E., and P. N. Pusey, "Statistics of Non-Rayleigh Microwave Sea Echo," Int. Conf
Radar 77, IEE Conf. Pub. 155, London: IEE, 1977, pp. 105-109.
[19] Jakeman, E., and P. N. Pusey, "Significance of K Distributions in Scattering Experiments,"
Phys. Rev. Iett., Vol. 40, 1978, pp. 546-550.
[20] Jakeman, E., "On the Statistics of K-Distributed Noise," /. Phys. A: Math. Gen., Vol. 8,
1980, pp. 31-48.
[21] Oliver, C. J., and R. J. A. Tough, "On the Simulation of Correlated K-Distributed Random
Clutter," Opt. Acta, Vol. 33, 1986, pp. 223-250.
[22] Oliver, C. J., "A Model for Non-Rayleigh Scattering Statistics," Opt. Acta, Vol. 31, 1984,
pp. 701-722.
[23] Oliver, C. J., "Correlated K-Distributed Clutter Models," Opt. Acta, Vol. 32, 1985,
pp.1515-1547.
[24] Oliver, C. J., "The Interpretation and Simulation of Clutter Textures in Coherent Images,"
Inv. Problems, Vol. 2, 1986, pp. 481-518.
[25] Armstrong, B. C , and H. D. Griffiths, "Modelling Spatially Correlated K-Distributed
Clutter," Electron. Lett., Vol. 27, 1991, pp. 1355-1356.
[26] Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, New York: Dover,
1970.
[27] Oliver, C. J., "Optimum Texture Estimators for SAR Clutter,"/ Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol.
26, 1993, pp. 1824-1835.
[28] Jakeman, E., and R N. Pusey, "Non-Gaussian Fluctuations in Electromagnetic Radiation
Scattered by a Random Phase Screen," /. Phys. A: Math. Gen., Vol. 8, 1975, pp. 369-410.
[29] Jakeman, E., E. R. Pike, and P. N. Pusey, "Photon Correlation Study of Stellar Scintilla-
tion," Nature, Vol. 263, 1976, pp. 215-217.
[30] Parry, G., P. N. Pusey, E. Jakeman, and J. McWhirter, "Focusing by a Random Phase
Screen," Opt. Comm., Vol. 22, 1977, pp. 195-201.
[31] Fante, R. L., "Detection of Multiscatter Targets in K-Distributed Clutter," IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propagation, Vol. 32, 1984, pp. 1358-1363.
[32] Jao, J. K., "Amplitude Distribution of Composite Terrain Radar Clutter and the K-Distri-
bution," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagation, Vol. 32, 1984, pp. 1049-1062.
[33] Oliver, C. ]., "Representation of Correlated Clutter in Coherent Images," Inv. Problems,
Vol. 4, 1988, pp. 843-866.
[34] Sekine, M., T Musha, Y. Tomita, T. Hagisawa, T. Irabu, and E. Kiuchi, "Log Weibull
Distributed Sea Clutter," IEE Proc. F, Vol. 127, 1980, pp. 225-228.
[35] Watts, S., and K. D. Ward, "Spatial Correlation in K-Distributed Sea Clutter," IEE Proc.
F, Vol. 134, 1987, pp. 526-532.
[36] Oliver, C. J., "Representation of Radar Sea Clutter," IEE Proc. F, Vol. 135, 1988,
pp. 497-500.
[37] Oliver, C. J., Review Article "Information from SAR Images," /. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol.
24, 1991, pp. 1493-1514.
[38] Yueh, S. H., J. A. Kong, J. K. Jao, R. T. Shin, and L. M. Novak, "K Distribution and
Polarimetric Terrain Clutter," /. Electromagnetic Waves and Appl, Vol. 3, 1989,
pp. 747-768.
[39] Kreithen, D. E., S. M. Crooks, W. W Irving, and S. D. Halversen, "Estimation and
Detection Using the Product Model," MIT-Lincoln Lab. Report No. STD-37, 1991.
[40] Watts, S., "Radar Detection Prediction in K-Distributed Sea Clutter and Thermal Noise,"
IEEE Trans. AES, Vol. 23, 1987, pp. 40-45.
[41] Lombardo, R, C. J. Oliver, and R. J. A. Tough, "Effect of Noise on Order Parameter
Estimation for K-Distributed Clutter," IEE Proc. Radar Sonar Navig., Vol. 142, 1995,
pp. 33-40.
[42] Siegert, A. J. E, MIT Rad. Lab. Report No. 465, 1943.
[43] Bucciarelli, T, P Lombardo, C. J. Oliver, and M. Perrotta, "A Compound Weibull Model
for SAR Clutter Analysis," Proc. IGARSS '95, Florence, Italy, 1995, pp. 181-183.
[44] Tajbakhsh, S., M.-J. Kim, H. M. Berenyi, and R. E. Burge, "Applications of an Extended
GTD Model to Synthetic Aperture Radar Simulation," Europto Conf. on SAR Data Proc-
essing for Remote Sensing, Rome, SPIEProc, Vol. 2316, 1994, pp. 202-215.
[45] Tajbakhsh, S., M.-J. Kim, H. M. Berenyi, and R. E. Burge, "Images of Urban Areas by a
Synthetic Aperture Radar Simulator," Europto Conf. on SAR Data Processing for Remote
Sensing, Rome, SPIEProc, Vol. 2316, 1994, pp. 290-295.
[46] Blake, A. P, D. Blacknell, and C. J. Oliver, "High Resolution SAR Clutter Textural Analysis
and Simulation," Europto Conf on Synthetic Aperture Radar and Passive Microwave Sensing,
Paris, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2584, 1995, pp. 101-109.
[47] Long, M. W., Radar Reflectivity of land and Sea, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D. C.
Heath and Co., 1975, pp. 77-89.
[48] Lewis, B. L., and I. D. Olin, "Some Recent Observations of Sea Spikes," Int. Conf Radar
77, IEE Conf. Pub. 155, London: IEE, 1977, pp. 115-119.
[49] Lewis, B. L., and I. D. Olin, "Experimental Study and Theoretical Model of High
Resolution Radar Backscatter from the Sea," Radio ScL, Vol. 15, 1980, pp. 815-828.
[50] Blacknell, D., A. P Blake, P. Lombardo, and C. J. Oliver, "A Comparison of Simulation
Techniques for Correlated Gamma and K-Distributed Images for SAR Applications," Proc.
IGARSS-94, Pasadena, CA, 1994, pp. 2182-2184.
[51] Conte, E., M. Di Biceglie, and C. Galdi, "Modelling and Simulation of Bidimen-
sional Processes for Remote Sensing Applications," Proc. IGARSS-93, IEE, 1993,
pp.1993-1995.
[52] Ronning, G., "A Simple Scheme for Generating Multivariate Gamma Distributions with
Non-Negative Covariance Matrix," Technometrics, Vol. 19, 1977, pp. 179—183.
[53] Blacknell, D., "A New Method for the Simulation of K-Distributed Clutter," IEE Proc
Radar Sonar Navig, Vol. 141, 1994, pp. 53-58.
[54] Sechtin, M. B., L. M. Novak, and M. C. Burl, "Algorithms for Optimal Processing of
Polarimetric Radar Data," Project Report TT-73, MIT-Lincoln Lab., 1989.
[55] Tough, R. J. A., and K. D. Ward, "The Generation of Correlated K-Distributed Noise,"
DRA Technical Report DRA/CIS/CBC3/WP94001/2.0, 1994, DRA Malvern, St. An-
drews Road, Malvern, Worcs.
[56] Blake, A. P, D. Blacknell, and C. J. Oliver, "Texture Simulation and Analysis in Coherent
Imagery," 5th Int. Conf on Image Processing and Its Applications, IEE Conf. Publ. 410,
London: IEE, 1995, pp. 112-11G.
[57] Garside, J. R., and C. J. Oliver, "Models for Natural Clutter in Coherent Imaging," SPIE
Conf. on Image Processing III, SPIE, Vol. 1135, 1989, pp. 48-55.
[58] Williams, M., "Influence of Canopy Shape on SAR Speckle Distributions over Woodland,"
IGARSS '97, Singapore, 1997, pp. 755-757.
6

RCS Reconstruction Filters

6.1 Introduction

The product model for SAR clutter, introduced in Chapters 4 and 5, postulated
that the observed intensity in single-channel images comprises an underlying
RCS on which speckle is imposed. This speckling process defines the condi-
tional probability of observing an intensity /from RCS a, which characterizes
the Forward Problem. This chapter is concerned with the Inverse Problem of
deriving the RCS, given the observed intensity in the image. Even though
speckle properties are well understood, the ambiguity introduced by speckle
means that there is no unique inversion from / t o a. However, by interpreting
data in terms of a series of increasingly sophisticated models, we can produce
image reconstructions of continually improving quality.
This chapter is concerned with the development of filters to provide a
reconstruction of RCS. Initially, in Section 6.2, we examine the implications of
the speckle model for reconstructed image quality. In Section 6.3 Bayesian
inference is introduced, which provides the basis of most of the filters described.
Section 6.4 exploits the speckle model alone, with no information about RCS.
Once this model has been exhausted, we introduce and exploit a series of further
models, commencing with a data model to describe single-point RCS statistics
(Section 6.5), followed by world models describing scene properties, namely,
neighborhood correlation (Section 6.6) and image structure (Section 6.7). Each
improves the quality of the despeckled image. Most of these algorithms are
adaptive linear processes. However, we demonstrate in Section 6.8 that non-
linear iterative processes are capable of offering still further improvement in
image quality. We next apply the concept of a structure model in an iterative
scheme, analogous to simulated annealing, in Section 6.9.
In passing, it should be noted that a variety of other filters have been
proposed for smoothing speckle while retaining strong RCS fluctuations, such
as the median [1,2] and sigma [3] filters. While these schemes have desirable
aspects, such as computational simplicity, they fail to include the specific prop-
erties of SAR speckle. In consequence, they do not perform well enough in
practice to aid image interpretation significantly.
Though the data models in Chapter 5 were developed for comparatively
high-resolution SAR imagery, many potential applications require algorithms
capable of operating on lower resolution (such as satellite) imagery. In principle,
there is no reason why image-interpretation methods should depend on resolu-
tion; algorithms should be controlled simply by underlying theory and the data
themselves. Many algorithm properties, however, will be most evident with
high-resolution imagery, and developments in this chapter will primarily be
illustrated with the example of 3-m resolution, 2-look DRA X-band airborne
SAR imagery shown in Figure 6.1.
A "good" reconstruction filter demonstrates the following properties:

• Speckle reduction in extended uniform regions;

• Feature preservation;

Figure 6.1 DRA X-band airborne SAR image of a rural scene: 3-m resolution, 2-look.
 • Absence of artifacts;
• Radiometric preservation.

The first three properties can be observed visually; the last is better verified
numerically, as described in Section 6.2. Visual inspection can be used to
examine the effectiveness of candidate reconstruction filters in the following
manner:

• Speckle reduction in uniform clutter regions should lead to smooth

reconstructions without bright or dark flecks where speckle has not
been correctly identified by the algorithm.
• Feature preservation, or its lack, is most apparent for small objects. In
particular, we shall concentrate on the four weak objects in the dark
field near the bottom left of Figure 6.1. Note that these are merely
targets of opportunity that are visible in the scene. There is no ground
truth confirming their existence or describing their properties. Features
such as the hedges between fields provide less stringent visual tests for
the algorithms.
• It will be demonstrated that some filters introduce unacceptable arti-
facts into their reconstruction.

Different applications impose differing penalties if any of these quality

issues are violated, so algorithm selection will always be driven by the specific
application. Here we shall attempt to identify algorithms that optimize all
aspects as far as possible and reject those that obviously fail in some manner.

6.2 The Speckle Model and Quality Measures

In this section we introduce a quantitative image quality measure that includes

all the aspects of reconstruction quality discussed earlier. The approach involv-
ing the fewest assumptions is to omit any prior knowledge about RCS in the
product model and describe the observed intensity in terms of the speckle model
alone, as discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. A SAR image can then be thought of
as comprised of some variable, corresponding to local RCS, that is combined
with speckle to yield the observed intensity at each pixel.
Throughout this chapter we treat speckle in a single image as a multipli-
cative process, as introduced in Chapter 4, so that the intensity is given by / =
(Jn where n is the speckle contribution. Some useful moments o f / f o r Z-look
SAR include

(I) = (cr)(n) (P) = (ai)(n>) <„) s 1 (^) = 1 + 1/Z

and

V =
I ' ^T Kr(I + K) + 7B = K^l + I j + I (6.1)

where V}, VJ7, and Vn are the normalized variances of intensity, RCS, and
speckle, respectively. This relationship between V1 and V0. is important because
it is not possible to measure V0. directly; it has to be inferred from V1.
All the reconstruction methods described require estimates of the sample
mean and normalized variance over some window comprising TVpixels, defined
by

- Iv j T7 varx 7=1 tr^\

x = — \x- and Vx = = (6.2)
J x
Np1 x2 Nx2
where Xj denotes the pixel value. In single-stage filters, x corresponds to intensity
/; with iterative algorithms it should tend toward cr as reconstruction progresses.
The size of window depends on the application.
It is important to have some quantitative measure for comparing algo-
rithms, and we will express it in terms of the consistency of the reconstruction
and original image with the speckle model. Suppose that the algorithm yields
the true RCS a ; at pixel j . The ratio of the pixel intensity to the derived RCS, ^
= Ij I(Jj> should then correspond to speckle fluctuations alone with a mean value
of one. The sample mean and standard deviation (SD) can then be estimated
over TV pixels, which could comprise the whole scene, and are defined by

? and
• TF X * SD[ST]s \\T XOi - !)2 («)

For Z-look SAR the expected values for intensity images would be given
by r — 1 and SD[V] = y/l/L . Similar expressions could be derived for the ratio

of the pixel amplitude to the square root of the RCS, for which Jr=I and
SD[Vr] = - / / T 2 U V ( P ( Z + 1/2)) - 1 . This treatment is too simple since a ;
is estimated rather than known, but a rigorous analysis for the statistics of the
intensity ratio over uniform regions in segmentation has been reported [4],
When the observed mean value differs significantly from one, it is an indication
of radiometric distortion. If the reconstruction follows the original image too
closely, the SD would be expected to have a lower value than predicted. It would
be larger than predicted if the reconstruction fails to follow genuine RCS
variations. This provides a simple test that can be applied to any form of
reconstruction, including both despeckling filters and segmentation (see the
next chapter). Departures from prediction indicate a failure of the model or of
the algorithm attempting to implement it, without specifying the manner in
which it fails. For example, the reconstruction may provide an incorrect value
for a region of constant RCS or it may fail to register the positions of changes
in RCS. The test can be applied over the entire image or to specific regions.
Applied globally, it suffers from the problem that it does not indicate if the
reconstruction follows speckle fluctuations too closely in some areas but insuf-
ficiently closely elsewhere. In spite of these reservations, the test gives two
measures of the quality of reconstruction and we will apply it as a numerical test
of the algorithms developed in this chapter.

6.3 Bayesian Reconstruction

In most instances, the approach to reconstruction in this chapter will be ex-

pressed in terms of the Bayes criterion relating the observed intensity /, to the
RCS a, such that

P A P (a|/) = i > ( / | a ) / > » / / > 7 ( / ) (6.4)

where P A p (a|/) is the a posteriori conditional probability of a, which has a

particular value given /, and P(I\cr) is the likelihood function, which describes
the effect of speckle during imaging. As shown in Chapter 4, this is given by

for Z-look SAR. P0. (a) is the a priori PDF that encapsulates prior knowledge
about the RCS. P1(I) = J P(IId)P0(a)da only serves to normalize the ex-
pression and need not be included specifically in most instances. Generally
we wish to provide an estimate of a that represents its most likely value
given an observed / . This is equivalent to maximizing the log likelihood

\ = [nP№(a\I) (6.6)

with respect to a. Two types of maximum will be considered. If there is no prior

knowledge of the form of P a (a) we can only optimize with respect to the
likelihood function in (6.4) leading to the MLE. However, if the form of the a
priori PDF is known, the optimum is referred to as the maximum a posteriori
(MAP) estimate. The latter is more precisely determined since it is based on
more specific prior knowledge about the properties of the complete process.

6.4 Reconstruction Using the Speckle Model

6.4.1 Multilook Despeckling

The simplest approach to despeckling is to average the intensity over several

pixels within a window centered on a specific pixel. This is tantamount to
assuming that the RCS is constant over the filter window. If this assumption is
incorrect, the method is fundamentally flawed. The joint probability that all TV
pixels have this mean value is given by

N N f j\L JL-I r JJ ~

P[^ixI2,-jN)«n^M)=n - FTTexp - — (6-7)

j=\ j=\ Very l \L) |_ a _

for Z-look SAR, where pixels are assumed independent. The MLE for a is then
given by

^ML = 'I (6-8)

which is the average intensity over all the pixels in the window, corresponding
to multilooking. Note that if this is applied to a single pixel the MLE is equal
to the intensity of that pixel, as noted in (4.7). As we will show, different values
for the MLE in subsequent algorithms depend on constraints introduced by
different world models.
The result of applying this algorithm to the original image in Figure 6.1,
using an 11 by 11 window, is shown in Figure 6.2(a). While the method has
reduced the SD of the speckle variations in regions of relatively constant RCS
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 6.2 Despeckled versions of Figure 6.1: (a) multilook, (b) MMSE, (c) structural gamma
MAP, (d) CML, (e) CMAP, and (f) Crimmins.
by a factor VW, that is, 11, it has also degraded resolution by the same factor
resulting in the blurring of small objects. Only if features of interest within the
scene occur on a large enough scale can multilook images be effective. An
adaptive approach that matches the size of a window to the scale of objects of
interest would provide optimum despeckling at the required resolution. Where
fluctuations were consistent with a constant RCS the window size can be
increased to improve despeckling as far as possible.

6.4.2 Minimum Mean-Square Error Despeckling

Multilook despeckling fails where the assumption of constant RCS within the
window breaks down. The filter should then adapt to take account of excess
fluctuations compared with speckle within the window. One approach to such an
adaptive filter is to provide a model-free minimum mean-square error (MMSE)
reconstruction based on measured local statistics [5-7]. If the original intensity of
the center pixel in a window is /, then its corrected value can be obtained by
performing a first-order expansion about the local mean / such that

^MMSE = I +k{I -I) (6.9)

where crMMSE is the MMSE estimate for RCS and k is selected to minimize the
mean-square residual between intensity and fit, yielding [7]

V, V1(I + I/I)

Spatial correlations in a are neglected in (6.10). However, they can be

incorporated in a similar approach, as demonstrated by Frost [6]. Note that o~
is no longer constrained to be constant but is specified through the estimates
o~ and VG (which is inferred from V1 as in (6.1)), which are obtained over the
window as defined in (6.2).
A related approach by Lee [5] considers an optimal linear filter that is
equivalent to a first-order Taylor expansion. This results in a form similar to
(6.9), but the constant k is now given by k = (V1 — 1/'L)/ V1. When there is no
RCS variation we_would expect the estimate V1 to be close to WL so that k ~
0 and crMMSE ~ / for both the MMSE and Lee algorithms. However, speckle
fluctuations cause V1 to have smaller values about half the time, so k becomes
negative. The reconstruction is improved by imposing the condition k = 0
where the estimated normalized variance is smaller than predicted by the speckle
model, so that o~MMSE = / . In the opposite limit of large intensity variations the
 MMSE solution is crMMSE ~ (/ + LI)/{\ + L) for Z-look SAR, so the despeck-
led result is the weighted average of the mean and the individual pixel value. If
/_is sufficiently large compared with its surroundings, it yields a large value of
V1, so crMMSE ~ 1/(1 + 1/L). In this extreme the Lee filter yields k— 1 and crLee
= /. Thus, the response to strong targets differs from MMSE in that it ignores
the speckle contribution to the target intensity when making the reconstruction,
corresponding to treating the bright pixel as a point target that would not give
rise to speckle fluctuations. In most applications this form of reconstruction for
targets would actually be preferable to MMSE.
The result of applying MMSE over an 11 by 11 window to the image in
Figure 6.1 is illustrated in Figure 6.2(b). Speckle is significantly reduced in those
regions that are recognized to be homogeneous. However, an artifact of the
reconstruction technique is that each bright object is surrounded by a ring of
noise. The effect is most obvious for linear features, such as the hedges between
fields, where it results in a noisy band on each side of the feature. This problem
is common to other forms of adaptive filter, as we will see. It arises from the
manner in which the statistics are estimated. Whenever a strong target lies
within the window it dominates the statistics, leading to a large normalized
variance estimate in (6.2). The algorithm then treats weaker intensities sur-
rounding the target as arising from a widely fluctuating RCS, so the recon-
structed value for a will tend toward 1/(1 + L) of the observed intensity. Thus,
pixels surrounding a strong target are reconstructed as a dark speckled ring with
width equal to the window dimension.

6.5 Reconstruction Using the RCS Model

A better estimate for or can be obtained if we have prior knowledge about the
PDF of the RCS. The Bayes rule in (6.4) shows how this a priori PDF can be
used to provide a MAP reconstruction when combined with the likelihood
function. We demonstrated in Chapter 5 that the RCS of natural clutter can, in
many cases, be well represented by a gamma distribution of the form

{ixj r(v) i \x _

where JUL and v are the mean RCS and order parameter, respectively. These
cannot be measured directly and must be estimated from the data. The order
parameter can be obtained using (6.1) and the fact that the normalized variance
of the RCS is given by V0. = 1/v. Hence, estimates for JUL and v are obtained by
passing a window over the original image and setting

|1 = / and v = 1/V; = (1 + 1/Z)/(V^ - 1/Z) (6.12)

6.5.1 Gamma MAP Despeckling

The PDF of a given an intensity /when both likelihood and a priori PDFs are
available is given by

PAP(CT|/) « P(/|a)P» =UX ^ e x p [-^j W" ^ e x p [-^

Vcr/ T(Z) L a J^(JLJ r(v) L JUL
(6.13)

Hence, the log likelihood is given by

X = ln/ ) (/|a) + lnP (j (a)
= ZInZ - Zlna + ( Z - I)InZ - InT(Z) -Ll/a
+ vlnv - vln|JL + (v - I)Ina - InHv) - — (6.14)
M'
and the corresponding MAP solution for RCS [8,9] is given by the quadratic

TJ/-J-2

— ^ + (Z + 1 - vja^p -LI =O (6.15)

M<

where [X a n d v are estimated from (6.12). _

In regions of pure speckle, we would expect V1 ~ l / Z so that, from (6.12),
v ~ oo a n d 0" MAp ~ I, as with M M S E . However, as before, statistical fluctuations
cause the estimate for V1 to be less than 1IL about half the time, so v becomes
negative. Again, the reconstruction can be improved w h e n this occurs by setting
v = oo so that cr MAP = I. In t h e opposite limit of small v, provided that
|x/Z ^ 4 P Z / ( Z + I) 2 , the solution becomes a ^ p ~ 1/(1 + l/Z). If a Gaussian
PDF is adopted for the a priori PDF the MAP solution is obtained from a cubic
equation [8], which is computationally more expensive to solve and is generally
not such an appropriate form for SAR.
 Both MMSE and gamma MAP reconstructions can be improved by
introducing an algorithm that detects and adapts to structural features, such as
edges, lines, and points, using gradient masks, and adjusting the shape of the
window accordingly [9,10]. A gamma MAP reconstruction of Figure 6.1 over
an 11 by 11 window, using structure adaptivity, is illustrated in Figure 6.2(c).
Resolution tends to be preserved for bright objects rather better than with the
MMSE filter and unlike the multilook reconstruction. There is evidence of
structure in the shadows behind the diagonal hedge that was smoothed out in
the MMSE reconstruction in Figure 6.2(b). However, the reconstruction again
suffers from artifacts around bright objects caused by strong features within the
window. This demonstrates the difficulty of constructing an adaptive filter to
recognize and correct for the influence of strong features on their surroundings.
It should be noted that the extent of these artifacts in both MMSE and
gamma MAP could be reduced by reducing window size, though this would have
the effect of increasing speckle fluctuations. Residual artifacts could also be
reduced by increasing the number of possible edge orientations tested. The effect
would be less apparent where the original scene had less structure, as is generally
true for ERS-I images. Indeed, both methods provide excellent reconstructions
over large regions of constant RCS. Gamma MAP reconstruction has been
widely and successfully used in image interpretation; see, for example, [11,12].

6.6 Correlated Neighborhood Model

So far we have exploited the speckle model in reconstructing the RCS of a single
pixel, combined with the single-point PDF of the RCS in Section 6.5. Sur-
rounding pixels were only involved through estimating the population mean
and variance (or order parameter when a gamma a priori PDF was assumed).
All the reconstructions illustrated in Figure 6.2 so far suffer from visible defects.
Improvement can only result from the introduction of further prior knowledge.
Let us introduce a constraint that relates a pixel intensity to its neigh-
bors via a correlated neighborhood model that selects the smoothest possible
reconstruction consistent with observed intensity variations in a local region.
The conditional probability of observing the intensities within the local neigh-
borhood surrounding a central pixel with RCS a (illustrated in Figure 6.3) can
be expressed through the conditional probability P100(ZIa). In the absence of a
known form for this PDF let us adopt a gamma distribution such that

^(/k) = N ^ e x P r - ^ l (6.16)
VoV T(a) L a J
Figure 6.3 Neighborhood diagram (for m = 9 pixels).

The order parameter a is distinct from v since it will have contributions

from speckle as well as from fluctuations in the correlated samples of a within
the neighborhood. Its value can be estimated from the normalized variance over
the neighborhood as a = 1/V1. The assumption of a gamma PDF is not
critical; similar analysis could be performed for a Gaussian PDF.

6.6.1 Correlated Neighborhood ML (CML) Despeckling

Initially we assume that the prior distribution I\cr) is unknown. Combining the
conditional PDF for the correlated neighborhood model in (6.16) with the
speckle conditional PDF in (6.5) yields a constrained ML solution. The joint
probability of observing intensity I0 in the central pixel with surrounding inten-
sities I1 to Im-\, for RCS a at the center, is now given by

/ \ m-\

; =0

j\L a

=/ TL-I
expr TJ Im-I/ \ Ja-I
exp |~ /

P F7T -— M - U h "- (6-17)

VoV T(L) L a J^ovay r(a) [_ a_

Hence, the MLE for the cross section of the center pixel, a, is given by
L + mal/L .^ .
a
CML = - T T JZ- (6-18)
1 + ma/L
where a and / are estimated over a 3 by 3 neighborhood in the same way
as before. This filter can be written in a form similar to the MMSE result,
namely,

< W = ~I + k(lQ - 7) where k = * (6.19)

v
' 1 + ma/ L

This expression assumes that the intensity estimates in the neighborhood

are uncorrelated even though the RCS over the neighborhood is correlated. This
assumption must be modified when the process is iterated in Section 6.8.3.
From (6.19) we observe that if the neighborhood fluctuations are dominated by
speckle, so that a ~ Z, then k <^ 1 and crCML ~ / , and the estimate reduces to
the local average. In the opposite limit of large variations, a <^ 1 and so k ~ 1
and crCML ~ I0, so that the center pixel is unchanged. These represent the same
limits as the Lee algorithm [5].
The results of applying this algorithm to the image in Figure 6.1 over
a 3 by 3 neighborhood is illustrated in Figure 6.2(d). It is immediately ap-
parent that the despeckling performance over regions of constant RCS is less
effective than that achieved by previous algorithms, as expected from the re-
duced window size. On the other hand, unwanted artifacts surrounding strong
objects appear to have been largely removed since the small neighborhood
restricts the distance over which the effect of strong features would be evident.
As already noted, a similar effect could be obtained by applying MMSE or
gamma MAP over this small neighborhood at the expense of degraded speckle
reduction.

6.6.2 Correlated Neighborhood Gamma MAP (CMAP) Despeckling

Let us now combine the correlated neighborhood model with the prior PDF for
the RCS (6.11) in a MAP reconstruction. The joint PDF for single-look SAR
now becomes

^Hv-v> W ^ (*) fik M = UX £1

j=0 VOV 1 [L)

L a J^jUL; r(v) L JJL _ | > = o V o V r ( a ) [ (J

Hence, the MAP solution for a is expressed as the positive root of the quadratic
equation

Q m
— ~ + °"CMAP {ma + L + l - v ) - U 0 - mal = 0 (6.21)

Estimates for / and a are obtained over the local neighborhood. The correlated
neighborhood model implies that fluctuations within the neighborhood should
be small so that a should be large. The full range of fluctuations would be
expected over the larger window that is used to estimate JJL and v as in (6.12).
The results of applying this algorithm to the original image of Figure 6.1
are illustrated in Figure 6.2(e). Upon comparing this result with Figure 6.2(d)
we observe that the speckle in uniform regions is further suppressed using the
MAP reconstruction. This illustrates the advantage of including more prior
knowledge where it is available. However, the algorithm has insufficient speckle
reduction performance.

6.7 Structural Adaptive Filtering

With the exception of gamma MAP reconstruction, the filters considered so far
have not taken account of any structure. However, we have observed in MMSE
and gamma MAP despeckling that the presence of bright objects within the
filter window has a deleterious effect via the introduction of artifacts. Results
with smaller windows, such as CML and CMAP, show that these artifacts can
be reduced at the expense of degraded speckle reduction. It is instructive to
enquire whether a structural approach alone could provide useful despeckling
performance. Crimmins [2] proposed a geometrical filter based on iterative
complementary hulling. This does not incorporate any specific model for
speckle statistics but depends on the shape of features in the scene. The image
is treated with a set of small (4-pixel) templates that are intended to respond to
structural features. At the same time, these templates average over speckle
fluctuations. The algorithm is nonlinear, iterating eight times, and actually
modifying the image 64 times in the process, leading to speckle reduction. Thus,
this filter offers a potential for both adaptive structure enhancement and speckle
reduction and can be regarded as an adaptive multilook despeckling method
where the window over which averaging is performed is tuned to the scene,
albeit imperfectly. This effect is apparent in Figure 6.2(f), which illustrates the
result of applying the algorithm to Figure 6.1. The method has provided
effective speckle reduction in homogeneous regions and generally appears to
give better speckle reduction, structure preservation, and lack of artifacts than
the other methods discussed so far. However, some small-scale structure has
been lost, which is to be expected. This tendency to lose or degrade the shape
of small objects can be a serious disadvantage. Nevertheless, this reconstruction
might be considered to give visually the best reconstruction of those illustrated
in Figure 6.2.

6.8 Reconstruction Using Nonlinear Iterated Processing

The reconstructions described so far appear to give limited despeckling perform-

ance. Large windows yield good speckle reduction over homogeneous regions
but lead to artifacts over a distance equal to the filter dimension in the presence
of strong features. This means that background clutter has excess variations in
precisely those areas where one would like it accurately defined. Small windows
are largely free of these artifacts but give inadequate speckle reduction. In many
ways, the Crimmins algorithm gives better reconstruction in spite of degraded
resolution. In this method, iteration leads to a considerable reduction in the
speckle, which motivates us to consider the effects of iterating the other filters.

6.8.1 Iterated MMSE Despeckling

If we assume that pixel values after iteration are still affected by multiplicative
noise, then the same MMSE approach as in (6.9) and (6.10) can be adopted [7].
The iterated MMSE estimate for the RCS now takes the form

a
MMSE =x+k(x-x) (6.22)

where x is the current value of the center pixel and

V~ V~ - l/Z/
k = ^ = 1* V \ (6.23)
K vx(i + i / r )

Equations (6.22) and (6.23) have a form_similar to those for the first
iteration. However, the sample estimates x and Vx are now obtained by apply-
ing the filter window to the result of the previous iteration. In addition, the
progressively despeckled data have an effective number of looks Z', that in-
creases as iterations proceed. Z' is estimated from the normalized variance of the
complete image.
 An MMSE reconstruction of Figure 6.1, after 8 iterations with an 11 by
11 window, is shown in Figure 6.4(a). Speckle has been smoothed considerably,
but excess noise around strong objects is still apparent, though reduced com-
pared with a single look. The primary drawback of the reconstruction, however,
is the failure to preserve structure in the scene. Indeed, upon continuing to 200
iterations, nearly all structure is averaged out. It appears that MMSE does not
converge to the RCS but continues to smooth out all variation because approxi-
mately half of the measurements of the statistics in the window yield a variance
lower than that expected for speckle and so the algorithm adopts the local
average value, leading to progressively increased smoothing.

6.8.2 Iterated Gamma MAP Despeckling

A similar approach to iteration can be adopted for the gamma MAP algorithm.
In principle, it should be possible to base the iteration process on updating
the current pixel value, denoted by x, rather than the original intensity /.
However, this demands knowledge of the conditional probability P(x\cr) re-
lating the current (partially despeckled) pixel value x to the RCS o\ For re-
sidual speckle, this PDF would be expected to be gamma-distributed with
an order corresponding to an effective number of looks U. One difficulty
encountered in estimating I! is that it will vary across the image. A second
is that any degradation in reconstruction will be retained, and probably ex-
acerbated, during subsequent iterations. Thus it seems preferable to insist that
the estimated RCS during each iteration should be consistent with the original

(a) (b)
Figure 6.4 Despeckled version of Figure 6.1 after 8 iterations: (a) MMSE and (b) structural
gamma MAP.
intensity image described by the speckle conditional probability P(I \ cr).
Though convergence is slower, there is less chance of progressively increasing
radiometric distortion. A similar approach will be adopted in all the following
iterative reconstruction methods.
As the iterations of the gamma MAP algorithm proceed, we might hope
that x converges to a and the PDF for x converges to (6.11). Hence, the form
of the iterated MAP joint probability is identical to (6.13), leading to the same
form for the gamma MAP solution for the cross section [13], namely,

T>rr2
- ^ - + CT1^p (L - v + 1) - LI = 0 (6.24)

where I and L are the original intensity and number of looks, respectively,
and JUL and v _are estimated from the current iteration, so that
JUL = x and v = 1/Vx . In fact, x does not converge to a; artifacts will be in-
troduced as described earlier that will continue to be reconstructed in the
same manner as genuine RCS variations.
The consequences of applying 8 iterations of the structured gamma MAP
algorithm within an 11 by 11 window are illustrated in Figure 6.4(b). Homo-
geneous regions are clearly smoothed without the loss of structure noted with
the artifacts around features are still clearly visible as expected. Upon extending
to 200 iterations, there is little change in the quality of the reconstruction. Some
additional smoothing of uniform regions is apparent, structure is preserved, and
the artifacts around features are retained. The spatial extent of these artifacts can
be reduced, as mentioned in Section 6.5.1, by reducing window size. As ex-
pected, this degrades the despeckling but can be rectified by iteration. However,
for a 3 by 3 window, although artifacts are reduced, the structure in the scene is
smoothed out to a greater extent than with the larger window. A window
dimension could be selected to provide an acceptable compromise between
artifact reduction and oversmoothing.

6.8.3 Iterated Correlated Neighborhood ML (CML) Despeckling

When the correlated neighborhood model is invoked, iteration causes the
local PDF to become less broad as differences between neighboring pixels
due to speckle are removed. However, the joint probability has the same form
as before, given by (6.17), resulting in an identical ML solution for cr [13]
given by

1 + ma/L
where I0 and L again correspond to pixel intensity and the number of looks
for the original data and x and a are estimated from the current iteration
over the neighborhood. While (6.25) has the same form as for the first pass
in (6.18), iteration causes the pixel values to become increasingly correlated,
violating the assumptions of the derivation. Thus, m is now the effective
number of independent pixels that can be estimated from the ACF within
the neighborhood.
The result of applying this algorithm for 8 iterations using a 3 by 3
neighborhood is illustrated in Figure 6.5(a). Speckle is considerably reduced
compared with the single-pass result in Figure 6.2(d), though it is still visible,
indicating that more iterations are necessary. Detail is also better preserved
than with the MMSE reconstruction in Figure 6A, and artifacts are much
less obvious than with either MMSE or gamma MAP. However, increasing
to 200 iterations leads to the oversmoothed result in Figure 6.5(c). Notice
that shadows behind the hedge, which were clearly visible after 8 iterations,
have largely disappeared. Thus, this approach does not appear to converge
satisfactorily and must be rejected.

6.8.4 Iterated Correlated Neighborhood Gamma MAP (CMAP) Despeckling

CML made no use of a PDF for the RCS. Upon incorporating the PDF in a
full iterated MAP solution, the theoretical description for subsequent iterations
of the CMAP algorithm is unchanged from the first iteration (see (6.20)),
yielding a solution [13] given by

Tjrt-2
— 0 ^ - + o- C M A P (ma + L + l - v ) - LI0- max = 0 (6.26)

Again the original intensity I0, and number of looks L, is used; a, x, and m are
estimated over the small neighborhood for the current iteration, while fx and v
retain their values from the original image, estimated over the larger window.
The general behavior of this algorithm would be expected to be similar to that
for the previous ML version in Section 6.8.3, with the exception of an improve-
ment due to the inclusion of the a priori PDF.
Results for 8 and 200 iterations with a 3 by 3 neighborhood and 11 by 11
window are shown in Figure 6.5(b,d). Based on a comparison with CML after 8
iterations (in Figure 6.5(a)), it is apparent that speckle has been smoothed better
in homogeneous regions and that detail is better preserved. Both are conse-
quences of the increased prior knowledge being exploited. Upon increasing to
Next Page

(a) (b)

(C) (d)
Figure 6.5 Iterated despeckled version of Figure 6.1:8 iterations of (a) CML and (b) CMAP and
200 iterations of (c) CML and (d) CMAR

200 iterations (in Figure 6.5(d)), however, the reconstructions display excessive
oversmoothing. Thus, both the correlated neighborhood models fail to converge
to the RCS as the number of iterations increases and should be rejected.

6.9 Reconstruction by Iterating the Structured

Neighborhood Model

The results illustrated in Figures 6.4 and 6.5 indicate that the filters described
in Section 6.8 are capable of attaining very good speckle reduction in uniform
Previous Page

(a) (b)

(C) (d)
Figure 6.5 Iterated despeckled version of Figure 6.1:8 iterations of (a) CML and (b) CMAP and
200 iterations of (c) CML and (d) CMAR

200 iterations (in Figure 6.5(d)), however, the reconstructions display excessive
oversmoothing. Thus, both the correlated neighborhood models fail to converge
to the RCS as the number of iterations increases and should be rejected.

6.9 Reconstruction by Iterating the Structured

Neighborhood Model

The results illustrated in Figures 6.4 and 6.5 indicate that the filters described
in Section 6.8 are capable of attaining very good speckle reduction in uniform
regions. However, their symmetrical response tends to smooth out directional
features. This suggests that the comparatively good result achieved with the
Crimmins filter, shown in Figure 6.2(f), does not stem solely from iteration to
reduce speckle but also from its response to structures within the scene. There-
fore, in this section we introduce structure sensitivity into the correlated neigh-
borhood model by subdividing the neighborhood into a set of templates that
provide directional information [14-16]. Instead of calculating CML or CMAP
solutions for the central pixel using all pixels in the neighborhood, a set of 12
different solutions can be produced corresponding to each of the configurations
illustrated in Figure 6.6. Structure can then be preserved by selecting the most
probable configuration, based on (6.25) or (6.26), respectively. Unlike all the
previous filters, which were aimed at providing local optimization, this new
approach is intended to derive the global MAP solution for RCS, given the
constraints imposed by the different models. As such, it is a member of the
well-known class of global optimization problems. A familiar difficulty with
attempting analytic optimization is that, if analytic gradient descent techniques
are adopted to find the maximum (or minimum), the reconstruction can
become trapped in some local optimum rather than progressing to the global
solution. Well-designed optimization methods try to avoid this difficulty and
derive the global solution. One such generic technique is simulated annealing.
Let us consider how this approach can be combined with the structured neigh-
borhood model to provide a global MAP reconstruction of the RCS.

6.9.1 Simulated Annealing and the Structured Neighborhood Model

Conventional simulated annealing is based on the Metropolis algorithm [17],
which is intended to provide a global optimization with respect to an objective
function that is defined over the complete image. When applied to despeckling,

Figure 6.6 The 12 allowed configurations around the central pixel in the structured correlated
neighborhood model.
the RCS is modeled as a Markov random field that is governed by the Gibbs
distribution describing the conditional probability of the RCS cr, given a noisy
estimate x. Thus,

/>H*) = ^ e x p [ - ^ ] (6.27)
where Z is a normalizing constant; T is a constant termed the distribution
temperature, by analogy with true annealing; and W represents a potential
function that encapsulates the data multipoint statistics over the entire image,
or at least as much as is feasible. Simulated annealing is guaranteed to find the
global minimum of such a system provided that [18]:

• The temperature T tends to zero sufficiently slowly, with

T>—^ (6.28)
In(I + $k)

where k is the iteration number, T0 the starting "temperature" (which

controls initial smoothing), and (3 the convergence rate (which controls
the number of iterations over which smoothing occurs).

• Each pixel in the image is visited a very large number of times.

The algorithm proceeds as follows.

1. A particular pixel is randomly perturbed to some different value.

2. The joint probability of all pixels in the image is evaluated, based on
the objective function.
3. If the probability of a new configuration is greater than for the previous
one, the new pixel value is adopted. If the probability is lower than be-
fore, the new value may still be accepted (as described below).
4. A new pixel is selected randomly and the process repeated from 1.

While this scheme is guaranteed to find the values of a that yield the global
minimum of W, both the calculation of the joint probability over the entire image
and randomly perturbing the pixel value are extremely time consuming.
Significant speed improvements can be achieved if the objective function is
defined locally rather than over the complete image [14—16,18—20]. There need
be no restriction on correlation between pixels, though the general form could be
limited to a specific model characterized by variance and correlation length
parameters, for example [20]. Even with this simplification, the algorithm would
still be impractical if every pixel could take an arbitrary value of RCS. One way to
reduce complexity is to restrict the number of possible values that the intensity
can take [18,20]. The output then takes the form of a crude quantization that is
unsuitable for RCS estimation. Early methods also encountered difficulty in
defining the prior knowledge to be exploited. In particular, it was found that
heuristic models for real scenes gave poor results [19]. White [14—16] proposed a
novel simulated annealing scheme that restricted the number of configurations
for which the potential is defined to those illustrated in Figure 6.6 rather than the
total number of possible final states of the entire image. This enables a continuous
valued output to be implemented, suitable for RCS estimation.
White [14-16] also proposed a means for overcoming the second time-con-
suming step. He adopted a deterministic ML solution for the center pixel of each
of the 12 candidate configurations corresponding to the prior correlated neigh-
borhood model. This departure from strict annealing means that there is no
guarantee of ultimate convergence to the global MAP solution, though it speeds
execution considerably. As we will demonstrate, reconstructions are visually satis-
factory and also achieve a good quality measure, as defined in Section 6.2.
Let us now examine how the potential function W in (6.27) can be related
to the correlated neighborhood model. Following White [14-16] we define W
in terms of the log likelihood, X, for the local neighborhood by

-W = -X = - I n P(I0 |<r) - lnPCT(o-) (6.29)

Thus, the global MAP solution for X corresponds to the minimum of W. The
structured neighborhood model considers the 12 individual 3-pixel configura-
tions in the neighborhood separately. The original speckle conditional PDF, the
intensity of the center pixel, and the number of looks are retained.
In fact, simulated annealing only approximates the global MAP solution.
It is therefore important to select operating parameters to derive an effective
solution. As noted in (6.27), the algorithm depends on an annealing tempera-
ture to prevent convergence on local minima. The choice of initial temperature
T0 and its change per iteration are crucial to the success of the algorithm. If T0
is too low the solution converges on local minima, whereas if it is too high the
reconstruction tends to be too smooth. Similarly, if ^decreases too rapidly there
is little probability of the 3 pixels in a configuration belonging to the same
distribution and the technique fails. On the other hand, if it decreases too slowly
convergence is delayed and the image is smoothed too much. It must be
appreciated that there is no absolute "best" reconstruction available using this
method. In examples that follow we adopt a cooling schedule based on T0 =
2.5 and (3 = 4, which preserves details of weak targets within the scene.
 The conditional probability for configuration j is then given by (6.27)
with Wj = A. •, and the CDF of the configuration probability is given by

CDF(TO E= 1 Y exp - -!- (6.30)

T
CDF(12)^ L \
First we identify which configuration out of the 12 has the highest probability and
call it K0. If this probability is greater than that for the previous iteration, the new
configuration is selected. Even if the probability is lower than before, it can still be
selected probabilistically if CDF(K0) < rnd(l) < CDF(i^ + 1), where rnd(l) de-
notes a random number selected from a uniform distribution between 0 and 1.
This random process prevents convergence on local minima by introducing tem-
perature-dependent noise that allows the reconstruction to select a nonminimum
state probabilistically. Cooling progressively allows the reconstruction to settle
into an acceptable minimum solution that approximates the true MAP solution.
An alternative, rule-based algorithm called TABOO [21] prevents convergence
on local minima by making it progressively more difficult to select a state that has
been previously selected. Though results of the two methods differ slightly, since
neither represents the true global MAP solution, there is no significant difference
in image quality and the TABOO algorithm is slightly faster.
Having outlined an approach that combines the structured neighborhood
model with annealing we next derive CML and CMAP solutions and compare
their performance.

6.9.2 Constant RCS Model

If the RCS within the neighborhood is assumed to have a constant mean, the
iterated correlated neighborhood implementations in Sections 6.8.3 and 6.SA
can be applied directly. Each of the 12 neighborhood configurations has its own
probability, depending on the pixel values it contains. Assuming gamma PDFs
for both speckle and the local neighborhood fluctuations, the conditional prob-
ability of (JK at the central pixel for the Kth configuration using the annealed
CML algorithm (ACML), from (6.17), can be expressed as

xLffeT [_!!(v^| (631)

F
UJ P(a) |_ °K J
where L is the original number of looks for the speckle process, I0 is the original
intensity of the center pixel, and X1 and X2 are the outer two pixel estimates for
configuration K.
The local order parameter a in (6.31) can be estimated over the whole 3
by 3 neighborhood. The ACML solution for aK then has a form similar to
(6.18) and (6.25), namely,

I0 +a(Xl +x2)/L
1+ 2a/L

The ML solution with a Gaussian model for both speckle and the local neigh-
borhood fluctuations is given in [14—16]. However, this reconstruction ap-
peared too smooth, so an edge detection stage was introduced, resulting in a
segmentation, rather than reconstruction, algorithm.
The equivalent analysis for the ACMAP algorithm yields a conditional
probability for the Kth. configuration similar to (6.31) except that it includes the
a priori PDF for (J10 similar to that in (6.20). The MAP solution for (J10 similar
to (6.21) and (6.26), is then given by the quadratic expression

VCTicMAp(j0
+ ^ A cMAp(^)(2a + L+ 1-v)-U0- Ct(X1 + * 2 ) = 0
M-
(6.33)

where JUL and v retain their values from the original image, estimated over the
larger window, as in Section 6.8.4.

6.9.3 Sloping RCS Model

So far, structure considerations are restricted to the probabilistic selection of that
configuration that demonstrates the greatest similarity between the RCS in
neighboring pixels. A further refinement is to introduce a local slope in RCS
such that the RCS in neighboring pixels in each configuration is in the ratio
7:1:1/7 [22]. An additive slope is also possible [15,16,22] and yields essentially
the same results but with a more complicated formalism. The total probability
for the Kth configuration in ACML is then given by
 {<TK) T(L) I <JK _

x U f f e T ^ L ^ W ! ) ] (634)

Hence, the MLE for 7 becomes

7 = ^xJV1 (6.35)

while the ACML solution for a becomes

/ ^ - 7Q + ( a /^)(*i A/ + x2y) _ I0 + ( 2 a / Z ) V ^
O" ACML (AJ {o.5b)
I+ 2a/L I+ 2a/L

A similar derivation can be performed when the a priori PDF for (JK is
introduced. The MLE for 7 is the same as (6.35), leading to a quadratic
expression for the MAP solution for a of the form

^ACMAP(^) + a AcMAp (Kpa _v + L + lyLI()_ 2 a J^ =0 (6.37)

where the parameters are estimated as before.

6.9.4 Discussion of Structured Annealing Results

The result of applying structured annealing to Figure 6.1 using a 3 by 3 neighbor-
hood and an 11 by 11 window are shown in Figures 6.7 and 6.8 for 8 and 200
iterations, respectively. Results for constant RCS with ACML and ACMAP are il-
lustrated in (a) and (b) with the corresponding sloping RCS results in (c) and (d).
After 8 iterations, the smoothest reconstruction in uniform regions seems to be
obtained in Figure 6.7(d), followed by Figure 6.7(a). The sloping RCS with the
ML reconstruction in Figure 6.7(c), and the MAP solution with constant RCS in
Figure 6.7(b), both seem to show more fluctuations in uniform speckle regions.
There is no significant difference between reconstructed features visible after 8
iterations. After 200 iterations the speckle in uniform regions has been effectively
removed with all methods, as shown in Figure 6.8. All methods preserve the four
objects in the field at the bottom left. However, the sloping RCS model with
ACML, shown in Figure 6.8(c), reconstructs other isolated objects in the vicinity.
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)

Figure 6.7 Structured neighborhood annealed reconstructions of Figure 6.1 after 8 iterations:
constant RCS for (a) ACML and (b) ACMAP, and sloping RCS for (c) ACML and (d)
ACMAR

The ACMAP solution for the sloping RCS model, shown in Figure 6.8(d), re-
moves these. Since all reconstructions approximate to a global optimum, given
the slightly differing initial constraints, it is difficult to select one solution in pref-
erence to another. However, it is apparent that the fields have been broken up with
distinct edges between regions where the constant RCS has been assumed in Fig-
ure 6.8(a,b), whereas most of these edges have been removed with the sloping
RCS model in Figure 6.8(c,d). This "terracing" effect is an artifact of the constant
RCS model, not a property of the data.
Generally, there is little to choose between these annealed reconstructions.
All represent a considerable advance visually on any of the techniques described
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)

Figure 6.8 Structured neighborhood annealed reconstructions of Figure 6.1 after 200 itera-
tions: constant RCS for (a) ACML and (b) ACMAR and sloping RCS for (c) ACML and
(d) ACMAR

earlier, in terms of both speckle reduction and feature preservation. ACML with
constant RCS or ACMAP with sloping RCS appear to represent uniform
speckle regions marginally better, indicated by the results after 8 iterations. The
terracing artifact, introduced by the constant RCS model, may be significant in
some remote sensing applications where slow variations in RCS are important,
in which case the ACMAP with the sloping RCS model is to be preferred. Any
difference in radiometric preservation cannot be judged visually and can only
be tested quantitatively, as described in the next section.
6.10 Comparison of Reconstruction Algorithms

In assessing the performance of the different despeckling algorithms described

in this chapter there are two main considerations:
• Image quality;
• Execution time.

There is little point in implementing a fast algorithm that fails to extract

useful information from the image data. On the other hand, it is inadvisable to
implement a meticulous reconstruction if the algorithm is so slow that the
application becomes impractical. The compromise between these requirements
depends on the specific application. The relationship between system resolution
and the size of objects of interest is of particular relevance. Pixels can be
presummed where objects cover many resolution cells, as in multilook despeck-
ling in Section 6.4.1, without any significant penalty on the definition of the
objects involved. In military applications, high resolution must generally be
preserved, so this form of speckle reduction is inadvisable and more sophisti-
cated algorithms are required. In this section we will consider both image quality
and execution time and identify a good compromise solution yielding high-
quality reconstructions with reasonable execution times. It should be borne in
mind that execution speeds will increase as computing technology advances.
However, the effect of an initial unsuitable choice of algorithm cannot be
subsequently rectified.

6.10.1 Image Quality

As discussed in Section 6.2, image quality can be assessed using a global test for
consistency of the data with the speckle model. The ratio of the original
intensity to the derived RCS enables us to determine the extent to which the
reconstruction filter introduces radiometric distortion so that the reconstruction
departs from the expected speckle statistics. In Section 6.2 we showed that the
ratio image should consist of uniform speckle with a mean value of 1.0 and no
trace of structure associated with the original scene. A series of images of this
ratio are shown in Figures 6.9 and 6.10, scaled between values of 0.5 and 1.5.
These should appear like a speckle image with a mean corresponding to a
mid-gray level, similar to the field regions in the annealed reconstructions in
Figure 6.10. The fact that the images in Figures 6.9 and 6.10 clearly have
differing mean levels reveals bias in the reconstruction. Further, any trace of
structure in the ratio indicates a failure of the reconstruction to be consistent
with the speckle model. In addition, the depth of modulation of the speckle in
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)
Figure 6.9 Ratio of original image to despeckled reconstruction: (a) Crimmins filter and 200
iterations of (b) gamma MAP, (c) CML, and (d) CMAR

the ratio image can vary, demonstrating yet another failure of the reconstruction
to follow the speckle model. In this comparison we have confined our attention
to those algorithms that appear to give a visually satisfactory reconstruction. It
is immediately obvious that all fail to yield uncorrelated residual speckle, with
the ratio images for CML (Figure 6.9(c)), CMAP (Figure 6.9(d)), and the
Crimmins filter (Figure 6.9 (a)) showing the greatest depth of modulation by the
underlying structure while the annealed reconstructions show considerably less.
The ratios for gamma MAP and annealed reconstructions reveal artifacts sur-
rounding any structure in the scene with gamma MAP having the greater spatial
extent due to the window size adopted.
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)

Figure 6.10 Ratio of original image to annealed reconstruction after 200 iterations: constant
RCS for (a) ACML and (b) ACMAR and sloping RCS for (c) ACML and (d) ACMAP.

A numerical comparison of the mean and SD of the intensity ratio over

the test image following 200 iterations is listed in Table 6.1. The algorithms
have not preserved overall radiometric accuracy because the mean values all
differ significantly from 1.0. The original image had 2.2 effective looks, so
the expected SD for the intensity ratio image would be 0.674. The bias in
the ratio renders it difficult to draw any hard conclusions from the comparison
of their SDs. The results suggest that the Crimmins filter follows the intensity
too closely, yielding a small value of SD, whereas CMAP appears to smooth
the RCS too much, leading to a large value of SD. Other filters appear more
consistent with the speckle model.
 Table 6.1
Comparison of Mean and SD for Intensity Ratio Images.
The expected SD is 0.674

Algorithm Mean SD

GMAP 1.270 0.663

Crimmins 0.876 0.575
CML 0.835 0.659
CMAP 1.132 1.144
ACML 1.241 0.648
ACMAP 1.230 0.634
Sloping ACML 1.300 0.666
Sloping ACMAP 1.488 0.727

If we compare these results within separate uniform and structured regions

rather than over the whole scene, we find that:

• The bias is approximately independent of scene content and is domi-

nated by the effect of the first iteration; that is, it does not change much
as iteration continues. If necessary it can be corrected by scaling the
data so that the mean ratio is unity. This is essential for remote sensing
applications requiring accurate values of a 0 .
• The SD in uniform regions is consistent with speckle, whereas in
structured regions it is too small. This indicates that the reconstruction
of small features is not consistent with the speckle model. This may not
necessarily be a disadvantage, however. Most users would prefer small
isolated objects to be treated as point targets with <r = / (so that the
SD is zero) rather than a single realization from a speckle distribution.
Structures on an intermediate scale might be expected to require an
intermediate value of SD.

6.10.2 Execution Times

Table 6.2 shows comparative timings for several of the reconstruction algo-
rithms obtained over a 5 1 2 b y 5 1 2 pixel image on a Sun Sparc 10 system.
Execution times per iteration vary from over 30 sec for the most sophisticated
annealing methods to about 4 sec for MMSE. The fastest is MMSE, followed
by CML and ACML. Note that the simplest annealing scheme performs each
iteration faster than either form of gamma MAP. However, ACML structured
annealing typically requires about 50 to 100 iterations to achieve an acceptable
 Table 6.2
Execution Times and Speeds for Various Reconstruction Algorithms Applied
to a 512 by 512 Image Using a Sun Sparc 10

Execution Speed Execution Time

Filter Type Algorithm (kpixels/s) per Iteration (sec)

Simple MMSE 66.8 3.9

Gamma MAP 31.7 8.3
Structured gamma MAP 9.8 26.6
Correlated neighborhood CML 50.8 5.2
CMAP 28.6 9.2
Structured neighborhood ACML:
(anneal) constant RCS 36.3 7.2
sloping RCS 11.0 23.7
ACMAP:
constant RCS 7.4 35.3
sloping RCS 7.9 33.0

result, whereas gamma MAP has converged after a few iterations. Thus, ACML
requires a total execution time an order of magnitude longer than simple gamma
MAP or about three times longer than the structured version.
These timings show that introducing a gamma prior PDF in a MAP recon-
struction increases execution time significantly, for example, gamma MAP vs.
MMSE, CMAP vs. CML, and ACMAP vs. ACML. The corresponding results for
ACML and ACMAP in Figure 6.8 suggest that the most important consideration
is whether to adopt the sloping region model to avoid the terracing artifact. This
tends to slow down execution, except for ACMAP. Since terracing is only visible
after a large number of iterations, it can be ignored in many applications.

6.10.3 Algorithm Selection

We may draw various conclusions about the suitability of the different recon-
struction algorithms from this comparison.
With regard to image quality issues discussed in Section 6.10.1:

• Single-stage filters are inadequate; iteration is necessary for effective

speckle removal.
• MMSE, CML, and CMAP reconstructions can be rejected because
structure is not retained upon iteration.
• The gamma MAP is the best of the nonannealing filters. However, it
suffers from artifacts around features. The depth of fluctuation in these
 artifacts can be reduced by adopting the structured version, which is
therefore preferred. The spatial extent of the artifacts can be reduced by
adopting smaller filter windows and performing additional iterations to
remove speckle. However, if the window size is reduced too far (e.g., to
3 by 3 pixels), structure tends to be averaged out. A compromise
window size of 7 by 7 pixels seems suitable.
• Annealed reconstruction offers still better image quality. The spatial
scale and depth of modulation of artifacts is much smaller than from
the gamma MAP.
• Introducing further prior knowledge can improve annealed reconstruc-
tion. The RCS can be assumed to be gamma-distributed and the MAP
solution provided (ACMAP). In addition the sloping RCS model can
be employed.

With regard to speed issues discussed in Section 6.10.2:

• Annealed reconstruction (ACML) with constant RCS has an execution
time per iteration comparable with the gamma MAP without structure.
• Annealed reconstruction (ACML) with sloping RCS or ACMAP is of
comparable speed to the gamma MAP with structure.
• Annealing methods typically require 100 iterations for adequate speckle
removal whereas gamma MAP needs about 10. Thus, gamma MAP is
about an order of magnitude faster than annealing methods.

This leads to final conclusions:

• If image quality is most important, use annealing with sloping RCS.
• If speed is the overriding consideration, adopt gamma MAP (with
structure).
• In either case, the bias introduced in the reconstruction must be cor-
rected to give true RCS values.

6.11 Discussion

This chapter introduced a Bayesian approach to RCS reconstruction. It indicated

the advantage of techniques based on annealing, which approximate a global
MAP solution. In Section 6.10.1 we quantified image quality in terms of consis-
tency with the speckle model. The most sophisticated reconstruction used a vari-
ant of simulated annealing with the structured neighborhood and sloping RCS
models. A larger 3-m resolution DRA X-band SAR image near Bedford and its re-
construction using this algorithm are illustrated in Figure 6.11 (a,b). The final im-
 (a)

(b)
Figure 6.11 High-resolution (3m) DRA SAR image near Bedford: (a) original image and (b)
ACMAP reconstruction using sloping RCS model.
age quality shows little trace of speckle. Clearly this technique presents a very
powerful method for removing speckle. By way of contrast, a 24-m resolution
ERS-I PRI image of the Feltwell area in the United Kingdom and its reconstruc-
tion are shown in Figure 6.12(a,b). Many of the features that dominated the 3-m
resolution image, such as hedges and individual trees, are averaged out, but field

(a)

(b)
Figure 6.12 Low-resolution (24m) ERS-1 SAR image of the Feltwell area: (a) original image
(Copyright ESA, 1992) and (b) ACMAP reconstruction using sloping RCS model.
structure shows up quite clearly. It is apparent, however, that the reconstruction in
Figure 6.12(b) fails to preserve many of the thin dark features in the original im-
age, such as large sections of the drainage channel and various roads, which are
clearly distinguishable to the human observer. The effect is present, though not to
so great an extent, in the higher resolution imagery in Figure 6.11. This failure to
capture real structure can only be overcome at present by adopting a system reso-
lution with enough pixels at the scale of interest for the filters to respond ade-
quately.
While the theoretical framework of this chapter is essential for a proper
understanding of the algorithms, users are principally concerned with selecting
the best algorithm for their application. This choice is crucially dependent on
the application and differs considerably between (say) a military application
concerned with the detection and recognition of small targets and a remote
sensing application attempting to classify crops. The former is primarily con-
cerned with structural integrity for recognition purposes, so that bias is less
damaging than in remote sensing, which requires accurate RCS estimation. This
issue can be highlighted by examining the four small objects visible in the dark
field near the bottom left of Figure 6.1. For a military application it would be
important that these be clearly reconstructed without any reduction in the SCR
in the immediate vicinity. Only iterated ACML and ACMAP with constant or
sloping RCS, shown in Figure 6.8, satisfy this requirement. Thus, the other
algorithms are probably unsuitable for military applications. On the other hand,
most algorithms yield acceptable reconstructions for the RCS of extended
clutter away from structure in the scene, once the bias is corrected. Gamma
MAP is extensively used in this context [11,12].

References
[1] Pratt, W. K., Digital Image Processing New York: Wiley, 1978.
[2] Crimmins, T. R., "Geometric Filter for Reducing Speckle," Appl. Opt., Vol. 24, 1985,
pp. 1438-1443.
[3] Lee, J. S., "A Simple Speckle Smoothing Algorithm for Synthetic Aperture Radar Images,"
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., Vol. 13, 1983, pp. 85-89.
[4] Caves, R. G., S. Quegan, and R. G. White, "Quantitative Comparison of the Performance
of SAR Segmentation Algorithms," IEEE Trans. Image Proc, submitted 1996.
[5] Lee, J. S., "Digital Image Enhancement and Noise Filtering by Use of Local Statistics,"
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell,Vol 2, 1980, pp. 165-168.
[6] Frost, V. S., J. A. Stiles, K. S. Shanmugan, and J. C. Holtzman, "A Model for Radar Images
and Its Application to Adaptive Filtering of Multiplicative Noise," IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal.
Machine IntelL, Vol. 4, 1982, pp. 157-166.
 [7] Kuan, D. T., A. A. Sawchuk, T. C. Strand, and P. C. Chaval, 'Adaptive Restoration of
Images with Speckle," IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process., Vol. 35, 1987,
pp. 373-383.
[8] Oliver, C. J., "Review Article—Information from SAR Images," / Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol.
24, 1991, pp. 1493-1514.
[9] Lopes, A., E. Nezry, R. Touzi, and H. Laur, "Structure Detection and Adaptive Speckle
Filtering in SAR Images," Int. J. Remote Sens., Vol. 14, 1993, pp. 1735-1758.
[10] Lee, J. S., "Refined Filtering of Image Noise Using Local Statistics," Comp. Graph. Image
Proc, Vol. 17, 1981, pp. 24-32.
[11] Le Toan, T., F. Ribbes, L.-F. Wang, N. Floury, K.-H. Ding, J. A. Kong, M. Fujita, and T.
Kuroso, "Rice Crop Mapping and Monitoring Using ERS-I Data Based on Experiment
and Modelling Results," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., Vol. 35, 1997, pp. 41-56.
[12] Leysen, M. M., J. A. Conway, and A. J. Sieber, "Evaluating Multi-Temporal ERS-I SAR
Data for Tropical Forest Mapping: Regional Mapping and Change Detection Applica-
tions," Proc. of the Second ERS-I Symposium, Hamburg, Germany, ESAVoI. SP-361, 1994,
pp. 447-452.
[13] McConnell, L, and C. J. Oliver, "Comparison of Annealing and Iterated Filters for Speckle
Reduction in SAR," Europto Conf. on SAR Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling,
Taormina, Italy, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2958, 1996, pp. 74-85.
[14] White, R. G., "Simulated Annealing Applied to Discrete Region Segmentation of SAR
Images," DRA Memorandum 4498, 1991.
[15] White, R. G., "A Simulated Annealing Algorithm for SAR and MTI Image Cross-Section
Estimation," Europto Conf. on SAR Data Processing for Remote Sensing, Rome, SPIE Proc,
Vol. 2316, 1994, pp. 137-147.
[16] White, R. G., "A Simulated Annealing Algorithm for Radar Cross-Section Estimation and
Segmentation," SPIE Int. Conf. on Applications of Artificial Neural Networks Vf Orlando, FL,
SPIE Proc, Vol. 2243, 1994, pp. 231-241.
[17] Metropolis, N., A. W Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, "Equa-
tions of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines," /. Chem. Phys., Vol. 21, 1953,
pp.1087-1091.
[18] Geman, S., and D. Geman, "Stochastic Relaxation, Gibbs Distributions and the Bayesian
Restoration of Images," IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell, Vol. 6, 1984, pp. 721-741.
[19] Wolberg, G., and T. Pavlidis, "Restoration of Binary Images Using Stochastic Relaxation
with Annealing," Pattern Recog. Iett., Vol. 3, 1985, pp. 375-388.
[20] Kelly, P A., H. Derin, and K. D. Hartt, "Adaptive Segmentation of Speckled Images Using
a Hierarchical Random Field Model," IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process., Vol. 36,
1988, pp. 1628-1641.
[21] Cvijovic, D., and J. Klinowski, "Taboo Search: an Approach to the Multiple Minima
Problem," Science, Vol. 267, 1995, pp. 664-666.
[22] McConnell, L, R. G. White, C. J. Oliver, and R. Cook, "Radar Cross-Section Estimation
of SAR Images," Europto Conf. on SAR Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling, Paris,
SPIE Proc, Vol. 2584, 1995, pp. 164-175.
7

RCS Classification and Segmentation

7.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter the emphasis was directed toward reconstructing the RCS
at each pixel. This was based on exploiting phenomenological models for speckle
and RCS combined with a series of world models that introduced constraints into
the reconstruction. In this chapter the approach is again based on the product and
speckle models but relies on other forms of constraint to derive information. In
Section 7.2 we associate each pixel with a particular class, taken from a restricted
set representing RCS values. We demonstrate the need to average over many pixels
before such classification can be effective, which is only sensible if the boundaries
of the averaging window lie within a region of constant RCS in the image. This
leads to the cartoon model, described in Section 7.3, and its application in
segmentation. Finally, while the principles of these information-extraction tech-
niques may be elegant, most users are primarily concerned with their effectiveness
at fulfilling specific image-interpretation functions. Thus, we will consider quan-
titative image-quality measures for the different algorithms in Section 7.4. In
Section 7.5 a discussion of the principles underlying the exploitation of both
reconstruction and segmentation is presented.

7.2 RCS Classification

Rather than estimating the RCS, as described in the previous chapter, we might
attempt to classify each pixel in terms of its RCS. Suppose that a restricted set of
possible RCS values is selected and each pixel assigned to the nearest class.
Speckle causes uncertainty in this assignment. An optimized classifier for the
known speckle model can readily be defined, based on the conditional prob-
ability of each RCS class, which is given by (6.5). The log likelihood for Z-look
SAR therefore has the form

Xk = LInL - Llnvk +(L- I)In/ - InT(Z) - — (7.1)

Since Z is a known constant for the image, for ML classification we merely need
to identify that class k, that maximizes the quantity —In ak — L/dk for each pixel.
Different cross-section classes should be sufficiently separated so that speckle
does not cause too many misclassifications. For reasonable error rates, this
implies that class spacing should be related to the SD of image intensity, which
is (Jk / V Z .
An example of this form of ML cross-section classification, applied to the
test image in Figure 6.1, is shown in Figure 7.1 (a). The image intensity is
classified into 12 equally spaced predefined states. It is immediately apparent
that the process is dominated by speckle. Upon doubling the spacing so that
only 6 states are considered, the result in Figure 7.1 (b) is obtained. Even with
this coarse quantization, speckle still dominates.
These examples make the point that ML classification based on a single
pixel is rendered ineffective by speckle. Under these conditions, the PDF for a

(a) (b)
Figure 7.1 ML classification of the individual pixels from Figure 6.1 into RCS values: classified
into (a) 12 states and (b) six states, each twice the separation of those in (a).
region of constant RCS extends over a wide range of intensity, so it is mapped into
several different classes. Furthermore, any RCS fluctuations that are present tend
to be dominated by speckle. Since speckle limits pixel classification, it is reason-
able to inquire whether concepts evolved in earlier sections could be relevant. RCS
reconstruction was based on exploiting constraints that neighboring pixels were
similar. Multilook despeckling introduced this in the form of an average over a
window. Though this was unsuccessful in structured regions, it gave satisfactory
results in uniform regions. Averaging over neighboring pixels narrows the inten-
sity PDF so that classification may become possible. However, scenes contain
structures that may not be aligned with the window defined in this averaging
process. It is therefore essential to develop techniques for aligning such averaging
windows with image structure. In the next section we consider how this type of
approach can yield images that are segmented into regions of the same RCS.

7.3 The Cartoon Model and Segmentation

Segmentation depends upon the introduction of a cartoon model that asserts im-
ages are made up of regions, separated by edges, in which some parameter such as
the RCS is constant. The number and position of these segments and their mean
values are unknown and must be determined from the data. Instead of attempting
to reconstruct an estimate of RCS for each pixel, segmentation seeks to overcome
speckle by identifying regions of constant RCS. In later sections we show that it
provides a powerful tool for image interpretation for two reasons.

1. The cartoon model enables the RCS to be reconstructed without

radiometric distortion. This is valuable for pixel-based approaches to
information extraction.
2. The structure of the scene should be closely related to the edges found
by segmentation that delineate regions of different properties. This
offers potential for higher level image interpretation.

Before embarking on a discussion of these approaches, two prerequisites

for a successful segmentation algorithm are proposed.

1. All processing must be automatic, with no operator intervention. Only

in this way will computation speed be adequate and results reproduc-
ible.
2. The algorithm should avoid specific tuning to a particular image. It is
permissible to modify a global parameter, such as the false alarm rate
 for merging regions or detecting the edge between them, to optimize
performance in a given application. Other than that, the algorithm
should be capable of accepting any SAR data.

Both these requirements are essential for rapid robust processing. They
will only be met when the segmentation process is driven entirely by the data
and the theoretical properties of SAR images. Only algorithms that meet these
requirements will be discussed here. The examples in this chapter correspond to
2-look high-resolution airborne SAR and lower-resolution 6-look ERS-I SAR
with widely different operating conditions. However, they are processed with
identical algorithms and parameter settings.
In principle, segmentation could be addressed as a process of fitting the
cartoon model to data with all possible positions of edge, number of regions,
and mean value. Such a global fit is feasible in one dimension [I]. However,
attempting to follow the same approach with two-dimensional scenes results in
a vast computation task, so we resort initially to heuristic methods that have the
aim of identifying regions in an image without actually trying every possible
configuration [2].
We can be faced with conflicting requirements in segmentation. It is
sometimes important to preserve resolution as far as possible, particularly in the
military context. Other applications may wish to identify regions that differ by
only a small change in RCS. The interplay between these requirements is evident
when we consider some previous approaches to segmentation. Many were
inadequate for segmenting single-look SAR, so the speckle was first reduced by
smoothing. However, smoothing should not precede segmentation but be in-
corporated into the process [3]. If smoothing does precede segmentation, algo-
rithms can be ineffective either because too small an averaging window leads to
inadequate speckle reduction [4] or because an overlarge window yields de-
graded resolution [5]. The difficulty stems from the adoption of a single-scale
smoothing algorithm rather than an adaptive filter of varying region size [6].
High-intensity differences, such as those from targets, can potentially be de-
tected over small regions; whereas low-intensity differences, important in re-
mote sensing applications, require averaging over large regions to attain
adequate sensitivity. The conflict between the different requirements is resolved
in an adaptive algorithm. This commences with small filters for small-object
detection; filter size then increases progressively to give improved sensitivity, at
the cost of resolution. In this manner any uniform region is detected at the
highest resolution at which sensitivity is adequate.
Three basic classes of segmentation algorithm can be identified that ex-
ploit the cartoon model in different ways, namely: edge detection (discussed in
Section 7.3.1), region merging (Section 7.3.2), and fitting (Section 7.3.5). In
Section 7.3.3, ML edge detectors are derived for inclusion into segmentation
schemes; their implementation is discussed in Section 7.3.4.

7.3.1 Edge Detection

If a scene is made up of uniform regions, a segmentation technique can be based
on identifying the presence and position of the edges between these regions.
Edge detection algorithms can be subdivided into generic signal-processing
techniques or others that exploit both the properties of SAR and the cartoon
model specifically. The former category would include edge detectors such as
Sobel [7]. Such methods are best suited to low additive-noise scenarios and are
totally inappropriate for single-look SAR [8,9].
Frost et al. [8] proposed a hypothesis test to establish whether there
was an edge between two different classes at the center of a small window
(e.g., 9 by 9 pixels). The problem with such a specific hypothesis is that it
might be inappropriate for the actual data, so resulting edge detections are
invalid. For example, the test would be inappropriate if more than two regions
existed within the window. However, by incorporating the adaptive filter size
specified earlier, the problem can be reduced considerably. This form of hy-
pothesis test forms the background for many recent segmentation schemes.
An edge-detection algorithm (RGW) was proposed by White [10,11] that
exploited the cartoon model and included adaptive filter size, as illustrated in
Figure 7.2(a). Initially the edges within an image are detected. Regions are then
grown between these edges. The second stage is not allowed to remove any
previous edges, so the first stage is crucial. The process is iterated until some
convergence criterion is met, when the current form of the segmentation is
output.
The edge-detection stage in RGW proceeds as follows.

1. A series of rectangular windows, varying in size from 3 by 1 to 57 by

13, is constructed around each pixel.
2. The average intensity in each half (A and B) is calculated.
3. If A — B > threshold X standard error of mean difference then an
edge is recorded at the center of the window.

An important feature of this algorithm is that edge-detection criterion (3.)

is not based on the standard error within the window but over the regions that
the window overlaps. Initially the entire scene is regarded as a single region. As
segmentation progresses and segments begin to correspond to regions of con-
stant RCS, edge detection is determined by speckle statistics alone. Note that
 Start Start

Edge detection based on local Calculate merge probability

SD given by previous merge. for adjacent regions given
by previous merge.

Segment growing (constrained

YES by detected edges) Merge
regions

Does average Is probability of

CV decrease highest priority merge
significantly? YES above threshold?

NO NO
Output previous segmentation Output previous segmentation
(a) (b)
Figure 7.2 Flow diagram for model-based segmentation algorithms: (a) RGW and (b) merge
using moments.

bright edges are detected with the smallest masks that are used first, that is, at
high resolution. These edges are retained and the pixels excluded from successive
stages of edge detection. Weak edges are subsequently detected with larger
windows. Thus, the algorithm adapts its resolution to signal strength.
The region-growing stage of the algorithm proceeds as follows.

1. A series of disks is laid on the image so as not to contain any detected

edges.
2. Adjacent disks are merged to form larger regions.

Initially disks are large; subsequently, the size of the disks being added is
reduced and the same process is repeated. Eventually, every pixel is assigned to
a particular region and a complete region map constructed. The full cycle is then
repeated, yielding more sensitive edge detection. Iteration continues until the
overall coefficient of variation (SD/mean) reaches some preset threshold related
to the speckle statistics.
RGW was found to operate more successfully on amplitude rather than
intensity images. The result of applying RGW model-based segmentation to
Figure 7.3(a) is illustrated in Figure 7.3(b). Here, and throughout the chapter,
each segment is shown with each pixel set to the mean intensity of the segment as
calculated from the original pixel values. Figure 7.3 (b) contains a large number of
small regions. These result from the choice of threshold, which is related to the
detection probability and is the only user-selected variable for the process. How-
ever, some segments are probably anomalies arising from flaws in the algorithm.
Section 7.3.3 will describe how sensitivity could be improved by introduc-
ing an ML hypothesis test for the presence of an edge within the window, based
on the speckle and cartoon models. This section will also demonstrate that
RGW segmentation is not optimized for the most accurate choice of edge
position and will propose a corresponding ML solution.

(a) (b)

(C) (d)

Figure 7.3 Comparison of segmentation methods: (a) original image, (b) RGW7 (c) Gaussian
MUM, and (d) optimized MUM.
7.3.2 Region Merging
Region merging exploits the cartoon model more directly and attempts to grow
large uniform regions by merging neighboring small regions (which might
comprise only a single pixel). The crucial issue is whether the decision to merge
is reliable, which depends on the statistical criterion adopted to control merging.
In fact, an identical criterion can be used to describe both splitting and merging
[12,13]. One implementation of merging, merge using moments (MUM)
[14,15], is based on the Student t test. The sequence of operations, illustrated
in Figure 7.2(b), can be summarized as follows.

1. Initialize by subdividing the image into arbitrary small regions, for

example, a 2 by 2 or single-pixel grid.
2. For each pair of adjacent subregions A and B calculate the pooled
variance defined by

+ = NA™A+NB™B (J_+_n
NA+NB-2 {NA NJ

where var A, var B, and var{y4 + B} are the variances and NA and NB
are the number of pixels in each region, respectively.
3- Calculate the normalized difference t = A — B\/^v2ir{A + B} and
apply the Student t test for NA + NB — 2 degrees of freedom to the
data. This evaluates the probability that A and B should be merged.
4. Compile a list in order of priority for merging all pairs of adjacent
subregions.
5. Merge the highest priority region and repeat operation for new subregions.
The process is iterated until the false alarm probability for failing to merge
a constant region reaches some preset value. Thus, this algorithm has the
desirable property that operator controls are restricted to a single parameter, as
with RGW. The result of applying MUM to Figure 7.3(a), starting from a 2 by
2 pixel tessellation, is shown in Figure 7.3(c). The effect of the coarse initial
tessellation is evident. However, the number of anomalous small regions seems
to be lower than with RGW. A more rigorous comparison of segmentation
methods can be found in Section 7.7.1.
The Student t test is only rigorous when distinguishing between regions
with Gaussian PDFs, which is clearly inappropriate for speckle. Significant
performance improvement is possible through an ML derivation using the
correct statistics, given in Section 7.3.3.
7.3.3 ML Split/Merge Theory
Both splitting and merging depend on estimating whether two regions belong to
the same population or not. In this section we derive an ML test to determine this,
given SAR speckle statistics. In fact, there is more than one possible criterion for
which the test could be optimized. Either the edge-detection probability in RGW
or the merge probability in MUM is maximized or the edge-position accuracy is
optimized. We derive the ML estimators for both cases and demonstrate the type
of improvement they yield if introduced into existing algorithms.
Let us assume that we retain adaptive window sizes. The cartoon model
implies that a window should contain either a single uniform region or two
uniform regions with an edge at some unknown position within that window.
(Any other possibility will have been eliminated by detecting an edge in an
earlier, smaller window). The joint probability of these two states can be ex-
pressed in terms of the conditional probability P(ZIa) for each. Let us assume
that pixels 1 to k are in region A with RCS <JA, while pixels k + 1 to M are in
region B with RCS (JB. We consider a single dimension for simplicity. The results
for two dimensions can be easily obtained. The joint probability for the whole
window, given single-look intensity Ij at pixel j , is given by

k M

j=\ j=k+\

k M
i r /• i 1 r /•"
ex
=n-«p-- n — p—— (7.3)
j=l (JA I VA]j=k+l V3 L °"5_
The probability that the data are consistent with a merged region of mean
RCS (T0 has the same form with (JA = <JB = (J0. The log likelihood for split and
merged states, ^sp\lt(k) and A.merge, can be derived by taking logs of these joint
probabilities and a log difference estimator defined such that

s
M * ) V W - W

= -k\ \n(JA + ^- - (M - k)\ lncr B + ^

+ M In(T0 + ^ M (7.4)

where the mean intensities are estimated over the appropriate windows. JHie ML
estimates of RCS in each region are (JA=IA,(JB=IB, and (J0 = I0 . Note
that IA and IB are functions of k so that the MLE for edge position k is
obtained by maximizing [15,16]

\D(k) = -klnTA -(M- k)\nTB + MInT0 (7.5)

An analysis of edge-detection performance based on this likelihood differ-

ence, expressed in terms of detection and false alarm probabilities, requires
knowledge of its PDF, which is not directly available. However, we shall dem-
onstrate _an equivalent formalism based on the intensity ratio defined by
r = 1'Al IB . The PDF of r can be shown to be [16,17]

r
PAARXM-k)= ^> I U " % J (7.6)
[1 +
R(M-k))
where R denotes the true ratio of mean values. If an edge is "detected" when r
is outside the range [tv Z2L the detection probability at position k, given that the
true edge is at this position, is given by

Pd=l-gP(r)dr
1
= !_ X-M) f k Y
k(M - k)Y{k)T(M -k){(M- k)R)
\ r h 1
XUk F\k M-k + 1- - —
[221L' ' ' (M-k)R_
r h Ii
— tk F k M- k + 1- - — [ C7 7 )
121 { }
L' ' ' (M-k)R\\
where 2F\i'] ls t n e Hypergeometric function [18]. The false alarm probability
Pfo corresponds to substituting R=I into (7.7). The threshold values tx and Z2
lie above and below 1 and can be related to the equivalent value of XD, which
can be derived from (7.5). Hence,

KD(k) = -ItIiIt1 - MInM + MIn[M -k + ktx] for^1 < 1

and

\D(k) = klnt2 - MInM + MIn M - k + — for£2 > 1 (7.8)

When the edge is at the center of the window, k = Mil and these combine to
the same threshold. This corresponds to the ratio detector proposed by Touzi et
al. [19] and Bovik [20], which is given by rT= min[r, l/r]. Equivalent numeri-
cal solutions for detection probability at other edge positions can also be per-
formed [16].
The equivalence of rT and r when the test edge is in the center of the
window is confirmed by a comparison of the detection probabilities for the ML
measure and Touzi ratio as a function of edge position, shown in Figure 7.4. The
two regions in these simulations have means of 1 and 8, and the results were
obtained over 104 samples. At the center both give identical detection prob-
ability, while the Touzi ratio is suboptimum elsewhere. The simulated results
were also compared with predicted values, showing close agreement [16]. Since
the Student t test was employed in the original version of MUM (in Section
7.3.2), we include simulations based on this for comparison. It is apparent that
adopting a Gaussian rather than the correct gamma PDF for speckle leads to
performance degradation.
This derivation accounts for different numbers of pixels in the two regions
and incorporates speckle statistics correctly. It can therefore be used directly in
place of the Student t test in the MUM segmentation scheme.
As mentioned earlier, there are two distinct criteria that can be applied to
edge detection. The first relates to the accuracy with which edge position is
determined and is described by (7.5) and the results of Figure 7.4. The associ-
ated filter geometry would be to fix a window position with respect to the scene
and scan the test edge, which will be called the fixed window, scanned edge
(FWSE) configuration. Figure 7.4 demonstrates that the detection probability
at a given position is maximized when the central edge in this window is aligned
with an edge in the RCS. This suggests that another useful edge-detection
geometry would be to scan a window with a fixed central test edge over the data,
which will be called the scanned window, center edge (SWCE) configuration.
Note that SWCE is equivalent to the Touzi ratio test [19].
However, the results of Figure 7.4 depend on knowing the actual edge
position in advance. In a real application this would not be the case and the
algorithm would determine both the presence and position of any edge. The
FWSE window is placed at some arbitrary position in the scene and the test edge
scanned. SWCE, on the other hand, scans the window over the scene. In each
 Pdet

Edge position
Figure 7.4 The dependence of detection probability on edge position. ML, simulation (•) and
prediction (full line); Touzi ratio, simulation ((8)) and prediction (dotted line), Student
tmeasures, simulation only (Oamplitude, •intensity), joined by smooth curves for
clarity.

case, the position of greatest likelihood denotes the edge location. The response
at this position is then compared with an appropriate threshold to detect
whether it is significant, yielding a probability Pd that an edge is detected in the
correct position. It is also important to consider whether an edge is detected
anywhere in the window, not necessarily in the correct position. This is de-
scribed by the sum of all the individual values of Pd over the window and is
denoted by P tot . We would expect this to be maximized by the SWCE test.
However, neither Pd nor Ptot can be derived analytically if the edge position is
not known and we have to resort to simulation to compare the window
configurations [16].
 In Figure 7.5 (a) we illustrate a comparison of P d for the two configura-
tions. A 16 by 1 window is used with the ratio of mean values varying between
1 and 16. Offsets of 0, ± 2 , ± 4 , and ± 6 pixels between the true edge position
and the center of the window are simulated for FWSE. Alternatively, SWCE
scans over the same simulated data. FWSE yields higher values of Pd for small
offsets ( < 4), whereas SWCE is preferable for larger offsets. Figure 7.5(b) shows
the corresponding comparison for Ptot. This shows that SWCE always yields
greater overall detection probability, as expected from Figure 7.4.
The choice of which configuration to adopt depends on the application.
SWCE yields a higher probability of detecting edges in the scene. However, they
are less likely to be in the correct position than with FWSE. In order to
maximize both performance measures, a two-stage configuration has been pro-
posed [16]. In the first stage the SWCE configuration is applied to optimize P tot .
The approximate edge position derived from this defines the fixed window
position for FWSE. The edge position is then refined, leading to an improved
value for Pd. Provided that the edge position derived in SWCE is mainly within
the central half of the fixed window for the second stage, this joint test was
shown by simulation [16] to yield optimum results for both performance
measures at the expense of slightly increased execution time.

7.3.4 Implementation of ML Split/Merge Theory

The derivation of Section 7.3.3 provides a theoretical framework for ML edge
detection, which specifically incorporates the speckle and cartoon models. Let
us now inquire whether the proposed window configurations can be incorpo-
rated into the existing RGW and MUM segmentation schemes. There is no
choice of window configuration in MUM; the regions to be tested are a
consequence of the previous merge history. It is only possible to apply the ML
merge criterion in (7.6) directly to these existing regions, with consequent
improved segmentation performance, as illustrated in Figure 7.3(d) [17], which
should be compared with the result for Gaussian MUM in Figure 7.3 (c). The
new measure provides a more accurate segmentation, containing more detail
than the original test. In particular, note that it is able to commence from a
single-pixel grid since it is inherently more sensitive. RGW, however, already
depends on scanning windows and is designed to handle edges in both dimen-
sions. It is comparatively simple to substitute the optimized split criterion in the
existing SWCE mode, which optimizes Ptot, followed by edge refinement using
the FWSE configuration, which optimizes Pd. This should result in near ML
performance for both edge-position accuracy and total-detection probability,
suggesting that a modified version of RGW should outperform the improved
version of MUM. However, this has not yet been implemented.
 pd

R
(a)
Figure 7.5 Dependence of (a) P6 and (b) Ptot on configuration, difference in RCS, and original
edge position. Window 16 by 1 pixels; R = 1,..., 16; overall Pfa = 10%; 104 samples.
SWCE configuration (full line,O); FWSE configuration (dashed line, •, offsets 0, 2,
4, and 6 pixels with increasing dash length).

7.3.5 Region Fitting

An alternative approach to segmentation can be derived by considering the
global problem of segmenting an image into ^regions of constant RCS. Assum-
ing a correct segmentation and that the speckle model applies, so that each
region is gamma distributed, the log likelihood, or cost, of this configuration is
given by a generalization of (7.5), namely [21],

X=XAUnT" (7.9)
7= 1

where Nj and / are the size and estimated RCS of the yth region, respectively.
The segmentation process then corresponds to identifying the MLE for each
region position and RCS. As such it is a standard global optimization problem
 PtC

R
(b)
Figure 7.5 (continued).

[22] that can be addressed by simulated annealing as in Section 6.9 by substi-

tuting W= X in (6.29).
A flow diagram for the algorithm is shown in Figure 7.6. This form of
simulated annealing operates by modifying the boundaries and, hence, the mean
values within the q regions. Thus initialization consists of performing some
initial segmentation, which is then refined. Notice in the flow diagram that the
final stage of the algorithm comprises a stage for merging adjacent regions to
some preset value of Pk. Thus, the initial segmentation should generate too
many regions that can later be reduced by merging. The initial segmentation is
implemented by performing a random square tessellation of the original image
with greater region density where the scene has higher contrast. The main
simulation loop is then comprised of the following stages:

1. An edge pixel is selected at random, and a temporary change of

configuration is made by moving it into an adjoining region.
2. The change in log likelihood is calculated and the standard simulated
 Start

Randomly exchange pixels

between regions given by
previous iteration.

Simulated annealing for

new region boundaries

Another iteration?
YES

NO

Iteration at lower
YES temperature?

NO

Final merge
for given Pfa

Output final segmentation

Figure 7.6 Flow diagram for annealed segmentation.

annealing acceptance criterion with temperature T implemented to

decide whether to accept or reject the move.
3. The random choice of pixels is repeated for a fixed number of itera-
tions.
4. The annealing temperature is then reduced and the process repeated.
The process is terminated after a preset number of iterations.
 5. Once the annealing stages have been completed, a final merge is
performed for adjacent regions, determined by the false alarm prob-
ability Pfo for merging regions of the same RCS.

In the absence of any shape constraint, this approach will tend to separate
the image into regions of bright and dark speckle if convergence is unconstrained.
This problem is overcome by introducing a curvature penalty term, analogous to
surface tension, into the objective function in (6.29), which penalizes irregular
shapes. This additional contribution to the objective function is defined by

^ = XZx(I -Kfi-fj)) ( 7 - 10 >

i JeN1

where f{ denotes the segment label for pixel / , N1: is a set of neighboring pixels
(say 8), x is a constant weighting coefficient, and 8 is the Kronecker delta.
Hence, if pixels / and j do not have the same segment label, Ws is incremented
by X- Empirically a value of x — 0.05 seems to offer acceptable edge smoothing
and is used in all the examples of annealed RCS segmentation shown.
We illustrate the effect of this term in Figure 7.7. Figure 7.7(a) shows the
result of applying the simulated annealing algorithm without the curvature
penalty term. The false alarm probability was set at 10~5, which resulted in
1,000 regions being identified. Upon introducing the curvature penalty, the
number of regions was reduced to 832 with a segmentation as shown in Figure
7.7(b). The complicated edge structure in Figure 7.7(a), caused by following the

(a) (b)

Figure 7.7 Comparison of simulated annealing (a) without and (b) with curvature penalty.
bright and dark speckle, is largely removed in Figure 7.7(b). Small objects appear
reasonably well preserved and large areas of constant RCS have been identified,
compared with the other segmentation techniques illustrated in Figure 7.3.
In common with other simulated annealing implementations, there are a
variety of parameters that have to be determined, such as starting temperature,
number of inner loop iterations, cooling schedule, and number of outer loop
iterations. In addition, there are questions over the initial tessellation stage that
determine both the position and number of initial regions. In principle, simu-
lated annealing will migrate regions to those areas of the image that have a larger
density of objects. However, this may involve an excessive number of iterations.
Thus, it is advisable to ensure that the original tessellation assigns segments
suitably with greater density in regions of high contrast, as noted earlier.

7.4 Comparison of Segmentation Algorithms

Algorithms can be compared in terms of image quality and execution time in

the same way as the reconstruction filters in the previous chapter.

7.4.1 Image Quality

A visual assessment of image quality again provides a useful indication of where
algorithms fail. As in Chapter 6 we need to check for effective speckle reduction
in uniform regions, good feature preservation, and the absence of artifacts. Radio-
metric preservation is assessed by the quantitative test using the ratio of the
original image to its reconstruction as in Section 6.10.1. Once again we will base
our visual comparison on features such as the four small objects in the field near
the bottom left of the image and some of the weaker hedges between fields.
Different segmented versions of Figure 7.3(a) are illustrated in Figure 7.8.
RGW and the original annealing [23—25] segmentation is applied to the ampli-
tude image, whereas optimized MUM and SGAN process the intensity. In Figure
7.8 (a,c,d) the parameters controlling the algorithm were selected to yield a
similar number of segments, around 650. Figure 7.8(a) reveals that RGW with
only 653 segments fails to provide a visually satisfactory segmentation. It finds
three of the four small objects but loses a large number of hedge sections. In
addition, it treats a large fraction of the built-up area at the bottom right as a single
segment. Small objects and hedges are better preserved in the original implemen-
tation in Figures 7.3(b) and 7.8(b), with 2,409 segments. However, this result
contains a large number of "flecks" that are almost certainly artifacts, and the
buildings again fall predominantly into a single segment. MUM and SGAN, in
Figure 7.8(c,d), with 662 and 674 segments, respectively, seem to give similar,
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 7.8 Segmented reconstructions of Figure 7.3(a): (a) RGW (653 segments), (b) RGW
(2,409 segments; also shown as Figure 7.3(b)), (c) optimized MUM (662 segments;
also shown as Figure 7.3(d)), (d) SGAN (674 segments), (e) SGAN (2,389 segments),
and (f) original anneal (5,027 segments).
 greatly improved, reconstruction quality. There is no evidence of speckle breaking
uniform regions into segments, as in Figure 7.8(b). Both techniques reconstruct
the hedges and their shadows similarly. In addition, buildings are represented by
a large number of segments. However, there are detailed differences in the recon-
structions of the four test objects at the bottom left. MUM (c) retains the four
expected ones and introduces a fifth, alongside the center of the objects to the
right. SGAN (d) includes this fifth object but fails to preserve the fourth object at
the top left of the original set. This difference arises from the detailed difference
between the heuristics of the local MUM operation and global SGAN. Upon
reducing the threshold level in SGAN so that 2,389 segments are found, as
illustrated in Figure 7.8(e), we observe that these same five objects are found.
However, additional segments are also detected, which may represent genuine
objects or false alarms due to speckle. If Figure 7.8(e) is compared with 7.8(b),
which shows the RGW result with approximately the same number of regions, we
note that SGAN does not generate "flecks" but concentrates segments in regions
with much structure, such as the buildings on the bottom right. Visually, there-
fore, this algorithm yields a more desirable type of segmentation than RGW.
We observe that the original annealed segmentation [23—25], shown in
Figure 7.8(f), contains a large number of segments. Some of these appear to
correspond to bright or dark flecks caused by speckle. This suggests that the
threshold should be raised to reduce the number of segments. However, even
with the original settings, the algorithm fails to reproduce the four objects in
the field on the bottom left of the image. Thus, it yields false segments while
failing to detect genuine objects. It has therefore been superseded by the more
recent version (SGAN) that is optimized for the true speckle statistics.
Without prior knowledge of the true scene content, we cannot make any
absolute distinction between the performance of these algorithms. The compari-
son so far indicates that the original RGW algorithm seems incapable of providing
an adequate reconstruction with the same number of regions as MUM or SGAN,
suggesting that there is a number of misplaced regions in RGW. Incorporating the
optimized split and merge criterion could yield a significant improvement, how-
ever. It is probably not the filter architecture that is inadequate but the edge test.
The corresponding ratios of the original image to the segmented versions
in Figure 7.8(a—d) are shown in Figure 7.9, plotted over the range 0.5 to 1.5. A
visual inspection provides insight into segmentation quality. For a perfect seg-
mentation, the ratio image should appear to be made up of pure speckle. Any
sign of structure indicates a failure of the algorithm. It is apparent that RGW
with the small number of segments, in Figure 7.9(a), has large departures from
pure speckle in regions with structure, such as the hedges and, particularly, the
buildings on the bottom left. Even increasing the number of regions still leaves
strong evidence of unwanted structure (Figure 7.9(b)). These effects are much
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)
Figure 7.9 Ratio of original image in Figure 7.3(a) to corresponding segmented versions in
Figure 7.8 (a-d).

reduced by the optimized MUM segmentation, as shown in Figure 7.9(c); while

SGAN yields even less evidence of excess fluctuations (Figure 7.9(d)).
An additional constraint is present when the ratio test is applied to segmen-
tation, since the cartoon model asserts that the RCS is constant over each seg-
ment. The estimated cross section within any segment is defined as the local
average, unlike the reconstruction filters considered in Chapter 6. Under these
conditions, the rigorous theory [26], which accounts for the fact that both the
cross section and the ratio are estimated in each segment, can be applied. The
mean value of the ratio is unity, by construction, while its variance will be given by
 1 J2, K;

if the segments really consist of uniform regions, where TVis the image size, m the
number of segments, and ^ the number of pixels in the/th segment. Note that the
bias in the variance introduced for a small region can be quite large compared with
HL. On the other hand, this contribution makes comparatively little difference to
the sum over the whole image that is dominated by the larger regions. In this ex-
ample, N= 65536, m ~ 660, n- ~ 99, and L —2.2. Substituting these values into
(7.11) suggests that the SD of the intensity ratio should be 0.672 instead of the
value of 0.674 for the corresponding test in Section 6.10.1. Thus, the estimation
correction tends to reduce the observed SD of the ratio slightly. The observed val-
ues of SD are much greater than the uncorrected predictions and so we will ignore
the correction. It would, of course, be important to retain if making a detailed
study of the estimated SD in individual small segments.
Note that a segmentation can fail for two reasons: either the value of a
within a segment is incorrect or an edge between regions of different a is not
recognized or wrongly placed. Both will yield excess values of SD, and it is not
possible to differentiate between these causes of failure using this ratio test.
The numerical values of the image quality measure are listed in Table 7.1.
Segmentation yields a mean ratio of 1 since every pixel in the segmented scene
is assigned the average value over the appropriate segment. Thus, segmentation
preserves radiometric accuracy completely, unlike the reconstruction filters. For
L ~ 2.2 the predicted (uncorrected) SD for pure speckle would be 0.674 for
intensity and 0.345 for amplitude. It is clear that SGAN yields results consistent
with pure speckle; MUM is slightly worse; but RGW requires many more
segments to approach the speckle prediction. Even with 2,409 segments it still
gives a considerably larger fractional discrepancy than MUM. Thus, image

Table 7.1
Ratio Measures for Segmentation of the DRA 3-m SAR Image.

Algorithm Number of Segments Mean SD

RGW* 653 1 0.518

RGW* 2,409 1 0.390
MUM 662 1 0.708
SGAN 674 1 0.670

Note: Amplitude segmentation denoted by *; other methods use intensity.

quality considerations suggest that either MUM or SGAN should be used in
preference to the present version of RGW.

7.4.2 Execution Times

Table 7.2 shows comparative timings for the three segmentation methods. As an
initial comparison we observe that RGW provides the fastest execution time with
SGAN the slowest for small images. However, as image size increases SGAN even-
tually becomes faster than MUM and only a factor of three slower than RGW.
Taking 512 by 512 pixels as a standard image size, we note that SGAN is a factor of
seven slower than RGW. If we compare SGAN with the structured annealing re-
construction algorithms in Chapter 6, we find that SGAN takes 3.3 times longer
than 100 iterations of ACML with constant RCS. The other structured annealing
reconstruction techniques are somewhat more time consuming than SGAN.

7.4.3 Algorithm Selection

From this comparison of image quality and execution time we can make the
following deductions:

• The present version of RGW yields unacceptable image quality unless

excessive numbers of regions are adopted.
• RGW is the fastest algorithm.
• MUM provides reasonable image quality but is slower than RGW. It is
preferable to RGW from quality considerations.
• SGAN provides the best image quality but is slowest. It should be used
in preference to MUM when image quality is crucial.

Table 7.2
Execution Time (seconds) for the Three Different Segmentation Algorithms as a Function
of Image Size (Measurements taken on Sun Sparc 10)

Image Size

Algorithm 64x64 128x128 256x256 512x512 1,024x736

RGW 2.2 15.1 87.4 351.6 1,334.2

MUM 3.6 20.3 134.4 933.8 5,645.0
SGAN 24.8 119.5 515.2 2,388.9 4,043.7
 As a final demonstration, we illustrate annealed segmentations of Figures
6.11 (a) and 6.12(a) in Figure 7.10(a,b), respectively. The threshold setting for
Figure 7.10(a) is identical to that used in Figure 7.8(e). These results can be
compared with the equivalent annealed reconstructions shown in Figures 6.12(b)
and 6.13(b). In both examples, the segmented image seems to show more detail
than the annealed reconstruction. For example, if we compare reconstructions of
the dark field just below the center right in Figures 7.10(a) and 6.11(b), it is
apparent that segmentation has recovered more objects. Similarly, in the Feltwell
scene, the segmentation algorithm has been more successful at reconstructing
thin dark features, such as the drainage channel in Figure 7.10(b), than the
annealed reconstruction in Figure 6.12(b). However, neither method appears as
successful as a human operator at following the course of the drainage channel or
the roads in Figure 6.12(a). Methods that specifically search for features such as
long thin structures may be the correct way to proceed [27].

7.5 RCS Exploitation

Chapters 6 and 7 introduced a fundamentally Bayesian approach to RCS

reconstruction and intensity segmentation. They provided a global MAP solu-
tion to both problems that could be most suitably implemented with techniques
based on annealing. While this conceptual framework is essential for a proper
understanding of the algorithms, users are principally concerned with knowing
which algorithm to adopt to solve their particular problem. In this section we
attempt to derive some guidelines to aid in this process. In Section 7.5.1 we
summarize the behavior of both reconstruction filters and segmentation algo-
rithms, identify the types of information they each generate, and select the most
suitable implementation of each type. However, it must be appreciated that the
entire discussion is crucially dependent on the application itself. This includes
both the properties of the image and, importantly, the category of information
required by the application. In Section 7.5.2, therefore, we discuss a possible
application example as a means of focusing the discussion. We identify the type
of information the user wishes to derive from the data and how it might be
contained in it. We draw conclusions about the best choice of algorithm based
on quantitative radiometric image-quality comparison and indicate how the
quality of the structural information might be assessed.

7.5.1 Algorithm Properties

Figure 7.11 shows a flow diagram for the selection of the most suitable algo-
rithm for RCS exploitation. Let us first summarize what information is gener-
 (a)

(b)

Figure 7.10 Annealed segmentation applied to (a) high-resolution DRA image of Figure 6.11(a)
and (b) low-resolution ERS-1 image of Figure 6.12(a).
 Reconstruction
or structure?

structure

filters segmentation
reconstruction

Speed or Speed or
quality? quality?

speed quality speed quality

Simple Annealed
Anneal RGW/MUM segmentation
filters

Figure 7.11 Flow diagram for selection of algorithms for RCS exploitation.

ated by the reconstruction filters, described in Chapter 6, and the segmentation

techniques discussed in this chapter. Reconstruction provides estimates of the
RCS at every pixel, depending on the constraints introduced as models into the
MLE. Segmentation, on the other hand, performs a dual role. It provides
another form of RCS estimate, subject to the cartoon model, but also contains
structural information from knowledge of the edges between the segments it has
identified. In terms of Figure 7.11, applications that require knowledge of the
RCS on a pixel-by-pixel basis could use either approach. If the information is
expected to reside in region structure, then segmentation must be employed.
The high quality of the RCS reconstructions suggests that it might be
possible to perform effective segmentation on these output images rather as one
would for optical images. Qualitatively this is correct. The problem resides in
the choice of the criterion for recognizing an edge. This depends on the original
speckle and the size of the region over which the estimate of RCS has been
obtained. If this information were retained, in addition to the reconstructed
image, it should be possible to devise post-reconstruction segmentation rigor-
ously based on the image properties. However, since this would depend on
identical criteria to those adopted in the direct segmentation algorithms, it is
difficult to see that it can offer any advantage.
Whichever class of algorithm is selected, it is important to identify a suitable
compromise between the quality of reconstruction and the speed of execution.
Annealing methods result in higher quality but longer execution times. However,
the annealing filter ACML appears to be a suitable compromise for a reconstruc-
tion filter. MUM seems a reasonable compromise for segmentation, though
SGAN is only a factor of 2.5 slower (over a 512 by 512 scene) with improved
image quality. The choice of algorithm will depend on the application, which will
determine the level of speckle reduction required to achieve the desired exploita-
tion result. It also depends on the computing power available. It is ineffective to
perform sophisticated analysis if results only appear after a deadline for using the
information has expired. If a simpler algorithm is capable of providing the neces-
sary information, it should be adopted. On the one hand, several applications in
remote sensing, such as ice-floe monitoring, can be handled satisfactorily with
comparatively simple filters. On the other hand, there is little value in producing
a rapid output that cannot contain the necessary information due to inadequate
speckle reduction. If both speed and sophistication are required for an applica-
tion, it may be essential to provide more computing power.

7.5.2 Application Example

As an informative example, we will consider the problem of identifying and class-
ifying fields in the ERS-I PRI image introduced in Figure 6.12(a). Results for an-
nealed reconstruction and segmentation of this image are shown in Figures
6.12(b) and 7.10(b), respectively, as the "best" implementation of each approach.
The type of information required might then be the boundaries of all the fields,
together with values for the RCS within each field. Ideally this information
should be contained in the SAR image. However, there is no guarantee that infor-
mation required by the user actually corresponds to a change in RCS that can be
observed in the SAR image. For example, a hedgerow would probably be repre-
sented by the user as a single line delineating the boundary between two fields.
The corresponding SAR image will contain bright returns, with associated shad-
ows, due to the trees and bushes in the hedge, with weaker scattering in between.
Thus, continuous features in a map data base may be broken up in an SAR image.
The principles underlying the selection of the best implementation can be
summarized as follows:

• Both reconstruction filters and segmentation can be used for RCS

estimation.
• Segmentation yields ML estimates of RCS for every size of region.
• With reconstruction filters, large regions will be given the correct value
of RCS after the bias is removed; however, small regions will not (see
Section 6.10.1).
• Thus, a 0 measurements over extended regions of uniform clutter from
 both methods are reliable, but only segmentation offers accurate values
of RCS for a small object.
• In addition, segmentation provides structural information through the
edge maps it constructs.

In many applications ancillary information about the scene is available,

such as the position of field boundaries. The normal procedure is then to average
over each field to derive a 0 . However, this suffers from two weaknesses.

• a 0 may not be constant over the field, caused by crop variability, ground
slope change, or varying soil moisture, for example. Many applications
wish to determine whether this is the case. Both RCS reconstruction
and segmentation provide an optimum smoothed reconstruction of a 0
as a function of position.
• The map from which the boundaries are derived may be incorrect. The
edge maps generated by segmentation offer the potential for identifying
such changes and therefore updating the map.

This discussion indicates that segmentation is potentially the most useful

technique for extracting information from SAR images because it is radiomet-
rically undistorted over the entire image and includes important additional
information about the position of edges. The increase by a factor of about three
in processing time is probably not a serious penalty.
Let us now address the issue of the image quality achieved in the segmen-
tation of the ERS-I Feltwell scene from Figure 6.12(a). In Figure 7.12 we
compare RCS reconstructions generated by RGW, MUM, and SGAN. A visual
comparison indicates that the scene appears to be adequately represented by
MUM (809 segments) and SGAN (827 segments). Many of the general field
structures seem to be common to all reconstructions. However, the RGW
segmentation (805 segments), in Figure 7.12(a), completely fails to reconstruct
the drainage channel on the left of the image or the buildings in Feltwell village
in the center, as well as other buildings on the bottom right. Upon increasing
the number of segments in RGW to 2,305, the results in Figure 7.12(b) show
more evidence of the drainage channel as well as reconstructing some of the
buildings. However, the quality of reconstruction in both MUM and SGAN
reconstructions, in Figure 7.12(c,d), respectively, still appears appreciably better.
The quality of the reconstructions is also indicated by the measure defined
in Section 6.2 as summarized in Table 7.3. The effective number of looks for
the data was found to be 6.0, leading to predicted SDs of 0.206 and 0.408 for
amplitude and intensity data, respectively. The correction implied by the rigor-
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)
Figure 7.12 Comparison of the RCS reconstructions achieved when different segmentation
algorithms are applied to Figure 6.12(a): (a) RGW (805 segments), (b) RGW (2,305
segments), (c) MUM (809 segments), and (d) SGAN (827 segments).

ous theory [26] can again be neglected. In common with the earlier segmenta-
tions on higher resolution data (see Table 7.1) SGAN appears closest to consis-
tency with the speckle model.
If the information required is contained in the edge maps, then it is
instructive to inquire whether the different segmentation routines would yield
a similar ordering of effectiveness from the point of view of edge structure. Edge
maps generated by RGW, MUM, and SGAN are shown in Figure 7.13. One
indication of the relative quality can be obtained by following the drainage
 Table 7.3
Ratio Measures for ERS1 Feltwell Image

Algorithm Number of Segments Mean SD

RGW* 805 1 0.305

RGW* 2,305 1 0.248
MUM 809 1 0.458
SGAN 827 1 0.409

Note: Amplitude segmentation denoted by*; other methods use intensity.

Figure 7.13 Comparison of the edge maps corresponding to the segmentations of Figure 7.12.
 channel on the left. Only in SGAN is its presence evident over most of its
course. If we reject RGW, we observe that the details of the edge maps generated
by MUM and SGAN differ considerably, even though they give similar global
quality measures. SGAN appears to contain more small segments. Since the
total number of segments is similar, this indicates that it must also contain more
large ones. The impression is that these images contain more edges than the user
would like. Since these reconstructions are consistent with both speckle and
cartoon models, these excess edges are due to real features in the scene, implying
that a high-level scene description in terms of, for example, field boundaries,
overrides or rejects information present in the image. It is also possible to see
real features in the original image that have been lost in these reconstructions,
in particular some of the long, thin, dark features, such as roads and the drainage
channel. The human observer is obviously capable of exploiting additional
forms of prior knowledge about possible feature types, such as long, thin lines.
No equivalent capability is currently available for segmentation, though an
approach based on simulated annealing has been recently reported [27].
In the absence of ground truth it is impossible to make quantitative
statements about the quality of the edge maps generated by segmentation
routines. This type of consideration can be dealt with by designing a suite of
tests [26,28] to measure the response of different algorithms to important
features for the application. These might be long, thin structures or small
targets, for example. If the user's requirements could be adequately represented,
this test suite could be used to optimize the response of the different algorithms.
This is an area that requires considerable future development if the requirements
of different applications are to be represented in a quantifiable fashion.

References
[1] Delves, L. M., R. T. McQuillan, and C. J. Oliver, "A One-Dimensional Despeckling
Algorithm for SAR Images," Inverse Problems, Vol. 4, 1988, pp. 471-484.
[2] Delves, L. M., R. T. McQuillan, R. Wilkinson, J. B. E. Sandys-Renton, and C. J. Oliver,
"A Two-Dimensional Segmentation Algorithm for SAR Images," Inverse Problems, Vol. 7,
1991, pp. 203-220.
[3] Freitag, B. J., B. Guindon, A. J. Sieber, and D. G. Goodenough, "Enhancement of High
Resolution SAR Imagery by Adaptive Filtering," Int. Geoscience Remote Sensing Symp.,
IGARSS '83, Paris: ESA, 1983.
[4] Oddy, C. J., and A. J. Rye, "Segmentation of SAR Images Using a Local Similarity Rule,"
Pattern Recog. Lett., Vol. 1, 1983, pp. 443-449.
[5] AIi, S. M., and R. E. Burge, "New Automatic Techniques for Smoothing and Segmenting
SAR Images," Signal Process., Vol. 14, 1988, pp. 335-346.
 [6] Rosenfeld, A., and M. Thurston, "Edge and Curve Detection for Visual Scene Analysis,"
IEEE Trans. Computers, Vol. 20, 1971, pp. 562-569.
[7] Abdou, I.E., and W. K. Pratt, "Quantitative Design and Evaluation of Enhancement/Thre-
sholding Edge Detectors," Proc. IEEE, Vol. 67, 1979, pp. 753-763.
[8] Frost, V. S., K. S. Shanmugan, and J. C. Holtzman, "Edge Detection for Synthetic Aperture
Radar and Other Noisy Images," Int. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symp., IGARSS '82,
Paris: ESA, 1982.
[9] Grimsom, W. E. L., and T. Pavlidis, "Discontinuity Detection for Visual Surface Recon-
struction," Comp. Vision Graphics Image Proc, Vol. 30, 1985, pp. 316—330.
[10] White, R. G., "Low Level Segmentation of Noisy Imagery," DRA Memorandum 3900,
1986.
[11] White, R. G., "Change Detection in SAR Imagery," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 12, 1991,
pp. 339-360.
[12] Horowitz, S. L., and T. Pavlidis, "Picture Segmentation by a Tree Traversal Algorithm," /
ACM, Vol. 17, 1976, pp. 368-388.
[13] Gerbrands, J. J., and E. Backer, "Split and Merge Segmentation of SLAR Imagery: Segmen-
tation Consistency," IEEE 7th Int. Conf. Pattern Recognition, Vol. 1, 1984, pp. 284-286.
[14] Cook, R., and J. B. E. Sandys-Renton, "A Parallel Segmentation Algorithm (Merge Using
Moments) for SAR Images," Appls. of Transputers, Vol. 1, 1991, pp. 311-316.
[15] Cook, R., I. McConnell, and C. J. Oliver, "MUM (Merge Using Moments) Segmentation
for SAR Images," Europto Conf. on SAR Data Processing for Remote Sensing, Rome, SPIE
Proc, Vol. 2316, 1994, pp. 92-103.
[16] Oliver, C. J., D. Blacknell, and R. G. White, "Optimum Edge Detection in SAR," IEE
Proc.Radar Sonar Navig, Vol. 143, 1996, pp. 31-40.
[17] Oliver, C. J., I. McConnell, D. Blacknell, and R. G. White, "Optimum Edge Detection in
SAR," Europto Conf on SAR Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling, Paris, SPIE Proc,
Vol.2584, 1995, pp. 152-163.
[18] Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, New York: Dover,
1970, Section 15.1.
[19] Touzi, R., A. Lopes, and P. Bousquet, "A Statistical and Geometrical Edge Detector for SAR
Images," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., Vol. 26, 1988, pp. 764-773.
[20] Bovik, A. C , "On Detecting Edges in Speckled Imagery," IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal
Process., Vol. 36, 1988, pp. 1618-1627.
[21] Cook, R., I. McConnell, D. Stewart, and C. J. Oliver, "Segmentation and Simulated
Annealing," Europto Conf on SAR Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling II, Taormina,
Italy, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2958, 1996, pp. 30-37.
[22] Geman, S., and D. Geman, "Stochastic Relaxation, Gibbs Distributions and the Bayesian
Restoration of Images," IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. IntelL, Vol. 6, 1984, pp. 721-741.
[23] White, R. G., "Simulated Annealing Applied to Discrete Region Segmentation of SAR
Images," DRA Memorandum 4498, 1991.
[24] White, R. G., "A Simulated Annealing Algorithm for SAR and MTI Image Cross-Section
Estimation," Europto Conf on SAR Data Processing for Remote Sensing, Rome, SPIE Proc,
Vol. 2316, 1994, pp. 137-147.
[25] White, R. G., "A Simulated Annealing Algorithm for Radar Cross-Section Estimation and
Segmentation," SPIE Int. Conf. on Applications of Artificial Networks !{Orlando, FL, SPIE
Proc, Vol. 2243, 1994, pp. 231-241.
[26] Caves, R. S., S. Quegan, and R. G. White, "Quantitative Comparison of the Performance
of SAR Segmentation Algorithms," IEEE Trans. Image Proc, submitted 1996.
[27] Hellwich, O., "Line Extraction from Synthetic Aperture Radar Scenes Using a Markov
Random Field Model," Europto Conf. on SAR Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling II,
Taormina, Italy, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2958, 1996, pp. 107-113.
[28] Delves, L. M., R. Wilkinson, C. J. Oliver, and R. G. White, "Comparing the Performance
of SAR Image Segmentation Algorithms," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 13, 1992,
pp. 2121-2149.
8

Texture Exploitation

8.1 Introduction

Techniques for removing speckle from SAR images and deriving the RCS were
described in Chapters 6 and 7. Information is then carried at the single-pixel level.
However, this is not the only type of information contained in a SAR image. We
illustrate this in Figure 8.1 with an example of airborne SAR imagery from the
Tapajos region of the Amazon rain forest, obtained with the CCRS C-band
system, as part of the SAREX program [1-3]. These 6-m resolution, 5-look data
were obtained with illumination from the right at an incidence angle of about
60 degrees. A highway runs diagonally from top right to bottom left. The region
to the left of this is comprised of primary forest; while that to the right is made up
of a mixture of primary forest, secondary forest, and clearings with pasture and
crops.
Suppose that the remote sensing task is to distinguish those regions that
correspond to primary forest from secondary forest and clearings. It is apparent
that the radar return in this image falls into two categories. One, corresponding
to secondary forest and clearings, has no fluctuations above those expected for
5-look speckle. This is caused by the fact that vegetation is sufficiently dense and
uniform so that the RCS is effectively constant. The other, corresponding to
primary forest, has appreciable excess fluctuations caused by tall trees penetrat-
ing the canopy and resulting in bright tree crowns with associated shadow.
Visually, it appears that there is no relevant information in the mean RCS. Some
regions of primary forest have a larger RCS than the secondary forest and
clearings; others have a smaller value. This follows from the fact that both
Figure 8.1 SAREX image of part of the Amazon rain forest in the Tapajos region.

returns correspond to wet vegetation canopies with essentially the same water
content, having the same RCS at the 6-cm wavelength used. Thus, the informa-
tion required to discriminate between the two clutter types resides in image
texture. This cannot be estimated from a single pixel but requires a finite
window to characterize local statistics. The situation is further complicated if
the texture is correlated, as we will show in Chapter 9.
We demonstrated in Chapter 5 that clutter textures could be described by
the normalized variance. Thus, single-point texture statistics can be utilized as a
means of characterizing clutter in image interpretation. This chapter is con-
cerned with establishing optimum means for extracting and exploiting this
textural information.
 In Section 8.2 we discuss how texture information can be derived without
any knowledge of the data distribution. However, where prior knowledge of the
form of PDF is available, it should be exploited. Model-based texture parameter
estimation is discussed in Section 8.3. ML texture estimators for various forms
of PDF are derived in Section 8.3.1, leading to texture measures that can be used
in texture characterization. Assuming that clutter textures are actually K-distrib-
uted, the associated statistical uncertainty in the estimation of the order parame-
ter for the different measures is derived in Section 8.3.2. The normalized log
measure is then exploited in a texture analysis of rain forest data in Section 8.3.3.
The issue of texture classification into regions of different parameter values is
addressed in Section 8.4. Section 8.5 provides an analysis and discussion of
techniques for optimum texture segmentation. Finally, we compare the quality
and speed of algorithms for texture exploitation in Section 8.6.

8.2 Model-Free Texture Exploitation

It is not possible to select texture measures that optimize the information

content without a specific model for the data. However, suboptimal results can
be obtained with noncommittal approaches. For example, the K-S test, intro-
duced in Section 8.2.1, compares the CDF of two data sets. Alternatively,
moments of the data PDF might be compared. The ability to discriminate
between textures would then depend on the accuracy with which these moments
were estimated, as discussed in Section 8.2.2. The selection of which particular
moment to adopt is crucial. If the form of the PDF is known, then those
moments that optimize the information about the texture can be selected. In
Section 8.2.3 we demonstrate how some simple moments are optimized for
particular forms of PDF. In Section 8.2.4 we discuss how the form of the data
PDF can be approximated in terms of a mixture of simple analytic distributions,
each of which possesses an analytic solution.

8.2.1 The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

The K-S test investigates the null hypothesis that two data sets are taken from
the same distribution and depends on the maximum value of the absolute
difference between their CDFs. The probability that the K-S measure exceeds
that observed is approximately independent of the size of the sample (provided
this is greater than four) and the form of the data PDF and can be readily
calculated [4,5]. The test can be applied to classification, as described in Section
8.4.2, with one input provided by theoretical or trained CDFs for the different
classes. In segmentation, discussed in Section 8.5, our interest is in determining
whether two data samples are members of the same (unknown) distribution and
no analytic PDF or training data are necessary. In both situations, if the analytic
form of the PDF is known a priori, it is better that it should be incorporated
into model-based exploitation methods rather than using the noncommittal K-S
test.

8.2.2 Estimating Moments

In Chapter 5 we showed that the normalized variance (the square of the
contrast) of intensity provided a means of discriminating between examples of
field and woodland. Performance is then determined by the statistical uncer-
tainty in these estimates. Consider the variance of an uncorrelated random
intensity /with an estimate, defined over a window of TV pixels, by

—,,n-P-^in-[^t,,] (8..)
where the bars denote ^ample averages. Though both / and/ 2 are unbiased,
since (l) = (I) and (l2) — (I2), the estimated variance var / is biased since
((/) 2 ) ¥= (I)2. In fact, the mean and variance of this estimator are given by

(var/) = (l - — Jvar/ (8.2)

exactly, and

var[^7] = ^((/4)-4(/3)(/)-(P} 2

+ 8(P)(I)2 - 4(I)4) (8.3)

to O(l/N), respectively. For "true" normalization this estimate is divided by the

square of the true mean.
Alternatively, a self-normalized estimate is obtained by dividing the esti-
mated variance by the square of the estimated mean. Hence,

^ s ii - 1 (8.4)
/2 /2
The uncertainty in this estimator depends on errors in both numerator and
denominator, which are clearly not independent. The expected value of this
estimator can be derived by perturbing both numerator and denominator about
their mean value [6] leading to

which is biased to O(l/N). The variance of the quantity can be derived following
a similar process leading to

j^i]-±.№-turn+<u$-sen ,>
(8
LP J N((lf (if (if (If )
Let us examine the difference between true and self normalizations for a
K-distributed intensity with order parameter v, by substituting appropriate
moments from (5.14). With true normalization the bias is

while the variance is

var[var/| 4
/ ? n
co a/-\
L J ^ l h + - + ^ + ^ (8.8)
4 2 3
(I) NK v v VJ

The self-normalized quantity, on the other hand, has a bias of

Bias s /™l\ - var/ « - A f! + IY 1 + 6 ^ (89)

\ I2 I (If NK vA vJ

and a variance of

2
- S B H ) H ) H ) ™
 With no RCS variation (v —> ©o) the variance with true normalization has
a bias of \IN compared with 2IN for the self-normalized variance. In the
opposite limit with strong RCS fluctuations (v —> 0), the biases are 21 Nv and
12/Nv2, respectively. This shows that the bias of the self-normalized estimate is
greater than that with true normalization. If we consider the variance of the
estimators, we find that the estimator with true normalization has a variance of
8/'Ny for v —> oo, whereas that for the self-normalized estimator is AIN. In the
opposite limit (v —» O), the variances are 1AAINv3 and SOINv3, respectively.
Thus, the variance of the self-normalized estimator varies monotonically be-
tween a factor of 2 and 1.8 less than that with true normalization. Though
self-normalized estimators introduce more bias, they have smaller uncertainties
and so are generally a more useful quantity to measure. They will be adopted
for all the discussion that follows.

8.2.3 Optimum Selection of Moments

In texture exploitation, measures generally have to be estimated over as small an
area as possible in order to retain high resolution. This restricts the accuracy with
which the data moments can be estimated. If the PDF of the data is known, an
optimized measure for the parameters which characterize the distribution pro-
vides greater sensitivity than an arbitrary moment, such as the variance discussed
in the previous section. If only two moments are to be determined, an important
issue is which two should be measured for optimum sensitivity. This question
can be addressed from maximum entropy (ME) considerations [7].
ME analysis shows [7] that the mean and variance of the intensity would
correspond to an optimum measure if P(I) were Gaussian. The unknown
mean |JLK and order vK of the equivalent K distribution could then be evaluated
from the mean [X, and normalized variance V1 of /, since JUL = |XK and
V1 = 1 + 2/vK , for single-look images. Another option would be to measure the
first two moments of the natural logarithm of the data for which the ME
solution would be the log normal PDF. The mean and order of the equivalent K
distribution could then be evaluated from the mean (3, and variance
VL(= (In2 / ) - (In/) 2 ) of In /, since (3 = i|i (0) (v K ) - In vK - 7 E + In |ULK and
VL = v|i^(v K ) + TT 2 /6 for single-look clutter, where v|i^(.) is the digamma
function, i ^ C ) the trigamma function, and 7 E Euler's constant [8]. Third, the
mean and the mean log of intensity could be measured, in which case the ME
solution would be the gamma PDF. The relationships JUL^ = JJLK and
i|i(0)fv7j — InV7 = ^ ( 0 ) (v K ) — lnP K — 7 E would then relate the gamma distri-
bution parameters for mean and order, |UL7 and V7, to those for the corresponding
K distribution, JJLK and vK. The difference between these texture estimates indi-
cates the importance of selecting optimum measures determined by the actual
form of the intensity PDF.

8.2.4 Estimating the PDF

In an ideal situation, an analytic form for the data PDF would be known a priori.
In the absence of such a model it is useful to deduce an approximate analytic form
for the PDF made up of a mixture of simple analytic contributions. If these com-
ponent PDFs have a form similar to the data, then it is possible for a small number
of contributions to provide a reasonable representation.
For a mixture distribution, we represent the estimated PDF, P(I), as a
weighted sum of a set of test distributions having the form

^CO = ! > / ( / , 0 (8-n)

Z=I

where P(I9 st) is the ith constituent of the mixture, sz is the vector of parameters
for the kh distribution, wi is its weight, and q the number of components in the
mixture. The estimated PDF is fitted, using ML methods based on expectation
maximization [9], to determine appropriate weights, parameter values, and
number of components for the mixture distributions. In principle, increasing
the number of components improves the fit; however, individual parameter
values are less accurately determined.
As an example, we show a three-component mixture distribution fit to the
PDF of the log of a K-distributed variable in Figure 8.2 [10]. The original
distribution is far too asymmetric to be represented by a single Gaussian com-
ponent. However, after three components have been summed the resultant is
close to the original shape. Note that the quality of the representation was
improved considerably by taking the log of the data. It would require many
more components to represent the PDF of the original data.

8.3 Model-Based Texture Parameter Estimation

So far we have not exploited any model for the data in attempting to derive infor-
mation from the texture. However, Section 8.2.3 indicates that an optimum tex-
ture measure is determined by the form of the data. For the remainder of this
chapter we shall assume that a data model is known, characterized by its single-
point PDF. This PDF then determines optimum measures for texture parameters
(in Section 8.3), classification (in Section 8.4), and segmentation (in Section 8.5).
Figure 8.2 Mixture distribution fit (short dashes) to the PDF of the log of a K distribution (full
curve) made up of three Gaussian contributions (long dashes).

8.3.1 Derivation of MLEs for Different PDFs

In this section we derive MLEs for the parameter values implied by assuming
different forms of PDF to characterize the data. These different PDFs lead to a
variety of texture measures.

8.3.1.1 Gaussian Distribution

Suppose the data have a Gaussian PDF of the form

/>(x) = 1= exp - (*"*) (8.12)

V2TTF [ 2V J
where U
| L and !/represent the mean and variance of x. The resulting log likeli-
hood over N pixels is given by

x _7Vln(2^)_^-^ ( 8 J 3 )
2 2V

with MLEs for mean and variance given by

\L = X and V = x* - x2 (8.14)

This Gaussian PDF could represent either the intensity or the amplitude
of the data. Self-normalized texture measures of the form

V1=^L-X (8.15)

and

VA=£--l = d--l (8.16)

A
A2 A 2
have been proposed [11-13] for intensity and amplitude data, respectively,
which would therefore be ML measures when the appropriate PDF was
Gaussian.

8.3.1.2 Log Normal Distribution

Suppose the data follow a log normal distribution of the form

/>(*) = - J — e J - f i ^ ^ l (8.17)
W2irW [ 2W

where P and W&K the mean and variance of In x. The associated log likelihood
is given by

N lnx
X = -"WtW) -NhTx- ( -®2 (8,8)
2 2W
and the MLEs for (3 and Why

P=W and W = h^c-(h^cf (8.19)

The variance of log measure for intensity, defined by

VL = b 2 / - ( b / ) 2 (8.20)

has also been proposed as a suitable texture measure [14].

8.3.1.3 The K Distribution

Chapter 5 showed that natural clutter can often be represented by a K distribu-
tion of the form

(L+v)
o ( r \ 2 L+V-2 I YT
2
P(I) = - — / Jfv f 2 — (8.21)
T(L)T(V) {ILJ L V M* _

for Z-look SAR, where JUL and v are the mean and order of the intensity PDF,
respectively. In this case the associated log likelihood is

X= A H n ^ -N\nT(v) + ^-\n^
[T(L)] 2 [^.
+ JLIlZl]^j +NLK I2 f^ut (8.22)
V 2 ; I L \ jA, J j
Unfortunately there is no exact analytic form for the partial derivatives of
the last term in (8.22) which prevents a derivation of the MLEs. These have to
be determined by a numerical search over JUL and v to find the largest value of
X; the corresponding values of JUL and v are the MLEs. Since this is very time
consuming, it is useful to provide approximate forms for the K distribution that
have analytic solutions.

8.3.1.4 Approximations to the K Distribution

An analytic approximation for a K-distributed intensity in the limit of large
L is [11]
 xj 1+ vf 1+v -Ml±Z) + v 4 (8.23)

leading to a log likelihood over TV samples given by

\ = Nvlnv - AVln|jL - TVInT(V) + N(v - l)m7 - —

+ J - k d +, J - 2 ^ 1 + *)7+ JdZEl (8.24)

2L[ (x (x 2 J
The MLEs for mean and order are then given by

and

Inv - i|/(o)(v) + - [ ^ ] = I n / - b / + — (8.26)

These reduce to the results for a gamma distribution as L —> °°, when
speckle contributions would be averaged out [15]. Note that the right-hand side
of (8.26) involves a normalized log measure, defined by

U = InI-InI (8.27)

which has been used as a texture measure [7,11]. When (8.26) is inverted it
provides a close approximation to the ML solution for the order parameter for
K distributions with large numbers of looks, and is exact for a gamma distribu-
tion. However, the normalized log in (8.27) provides a poorer approximation to
an ML estimate for v for single-look images. Nevertheless, we shall demonstrate
that adopting this measure yields little performance degradation. It corresponds
to approximating a K distribution by a gamma distribution, as proposed by
Raghavan [16], and has been applied widely in texture analysis [7,12,17—19].
8.3.2 Uncertainty in Order Parameter Estimates
In the previous section we derived ML texture measures V1, VA, V1, and U
corresponding to particular PDFs. In this section we apply the same texture
measures to characterize data that we assume to be K-distributed. Obviously, we
would expect a texture measure arising from a PDF that was close to a K
distribution to yield the greatest statistical accuracy. For example, we would
expect Vp defined in (8.15), to be a poor measure whereas U, defined in (8.27),
and VD defined in (8.20), should represent considerable improvements.
From this point on we will confine our attention to single-look SAR since
it yields maximum resolution and retains all the texture information available
to the sensor. The expected values of the texture estimators can be related to the
order parameter, in the limit of large TV, by evaluating appropriate moments of
the K distribution. Thus,

( ^ ) = TTTT" 1 = 1 + - (8-28)

4vT2
(V)=VL-J= <y) -i (829)
A
() orPfv + IJ

Iy1) = (In2 /) - (In if = I|I«>(V) + — (8.30)

6
and

(U) = (In/) - ln(/) = v|i(0)(v) - lnv - 7 E (8.31)

The value of v can be estimated by inverting (8.28)—(8.31).

These texture measures are estimated over a window of TVpixels. Approxi-
mate values for their mean and variance can be derived by performing pertur-
bation expansions of V1, VA, V1, and Uabout their expected values. The bias is
derived by taking the expectation value of these expansions. The variance is
obtained by squaring the expansion before taking the expectation value. Both
bias and variance to first order in \IN have been derived [11,12]. For small
windows ( < 200 pixels) the second-order term is also required [13].
In describing K-distributed texture, we are concerned with the bias and
variance of the estimate for v rather than the measure from which it is obtained.
The relation between small changes in the texture measures and the estimates
for order can be derived by differentiating (8.28) to (8.31). Following the
methods of Section 8.2.2, the bias in the order is derived by taking ensemble
averages of these differentiated expressions and substituting for the bias in the
texture estimators. Similarly, the variance is derived by squaring the differentials
of the expectation values before taking ensemble averages and substituting for
the variance of the texture estimators. The most convenient way to present the
results is in the form of relative bias and variance, denoted by (Av)/v and
(8v 2 )/v 2 , respectively, where a subscript denotes the mean from which the
estimate was obtained. Summarizing the results we obtain [11-13]

^k = Xf 1 + lYl + «) (8.32)
v N\ vA vJ

v
4NvT2{v)(l + 2i/i|»<°>(v) - tym(v + -i JH

X -i*pL-4-A (8-33)

- ^ = - 6- (8.34)
(2)
v Nvty {v)

where i}/'2'(-) is the tetragamma function [8], and

l+
Wu - v (835)
v 2N(vtyM(v) - l)

for the relative bias in order parameter from V1, VA, VL, and U, respectively. The
corresponding expressions for relative variance are

t%= W1 +IY1+IY1 +1) (8 .36)

v2 NK vA vA vJ
 (^%A 1
V
' Ml + 2i/i|/(°)(v) - I|I<°>(V + ^Y)]

X -«pVL 5-1 (8.37)

1 V
TTHU +

(5V2) »P(v) + 2*a>2 (v) + ^ i ¥Hv) + I M

—-^- = ^ ^o_ (838)
v2 7V(viJ;<2>(v))2

where 4>(3K-) is the pentagamma function [8], and

^ ^ = £ r (8.39)
v2 N ( I - 1 ^ ) (v))

The uncertainty in the estimated order parameter is greater than the bias,
since the latter is of order UN whereas its standard deviation is of order
1/\lN. It is therefore possible to ignore the effects of bias for simplicity,
particularly for large N. In order to compare the performance of different
measures, a plot of their predicted relative standard deviation is shown in Figure
8.3. These predictions are compared with numerical results for the exact K
distribution. Some simulated results are also included.
The first conclusion that can be drawn is that there is good agreement
between theory and simulation, except for V1 with small values of order parame-
ter where the discrepancy can be partially resolved by introducing the second-
order term [13], with still higher orders needed for v ^ 0.4.
Let us next compare the performance of the different measures. The
numerical ML calculation for the exact K distribution [12], denoted by the full
curve, effectively represents the envelope of the optimum performance of the
approximate analytic measures. It can be seen that Uis best for v < 3, whereas
VA is best for 3 < v < 10. Hence, some combination of Uand VA should yield
a closer approximation to the true ML solution over the range 0.1 < v < 10
[20]. Equation (8.24) suggests that the MLE for a K distribution should
combine both U and V1 (rather than VJ). Joughin et al. [21] used numerical
simulation to show that the variance of the estimate of v is exponentially related
to its mean value. In the limit of large v, the minimum variance for unbiased
 SD/mean

Order parameter

Figure 8.3 Comparsion of predicted relative standard deviation in orderp3arameter from d

ferent measures. Wn i dow 32 by 32 pixels;simulation over 10 sampe l s. Exac
numerical ML solution for K distribution (full). Theoretical results for approxm
i
tions denoted by increasing dash length: Vf. first-order theory, second-order th
and simulation (•); VA: theory and simulation (X); V1;. theory and sim
theory (long and short dashes), simulation (O).

estimators is approximately given by the Cramer—Rao bound that has the value
v2/N [13]. The errors in all the measures considered here have this form, with
constants of proportionality taking the value 1.0, 1.63, 11.9, and 2.58 for Vp
F 4 , VL, and U, respectively. Thus, V1 is asymptotically the optimum estimator
for large v where it attains the Cramer—Rao bound. However, it is the worst
estimator in the opposite limit where U appears best.
For large values of v the texture fluctuations are very weak and the
intensity distribution tends to the negative exponential speckle PDF for single-
look imagery. Strong texture is of more interest, corresponding to smaller values
of v, where U or V1 provide reasonable approximations to the true MLE.
Subsequent discussion on texture classification and edge detection will generally
be based on these texture measures.

8.3.3 Texture Estimation Example

In this section we apply texture estimates to the Amazon rain forest example in
Figure 8.1, repeated as Figure 8.4(a). The normalized log measure U, was
evaluated over a window size of 8 by 8 pixels, leading to the result in Figure

(a) (b)

(C) (d)

Figure 8.4 Texture analysis of SAREX image from Figure 8.1: (a) original image, (b) normalized
log texture measure output for 8 by 8 pixel window, (c) annealed version of (b) to
reduce speckle, and (d) overlay of derived edges on original image.
8.4(b) [18,19]. Note that in this instance the measure was not inverted to
estimate the order parameter. This texture image is corrupted by the effects of
speckle, which can be reduced considerably using the simulated annealing filter,
described in Chapter 6. After suitable resampling to overcome correlations
introduced by the scanning window, the despeckled texture image is shown in
Figure 8.4(c). Regions corresponding to clearings in the original image appear
dark, with primary forest generally lighter. This indicates that the texture meas-
ure could be applied to discriminate between the different classes in the scene.
Indeed, the distributions of texture measures for primary forest and clearings are
so well separated in this example that it is possible to apply a simple threshold
to the texture measure to distinguish between the two classes. The edges ob-
tained in this manner are overlaid on the original image in Figure 8.4(d). It is
apparent that this provides successful delineation of the region boundaries.

8.4 Texture Classification

Classification is intended to determine the closest match between a data sample

and a set of samples representing the different classes. The example in Figure 8.4
indicates that texture estimators can sometimes be used for classification in
terms of region type, that is, clearing or primary forest. Classification can also
be used to discriminate between regions having the same form of PDF, for
example, a K distribution with different parameter values (even though the
physical meaning of these differences may be unknown). In this section we
compare a method based on fitting texture parameters with one in which a
hypothesis test is applied directly to the data. The direct method, which is based
on log likelihood or K-S tests, is more reliable than fitting, since one can always
identify the closest class, whereas fitting procedures are not very robust.
For simplicity we will confine our attention to K-distributed textures with
the same mean value and discuss classification based on differences in order
parameter alone. This can be achieved by fitting the order parameter and
classifying on the basis of the distribution of errors in this estimate, as described
in Section 8.4.1. Alternatively, the texture can be classified directly by calculat-
ing the likelihood that the data are consistent with each K distribution (charac-
terized by its order parameter) within the reference set, as described in Section
8.4.2. This likelihood measure is then applied in a simulated annealing classifi-
cation in Section 8.4.3.

8.4.1 Classification by Fitting

In this approach each texture sample is represented by an estimated order parame-
ter v, obtained by fitting. These estimates are compared with reference values and
the sample assigned to a class. This process can be optimized if P(y) is known,
when it would be possible to calculate the log likelihood of a sample belonging to
each class. To establish the form of P(v), we simulated a set of uncorrelated
K-distributed textures, over a window of 16 by 16 pixels, having order parameter
values of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. The order parameter was estimated in each example
and the overall PDF compared with theoretical Gaussian, gamma, and log normal
distributions with appropriate ML values for their parameters. We found that a
log normal distribution provided the closest resemblance to the PDF of estimated
order in all cases, followed by a gamma distribution [22]. Thus, classification by
fitting should assume that_P(v) is log normal, with MLE parameter values given
by |3 = Inv and W = \n2v - (Inv) 2 . Appropriate values of p and Wfor the
three classes and each of the measures discussed in Section 8.3.1 were derived
from the training data.
Classification is then performed over the same size region and order
parameter values using the training results as reference. The average probability
for correct classification of the three textures for the V1, VA, VD and Umeasures
are compared in Table 8.1. V1 is clearly the worst while U is best, as expected
from the plots of errors in the different estimators in Figure 8.4. Not surpris-
ingly, these results demonstrate that one should classify using the measure that
has the smallest statistical uncertainty.

8.4.2 Direct Classification

There are many occasions when determining estimator values as part of the
classification process is not required. For example, the K-S test, introduced in
Section 8.2.1, provides a nonparametric method that classifies the data directly.
If the form of the distribution is known, it is better to test directly whether the
data is consistent with the candidate PDFs. In this section we compare numeri-
cal evaluation of the log likelihood for the exact K distribution with analytic

Table 8.1
Comparison of the Average Probability of Correct
Classification for the Three Textures Using the V1, VA,
Vb and U Measures

Texture Measure

V1 VA VL U

0.764 0.951 0.962 0.978

/Vote/the SD in each result is approximately ±0.001
 results for the approximate gamma and log normal PDFs, as summarized in
Section 8.3.1. A set of simulations was performed for uncorrelated textures with
order parameter values of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 over a window of 16 by 16 pixels
[22]. The average probabilities for correct classification, using appropriate like-
lihood tests, are compared with the results of the K-S test in Table 8.2. Approxi-
mate forms of PDF again lead to a slight reduction in the probability of correct
classification, though that introduced by the gamma PDF is only just outside
the statistical uncertainty of 0.001 in each result. The K-S test, which is not
matched to the form of the data PDF, yields significantly poorer classification,
as we would expect. This again reinforces the importance of using any informa-
tion available in exploiting image data. In fact, these results show that it is better
to use any one of these theoretical forms for the PDF than to be noncommittal.
Since most data can be represented within this span of possible distributions,
one of the approximations can be applied for all data without significant
degradation.
If the results from fitting the order parameter estimated from the normal-
ized log estimator in Table 8.1 are compared with the results in Table 8.2, it is
apparent that the dominant factor in classification performance is the choice of
an appropriate distribution to represent the data. The gamma approximation to
a K distribution yields the best performance, regardless of whether it is then used
to classify by fitting or directly.

8.4.3 Annealed Texture Classification

We now apply the texture likelihood classification technique in a data-driven
annealing scheme similar to that described for RCS in the previous chapter.
Let us assume for simplicity that the PDF of the intensity can be approxi-

Table 8.2
Comparison of the Average Probability of Correct Classification
of the 12 Correlated Textures Using K-S or Likelihood Tests
Based on the Exact K and Approximate Gamma and Log normal PDFs

Likelihood Test

K-S Test Log Normal Gamma K

0.962 0.972 0.977 0.979

/Vote/the SD in each result is approximately ±0.001
mately represented by a gamma distribution, as in (8.23) in the limit of large
L The log likelihood that the TV pixels have mean and order of jx and v,
respectively, is then given by (8.24). In this application the values of mean
and order for each class are not known a priori but have to be estimated
from the data. The log likelihood of Nq pixels then belonging to class q is
given by

Xf=^[vfhv,-vfW,-lnr(vf)

+ (Vl)K" 0 *] (8 40)
-

where / and In / represent the average intensity and average log of intensity
within the pixels assigned to class q and v is the MLE for the order parameter
derived from (8.26). This expression for the texture likelihood can be incorpo-
rated into an annealing scheme comprised of the following stages:

1. Initialize by tessellating the image into square blocks and assign each
block randomly to some class q out of m possible classes.
2. Calculate / , In / , and v over the pixels belonging to each class and
m
evaluate the total configuration likelihood from X= ^ X .

3. Transfer one randomly selected edge pixel into a neighboring segment.

4. Repeat step 2.
5. IfX increases, then preserve the change. If not, use annealing prob-
ability, as in Section 6.9.1, to determine whether to retain the change.
6. Iterate steps 2 to 5 until the improvement is negligible.

The penalty for edge curvature is again included to override the effects of
speckle, as described in Section 7.3.5.
The result of classifying the rain forest image in Figure 8.4(a) into five
classes with initial segments of 7 by 7 pixels and a curvature penalty parameter
of 0.01 is illustrated in Figure 8.5(a). Applying a threshold to separate into
primary and secondary forest/clearing classes leads to the boundaries shown as
an overlay in Figure 8.5(b).This demonstrates the potential of combining an-
nealing techniques with ML estimates for texture.
 (a) (b)
Figure 8.5 Annealed classification of the Tapajos rain forest image from Figure 8.4(a):
(a) five-class classification and (b) overlay when thresholded into two classes.

8.5 Texture Segmentation

The texture estimation and classification examples in Sections 8.3.3 and 8.4.3
suggest that the position of edges within texture can be estimated accurately.
Here we analyze the limiting performance for texture edge detection, and hence
segmentation [23,24], following the approach for RCS segmentation described
in Section 7.10.3.
Edge detection, based on both the noncommittal K-S test and the specific
likelihood test, is discussed in Section 8.5.1. The latter adopts the analytic
gamma PDF approximation for the K distribution. This ML edge detector is
then incorporated into model-based segmentation in Section 8.5.2 and an-
nealed segmentation in Section 8.5.3.

8.5.1 Edge Detection

Let us consider the same edge-detection window geometry as in Chapter 7.
Again, there are two possible optimization criteria [25]. First, we may wish to
maximize the total detection probability. Second, we may wish to optimize the
determination of edge position, which may be particularly important when
comparing segmented images [26]. In Chapter 7 we showed that total detection
probability is optimized using the SWCE configuration while the FWSE ge-
ometry optimizes edge detection at the correct position.
The K-S test can be applied to both configurations. It tests the hypothesis
that the region is split at each position of the window or edge. The probability
that the region is homogeneous will be smallest when the test edge is aligned
with the real edge. Thus, an edge is identified as occurring at the position for
which this test probability is a minimum. In addition to estimating potential
edge position, it is also necessary to detect this edge against some threshold to
restrict false alarm edge detections. This does not relate directly to the prob-
ability generated by the K-S test because we adopt the minimum over many
possible edge positions. However, the dependence on edge position is incorpo-
rated correctly so that a single threshold value can be applied throughout.
The likelihood test can also be applied to determine whether the pixels in
a window should be merged into a single region, with mean JUL0 and order V0, or
split into two regions, with pixels 1 to k having mean IUL1 and order V1 while
pixels k+1 to M have JUL2 and V2. We construct the log likelihood difference, as
in Section 7.3.3, from the likelihoods in each region, defined as in (8.40).
Hence, the log likelihood difference is given by

XD = k\ V1 In V1 — V1 In I1 — In F(V1) + (V1 — l)ln I1 — V11

+ (M- k)[v2 lnv 2 - V2 InZ2 - InT(V2) + (v2 - l)hT2 - V2]

- M[v0 lnv0 - V0 ln/ 0 - l n r(v 0 ) + (v0 - I)^T 0 - V0] (8.41)

Let us again define the probability that the edge is detected in the correct
position by Pd and that the overall detection probability within the window is
Ptot. Unfortunately, the threshold required for a specific value of false alarm
probability for the FWSE configuration is a function of position, mean, order,
and Pfa [23,24]. No analytic dependence is available, so the threshold has to be
derived from simulation. Once correct values are available, a comparison of K-S
and ML edge detection can be made for both FWSE and SWCE configurations.
This reveals that the ML edge detector yields higher detection probability than
that based on the K-S test, demonstrating that the introduction of a more
specific model leads to better performance. As in RCS segmentation, we find
that the FWSE configuration yields higher values of Pd than SWCE, whereas
SWCE gives larger values of P tot than FWSE.
The theoretical expression for ML edge detection can be incorporated into
segmentation algorithms, such as RGW or MUM, as discussed in Section 8.5.2.
Alternatively, it can be introduced into a global optimization procedure (anneal-
ing) in the form of a cost function, as described in Section 8.5.3, in a similar
manner to that described for intensity segmentation in Chapter 7. In each case
the theoretical framework is the same. However, the first types of segmentation
rely on a model-based approach testing for edges while the annealing approach
considers all possible region states and should be inherently more effective.
8.5.2 Model-Based Segmentation
In this section we examine the effect of modifying the merge criterion in the
MUM algorithm, described in Chapter 7, to apply to texture following the
analysis of Section 8.5.1. Figure 8.6 (a) illustrates the estimated order parameter in
each segment resulting from applying ML order parameter and mean segmenta-
tion simultaneously, based on the likelihood difference measure in (8.41). The
distributions of order parameter for clearing and primary forest regions are suffi-
ciently well separated for a single threshold to discriminate between them, leading
to the regions identified by the overlay in Figure 8.6(b). The method clearly
provides accurately defined edges with a sensitivity of about 2 pixels. There seem
to be more false alarms in the primary forest on the right side of the scene than
were found in Figure 8.4(d). However, this is a real property of the data, not a
failure of the algorithm. It indicates that the data statistics do not map exactly into
the two classes. Theory suggests [22—24] that the potential resolution of texture
segmentation is on a finer scale than the 2 by 2 limit imposed by the initial MUM
segmentation. Therefore, we require a scheme in which a fixed window with a
sliding edge is adopted to refine the edge position once maximum total detection
has been achieved with a scanning window [23,25]. This appears to be compatible
with the two-stage form of RGW suggested in Section 7.3.4.

8.5.3 Annealed Segmentation

While the segmentation schemes described in Section 8.5.2 are reasonably
effective, a global optimization process, such as simulated annealing (SGAN) is
not so dependent on the heuristics required in model-based segmentation. The
log likelihood can be obtained by generalizing (8.40) for */regions such that [27]

W = - \ = -^N; (vj lnv7 - V7 InT7- - lnr(v y )

.7 = 1

+ (V. - l ) m 7 ~ - v ; ) (8.42)

The method then follows the procedure described for RCS annealed
segmentation in Section 7.3.5 except that two variables need to be estimated.
The curvature penalty term, introduced in Chapter 7, is again incorporated into
the annealing algorithm. The result of applying annealed texture segmentation
to Figure 8.4(a) is illustrated in Figure 8.6(c). As previously, we fix the number
of regions to be produced by the segmentation. An average region size of 2,000
pixels and a curvature penalty parameter of 0.4 were adopted. When the order
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)
Figure 8.6 Joint mean and order parameter texture segmentation of Tapajos rain forest image
from Figure 8.4(a): (a) and (b) MUM and (c) and (d) SGAN. Note that (a) and (c)
display the order parameter in each segment and that (b) and (d) show an overlaid
edge map on the original image.

parameter values in the different segments were thresholded into two classes, the
overlay in Figure 8.6(d) was obtained. These results are similar to those in Figure
8.6(b) while avoiding the 2-pixel quantization of the MUM implementation.
These results can only be regarded as preliminary, though they are obviously
promising. Further research is required into the derivation of false alarm prob-
ability for texture edge detection.
8.6 Discussion

In this chapter a theoretical framework has been developed that enables approxi-
mate ML solutions to be obtained for exploiting texture. It is important to con-
sider the kinds of applications and data types for which texture measures would be
relevant. In exploiting RCS information, the value of RCS has direct physical sig-
nificance. However, the connection between the value of a texture measure and a
physical property of the scene is ambigous. Clearly texture describes the depth of
fluctuation, which depends on both physical RCS and spatial relationships be-
tween objects in the scene. Thus, discriminating between regions of different tex-
ture allows us to distinguish between different scene categories. The difference in
contrast between fields, woods, and built-up areas has already been mentioned as
an example. A texture measure can be used either to classify into regions of differ-
ent textures, which either depend on a prior reference data base or may be learned
from the data, or in a segmentation process that determines uniform regions of
significantly different texture properties. The former approach identifies a texture
sample with the nearest member of a reference set, while the latter provides data-
driven separation into an unknown number of regions. Both may become part of
a higher level classification process that attempts to label the texture (e.g., as
woodland or urban areas) depending on the value of the texture measure.
A flow diagram for texture exploitation is shown in Figure 8.7. The initial
question is whether information is contained in texture or in intensity values. If
the latter, the data should be processed following the RCS exploitation tech-
niques described in Chapters 6 and 7. If the former, we require prior knowledge
of the PDF of the data. This PDF in turn defines MLEs that encapsulate the
information about that texture. We have already demonstrated in Sections 8.4
and 8.5 that either a gamma or log normal distribution provides near-optimum
discrimination. The second issue to resolve is whether classification or segmen-
tation is the most suitable way to proceed in the given application. Classification
has the advantage that data are assigned to the nearest of a fixed number of
classes. Segmentation, on the other hand, is totally data-driven, so its statistical
uncertainty is greater. However, it will not be deceived if an unexpected sample,
inconsistent with the reference set, is encountered.
If the classification route is selected, the log likelihood for each reference
is calculated as in (8.24) (for predefined references) or (8.40) (for data-driven
processing) and the largest value taken to denote the class. Section 8.4.3 dem-
onstrated the power of simulated annealing in data-driven classification.
In comparing segmentation algorithms, issues of image quality and execu-
tion time have to be addressed, as in Chapter 7, with basically the same
algorithm options. We already established that annealing (SGAN) approximates
a global optimum segmentation if the initial conditions are set correctly. At
 Intensity No Information
exploitation in texture?
Yes

Clutter ML estimator
PDF

Classify or
segment?
segment

classify
Speed or
quality?

speed quality

Reference ML MUM/(RGW) Segmented

data classifier anneal

Figure 8.7 Flow diagram for selection of algorithms for texture exploitation.

present MUM is the only model-based segmentation algorithm that has been
applied to texture, though we indicated in Section 8.5.2 that a modified version
of RGW should do better. However, both model-based techniques adopt
heuristics that render them suboptimum, so SGAN is potentially the best.
Further development of SGAN is required for both classification and segmen-
tation. The form of the curvature penalty term needs further investigation as
does the "best" choice of average region size. Quality comparison should be used
to verify that SGAN is operating correctly and to quantify the extent to which
MUM (or RGW) is less effective. Unfortunately, image-quality assessment is
more complicated than for RCS segmentation because it is not possible to define
an equivalent simple measure to the ratio adopted there. Probably the best
approach is via a test suite using patterns of simulated textures. The user can
then impose his own cost function for the different types of segmentation error.
Comparative execution times for MUM and SGAN segmentation are
listed in Table 8.3. The MUM results are for an initial 3 by 3 tessellation of the
image; SGAN was set to provide 500 regions. Both methods have execution
 Table 8.3
Comparison of Execution Times for MUM and SGAN Texture Segmentation
on Test Image as Function of Size

Execution Time (sec)

Image Size 64x64 128x128 256x256 512x512

MUM 0.4 1.5 8.0 38.7

SGAN 48.0 202.0 836.0 3,313.0

times proportional to window size, but annealed segmentation is about two

orders of magnitude more expensive than MUM. It is instructive to compare
these results with those achieved for RCS segmentation in Chapter 7. For the
same size image MUM had an execution time of 934 seconds for RCS, com-
pared with 38.7 seconds for texture. RCS segmentation operates on single pixels,
which increases the work load considerably. In addition, it generates many more
segments since the algorithm is more sensitive. On the other hand, the execution
time for SGAN is somewhat greater for texture (3,313 sec) than for RCS (2,389
sec) due to a similar number of regions being found in both examples (about
500), while the texture likelihood calculation is more complicated.
In conclusion, the execution time of SGAN is much greater than MUM
and seems to yield similar results at present. Unless further development indi-
cates otherwise, there seems little to be gained by using annealing for texture
segmentation. This conclusion differs from that for cross-section segmentation
where the execution times of the two algorithms are more comparable. At
present annealed classification is about three times slower than annealed seg-
mentation (SGAN). However, these results are only very preliminary and should
improve with further development.

References

[1] Shimabukuro, Y. E., F. Ahern, and P. F. Hernandez, "Initial Evaluation of Airborne and
ERS-I SAR Data for the Tapajos National Forest, Brazil," Proc. SAREX-92, ESA Vol.
WPP-76, 1993, pp. 87-94.
[2] Quegan, S., and K. D. Grover, "Change Detection and Backscatter Modelling Applied to
Forest Modelling by SAR," Proc. European Symp. on Satellite Remote Sensing II, Paris,
September, 1995, pp. 241-251.
[3] Grover, K. D., and S. Quegan, "Image Quality, Statistical and Textural Properties of
 SAREX Data from the Tapajos Test Site," Proc. SAREX-92 Workshop, ESA Vol. WPP-76,
1994, pp. 15-23.
[4] Stephens, M. A., "Use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises and Related
Statistics Without Extensive Tables, " / Royal Statistical Soc. B, Vol. 32, 1970, pp. 115-122.
[5] Press, W. H., S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. R Flannery, Numerical Recipes in C,
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994, Chap. 14.
[6] Oliver, C. J., "The Interpretation and Simulation of Clutter Textures in Coherent Images,"
Inv. Problems, Vol. 2, pp. 481-518.
[7] Lombardo, P., and C. J. Oliver, "Simultaneous Segmentation of Texture Properties of
K-Distributed SAR Images," Europto Conf. on SAR Data Processing for Remote Sensing,
Rome, SPIEProc, Vol. 2316, 1994, pp. 104-114.
[8] Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, New York: Dover,
1970, Chap. 6.
[9] Luttrell, S. P, "An Adaptive Bayesian Network for Low-Level Image Processing," Proc. 3rd
Int. Conf on Artificial Neural Networks, London: IEE, pp. 313-316.
[10] Blacknell, D., "Texture Anomaly Detection in Radar Imagery," Europto Conf on SAR Data
Processing for Remote Sensing, Rome, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2316, 1994, pp. 125-136.
[11] Oliver, C. J., "Optimum Texture Estimators for SAR Clutter," / Phys. D: Appl. Phys, Vol.
26, 1993, pp. 1824-1835.
[12] Blacknell, D., "A Comparison of Parameter Estimators for the K Distribution," IEE Proc.
Radar Sonar Navig, Vol. 141, 1994, pp. 45-52.
[13] Lombardo, P, and C. J. Oliver, "Estimation of Texture Parameters in K-Distributed
Clutter," IEE Proc. Radar Sonar Navig, Vol. 141, 1994, pp. 196-204.
[14] Kreithen, D. E., S. M. Crooks, W. W. Irving, and S. D. Halversen, "Estimation and
Detection Using the Product Model," MIT-Lincoln Lab. Report No. STD-37, 1991.
[15] Harter, H. L., and R. S. Moore, "Maximum Likelihood Estimation of the Parameters of
Gamma and Weibull Populations from Complete and from Censored Samples," Tech-
nometrics, Vol. 7, 1965, pp. 639-643.
[16] Raghavan, R. S., "A Method for Estimating Parameters of K-Distributed Clutter," IEEE
Trans., Vol. AES-27, 1991, pp. 238-246.
[17] Lombardo, P., C. J. Oliver, and R. J. A. Tough, "Effect of Noise on Order Parameter
Estimation for K-Distributed Clutter," IEE Proc. Radar Sonar Navig, Vol. 142, 1995,
pp. 533-540.
[18] Oliver, C. J., A. P. Blake, and R. G. White, "Optimum Texture Analysis of SAR Images,"
SPIE Conf. Algorithms for Synthetic Aperture Radar Imagery, Orlando, FL, SPIE Proc, Vol.
2230, 1994, pp. 389-398.
[19] Oliver, C. J., "Edge Detection in SAR Segmentation," Europto Conf on SAR Data Processing
for Remote Sensing, Rome, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2316, 1994, pp. 80-91.
[20] Jahangir, M., D. Blacknell, and R. G. White, "Accurate Approximation to the Optimum
Parameter Estimate for K-Distributed Clutter," IEE Proc. Radar Sonar Navig, Vol. 143,
1996, pp. 383-390.
[21] Joughin, I. R., D. B. Percival, and D. P. Winebrenner, "Maximum Likelihood Estimation
 of K Distribution Parameters for SAR Data," IEEE Trans. Geo. Remote Sens., Vol. 31, 1993,
pp. 989-999.
[22] Oliver, C. J., "Optimum Classification of Correlated SAR Textures," Europto Conf. on SAR
Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling II, Taormina, Italy, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2958, 1996,
pp. 64-73.
[23] Oliver, C. J., I. McConnell, and D. Stewart, "Optimum Texture Segmentation of SAR
Clutter," Proc. EUSAR 96, Konigswinter, 1996, pp. 81-84.
[24] Oliver, C. J., and P. Lombardo, "Simultaneous Mean and Texture Edge Detection in SAR
Clutter," IEE Proc. Radar Sonar Navig, Vol. 143, 1996, pp. 391-399.
[25] Oliver, C. J., D. Blacknell, I. McConnell, and R. G. White, "Optimum Edge Detection in
SAR," Europto Conf. on SAR Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling, Paris, SPIE Proc,
Vol.2584, 1995, pp. 152-163.
[26] Caves, R. C , and S. Quegan, "Matching Segmentation Algorithms to ERS-I SAR Appli-
cations," Europto Conf. on SAR Data Processing for Remote Sensing, Rome, SPIE Proc, Vol.
2316, 1994, pp. 148-158.
[27] Cook, R., I. McConnell, D. Stewart, and C. J. Oliver, "Segmentation and Simulated
Annealing," Europto Conf. on SAR Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling II, Taormina,
Italy, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2958, 1996, pp. 30-37.
9

Correlated Textures

9.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter we demonstrated how the information contained in tex-

tured clutter could be exploited for both classification and segmentation. How-
ever, it is clear from studying SAR images, such as the rain forest example in Figure
8.1, that texture information is not only contained in the single-point statistics
but also in the correlation (and spectral) properties. This chapter provides the
background for incorporating correlation properties into techniques for extract-
ing information from texture. We shall assume, as in Chapter 8, that the RCS can
be regarded as a single realization of a stationary gamma-distributed noise process.
The discussion will be centered on the set of simulated correlated textures illus-
trated in Figure 9.1. These correspond to single-look SAR intensity images of a
gamma-distributed RCS with a symmetrical Gaussian ACF of the form

where Xand Kare the lags in each dimension, v the order parameter and € the
correlation length. In Figure 9 . 1 v takes values of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 while €
corresponds to 1, 2, 4, and 8 pixels. These textures can be simulated exactly since
they have half-integer order parameters and thus obey the random walk model of
Section 5.8. For this simulation the imaging process did not introduce any further
correlations. Real data would have to be resampled to match this behavior by
removing PSF correlations, as described in Chapter 4.
Figure 9.1 Montage of 128 by 128 pixel regions of simulated correlated textures, shown as
amplitude images. The textures, characterized by (v, €) are labeled from 1 to 12 and
have positions in the montage denoted by:
1(0.5,1) 2(0.5,2) 3(0.5,4) 4(0.5,8)
5(1.0,1) 6(1.0,2) 7(1.0,4) 8(1.0,8)
9(2.0,1) 10(2.0,2) 11(2.0,4) 12(2.0,8)

From Figure 9.1 it appears comparatively easy to distinguish visually the

boundary between textures with different correlation length. However, the
distinction between textures with different v and small € (i.e., textures 1, 5, 9
on the left of Figure 9.1) is not so clear. A visual determination of the edges
between regions is aided considerably by the large area of each texture sample.
Indeed, one of the lessons of Chapter 8 was that it is possible to detect the
position of an edge between textures with single-pixel accuracy provided that
large enough regions of each texture are available to define their properties
sufficiently accurately.
However, for effective exploitation it is necessary to determine the texture
properties from a comparatively small region of texture so as to maintain as high
a resolution as possible. Typically a window of about 32 by 32 pixels has been
shown to yield reasonable accuracy in estimating v and € [1—4] and will be
employed in the succeeding discussion. A random selection of such samples is
shown in Figure 9.2. It is apparent that identifying the properties of each sample
is now considerably more difficult. Experience shows that a typical observer
would classify about 50% of these examples correctly.
In this chapter we consider a variety of methods for extracting textural
information from such small regions. Initially we consider parameter estimation
for these textures in Section 9.2. Classification will be discussed in Section 9.3
and edge detection in Section 9.4. Classification and edge detection can be
performed on the parameter estimates arising from Section 9.2, which demand
a specified form of ACF. Alternatively, fitting can be avoided and the processes
can be carried out directly using the spectral properties. The latter approach has
the advantage that any form of spectrum or ACF can be treated.

9.2 Model-Based Parameter Estimation

As discussed in Chapter 5, the mean and ACF provide a complete description

of the simulated stationary noise process in Figure 9.1. Parameter values can be
estimated by fitting the normalized intensity ACF, which has the form [1]

N (/(0,0)/(X, Y)) f ^
T1[X9Y) ^ ^ ^ >± = 8 X ) 0 o r ^l + I J + r^X.Y) (9.2)

Figure 9.2 Random selection of 32 by 32 pixel regions of the different correlated textures. The
different textures are laid out in positions given by:

5 8 6 12 3 8 10 9 7 4 6
6 11 11 1 3 9 3 5 10 9 6
7 2 6 1 4 11 9 7 12 8 11
12 4 2 10 5 9 4 5 8 1 2
for the process described by (9.1), where 8 X 0 is the Kronecker delta. As shown in
Section 5.6, the contribution at zero lag includes coherent interference terms aris-
ing from individual random scatterers and RCS fluctuations. The RCS correla-
tion properties are contained in the nonzero lag ACF coefficients, ra (X, Y), which
include a constant background of 1. In order to derive information about these we
have to remove the peak at the origin, which is caused by speckle alone.
The statistical uncertainty in the ACF coefficients in (9.2) determines the
error with which order and correlation length are estimated. We would not
expect a least-squares fit to provide MLEs unless the errors had a Gaussian PDF
and were uncorrelated from lag to lag. Early work was confined tofittingthe
intensity ACF [1,4]. However, in Chapter 8 we demonstrated that determining
the order parameter by fitting intensity contrast was much poorer than fitting
either normalized log, variance of log, or amplitude contrast [2]. Similarly, we
would expect that correlation length determination would be improved by
fitting ACF measures that have inherently smaller statistical errors. In Chapter
8 we demonstrated that the normalized log measure approximates the MLE for
order parameter, but there is no corresponding definition of ACF. Therefore, we
adopt the ACF of the log of intensity (which has the variance of the log as its
value at the origin) and the ACF of amplitude to compare with the intensity
ACF. Unfortunately, theoretical derivations of the errors in these ACF coeffi-
cients and the resultant correlation lengths are more cumbersome than those for
the intensity ACF. The amplitude ACF is given by [2]

rA(X, Y) = », A j D (l - f ) ^ j j ^ j + rJX, Y) (9.3)

where

^(i,r) = (i-v№,F)-i)f+1
X 2Fx[v + \,v+\-,V^r0[X,Y)-X)] (9.4)

and 2F\(•) is the Gaussian hypergeometric function (Section 15.1 in [5]). The
log ACF is [2]

r, r(X,Y) = l + bxn8r0 — 5-
6(4)(0)(v) - lnv + ln|JL - 7 E )

W0Hv) - l n v + lnfx)2 , , . ,
\ l ( ! , , ,, ~ T ( U ^ ) - 1 ) (9-5)
(i|i ( 0 ) (p) - I n v + InJUL - 7 E )
where

r {x Y) _ j , (* ~ ^(X9Y) - l))v - (v(rG(X,Y) - l))> T(k + y)

] 2
^ ' (i||(o)(v)-lnv +InJi) ^=S k\ r(v)

X [i||(°)(£ + v) - i|i(°)(v) + In(I - v(rG(X,Y) - l))f (9.6)

\\f(0)(-) is the digamma function, and 7 E is Euler's constant (Chapter 6 in [5]).

A comparison of these ACFs is shown as a log plot in Figure 9.3 for a symmet-
rical Gaussian ACF with € = 4 pixels and V = 1.0. It is apparent that the
amplitude and intensity ACFs have similar form but that the log ACF decays
more rapidly and has a smaller spike at the origin. The statistical uncertainty in
the estimated ACF coefficients determines the accuracy with which parameters
can then be estimated.
r(k)-l

Lag, k

Figure 9.3 Comparison of a log plot of the predicted intensity (full), amplitude (short dashes),
and log (long dashes) ACFs, r(k) - 1, for texture 4, in which v = 1.0 and € = 4 pixels.
 Initially let us consider the determination of the order parameter from
single-point statistics. Expressions for the errors in v for uncorrelated textures
were given in (8.36) to (8.38). Figure 8.3 showed that simulation and prediction
were in good agreement [3,4,6-8]. No general theoretical form for correlated
processes is available, so the behavior has to be deduced from simulation. The
fractional errors in order parameter, as a function of correlation length, are
shown in Table 9.1 [9]. The results for textures with € = 0 can be compared
with the uncorrelated theory from Chapter 8 and show reasonable agreement.
The simulated results for small € show slightly increased errors, with the log
ACF providing the best estimate of order. As correlation lengths increase the
errors increase, showing the effect of correlation between pixels reducing the
number of independent estimates within the sample. The fractional error in v
is then approximately the same for all three ACF estimates. The amplitude ACF
could well be a more appropriate estimate than the log ACF over the typical
range of values encountered with real SAR clutter. It consistently offers better
performance than the ACF of intensity, without the sensitivity to correlation
length and order shown by the log ACF.

Table 9.1
Dependence of Fractional Error in Order Parameter on Correlation Length for Sample Size
of 32 by 32 Pixels

Simulation

Measure v Prediction (€ = 0) €= 0 €= 2 €= 4 €=8

Intensity 0.5 .27 (.23) .21 .24 .31 .51

1.0 .24 (.22) .21 .24 .31 .64
2.0 .25 (.24) .23 .26 .33 1.27
Amplitude 0.5 .08 .08 .10 .19 .48
1.0 .10 .10 .13 .21 .50
2.0 .13 .14 .17 .24 .49
Log 0.5 .05 .05 .06 .08 .51
1.0 .08 .08 .09 .14 .57
2.0 .16 .18 .20 .29 .59

Note: Results for ACFs of intensity, amplitude, and log are shown. Simulation was performed
over 103 samples. Predictions for uncorrelated data are included for comparison. The pre-
dictions in brackets refer to the second-order correction for the intensity ACF. Uncertainty
±0.01.
 A rigorous derivation of the error in estimated correlation length is ex-
tremely complicated. Previous approximate theory for fitting the intensity ACF
[l,3>4,10] makes assumptions that lead to predictions that are qualitatively
reasonable. Rigorous derivations have been presented for a negative exponential
ACF only; even these require numerical evaluation [2]. Again we can only
determine behavior by simulation, as summarized in Table 9.2 [9]. It is apparent
that the fractional error in correlation length does not show much dependence
on v, €, or the choice of ACF measure. There is evidence that adopting the
amplitude or log ACF yields a slight advantage for small €, though none for
larger ones. Over all v and € considered, the amplitude ACF seems to offer the
smallest error in determining i.
In general, one might conclude that the amplitude ACF provides the most
robust estimator on which to base order parameter and correlation length
fitting. The simulated errors can be regarded as guide to the accuracy with which
any specific value of v and € could be determined for different forms of ACF.
Indeed, in many instances fitting a Gaussian profile to the ACF might be
regarded as a means of determining some characteristic correlation length.
Certainly, where only small windows are used to calculate the ACF and deter-
mine €, errors in ACF coefficients are likely to dominate over the discrepancy
between the true shape and a Gaussian of similar width.
It should be noted that the drawback to fitting either amplitude or log
ACFs for determining correlation length is that the theoretical form of ACF has
to be re-evaluated continually during the fitting process. While this is simple for

Table 9.2

The Fractional Error in Correlation Length With a Sample Size of 32 by 32 Pixels

Measure v €= 2 €= 4 €=8

Intensity 0.5 0.18 0.18 0.21

1.0 0.19 0.17 0.20
2.0 0.23 0.19 0.21
Amplitude 0.5 0.14 0.18 0.23
1.0 0.14 0.16 0.20
2.0 0.18 0.18 0.20
Log 0.5 0.14 0.18 0.25
1.0 0.14 0.17 0.21
2.0 0.20 0.18 0.21
Note: Results for intensity, amplitude, and log ACFs for different v and € are compared.
Simulation was performed for 103 samples. The uncertainty is about ±0.01.
the intensity ACF, the other two measures represent a considerable computing
task; this suggests that € might be most readily determined by fitting the
intensity ACE

9.3 Texture Classification

Let us now consider the problem of classifying samples of 32 by 32 pixels for

the set of correlated textures in Figure 9.1. Parameter estimates can themselves
be used in classification [1, 3, 4], as described in Section 8.5.1. Alternatively, a
direct classification process can be derived, analogous to that in Section 8.5.2.

9.3.1 Classification by Fitting

In this method each estimate of v and € is compared with reference values and
the sample assigned to a class, as described in Section 8.5.1. Simulation reveals
that both the order parameter and correlation length estimates for correlated
textures are better fitted on the basis of an assumed log normal or gamma PDF,
with a Gaussian distribution giving significantly worse results [9]. Adopting the
MLE parameter values for a log normal PDF from Section 8.5.1, the average
probability of correct classification over all 12 textures for ACFs of intensity,
amplitude, and log intensity is summarized in Table 9.3. The amplitude ACF is
shown to give the best classification, with the log slightly poorer and intensity
the worst. This contrasts with the uncorrelated results in Chapter 8 where both
the normalized log and variance of log were better than the amplitude measure.

9.3.2 Direct Spectrum Classification

Parameter fitting need not form part of the classification process. Instead, in this
section, we derive a direct approach to classification using the log likelihood as
a distance measure. In order to do this, it is essential that the data should be

Table 9.3
The Average Probability of Correct Classification of the 12 Test
Textures Using Intensity and Amplitude Contrast and Variance
of Log Measures

Intensity Amplitude Log

.697 .814 .790

 independent (so that the total likelihood can be formed by taking the sum of
the logs of individual PDFs) and that the form of the PDF should be known.
To this end we base this approach on the FT of the image [11], which includes
all information present in the original data. The Fourier coefficients would be
independent if the window was infinite; for a 32 by 32 pixel window they
should be approximately uncorrelated [ H ] . This was not true for fitting the
ACF in Section 9.3.1 where errors in ACF coefficients were correlated.
Initially we investigate the PDF of the spectral coefficients for intensity,
amplitude, and log data. Simulation reveals that the distributions appear to be
approximately zero-mean Gaussian with identical variances for the real and
imaginary components. In Chapter 8 we showed that estimates of texture pa-
rameters could be improved by normalizing images by their estimated mean
[1,2,6]. When texture samples are normalized in this fashion, the complex
spectral components are found to become more nearly Gaussian. However,
significant differences emerge when we calculate the relevant log likelihoods. As
an example, we illustrate in Figure 9.4 distributions of estimated likelihood
differences between examples of simulated textures from classes 7 and 11 in
Figure 9.1. Unnormalized (a) and normalized (b) results for spectra derived from
intensity, amplitude, and log data are shown. For good classification these likeli-
hood difference distributions should be predominantly positive. It is clear that
intensity data yield very poor discrimination, whereas amplitude data are more
effective and further improved by normalization. The spectrum of the log data
provides the best result and so is adopted for subsequent study. Its performance
is not affected by normalization. This comparison indicates the high sensitivity
of likelihood methods to the form of the distribution of the spectral coefficients.
Let us, therefore, represent the PDF of the complex spectrum coefficients
by a single-component Gaussian mixture distribution [ H ] . The joint PDF of
the/th component of the real and imaginary spectral coefficients, at(j) and O1(J),
then has the form

(97)
1 2vtu) 2vi{j) J
where |Xr(/) and JUL1C/) are the mean real and imaginary values for the jth
component and Vr(j) and V1(J) are the corresponding variances. The PDFs of
the spectral coefficients derived from simulation suggest that the means are
 P(L0)

(a)
Figure 9.4 PDF of likelihood difference estimate between classes 7 and 11 for simulated
texture 7: (a) unnormalized and (b) normalized. Intensity (dashed), amplitude (dot-
ted), and log (full) PDFs compared.

approximately zero and the variance of each component is the same. However,
consideration of the log likelihoods shows that approximating the mean by zero
degrades classification performance appreciably. Instead, it is preferable to as-
sume that the means and variances are identical, in which case (9.7) can be
modified to

»( (-\ (-W i M)-AJ))2 + MJ)-AJ))2 ^

PMJUXJ)) = ^ j «*[- ^ J fQ<*»

where U| L = juur = JUL1 and V = Vx = V1At should be noted that the spectrum has
special cases for the components at (0, 0), (0, nyl2), (nxl2, 0), and (nx/2, nyl2),
where the window dimensions are nx X ny. The joint PDF of the spectrum over
the whole window for texture from class p is then given by
 P(L n )

LD
(b)

Figure 9.4 (continued).

Pp(at(l),a.(\),...,at(M), O1(Af))

- iA i J (*rU)-*fU)f+MJ)-»,U)f} (99)
-^\hvPU)p[ 2vp(j) J m
where Af = nx X ^ , and the log likelihood of class /> by

x, - -M^ - i J1nW + ( ^ ) - ^ y - ^ ) ) ' j (,10)

For classification we calculate the log likelihood of each class, based on previous
training for the mean and variance of the Gaussian spectral components. The
sample is then assigned to the class with greatest likelihood.
 Having established the basis for classification of correlated textures in
terms of complex spectral components, let us next assess the extent to which this
approach falls short of an exact solution for K-distributed noise. As shown in
Section 8.5.2, a numerical classification is required for uncorrelated K-distrib-
uted noise. A set of uncorrelated sample textures with v = 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 was
simulated (over a window of 16 by 16 pixels) and classified using the complex
spectrum. The average probability of classifying the three textures correctly was
0.976 ±0.001. A comparison with Tables 8.1 and 8.2 demonstrates that this
performance is comparable with fitting the order parameter derived from the
normalized log measure and classification based on the approximate gamma
PDF. All are slightly worse than exact classification.
We now make an equivalent comparison for the correlated textures shown
in Figure 9.1. Sets of 104 samples of each class were simulated (over a window
of 32 by 32 pixels) to train the means and standard deviations of the complex
spectra. Next an equivalent set was simulated to provide a measure of classifica-
tion performance. The average probability of correct classification for all twelve
textures using spectrum classification and ACF parameter fitting (from the
previous section) are compared in Table 9.4. This shows that the ACF fit is
considerably worse than the complex spectral method for correlated textures.
Since the two methods were identical for uncorrelated textures, this indicates
that the fitting process must be degraded by the effect of correlations, probably
attributable to the oversimplistic assumption that order and correlation length
effects could be treated separately.
We have shown that applying an ML likelihood classifier to the complex
spectrum of the log intensity yields better performance than parameter fitting.
Spectral classification has the additional advantage that the ACF fit method
relies on knowing the analytic form of the ACF a priori and estimating appro-
priate parameter values, whereas the spectral method does not. Provided that the
log of the data retains a Gaussian profile for each complex spectral component,
the method is viable. Note that this method can be used with data that do not
have an analytic ACF if trained reference spectra can be provided.

Table 9.4
Comparison of Average Probability of
Correct Classification for the 12
Correlated Textures Based on ACF Fit
and Spectrum Classification

ACF Fit Spectrum

0.814 0.946
9.4 ML Correlated Texture Edge Detection

9.4.1 ML Edge-Detection Theory

Classification of the complex spectrum generally depends on a large training set
to yield accurate values for the mean and variance of each Gaussian component.
However, in segmentation or data-driven classification (as in Section 8.4.3),
decisions have to be based solely on the real and imaginary components of a
single estimate of each spectral coefficient. Thus, the number of degrees of
freedom cannot be more than two for each component. The assumption that
the means and variances of the real and imaginary parts are identical satisfies
this requirement. Assuming that the mean values were both zero yielded poorer
classification performance against predefined references in Section 9.3.2. How-
ever, we can establish by simulation that it improves edge detection. Making this
assumption we find that, if all M pixels in a window are taken from the same
spectral component distribution with (known) /th power spectral component
Sp{j) from classy, the log likelihood simplifies from (9.10) to

\p = -MInTr - I ln^(;) + f ^ (9.11)

where S(j) = a^[j) + a? (j) and S (j) = 2V (y) are the observed and refer-
ence power spectral densities, respectively. Note that the special cases identified
in the previous section have to be treated separately.
The treatment of edge detection for uncorrelated textures in Section 8.6
can now be extended to include correlation by incorporating the texture spec-
trum into the edge-detection scheme in place of single-point statistics. We adopt
the same window geometry with k pixels in region 1 and M — km region 2.
The log likelihood for each region is obtained from (9.11), and the joint
likelihood that the region is split at position k is then given by [9,12]

where the/ch components in region 1, S1(J) and S (j), denote the observed
power spectrum and reference for class px in region 1 comprising pixels 1 to k,
for example. This form relies on prior definition of the reference spectra. These
are unknown in segmentation, so the spectrum has to be estimated from the
data themselves. In this case the ML values of the spectral components are
identical to their observed values, so S (j) is replaced by S1(^'). Hence, the log
likelihood for a split at position k becomes

Xsp,t(k) = -Af(I + InTr) - 2,InS1(J) - ^lnS2(j) (9.13)

j=\ j=k+\

This can be compared with the log likelihood that the merged region is
consistent with a single overall spectrum estimate SQ(j), denoted by the sub-
script 0. The log likelihood Xmerge is then derived from (9.13) by summing over
the complete region. The region is split if the log likelihood difference,

M k M
1 1
M*) = V ^ " V * - X ^oO) " X AC/) - XlnS2(/) (9.14)
y=i j=i j=k+i

exceeds some threshold value.

9.4.2 Edge-Detection Performance

It has been shown in Chapters 7 and 8 that the SWCE configuration maximizes
the total detection probability Ptot, whereas FWSE maximizes the probability of
detecting an edge in the correct position Pd [12—15]. We adopt the same
configurations for edge detection in correlated textures.
Selecting the threshold level is a complicated process because it depends
on edge position, mean, order, correlation length, false alarm probability (Pfa),
and window size. Simulation indicates that the threshold is approximately
independent of mean, order, and correlation length but proportional to the
square root of window size and the log of Pfa. It also depends on the position of
the test edge within the window, being approximately constant over the central
region and reducing by about 10% toward the ends of the window [9,12].
Unfortunately, Pfa is strongly dependent on the threshold, so a small change in
the setting leads to large changes in Pfa. Thus, if a well-defined Pfa is demanded,
the threshold must be selected by simulation for the specific conditions.
We comment only on selected aspects of detection performance [9,12]. It
is important to establish whether the spectral method makes as effective use of
the texture information as the PDF-based technique described in the previous
chapter. Therefore, we start by considering edge detection between textures with
short correlation lengths of 0.5 pixels (so that samples are approximately uncor-
related). Initially we consider the dependence of Pd and Ptot on window height
ny for a fixed width nx = 16 as the edge position in the ^-direction is tested. The
following observations can be made:

• FWSE yields a greater value of Pd than the SWCE configuration.

• SWCE yields a greater value of Pzot than the FWSE configuration.
• The window height n needs to be about four times greater to give
similar performance to that achieved with PDF-based edge detection.

The first two conclusions are the same as previous results for uncorrelated
texture (in Chapter 8) and differences in mean only (in Chapter 7). Since both
PDF-based and spectrum-based edge detection are derived from MLEs, it is not
immediately clear why the latter is less effective. However, it should be appreci-
ated that the spectral method makes no assumption about the relationship
between different spectral coefficients; each is separately determined from the
data. The PDF technique, on the other hand, assumes that the data are com-
pletely described by a single texture parameter, the order, which is determined
from the data. This representation makes use of more specific prior knowledge
about the texture and so would be expected to yield greater accuracy.
We next comment on the dependence of Pd and P101 on order parameter
for approximately uncorrelated textures. Again, we compare both spectral and
PDF-based performance for both FWSE and SWCE configurations. The results
for Pd lead to the following observations:

• FWSE yields a greater value of Pd than the SWCE configuration.

• The difference is more marked with spectral-based than PDF-based
methods.
• PDF-based performance is better than spectral-based results.

The corresponding comparison for Ptot leads to the same conclusions.

Note that the difference between the FWSE and SWCE configurations is much
greater for the spectral-based method than for the PDF-based one.
Finally, when we apply the spectral technique described in this chapter to
assess the dependence of Pd and P tot on correlation length, we find that:

• FWSE again yields a greater value of Pd than the SWCE configuration.

• SWCE again yields a greater value of Pwt than the FWSE configuration.
 No comparison with the PDF-based edge detector is possible since this
cannot use any information derived from texture correlations.

9.5 Discussion

Introducing correlations into texture representation renders exploitation consid-

erably more complicated. The single-point statistics can be well represented by
a K distribution, as demonstrated in Chapter 5. Gamma and log normal PDFs
were shown in Chapter 8 to provide convenient analytic approximations with
little loss in performance. These PDFs are also capable of representing a wide
range of data types. Thus, characterization in terms of the single parameter
representing order should be a robust approach. However, we require a very large
number of parameters to describe the spectrum at all possible spatial frequen-
cies, which prevents any simple characterization of the spectral properties.
It is essential to have prior knowledge of the specific form of the texture
ACF for model-based parameter estimation. The order parameter of a simple
texture characterized by order and symmetrical Gaussian correlation length
seems most robustly estimated from the normalized variance of amplitude. The
log ACF yields poor results for large order parameters and correlation lengths,
but fitting the normalized log, as in Chapter 8, leads to smaller errors if texture
correlations are ignored. Estimating the correlation length reveals little differ-
ence between fitting the intensity, amplitude, and log ACFs. However, the
intensity ACF has a simple analytic form that lends itself readily to the fitting
process and is probably to be preferred.
In Section 9.3 we conclude that parameter estimation should not be
employed as a stage in texture classification. It is less sensitive than the spectral
method and requires knowledge of the analytic form of the ACF. The spectral
method can be based on assuming that each component of the complex spec-
trum of the log of the image is Gaussian. The PDFs of the spectra from intensity
or amplitude data are not sufficiently close to Gaussian. Classification perform-
ance for uncorrelated textures is comparable with results from the PDF-based
technique in Chapter 8. At present there is no analysis for correlated textures.
However, the results with uncorrelated textures suggest that the method might
also provide a sensitive classifier for correlated textures.
There are additional problems in edge detection. Each spectral coefficient
has a real and imaginary component from which both the mean and variance
of its Gaussian PDF have to be estimated. Edge-detection performance is
improved if it is assumed that the mean is identically zero, which reduces the
statistical uncertainty in the estimates of the variances. However, this assump-
tion was demonstrated to degrade classification performance, which also raises
some doubt about its impact on edge detection. The probability of detecting the
edge in the correct position, Pd, was shown to be greater with the FWSE
configuration than with the SWCE configuration. The total detection prob-
ability within the window, Pzot, on the other hand, was greater with SWCE.
Thus, the general properties of edge-detection configurations discussed in
Chapters 7 and 8 still apply. In particular, the two-stage scheme that initially
optimized P tot using SWCE, followed by edge refinement using FWSE with the
window placed at the edge position estimated by SWCE, is shown to be nearly
optimum for both correlated and uncorrelated textures as well as for differences
in the mean [12-14,16].
Significantly, edge-detection performance for uncorrelated textures using
the spectral method was found to be poorer than that based on the single-point
statistics, requiring about four times the window size for comparable results.
This has considerable impact on how we might exploit the spectrum in deriving
information from texture analysis. Rather than attempting to segment simulta-
neously into an unspecified number of regions of uniform order and spectral
properties, it suggests that two other options should be considered:

• Simpler spectrum representation;

• Data-driven classification into a restricted number of classes.

A simpler spectrum representation in which the number of spectral coef-

ficients is only a small fraction of the number of pixels within the window would
improve the accuracy of the parameter estimates. This might result in segmen-
tation accuracy comparable with classification against a similarly restricted
number of predefined classes, as in Section 9.3.2. Alternatively, data-driven
classification into a small number of classes, similar to Section 8.4.3, should
have a similar effect, since the accuracy with which the coefficients are estimated
improves rapidly as we move away from the one-to-one mapping described in
Section 9.4.2.
Further development of methods for extracting information from corre-
lated textures is required to clarify these issues. However, note that even when the
additional richness implied by correlation is successfully exploited, the increased
complexity of spectral analysis will demand considerably more processing than
the single-point texture exploitation described in the previous chapter.

References

[1] Oliver, C. J., "Review Article—Information from SAR Images,"/ Pkys- DiAppl. Phys., Vol.
24, 1991, pp. 1493-1514.
 [2] Lombardo, P., and C. J. Oliver, "Estimating the Correlation Properties of K-Distributed
SAR Clutter," IEE Proc. Radar Sonar Navig., Vol. 142, 1995, pp. 167-178.
[3] Oliver, C. J., "Clutter Classification Based on a Correlated Noise Model," Inv. Problems,
Vol. 6, 1990, pp. 77-89.
[4] Oliver, C. J., "Parameter Estimation with Correlated Textures," Inv. Problems, Vol. 5, 1989,
pp. 903-914.
[5] Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, New York: Dover,
1970.
[6] Oliver, C. J., "Optimum Texture Estimators for SAR Clutter," /. Ploys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol.
26, 1993, pp. 1824-1835.
[7] Lombardo, P, and C. J. Oliver, "Estimation of Texture Parameters in K-Distributed
Clutter," IEEProc. Radar Sonar Navig., Vol. 141, 1994, pp. 196-204.
[8] Blacknell, D., "A Comparison of Parameter Estimators for the K Distribution," IEE Proc.
Radar Sonar Navig, Vol. 141, 1994, pp. 45-52.
[9] Oliver, C. J., "Optimum Classification of Correlated SAR Textures," Europto Conf. on SAR
Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling, Taormina, Sicily, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2958, 1996,
pp. 64-73.
[10] Oliver, C. J., "The Sensitivity of Texture Measures for Correlated Radar Clutter," Inv.
Problems, Vol. 5, 1989, pp. 875-901.
[11] Blacknell, D., "Texture Anomaly Detection in Radar Imagery," Europto Conf. on SAR Data
Processing for Remote Sensing, Rome, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2316, 1994, pp. 125-136.
[12] Oliver, C. J., "Correlated Texture Information in SAR," DRA Tech. Memorandum
DRA/LS2/TR96020, 1997.
[13] Oliver, C. J., D. Blacknell, and R. G. White, "Optimum Edge Detection in SAR," IEE
Proc Radar Sonar Navig, Vol. 143, 1996, pp. 31-40.
[14] Oliver, C. J., I. McConnell, D. Blacknell, and R. G. White, "Optimum Edge Detection in
SAR," Europto Conf on SAR Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling, Paris, SPIE Proc,
Vol.2584, 1995, pp. 152-163.
[15] Oliver, C. J., I. McConnell, and D. Stewart, "Optimum Texture Segmentation of SAR
Clutter," Proc EUSAR 96, Konigswinter, 1996, pp. 81-84.
[16] Oliver, C. J., and P Lombardo, "Simultaneous Mean and Texture Edge Detection in SAR
Clutter," IEEProc Radar Sonar Navig, Vol. 143, 1996, pp. 391-399.
 1 0

Target Information

10.1 Introduction

The concept of an object being a target reflects military terms of reference in

which the scene is regarded as consisting of background clutter and a small
number of significant objects (i.e., targets), which are generally man-made, such
as buildings, bridges, or vehicles. These cannot be treated as homogeneous, like
natural clutter, but are characterized by local structure rather than texture, which
is position dependent. Indeed, the scattered radiation requires a deterministic
coherent treatment in which the relative phase of each scatterer is retained.
In Figure 10.1 (a) we show a simulated image of a tanklike vehicle at a
resolution of 3m with no background. Though there is little evidence of struc-
ture at this resolution, the image is clearly asymmetric. Forming an equivalent
image at a resolution of 0.75m, as shown in Figure 10.1(b), illustrates that the
target return is dominated by four major scatterers, clearly resolved under these
conditions. Since targets are dominated by a few well-separated scatterers,
essential information is contained in the phase and amplitude relationships
between them.
In addition to targets, each scene comprises a majority of pixels containing
clutter that provides the background against which targets must be detected.
The result of adding a uniform speckle background (20 dBs below the target
peak) is shown in Figure 10.1(c). In addition to distorting the target shape, the
single-look speckle completely destroys the regular sidelobe structure by inter-
fering with the target return. In target detection we are concerned with discrimi-
nating this target from the neighboring background. In subsequent recognition
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)
Figure 10.1 Simulated images of a tanklike object at different resolutions showing the effects
of introducing a weak background with an SCR of 20 dB: (a) 3-m resolution, no
background; (b) 0.75-m resolution, no background; (c) 3-m resolution with back-
ground; and (d) 0.75-m resolution with background.

we are involved with characterizing the target based on the structure of the
return. Both these processes are degraded by the speckle background. Adding
the same background level to the high-resolution image in Figure 10.1(b) leaves
the brighter returns largely unchanged, as shown in Figure 10.1(d), but the
sidelobe structure is again destroyed.
In Section 10.2 we introduce a Bayesian approach to target detection and
show the relationships between different detection criteria. Since targets occupy
only a very small fraction of the pixels within the image, the simultaneous
minimization of false detections and maximization of genuine detections is
extremely important. In Sections 10.3 and 10.4 we discuss how the nature of
target and background properties affects the detection process and the influence
of uncertainties introduced by estimating target and background parameters.
Section 10.5 then addresses further refinements associated with problems en-
countered in constantfalse alarm rate (CFAR) detection. Once targets have been
detected, target recognition is introduced in Section 10.6. The issues of dis-
crimination and classification are addressed in Sections 10.7 and 10.8. In
Section 10.9 we outline an approach to target super-resolution that allows
targets to be reconstructed with increased spatial resolution by introducing prior
knowledge into the imaging process. This can provide a useful processing stage
before classification is attempted.

10.2 Introduction to Target Detection

Let us initially explore a Bayesian approach to target detection [I]. The problem
is one of testing two hypotheses for the data vector x, namely, that a target is
present or not. Detection performance can then be characterized in terms of the
probability of false alarm, Pfa, that the data x will be interpreted as denoting the
presence of a target when one is not present, and the probability of detection,
Pd, that a target will be detected when one is indeed present. The Bayes criterion
for detecting a target states that

P(T\x) = P(x\T)P{T)/P(x) (10.1)

where P(TIx), the a posteriori PDF, describes the probability of a target given
the data; P(x\ T), the likelihood function, describes the probability of data x
when a target is present; P(T) is the a priori probability that a target is present;
and P(x) is the probability of obtaining that data. Similarly for the background
hypothesis,

P(B\x) = P(x\B)P(B)/P(x) (10.2)

The MAP criterion implies that a target should be considered present when

P(B\x)

from which

"^l >^ (10.3)

P(x\B) P(T)
where the left-hand side of (10.3) is the likelihood ratio. Notice in (10.3) that
as the ratio of background to target probabilities increases, causing targets to
become scarcer, the threshold level is increased to reduce the number of poten-
tial false alarms.
The MAP detection criterion is usually impractical since it requires prior
knowledge of the relative probabilities of target and background. If we assume
that clutter and target are equally likely, (10.3) reduces to

P(x|5)

which is the ML detection criterion. However, this is an unreasonable assump-

tion for target detection, and thus, we adopt an intermediate criterion, the
Neymann—Pearson observer [2], for which a target is detected if [3]

« > , 00.4)

The threshold t is selected to give a defined false alarm probability. The detec-
tion conditions in (10.3) and (10.4) now depend on knowing the correct target
and background likelihood functions.
In practice, only the background PDF is characterized. Under these con-
ditions we are forced to adopt anomaly detection, a suboptimum approach. The
data are assigned to the background if they appear consistent with the known
background distribution, so

P(x\B) > t (10.5)

otherwise a target is declared present.

Consider a single pixel with value xf which is assumed positive. The
probability of a false alarm in a background region is given by

OC
Ph=\P{x\B)dx (10.6)
t
where the threshold t can be selected to yield a certain CFAR. The correspond-
ing detection probability for a target is

00
Pd=jP(x\T)dx (10.7)
t

An example of how estimates of the relevant quantities can be obtained is

illustrated in Figure 10.2. The average target intensity can be estimated over the
_ m
central region of interest (ROI) of m pixels, that is, / T = ^T IJ m. The ROI is

surrounded by a guard ring a few pixels wide to prevent any leakage from the
target into the boundary ring of M pixels, which is used to estimate the average
background level IB, as well as the normalized background variance VB. A
conventional two-parameter CFAR [4] applied to image intensity is defined by
the criterion that "detection" occurs when

1 1 1
^ IT >t (10.8)

Figure 10.2 Diagram of target detection configuration comprising an ROI for a target in the
center, a guard ring to avoid leakage from the target into the background, and a
boundary ring to estimate the background level.
 In the simplest implementation of (10.8) we assume that the background
RCS is constant, so for single-look SAR, yjVB — 1, resulting in the one-parame-
ter CFAR condition

-J- - 1 > t (10.9)

which forms the basis of conventional cell-averaging CFAR. We shall refer to

the term on the left-hand side of (10.8) and (10.9) as the CFAR statistic. Note,
however, that these estimated parameter values may be suboptimal, contributing
to CFAR loss [5].
This discussion shows that where the target PDF is not known it is
not possible to provide an optimum Bayesian classification. One can only set
a CFAR threshold and detect targets as anomalies in the specified background
distribution. If the target PDF is known, Pd could then be derived from
(10.7). However, this would be a suboptimal use of the information. The
Neymann-Pearson criterion, in which the CFAR threshold is defined in terms
of the likelihood ratio, should be used instead. Indeed, Blacknell and Tough
[6] have suggested that it is preferable to adopt weak prior knowledge about
the target, encapsulated in a broad PDF, and then classify into target/back-
ground, using (10.4), rather than perform anomaly detection into back-
ground/not background, based on (10.5), which is all that is possible without
a target model.

10.3 Constant Target and Background RCS

The simplest scattering scenario corresponds to a constant RCS background,

leading to a negative exponential background intensity PDF when speckle is
included. In this section we adopt this model and further assume a Swerling 1
target [7], which also has a negative exponential intensity distribution.

10.3.1 Standard CFAR Target Detection

Initially let us assume that a target fills a single pixel. Standard CFAR target
detection then consists of inspecting individual pixels and assigning each to
background or target classes on the basis of the RCS and prior knowledge of the
background distribution for a single pixel. Since the background PDF is nega-
tive exponential, the false alarm rate is given by

OC
Ph = — Jexp - — dl = exp - — (10.10)
^B L °"B J L °"B_

where a B is the background RCS. Hence, the required t for a given false alarm
probability is given by

* = -aBln/>& (10.11)

and the detection probability for a Swerling 1 target by

Pd = exp - — = e x p - i ^ (10.12)
CT R
L TJ

where R = o~T/(TB is the SCR.

On averaging the background over the ROI, / will be gamma-distributed
with mean crB and order parameter m so that

7
B(7J = - — F T T e x P ~ — (iai3)
r
^V°"BJ W L °"B_

and the appropriate false alarm probability is given by the incomplete gamma
function (Section 6.5 in [8])

pfa=rL-M/r» (io.i4)

This enables the threshold level t for the incoherent average / to be derived
numerically for a specific CFAR. Similarly, the detection probability for a
Swerling 1 target filling the ROI would be

Pd=TU,^-)/r(m) (10.15)
 A typical result for the dependence of P d on the SCR is illustrated in Figure
10.3 for windows of 1, 4, 9, 16, and 36 pixels. P^ was set to 10~3 throughout.
It is apparent that Pd is considerably increased by incoherent averaging over
many pixels. Thus, it is advantageous to increase resolution as far as possible so
that the image of the target is spread over as many pixels in the ROI as possible,
with consequent reduction in speckle.
This analysis is, however, misleading because, in practice, both target and
background RCS are unknown and have to be estimated from the data, leading
to CFAR loss [5] • In addition, real targets would be unlikely to have uniform
RCS over the window.

10.3.2 Optimized Target Detection

CFAR loss can be minimized by adopting a target detection scheme that
incorporates ML parameter estimates. The probability that the target and back-
ground estimates are consistent with belonging to the same or different PDFs
Detection probability

SCR
Figure 10.3 Variation of Pd with SCR for negative exponential statistics; dependence on region
size m= 1,4,9,16, and 36 from right to left.
follows the same description as the segmentation theory summarized in Chapter
7, with a log likelihood difference similar to (7.5), such that

XD = -m\nlT - Af ln/ B + (M + m)lnlo (10.16)

where

7 (10J7)
« =4 r ^
M +M
A target is detected when \ D exceeds some threshold t. As described in
Chapter 7, the detection probability as a function of the SCR, 7?, can now be
expressed in terms of the observed ratio r ( = / T / / B ) , with the additional con-
straint that r > 0. Hence,

t
Pd =l-jPr(r\R,m,M)
0
T{M +
=1- " } (Jg-T ^ 1 U + ^ + i; -J-Ll (10.18)

where 2 ^i[ .] is the Gaussian hypergeometric function (Section 15.1 in [8]).

Pfa is obtained by setting R=I, which allows the numerical derivation of
t for a given Pfa. The detection probability can then be calculated for different
values of R. The simple analytic theory for known means is compared with the
results for estimated means in Figure 10.4. This shows that the uncertainty
attendant on introducing estimated, rather than known, values for the means
demands an increase of between 10% and 15% in the SCR for a fixed Pd. Note
also in Figure 10.4 the advantage of performing incoherent averaging to reduce
speckle fluctuations, when both target and clutter have constant RCS with
statistics determined by speckle.

10.4 Effect of Background and Target Statistics

So far, both clutter and target intensity PDFs have been treated as negative
exponential. Any fluctuation in underlying RCS will influence detection that is
based on the RCS alone. An underlying gamma-distributed cross section, lead-
ing to a K-distributed intensity, has been demonstrated to provide a close fit to
 Detection probability

SCR
Figure 10.4 Variation of Pd with SCR for negative exponential statistics; the effect of estima-
tion errors. Three configurations are compared with: (a) m = 1, M= 16; (b) m = 4,
M = 28; and (c) m = 16,M= 52. Results for known means are denoted by dashed
curves, those for estimated means by full curves.

observed clutter in Chapter 5 and exploited in texture segmentation in Chapter

8. Let us now examine the effect of a K-distributed background with a PDF

( VI+VB)/2 r i—T
p /(VB 1)/2
^ = TvH — " ^B-! 2 P i (10.19)

for single-look SAR, where |xB and vB are the background mean and order,
respectively. In Section 10.4.1 we describe standard CFAR detection, based on
the RCS, for a Swerling 1 target against this type of textured clutter. If the target
ROI subtends several pixels it is possible to characterize higher order properties
of the target region, such as an order parameter, in addition to the average RCS.
In Section 10.4.2 we take advantage of this additional degree of freedom in
proposing a texturelike target model representing the interference between
scattering centers in a single target. We show how this can result in a target
detection algorithm that again uses the Neymann—Pearson criterion with ML
parameter estimates.
10.4.1 Standard CFAR Target Detection
If a target occupies a single pixel, the RCS is the only measurable quantity. For
a K-distributed background, the false alarm probability, from standard CFAR
theory on a single pixel, is given by (10.6) as

K) 2 K 2 (i 2o)
^ =w^i—Y ^\ P] °-
The appropriate value of threshold t can be derived numerically by invert-
ing (10.20) for a given P^. If the threshold is derived assuming negative
exponential rather than K-distributed clutter, as in (10.11), the modified false
alarm rate P^ is given by

P h=
' F H ( " VB I n 7 ^ V X [ 2 V - v B l n ^ ] (10.21)

Figure 10.5 illustrates the effect the K-distributed background has on the
predicted false alarm rate. As vB increases, the background PDF tends toward a
negative exponential so that the two values of false alarm rate become the same.
In the opposite limit of small vB, corresponding to a spiky background distri-
bution, Pfa increases by between one and two orders of magnitude compared
with P^. This demonstrates the crucial importance of adopting a realistic
background clutter model for target-detection theory. Ward [9] demonstrated
the consequences of ignoring background RCS variations in maritime target
detection. Theoretical studies of corrected CFAR algorithms for Weibull
[4,10-14] and K-distributed [15] clutter have been reported.
If a target subtends many pixels, we can estimate the CFAR conditions
over more than the single pixel discussed previously. We have already demon-
strated that it is advantageous to perform incoherent averaging over many pixels.
Unfortunately, there is no analytic relationship between the single-pixel K
distribution and the result of performing incoherent averaging when the cross
section itself varies between pixels. (Note that multilook imaging discussed in
Chapter 4 assumes that the cross section is constant and that only the speckle
fluctuates.) For simplicity we adopt the same gamma distribution approxima-
tion to the K distribution proposed in Chapter 8. The mean of the two PDFs
is the same and the order parameters are related by

^ ( 0 ) (^ 7 ) - lnv 7 = i|/(°)(v) - In v - 7 E (10.22)

 False alarm probability

Order

Figure 10.5 Dependence of false alarm probability for a single pixel of K-distributed back-
ground, incorrectly assumed to be negative-exponentially distributed, on clutter
order parameter. Results for nominal negative exponential false alarm prob-
abilities of 10~3 (full curve) and 10~4 (dashed curve) are shown.

where v is the order of the K distribution, V1 is that for the approximating gamma
distribution, i|/(°)(') is the digamma function, and 7 E is Eulers constant (Chapter
6 of [8]). Thus, the approximate form for the single-pixel intensity PDF is

P(I)-I-2-] -^exp-^ (10.23)

Upon performing incoherent averaging over the ROI we obtain

/ \ WV., _ r 7~

P(l)~i.\-L\ ^ e x p -L- (10.24)

The false alarm probability is then derived in the same way as (10.14), yielding

P
h =r ™>y>—\/r{™>y) (10.25)
 Equation (10.25) can be inverted numerically to yield the appropriate
value of threshold for a given Pfa.
To derive the target-detection probability we retain the Swerling 1 target
model, adopted in Section 10.3, with uniform RCS over the ROI. The threshold
setting, derived by inverting (10.25), is inserted into (10.12) to yield Pd.
The dependence of Pd on region size and background order parameter is
illustrated in Figure 10.6(a,b). In each case Pfa = 10" 3 and the SCR varies from
1.0 to 5.0. In Figure 10.6(a) we show the dependence on region size for a
K-distributed background order parameter of 1.0. If these results are compared
with those in Figure 10.2 (with no background cross-section fluctuations), it is
obvious that additional fluctuations degrade performance. As region size in-
creases, both speckle and cross-section fluctuations are averaged out, improving
Pd as before. In Figure 10.6(b) we illustrate the effect of vB on Pd, for m — 16,
as the SCR varies from 1.0 to 5.0 and P^ = 10~3. This illustrates the increase
in SCR that is required to keep Pd constant as vB decreases and background
texture becomes more spiky.

10.4.2 Optimized Detection for the Textured Target Model

This analysis was directed entirely at providing target detection with a constant
false alarm rate for K-distributed clutter with a uniform target RCS. However,
high-resolution target images, as shown in Figure 10.1(b), tend to consist of a
few dominant scatterers. The strength and position of these scatterers are strong
functions of orientation, as we shall discuss in Section 10.8. Indeed images from
different viewing angles bear little resemblance to each other. We therefore
introduce a textured target model that includes strong noiselike RCS fluctuations
with no knowledge of the positions of high intensity. In particular, we assume
that both the target intensity and the clutter are K-distributed. The wide spatial
variation in target RCS manifests itself through small values of order parameter,
typically less than 1. We already investigated the effect of this form of back-
ground PDF on the CFAR threshold. Let us now examine how a target PDF of
this form modifies conventional detection based on the RCS alone. The theo-
retical form of Pd now corresponds to (10.25) with |XT and vr substituted for
JULB and vB, allowing also for the gamma PDF approximation as in (10.23).
Figure 10.7 shows the effect of the target order parameter on Pd when vB = 1
and v T ranges from 1.0 to 0.1. For small target strengths, with SCR—1.0, more
spiky targets have a better chance of detection due to the possibility of high-in-
tensity data in the tail of the distribution. However, as the SCR increases, the
spiky target PDF leads to a large probability of obtaining a low intensity
resulting in a missed detection. A comparison of these results with those for the
negative exponential target and background in Figure 10.6(b) indicates the
 Detection probability

SCR
(a)
Detection probability

SCR
(b)
Figure 10.6 Variation of Pd with SCR for Swerling 1 target and K-distributed background;
Pfa = 10~3. (a) vB = 1, dependence on m = 1, 4, 9, 16, and 36 pixels from right
to left, (b) m = 16, dependence on vB = , 4, 1, and 0.5 from left to right.
 Detection probability

SCR
Figure 10.7 Variation of Pd with SCR for Pfa = 10~3, m = 16, and vB = 1. Dependence on vj
= 0.1,0.2,0.5, and 1 from top to bottom on the left-hand side.

considerable reduction in Pd as v T is reduced, that is, the target spikiness

increases.
Is this performance degradation as target and clutter RCS depart from
uniformity fundamental or does it stem from inadequate exploitation of the
information in the signal? So far, target detection has been treated as depending
solely on the difference in RCS between regions. The textured target model
implies that both target and background have the same form of PDF, charac-
terized by different values of both mean and order parameter. Optimized detec-
tion must be based on both parameters through the likelihood ratio, so
detection based on RCS alone would be expected to be suboptimum. The full
exploitation of texture properties in detection is closely related to textured
segmentation, analyzed in Chapter 8. Unfortunately, there is no analytic solu-
tion, so we resort to simulation to determine threshold values and detection
probabilities. The approach is similar to that adopted for Figure 10.4 except that
both order and mean are estimated using the approximate ML estimators from
(8.25) and (8.26), with L = °o? namely,

_ i N _
|x - / = — ^L and Inv - i|i(°)(v) = In/ - In/ (10.26)
N j=i
These estimates are then substituted into the expression for the log likelihood
difference, similar to (8.41), leading to an ML log likelihood difference given
by [16]

XD = m Vx In Vx — v T In / T — In F(v x ) 4- (v T — l)ln / T — "Dx

+ M[v6 lnvB - vB ln/ B - InF(V8) + (vB - l)ln/ B - vB]

- (M + m)[v0 lnv 0 -V 0 InZ0 - l n r ( v 0 ) + (v0 - I ) I n I 0 - V 0 ] (10.27)

where the target region is denoted by the subscript T, the background by B, and
merged regions by 0; v denotes the order parameter estimated from (10.26).
Detection occurs when XD exceeds the threshold t. Initially simulation is per-
formed with target and background regions that have the same input properties
to determine the appropriate threshold value for a given P&. Further simulations
with varying mean and order parameters can then be performed based on this
threshold to derive the performance characteristics.
Note that we no longer exploit the prior knowledge that either target or
background has a negative exponential PDF (with v = ). In each case, both the
mean and order parameter are estimatedTor each region.
Initially, in Figure 10.8(a), we vary vB between °° and 0.5, while v T is
maintained at oo} corresponding to a negative exponential PDF. Threshold
settings are determined by simulation over 105 samples, whereas results for Pd
are obtained over 104 samples. These results should be compared with equiva-
lent results for detection of RCS differences when parameter values are known
in advance, shown in Figure 10.6(b). First, it should be noted that including
the effect of texture in target detection now yields the best detection for a given
SCR when the two order parameters differ most. Second, if we consider results
for vB = oo, we see that having to estimate both mean and order has led to
considerable reduction in detection performance compared with the original
situation where these were known a priori.
In the second comparison, in Figure 10.8(b), we set vB = 1.0 but allow
v T to vary between 1.0 and 0.1. This represents the expected situation, with
target fluctuations more marked than background ones. If we compare results
for vB = v T = 1.0 in Figure 10.8(b) with those for vB = v T = °° in Figure
10.8(a), it is clear that reducing both vB and vT increases the uncertainty in the
determination of parameter values and degrades detection. However, as vT falls
below vB in Figure 10.8(b), detection improves considerably, which should be
compared with Figure 10.7 where detection was based on RCS alone. Though
reducing vT increases detection for small SCRs in Figure 10.7, the results for
 Detection probability

(a)
Detection probability

SCR
(b)
Figure 10.8 Variation of Pd with SCR for K-distributed target and background with parameters
estimated over m = 16 and M = 52; Pfa = 10~3. (a) V1 = °o; curves correspond to
V =
B °°' 4 ' 1 ' ar|d 0-5 ordered from bottom to top. (b) vB = 1.0; curves correspond
to vj = 1,0.5, 0.2, and 0.1 ordered from bottom to top on the left-hand axis.
larger SCRs are degraded. In the present results, the effect of reducing vT is that
it becomes the dominant factor in detection and the performance is essentially
independent of SCR for small v T . Texture alone provides target discrimination
under these conditions. Thus, introducing the textured target model leads to a
considerable improvement in detection capability.
Note that this method provides an optimized balance between differences in
mean and order parameter as it corresponds to the Neymann—Pearson observer [2].
It uses ML estimates of parameters and overcomes the degradation where detection
is based solely on differences in the RCS, which is all that is possible if the target
merely subtends one pixel. The analysis shows that if the target occupies many
pixels it is advantageous to use both RCS and texture in the detection process. Note
that the analysis only approximates the K-distribution by a best-fit gamma distri-
bution, as described earlier, resulting in slightly suboptimum performance.
A more sophisticated model which identifies the actual positions of strong
scatterers should provide even better detection. Indeed, the goal of such an
approach would be to provide a filter matched to a target with which to scan
the scene. This is tantamount to omitting a distinct target detection stage and
proceeding directly to a recognition mode, which will be addressed later. At
present it should be noted that the textured target model achieves significant
improvement in detection if the target extends over several pixels and shows
strong fluctuations, consistent with a K distribution.

10.5 Further Refinements to Target Detection

Sections 10.3 and 10.4 dealt with comparatively simple target-detection scenar-
ios. There are two areas in which this simple treatment should be extended:
• Obtaining more accurate estimates of background properties;
• Handling inhomogeneous backgrounds.

Since the determination of the background properties is governed by

speckle, it is attractive to investigate methods for reducing this uncertainty.
Combining different wavelength or polarization images could be considered.
However, this has to be undertaken with care because properties are usually a
strong function of both wavelength and polarization, as described in Chapter
11. Even if multipolarization images, for example, are combined using the
polarization whitening filter [17-19], an improvement of only about 2.7 dB is
obtained compared with a single-channel image, corresponding to 1.9 inde-
pendent contributions. In Chapters 6 and 7 we demonstrated that the RCS
could be estimated with an accuracy equivalent to averaging many more pixels
than the boundary ring in Figure 10.2, leading to greatly improved estimation;
so these methods can supersede conventional CFAR [20].
 The major drawback of the target-detection configuration of Figure 10.2
is its response when either unwanted targets occur within the background ring
or there are discontinuities in the background. In the presence of unwanted
targets the estimates of both the background jinean and variance are increased.
For one-parameter CFAR, the increase in /B reduces Pd. In addition, the
unwanted targets may themselves be detected. For two-parameter CFAR, the
increase in the variance reduces the detection probability for both genuine and
unwanted targets. If the background is textured, we showed in Section 10.4 that
Pd for one-parameter CFAR is as expected, since the mean background is
unchanged; however, P^ is increased [9,21]. Two-parameter CFAR yields re-
duced Pfa because the variance is increased, at the expense of a reduction in Pd.
Finally, the presence of a discontinuity in the background increases the variance
and yields an estimate of the mean between the high and low background levels
on either side of the discontinuity. This renders target detection and false alarm
probabilities with both one- and two-parameter CFAR unreliable, depending
on the true background value in the ROI.
Rohling [22] proposed that the order statistics within the boundary ring
could be used to overcome the effects of unwanted targets. The PDF within the
ring is attributed to many pixels containing a constant RCS (with associated
speckle PDF), combined with a few isolated strong returns from the unwanted
targets. The average constant background can be estimated by omitting the
unwanted targets within the background ring. The choice of how to reject
unwanted targets is therefore crucial. It could be implemented rigorously by
testing the hypothesis that the ring contains M — k constant background pixels
and £ unwanted targets. Following the description of annealed segmentation in
Chapter 7, k could then be varied to find its optimum value. If the same scheme
is applied to a textured background, it removes strong fluctuations, which
increases Pd but will also increase P^.
Different types of CFAR detector have been proposed to cope with a step
discontinuity in the background. These are based on detecting either the high
[23] or low [24] regions in the background ring. However, the methods fail to
provide a reliable estimate of the background surrounding the potential target.
In fact, the problem of both unwanted targets and discontinuous back-
ground can be largely overcome using segmentation methods, as described in
Chapters 7 to 9. Since segmentation identifies all the regions that differ statis-
tically from each other, regardless of shape, it provides the most sensitive method
for identifying the true background level at each potential target, undistorted by
neighboring unwanted targets or changes in background level.
The detection process is also influenced by variation in target type. We can
describe objects that are comparable with or smaller than the system resolution
as pointlike. At higher resolution (and for larger targets) the scattering elements
making up that object become visible in the form of "texture," which may be
described in terms of either single-point statistics, correlation properties, or even
deterministic target structure. The first category formed the basis of the target
texture model in Section 10.4.2, while the latter two types can be regarded as
part of target classification, discussed in Section 10.8. As we show in Section
10.7, other simple characteristics of targets can be used to discriminate between
genuine and unwanted targets.

10.6 Introduction to Target Recognition

Since SAR images contain enormous numbers of pixels, it is desirable to provide

automatic target recognition (ATR) functions in any image-understanding sys-
tem. In the next few sections we will spell out some of the principles that
underlie such a system and discuss the different compromises that have to be
made in its design.
It is instructive to consider the main differences between SAR and optical
images. These are illustrated in Figure 10.9, which compares (a) a side-view
photograph of a tank with (b) a high-resolution simulated SAR image of a
tanklike object, with the same orientation as in (a), imaged from the right. The
optical photograph is instantly recognizable; the interpretation of the SAR
image is more difficult. Not only is the resolution of the SAR image much
poorer than the optical one, but its appearance differs dramatically. Though the
gun barrel is visible to the right in both images, it is very difficult to associate
other features in Figure 10.9(b) with those in Figure 10.9(a). Thus, recognition
methods that have been developed to deal with optical images are inappropriate
for SAR. Many recognition processes with optical images are feature-based.
Recognition is then expressed in terms of the combination of these individual
features. Thus, if an object has a roof, door, windows, and chimney, for example,
it is a house. Alternatively, if it has tracks and a gun-barrel, it is a tank or
self-propelled gun. This approach is feasible for the optical but not the SAR
image. As a final complication there is the effect of speckle, which serves to
disguise features in the image, as illustrated in Figure 10.1.
Recognition with SAR images must be a property of the complete target
signature. However, the size of reference data base required to represent all the
information within such an image is very large. In Figure 10.10 we illustrate
simulated SAR images for a tanklike target over a variety of orientations in the
horizontal plane, where the top left image corresponds to head-on illumination
with strong backscatter from the front of the tank [25]. Images are then
sequentially rotated by about 1.4 degrees per step. The image changes signifi-
cantly as this occurs. There are strong returns from the broadside views on the
left of rows 5 and 13 as well as from the back view, on the left of row 9. As the
 (a)

(b)

Figure 10.9 Comparison of (a) optical photograph and (b) simulated SAR image of tank.

image evolves with angle the strength and position of the dominant scattering
centers change, due to broadside flashes, obscuration, and interference effects.
However, the general image properties appear consistent with the textured target
model in Section 10.4.2. In order to provide a reference set for such a target,
about 256 separate orientations, each comprising (say) 32 by 32 elements, are
required. However, this only represents horizontal rotations; pitch and roll must
also be taken into account. If we allow for 20 different roll and pitch angles,
Figure 10.10 Variation of simulated SAR image of model tank with orientation over 360 degrees.

then the total data base for a single target class would comprise about 108
elements. Add to this the fact that we require reference sets for all potential
targets (say 50) and the total data base consists of 5 X 109 elements.
Next consider discriminating between the simulated tank, with the refer-
ence set shown in Figure 10.10, and an armored infantry fighting vehicle (AIFV),
with a corresponding set of simulated training data shown in Figure 10.11 [25].
For 100% classification, all the orientations of the tank image must be distinct
from any for the AIFV. Once receiver noise and background speckle are in-
cluded, it is by no means obvious from Figures 10.10 and 10.11 that this
condition can be satisfied. A reduction in resolution with an increase in back-
ground clutter would certainly degrade the ability to distinguish between them.
Figure 10.11 Variation of simulated SAR image of model AIFV with orientation over 360 degrees.

Given the scale of the computation load for real-time ATR based on such
a set of references, it is essential to minimize the number of images to which full
classification is applied.

10.7 Target D i s c r i m i n a t i o n

An ATR scheme that factorizes target recognition into a variety of sequential

steps of increasing complexity and sensitivity could be based on the processing
chain illustrated in Figure 10.12. The entire SAR image is first scanned for
targets in a detection stage [25]. This requires, at least, knowledge of the back-
ground clutter model but could be optimized by incorporating a target model
into a Bayesian classifier, as described in Section 10.3.2 or 10.4.2. Detection
yields a large number of false alarms in addition to identifying potential targets.
Most false alarms derive from man-made objects, though some arise from
natural clutter. The detection stage retains only about one in 103 pixels for
further processing. Improving resolution and using polarimetric despeckling
techniques can increase the effectiveness of the target-detection stage, as indi-
cated earlier. For example, Novak et al. [26] report experiments that achieved a
false alarm probability of about one in 1.4 X10 5 , divided approximately equally
between natural and man-made clutter, using a polarization whitening filter
[17-19] on fully polarized SAR images at 1-ft resolution.
Potential targets identified in the detection stage are then passed to a
discrimination stage, which is intended to reject further false targets based on
some simple properties of the potential target, including both geometrical and
electromagnetic effects. A list of possible features is given in Table 10.1. We wish
to identify a subset of independent tests that extract all information in the
image. Though we cannot satisfy these requirements from such an ad hoc list,

Image

background Detection rejects most

clutter model natural clutter

potential targets

rejects residual natural

target Discrimination and most man-made
properties clutter

targets and man-

made clutter

reference Classification rejects residual

patterns man-made clutter

classified
targets

Targets

Figure 10.12 Processing chain for ATR.

an effective selection should include an independent test from each of the
feature types. Some of the features in Table 10.1 [27] are estimated over a
target-shaped binary region derived by applying morphological operations to
the data—these include mass, diameter, and rotational inertia; the three CFAR
contrast tests; and the three polarimetric tests. Three other tests—the standard
deviation, fractal dimension, and weighted fill ratio [28]—apply to the original
intensity within a rectangular ROI, which has been scaled, rotated, and trans-
lated to lie optimally around the target.
Let us now examine the features in more detail, commencing with the
size-based examples. Mass is defined as the total number of pixels within a target
region, diameter as its longest dimension. The ratio is that for major and minor
axes of the enclosing ROI or target region, while the perimeter is the number of
pixels around the edge. Rotational inertia describes how cross section is distrib-
uted within the target region.
An example of simple size-based target discrimination is shown in Figure
10.13 [25]. A SAR image of an airfield area is shown in Figure 10.13(a). Several
vehicles along one of the runways provide the targets of interest. Apart from these,
the image contains returns from a large number of buildings, fences, and even

Table 10.1
List of Features Used in Discrimination Stage of Target Recognition

Feature Type Feature Success

Size Mass
Diameter •
Ratio
Perimeter
Rotational inertia •
Texture Standard deviation •
Weighted fill ratio
Fractal dimension •
Contrast Peak CFAR
Mean CFAR •
% bright CFAR
Polarization (where applicable) % pure
% pure even •
% bright even
Time dependence Change detection
 runway lights. Following target detection using a one-parameter CFAR with Pfa
= 10~3, many detections are visible in Figure 10.13(b). In Figure 10.13(c) we
illustrate the effect of applying a simple discriminant such that only vehiclelike
objects are retained [25], characterized by major and minor axis lengths and total
RCS. The first two tests are equivalent to the diameter and ratio tests in Table
10.1, while the total RCS is related to the mean CFAR statistic. The majority of
unwanted objects, such as the buildings, fences, and runway lights, fail to meet
these criteria; and we are left with a high detection rate on the targets of interest
and a very small number of residual incorrect targets.
Discriminants based on texture in Table 10.1 measure the variation of
RCS within the target region. The standard deviation describes the single-point
statistics and is generally applied to the log of the data [26], which would be
optimal if the target had a lognormal PDF, as discussed in Chapter 8. We also
showed there that the normalized log measure, from which the order parameter
could be derived, would be preferable for a K-distributed target. The weighted
fill ratio measures the fraction of total energy contained in the brightest 5% (say)
of the scatterers within the ROI, and the fractal dimension provides a measure
of the spatial dimensionality of the detected object [29]. Contrast features are
all related to values of the CFAR statistic (see (10.8)) within the ROI. Peak and
mean CFAR statistics are self-explanatory; the percentage bright measure is the
fraction of pixels whose CFAR statistic exceeds some threshold.
Polarimetric features, where available, introduce another dimension into
discrimination and are discussed in more detail in Chapters 11 and 12. Used in
the context of discrimination we are concerned with classifying returns in terms
of the number of reflections they have undergone. If the received fields Ehh, Ehv,
E^ in the different polarization states are measured, then the energy correspond-
ing to odd and even bounce mechanisms is given by [26]

KM = 1 ^ + * " 1 and Eeven = I ^ " ^ l + ^J (ia2g)

Natural clutter returns dominated by surface scattering correspond to a

single bounce, and in many cases scattering from vegetation has the characteristic
of diffuse scattering with no preference for even or odd numbers of reflections
[30]. The return from man-made objects, on the other hand, can result from
reflections by a flat plate (one-bounce), a dihedral (two-bounce), or a trihedral
(three-bounce). The energy in the different polarizations depends on whether an
odd or even number of reflections has occurred. This allows two-bounce returns
from dihedral structures to be identified, which has been proposed as a test for
man-made objects [26,27]. However, scattering from forest at longer wave-
 (a)

(b)

(C)

Figure 10.13 Example of target detection applied to airborne X-band SAR image: (a) original
multilook SAR image, (b) detections based on assumed negative exponential
background PDF, and (c) discriminated result when a simple size constraint is
placed on targets.
lengths, particularly over a wet or flooded surface, also shows very clear signatures
of double-bounce scattering [30]. This means that it is important to apply this test
in a suitable context. Further discussion of polarization effects can be found in
later chapters.
The percentage pure measure is defined as that fraction of pixels within
the ROI for which some fraction of the energy can be attributed to either the
even- or odd-bounce category. The percentage pure even measure describes the
fraction of pixels for which the energy in the even-bounce channel exceeds some
threshold. The percentage bright even measure corresponds to the fraction of
bright pixels in the image that are mainly even-bounce scatterers.
Once individual features have been measured the results for each can be
combined using a specific criterion, such as a quadratic distance measure of the
form [26]

d(x) = l ( x - m) T C" 1 (x - m) (10.29)

n

where x is the vector of features from the detected object; m and Care the mean
and covariance of these features, estimated from training on another set of
targets; and n is the number of features.
Upon comparing the performance of the different measures for a set of
three types of target, namely a tank, a self-propelled gun, and an armored
personnel carrier, Novak et al.[26] found that the best set of discriminants to
use were those indicated by • in the third column of Table 10.1. This includes
two size-based measures, one of which involves the distribution of RCS, which
introduces independent information. The texture features carry independent
information about the spikiness of the distribution (through the standard devia-
tion of the log) and the space-filling property (through the fractal dimension).
The total RCS is included through the mean CFAR measure. A single po-
larimetric measure is also included (the percentage pure even); other polarimet-
ric measures are correlated with this feature and do not provide independent
information. Applying these discrimination tests to fully polarimetric high-reso-
lution data, Novak et al. [26] report that the total false alarm rate was reduced
from one in 1.4 X10 5 , after the polarization whitening filter was applied, to one
in 7X10 5 . False alarms from natural clutter were reduced nearly twice as much
as those from man-made clutter. This clutter rejection was achieved with no
appreciable loss in detection probability for genuine targets.
A different type of approach to discriminating targets from false alarms is
based on their time dependence, as listed in the final row of Table 10.1. Identifying
objects within the scene that have changed since previous images were acquired
allows us to keep track of objects, such as vehicles, which are likely to be most
significant as targets. Target change detection exploits the high degree of geo-
metrical accuracy that can be achieved following the methods described in
Chapter 3, so it is possible to register individual pixels precisely in different
scenes. This enables a direct comparison of detections in each scene in order to
identify changes [31,32]. Figure 10.l4(a,b) shows a region of about 1.5-km square
on consecutive days. Figure 10.l4(c) identifies those targets that were detected in
the first image, but not the second; while Figure 10.l4(d) shows the opposite. The
probability of detecting genuine changes, primarily in the two formations of
vehicles visible in Figure 10.l4(c), is high, while the false alarm probability else-
where in the scene is very low.

10.8 Target Classification

Once the detection and discrimination stages have rejected as much clutter as
possible, the final stage of the ATR scheme consists of target classification.
Potentially this could be based on pattern-matching techniques using all the
information in the data. A theoretical framework can be devised similarly to that
used for homogeneous correlated textures in Chapter 9. Section 9.3.2 showed
that the required textural information is contained in the complex spectrum.
For deterministic targets the assumption of homogeneity is no longer applicable
and it is necessary to estimate the likelihood for each relative shift d of reference
and data. Taking the logarithm of the random texture results in the distributions
of the estimated complex spectral coefficients being approximately Gaussian
[33,34]. Even if this assumption is not correct for targets, it should be possible
to treat the spectrum as if it consisted of a Gaussian mixture distribution of
sufficient terms [35]. The reference data then depend on the mean and variance
of the real and imaginary components at each spectral coefficient for each
mixture contribution. For homogeneous textures the mean and variance in the
real and imaginary components were the same. For simplicity, we make the same
assumption for targets so that the likelihood for target class p and shift d, related
to (9.10), is given by

M[
\p{d) = -M\ni;-Jj\\nSp{j+d)

,(*,(y) - M > + 4 + MJ) - M i+ ^))2I

 (a) (b)

(C) (d)
Figure 10.14 Target change detection: (a) first image, (b) second image, (c) targets detected
in (a) but not (b), and (d) targets detected in (b) but not (a).

where Sp{j) = 2 Vp(j) is the power spectral density of the yth component of the
^?th target class. The overall maximum value of\p(d), then identifies both target
position and class.
It should be noted that (10.30) provides a theoretical framework for ML
target recognition. However, such an approach is time consuming and it is
important to examine compromise solutions offering slightly degraded perform-
ance but reduced cost. Pattern matching for deterministic structures depends on
orientation and displacement, unlike the correlated texture classification ap-
proach described in Section 9.3. Nevertheless, the latter can provide a description
of ML classification. The correct orientation of the rectangular ROI, as described
in the previous section, reduces the alignment problem to one of two-dimensional
translation [36]. A variety of slightly different pattern-matching techniques such
as eigenimage classification [37,38], shift-invariant twodimensional pattern
matching [38], and quadratic distance correlation classification [36,39,40] can
then be applied; these all offer similar performance. Though they are not truly ML
methods, they can be related to these through (10.30). The last term of (10.30),
corresponding to the square modulus of the difference of the data and reference
components, contains a contribution from the crosscorrelation between reference
and data. Thus, it is related to the quadratic distance correlation classifier or
shift-invariant two-dimensional pattern-matching classifier proposed by Novak
et al. [36]. Note, however, that minimum mean-square and correlation measures
are only optimal if the variances of the classes are the same, which is not the case.
A variety of other simplified classifiers have been proposed, but they all
lead to degraded performance. Therefore, these should be rejected in favor of
the two-dimensional pattern-matching methods. Though somewhat subopti-
mal, the minimum mean-square error and crosscorrelation measures have been
refined and realistically implemented. Classification results for the shift-invari-
ant two-dimensional pattern matcher over a restricted number of targets are
shown in Table 10.2 [36]. Very similar results were reported also for the quad-
ratic distance correlation classifier [36] and, more recently, for the eigenimage
approach [38]. The probability of detection was reduced to about 90% after this
classification stage rather than the 100% performance achieved after detection
and discrimination stages [36].

These results show promise but are only preliminary, gathered over a

restricted range of geometries. Including more target classes and imaging con-

Table 10.2
Confusion Matrix for Classification of Tank, APC,
and Self-Propelled Gun Against Clutter for 1 -ft Resolution Polarimetric Data

Percentage Classified as:

Object Tank APC Gun Clutter

Tank 100
APC 100
Gun 100
Clutter 2 4 94
Source: [36]. Copyright 1994, reprinted with kind permission from Elsevier Science Ltd., The
Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington 0X5 1GB, UK.
figurations would tend to degrade classification. It is not clear what performance
this factorized approach with a discrimination stage could achieve under these
circumstances. Nevertheless, at present it provides the only realistic option to
bridge the gap between the enormous number of initial detections and final
target recognition.

10.9 Target Super-Resolution

Both detection and classification can be significantly enhanced by improved

resolution. This can be attained by introducing prior knowledge about the
object that is being imaged. A variety of techniques have been developed for
exploiting this type of processing under the general heading of super-resolution,
which can be regarded as performing an extrapolation in spatial frequency to
higher frequencies than those defined by the Rayleigh resolution criterion.
The imaging process is described in detail in Chapter 2. Ignoring receiver
noise, we can represent the SAR image as a (speckle-free) target added to a
uniform speckled clutter background. For discretely sampled data we can repre-
sent it by the matrix equation

g = //f+b (10.31)

where g, f, and b are vectors representing the complex image samples, the field
scattered by the target, and additive zero-mean Gaussian background speckle,
respectively; H is a matrix representing the imaging process. The inverse scat-
tered field problem of recovering f from g represents the normal reconstruction
process. The inverse cross-section problem of recovering the samples of a from
g [41,42] is closer to the real requirement but is considerably more complicated.

10.9.1 Super-Resolution Theory

A popular method for solving the inverse scattering problem is based on a
least-squares reconstruction. This is equivalent to the Moore—Penrose pseudo-
inverse and performs a perfect reconstruction where there is no background.
The least-squares solution is defined by

fLS - (WHY1W g = f + (WHY1W b (10.32)

where W denotes the adjoint of H. The effect of the additive background can
be appreciated by considering a singular value decomposition (SVD) of the
imaging matrix H [43]. Suppose that u ; and v;- are the ixh components of the
orthonormal basis vector in the scattered field and image, respectively. Each
component of ui passes through the imaging system to give an output compo-
nent v- attenuated by X-, the corresponding eigenvalue of the SVD. The least-
squares reconstruction can then be expressed as

fLS = (WH)-1W g = ( g J- V1U1 jg = f + ( j ^ . u ' j b (10.33)

If the singular values are arranged in order of decreasing magnitude, there

comes a point where the background term becomes very large and dominates
the reconstruction. Under these conditions the problem is said to be "ill-posed."
One way to overcome this problem is to truncate the singular values used in the
reconstruction so that those with eigenvalues below the background level are
rejected [43]. However, it has been shown [44] that the quality of such recon-
structions is not significantly improved compared with a matched filter. In
contrast to this ad hoc method, a Bayesian approach is ideally suited to treating
such ill-posed problems because it is explicitly formulated to provide a consis-
tent means of performing inferences from limited information [45]. The inverse
scattered field problem can be represented by the Bayes relation

P(f|g) « />(g|f)P(f) (10.34)

where P(f) encapsulates the prior knowledge about the scattered field, which
itself depends on prior knowledge about the RCS. P(glf) is the likelihood
function which incorporates information about the imaging process itself. If the
PDFs are assumed to be Gaussian, the peak value of the a posteriori PDF, /^fIg),
corresponds to the minimum mean-square error estimate of f given g. Thus, the
MAP solution can be adopted as a suitable reconstruction, frec, from the entire
range of possible solutions.
Let us assume a Gaussian a priori PDF for the scattered field [46] given
by

7
^) S * / r \ eXrf"ftC"f 1 (1035)
det (IT C J
where Cs denotes the covariance matrix of the object. If we assume for simplicity
that the two-point statistics described by the covariance matrix are in fact
delta-correlated, then the matrix contains diagonal terms only, corresponding to
a weighting function profile or underlying cross section [47]. The background
clutter is modeled as in Chapter 4 by the Gaussian likelihood PDF defined by
 Ag|f) - — ^ - « p [ - ( g - M)fCb->(g - M)] (10.36)
L J
det TT C b

where Q denotes the covariance matrix of the background in the imaging

process, which is also assumed to be uncorrelated. We may now derive the
MMSE reconstruction by substituting from (10.35) and (10.36) into (10.34).
After manipulation we obtain

ex
^(%) - . V P[~(f -(JC-L(f -U ] (10.37)

where the mean and covariance are given by

frec = <f) = CsW{HCtW +Cj-1S (10.38)

and

C
:L = WC^H + C~l (10.39)

Note that frec is derived from g by applying a linear operator. A Wiener

filter leads to an identical result by calculating the MMSE between the recon-
struction and data [42]. This equivalence follows from the use of mean and
covariance as completely specifying the process. The Bayesian approach has the
advantage in that it can be generalized to non-Gaussian PDFs.
Although this method reconstructs the scattered field at a higher resolu-
tion than the original data, it is incomplete because the information is carried
by the RCS (see Chapters 6 and 7) rather than the scattered field, which merely
transforms this information. (Note that this in turn is an oversimplification,
based on the assumption that the field is delta-correlated, as described pre-
viously.) A solution is therefore required for the inverse cross-section problem.
The appropriate Bayes theorem relating the complex image g, to the underlying
cross section O", is

a
^Hg) ^(gk№) (io-4o)

Note that the relationship between g and (T is carried through the scattered
field £ Thus, one means of solving (10.40) is to solve for f given g for various
estimates of O". The global maximum then corresponds to the desired solution.
In order to avoid a global search, a hill-climbing routine can be used to
determine the direction in which to change cr. Unfortunately, P(O1Ig) does not
exhibit Gaussian behavior amenable to linear techniques. However, the behavior
for small changes can be developed in terms of a Taylor expansion [42], depend-
ing on the first derivative, which can be incorporated into an iterative approach
to super-resolution [48].

10.9.2 Super-Resolution Example

Figure 10.15(a) is the simulated image of a tanklike object embedded in uni-
form clutter with an SCR of 20 dB, taken from Figure 10.1 (c). Initially we need
to deduce an appropriate form for the weighting function corresponding to
diagonal elements of Cs in (10.35). The key component of this process is to
incorporate the same model as that applied in target detection. We assert that
the image in question can be represented as a target superimposed on a uniform
clutter background [47]. The target region can be identified by conventional
target detection, as in Sections 10.3 and 10.4. If desired, target change detec-
tion, from Section 10.7, can also be applied to indicate that a target is likely to
be significant rather than an object that is always present in the scene. The mean
intensity of those pixels that lie below the threshold is taken as the estimated
background, while the intensity of those pixels that exceed the threshold is taken
as an estimate of target cross section. This process for generating prior knowl-
edge may seem circular. However, it is important to realize that the prior
knowledge is not contained in the data but in the description of the image as
comprised of localized targets set against a uniform speckled background and in
the rules that are used to identify them. When this process is applied to Figure
10.15(a), the estimated underlying cross section is as shown in Figure 10.15(b).
Note that two regions of clutter at the top and bottom of the image have been
identified as target since they exceed the threshold. This weighting function with
its flat background is adopted as the covariance function Cs. Upon solving the
inverse scattered field problem we then obtain the result in Figure 10.15(c).
Comparison with Figure 10.15(a) indicates increased structure in the target due
to improved resolution.
The inverse cross-section problem can be solved by repeating the process,
for different cross-section weightings, to identify the global optimum [47]. As
a rudimentary approach to this, suppose we apply the same target-selection rules
to Figure 10.15(c) as originally applied to Figure 10.15(a) to yield an "im-
proved" estimate of the underlying cross section, in Figure 10.15 (d). This in
turn can be used as an a priori PDF to solve the inverse scattered field problem
once more, leading to the result shown in Figure 10.15(e). Apparent resolution
has now been significantly improved, with target structure showing distinct
evidence for four dominant scattering regions. Note also that the false target
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 10.15 Stages in super-resolution reconstruction: (a) original 3-m resolution image with
background, (b) derived background and target cross sections,(c) reconstructed
image, (d) derived background and target cross section for second iteration, (e)
reconstructed image, and (f) original 0.75-m resolution image without back-
ground for comparison.
detections in Figure 10.15(b) have been reconstructed more strongly, as has a
new false detection on the right of Figure 10.15 (d).
The acid test of such a reconstruction is to compare it with the known
target model. Figure 10.15(f) shows a simulated image of a tank with no back-
ground at a resolution four times better in each direction. It seems that three of
the four scattering centers in the super-resolved image (Figure 10.15(e)) have
approximately the correct position and RCS. However, the scatterer on the lower
right is significantly displaced. Reconstructions with different speckle realiza-
tions consistently reproduce the three "correct" scatterers while the fourth varies
appreciably. This illustrates that background speckle prevents further iterations
being useful. While these early results are somewhat crude, a more sophisticated
iterative approach [48] yields similar consequences. In this case, reconstruction is
automatically terminated when the effect of speckle begins to dominate.

10.9.3 Conclusions About Super-Resolution

Improved resolution would be expected to lead to enhanced detection and recog-
nition. Novak et al. [49] reported that super-resolution has the same effect.
However, there are two issues that have to be addressed. The first is the experimen-
tal problem associated with residual errors in the PSF, which depends on how
accurately motion-compensation and autofocus (as described in Chapter 3) char-
acterize the sensor motion. Studies suggest that these residual errors are equivalent
to injecting noise with a signal-to-noise ratio of about 30 dB [50]. Super-resolu-
tion on the scale illustrated in Figure 10.15 should therefore be successful. Fur-
thermore, Luttrell [41] showed that a joint autofocus, super-resolution algorithm
can be devised to solve for residual errors in the instrument function as well as
solving the inverse scattered field problem. The second issue is more conceptual.
Since the information contained in the output reconstruction is only a composite
of prior knowledge and data, it could, in principle, be used directly in classifica-
tion without an intermediate reconstruction. On the other hand, super-resolu-
tion represents an optimum way of combining data and prior knowledge and so
may still provide an effective route. More experience with super-resolution meth-
ods is required to quantify their performance in real systems.

10.10 Summary

This chapter has been devoted to deriving information about targets from SAR
images. Three principal stages were described: detection, discrimination, and
classification. In each case the aim was to develop optimum techniques for
extracting the relevant information.
 Detection was treated in Bayesian terms based on the Neymann—Pearson
observer (Section 10.2). Following a conventional CFAR analysis for a Swerling
1 target against constant RCS clutter (Section 10.3), we demonstrated:

• Performance degradation caused by textured clutter (Section 10.4.1);

• Performance improvement if targets could also be treated as textured
(Section 10.4.2);
• Performance improvement for higher resolution imagery (Sections
10.3.2 and 10.4.2).

A discussion of the effects of unwanted targets and background discontinui-

ties in the CFAR process revealed the advantage of using RCS segmentation (from
Chapter 7) in place of conventional CFAR as a means for characterizing the
background around a potential target in a way that is unaffected by details in the
scene.
Following detection, it is important to include a discrimination stage
during which a variety of simple target features characterizing size, texture,
contrast, and polarization are used to reject unwanted detections (Section
10.7). Though the list of features is ad hoc, a selection of independent meas-
ures was shown to yield good discrimination. An example of the use of target
change detection to reject all events except those corresponding to changes
in the scene was demonstrated. All these discrimination stages further restrict
the number of candidate targets for which higher level recognition processes
are required.
Target classification can be described in the same terms as the classification
of correlated textures. It assumes that the PDF of the complex spectral coeffi-
cients can be represented by a Gaussian PDF (Section 10.8). While it is not
permissible to assume homogeneity for targets, a suboptimum treatment that
ignores this restriction leads to a simple theoretical expression. Other subop-
timum classifiers can be devised that compromise the optimum solution in
different ways. Experimental tests have demonstrated that these offer promise
for future development.
Target detection, discrimination, and classification are all improved if
the system resolution is improved. In Section 10.9 we described an approach
to target super-resolution, based on similar models representing targets and
clutter to those used earlier, that enables appreciable resolution improvement
without modifying the radar system. Development of this type of postproc-
essing technique may well offer significant performance improvement in the
future.
 References

[ 1 ] Woodward, P. M., Probability and Information Theory with Applications to Radar, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1953.
[2] Neyman, J., and E. S. Pearson, "The Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical
Hypothesis," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (London), Vol. A231, 1933, pp. 289-333.
[3] Galati, G., and R. Crescimboni, "Basic Concepts on Detection, Estimation and Optimum
Filtering," Advanced Radar Techniques and Systems, G. Galati (ed.), London: IEE, 1991,
Chap. 1.
[4] Goldstein, G. B., "False-Alarm Regulation in Lognormal and Weibull Clutter," IEEE
Trans., Vol. AES-9, 1973, pp. 84-92.
[5] Musha, T, and M. Sekine, "CFAR Techniques in Clutter," Advanced Radar Techniques and
Systems, G. Galati (ed.), London: IEE, 1991, Chap. 3.
[6] Blacknell, D., and R. J. A. Tough, "Clutter Discrimination in Polarimetric SAR Imagery,"
Europto Conf. on SAR Data Processing for Remote Sensing II, Paris, Proc. SPIE, Vol. 2584,
1995, pp. 179-187.
[7] Marcum, J. L, and P. Swerling, "Studies of Target Detection by Pulsed Radar," IRE Trans.,
Vol. IT-6, 1960, pp. 59-308.
[8] Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, New York: Dover,
1970.
[9] Ward, K. D., "Compound Representation of High Resolution Sea Clutter," Electron. Lett.,
Vol. 17, 1981, pp. 561-565.
[10] Sekine, M., T Musha, Y. Tomiyata, and T. Iraba, "Suppression of Weibull-Distributed
Clutter," Electron. Comm. Japan, Vol. K62-B, 1979, pp. 45-49.
[11] Cole, L. G., and P W Chen, "Constant False Alarm Detector for a Pulse Radar in a
Maritime Environment," Proc. IEEE, NAECON, 1987, pp. 1101-1113.
[12] Clarke, J., and R. S. Peters, "Constant False Alarm Detector Adaptive to Clutter Statistics,"
RSRE Memo. (UK) No. 3150, 1978.
[13] Farina, A., A. Russo, F. Scannapieco, and S. Barbarossa, "Theory of Radar Detection in
Coherent Weibull Clutter," IEE Proc. F, Vol. 134, 1987, pp. 174-190.
[14] Hansen, V. G., "Constant False Alarm Rate Processing in Search Radars in Radar—Present
and Future," IEE Conf. Publ, Vol. 105, 1973, pp. 325-332.
[15] Kreithen, D. E., S. M. Crooks, W W. Irving, and S. D. Halversen, "Estimation and
Detection Using the Product Model," MIT-Lincoln Lab. Report No. STD-37, 1991.
[16] Oliver, C. J., and P. Lombardo, "Simultaneous Mean and Texture Edge Detection in SAR
Clutter," IEE Proc. Radar Sonar Navig, Vol. 143, 1966, pp. 391-399.
[17] Novak, L. M., and M. C. Burl, "Optimal Speckle Reduction in POL-SAR Imagery and Its
Effect on Target Detection," Millimetre Wave and Synthetic Aperture Radar, Proc. SPIE, Vol.
1101, 1989, pp. 84-115.
[18] Novak, L. M., and M. C. Burl, "Optimal Speckle Reduction in Polarimetric SAR Imagery,"
IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electron. Systems, Vol. AES-26, 1990, pp. 293-305.
[19] Novak, L. M., and C. M. Netishen, "Polarimetric Synthetic Aperture Radar Imaging," Int.
J. Imaging Sci. Tech., Vol. 4, 1992, pp. 306-318.
[20] White, R. G., "A Simulated Annealing Algorithm for Radar Cross-Section Estimation and
Segmentation," SPIE Int. Conf. on Applications of Artificial Networks !^Orlando, FL, SPIE
Proc.y Vol. 2243, 1994, pp. 231-241.
[21] Watts, S., "Radar Detection Prediction in Sea Clutter Using the Compound K-Distribu-
tion Model," IEE Proc. F, Vol. 132, 1985, pp. 613-620.
[22] Rohling, H., "Radar CFAR Thresholding in Clutter and Multiple Target Situations," IEEE
Trans. Aerospace Electron. Systems, Vol. AES-19, 1983, pp. 608-621.
[23] Hansen, V G., and J. H. Sawyers, "Detectability Loss Due to Greatest-of-Selection in a
Cell Averaging CFAR," IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electron. Systems, Vol. AES-16, 1980,
pp. 115-118.
[24] Weiss, M., "Analysis of Some Modified Cell Averaging CFAR Processors in Multiple Target
Situations," IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electron. Systems, Vol. AES-18, 1982, pp. 102-114.
[25] Home, A. M., R. G. White, and C. J. Baker, "Extracting Militarily Significant Information
from SAR Imagery," Battlefield Systems International 96, Chertsey, UK, 1996.
[26] Novak, L. M., S. D. Halversen, G. J. Owirka, and M. Hiett, "Effects of Polarisation and
Resolution on the Performance of a SAR Automatic Target Recognition System," Lincoln
Laboratory J., Vol. 6, 1995, pp. 49-67.
[27] Environmental Research Institute of Michigan (ERIM) study under Strategic Target Algo-
rithm Research (STAR) contract.
[28] Kreithen, D. E., and S. D. Halversen, "A Discrimination Algorithm and the Effect of
Resolution," IEEE National Radar Conf., 1993, pp. 128-133.
[29] Butterfield, J., "Fractal Interpolation of Radar Signatures," IEEE/NTC Proc, 1991,
pp. 83-87.
[30] van ZyI, J. J., "Unsupervised Classification of Scattering Behaviour Using Radar Po-
larimetry Data," IEEE Trans. Geoscience Remote Sens., Vol. 27, 1989, pp. 36-45.
[31] Finley, I. P., C. J. Oliver, R. G. White, and J. W. Wood, "Synthetic Aperture Radar—Auto-
matic Change Detection," UK Patent No. GB 2,234,13OB, 1988; US Patent No.
4,963,877, 1990.
[32] Wood, J. W, R. G. White, and C. J. Oliver, "Distortion-Free SAR Imagery and Change
Detection," Proc. US National Radar Conf, Ann Arbor, MI, 1988, pp. 95-99.
[33] Blacknell, D., "Texture Anomaly Detection in Radar Imagery," Europto Conf on SAR Data
Processing for Remote Sensing, Rome, Proc. SPIE, Vol. 2316, 1994, pp. 125-136.
[34] Oliver, C. J., "Optimum Classification of Correlated SAR Textures," Europto Conf on SAR
Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling I, Taormina, Sicily, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2958, 1996,
pp. 64-73.
[35] Blacknell, D., "A Mixture Distribution Model for Correlated SAR Clutter", Europto Conf.
on SAR Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling II, Taormina, Sicily, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2958.
1996.
[36] Novak, L. M., G. J. Owirka, and C. M. Netishen, "Radar Target Identification Using
Spatial Matched Filters," Pattern Recognition, Vol. 27, 1994, pp. 607-617.
[37] Turk, M., and A. Pentland, "Eigenfaces for Recognition,"/. Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 3,
1991, pp. 71-86.
[38] Novak, L. M., and G. J. Owirka, "Radar Target Identification Using an Eigen-Image
Approach," Proc. IEEE National Radar Conf, Atlanta, GA, 1994, 1996, pp. 129-131.
[39] Mahanalobis, A., A. V Forman, M. Bower, N. Day, and R. Cherry, "A Quadratic Distance
Classifier for Multi-Class SAR ATR Using Correlation Filters," SPIE Conf. on Ultrahigh
Resolution Radar, Los Angeles, SPIEProc, Vol. 1875, 1993, pp. 84-95.
[40] Mahalanobis, A., A. V. Forman, N. Day, M. Bower, and R. Cherry, "Multi-Class SARATR
Using Shift-Invariant Correlation Filters," Pattern Recognition, Vol. 27, 1994, pp. 619-626.
[41] Luttrell, S. P., "A Bayesian Derivation of an Iterative Autofocus/Super-Resolution Algo-
rithm," Inverse Problems, Vol. 6, 1990, pp. 975-996.
[42] Luttrell, S. P, "The Theory of Bayesian Super-Resolution of Coherent Images: a Review,"
Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 12, 1991, pp. 303-314.
[43] Bertero, M., and E. R. Pike, "Resolution in Diffraction Limited Imaging, a Singular Value
Analysis. Part 1: The Case of Coherent Illumination," Opt. Ada, Vol. 29, 1982,
pp. 727-746.
[44] Guglielmi, V, F. Castanie, S. Puechmorel, and P Piau, "Comparison of Super-Resolution
Techniques for SAR Pre-processing," Europto Conf. on SAR Image Analysis, Simulation and
Modelling, Paris, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2584, 1995, pp. 252-263.
[45] Cox, R. P., "Probability, Frequency and Reasonable Expectation," American J. Physics, Vol.
17, 1946, pp. 1-13.
[46] Luttrell, S. P, "Prior Knowledge and Object Reconstruction Using the Best Linear Estimate
Technique," Opt. Ada, Vol. 32, 1985, pp. 703-716.
[47] Luttrell, S. P., and C. J. Oliver, "Prior Knowledge in Synthetic-Aperture Radar Processing,"
/. Phys. D:Appl. Phys., Vol. 19, 1986, pp. 333-356.
[48] Pryde, G. C , L. M. Delves, and S. P. Luttrell, "A Super-Resolution Algorithm for SAR
-Images," Inverse Problems, Vol. 4, 1988, pp. 681-703.
[49] Novak, L. M., G. R. Benitz, G. J. Owirka, and L. A. Bessette, "ATR Performance Using
Enhanced Resolution," SPIE Conf. on Algorithms for Synthetic Aperture Radar Imagery III,
Orlando, FL, SPIE Proc, Vol. 2757, 1996, pp. 332-337.
[50] Oliver, C. J., "The Limits on SAR Resolution Imposed by Autofocus Uncertainty," Int. J.
Remote Sensing, Vol. 14, 1993, pp. 485-494.
 1 1

Information in M u l t i c h a n n e l SAR Data

11.1 Introduction

Up to this point, we have been concerned only with the information carried by
a single SAR image. Of increasing importance are SAR systems that provide
multidimensional information via multiple frequencies or polarizations. Such
systems provide a much enhanced capacity for investigating Earth terrain be-
cause different frequencies and polarizations allow the probing of different
scattering mechanisms and different components of the scattering layers. For
example, in forest imaging, modeling suggests that for shorter wavelengths the
backscatter from mature conifers is dominated by direct crown backscattering
at all polarizations but that at long wavelengths the main component of the
return depends on the polarization: trunk-ground interactions dominate at HH,
for W the major contribution to the return is direct crown backscatter, while
the HV return is predominantly due to the primary branches in the crown layer
[1,2].
As for single-channel data, a primary step in extracting information from
such images is to develop a model of the image statistics for distributed scatterers
because in many applications, such as agriculture, forestry, and hydrology, such
targets are the objects of interest. Even when we are concerned with small
scatterers, their detection and classification is crucially affected by their clutter
surroundings. Hence, the main goal of this chapter is to establish statistical
models appropriate to multichannel data, especially polarimetric data. We will
find that much of the structure already developed in earlier parts of this book
transfers naturally into higher dimensions and provides a clear guide as to what
 is meant by information. In particular, the Gaussian data model again plays a
central role in the analysis but with an added richness provided by the extra data
channels and the enhanced range of useful parameters.
A key concern when handling multichannel data is the correlation be-
tween channels, and radar polarimetry provides an ideal vehicle to discuss the
issues this raises. As a result, we initially concentrate on this data type before
applying the lessons learnt more generally. The basic concepts of polarimetric
measurement are introduced in Section 11.2. The treatment is at a sufficient
level to appreciate what is described by polarimetric data, but any reader
intending to make serious use of such data would be well advised to consult a
more comprehensive treatment, such as that provided in [3]. Given that po-
larimetric data are inherently multidimensional, an immediate concern is to
elucidate which of the many possible combinations of channels carry informa-
tion and, hence, are useful to display as images. To deal with this we must have
some knowledge of which parameters convey physical information about the
scene and/or describe the statistical distributions characterizing the data. Ac-
cordingly, in Section 11.3 we develop an argument based on collections of point
scatterers that suggests the multidimensional Gaussian model is crucial in de-
scribing polarimetric data, but with modifications caused by fluctuations in the
numbers of scatterers. The Gaussian model described in Section 11.4 leads
naturally to the image types that display the information carried by the po-
larimetric data. The associated single-look distributions are developed in Section
11.5, and their properties are discussed in Section 11.6. Section 11.7 is con-
cerned with parameter estimation and its attendant problems. This leads us to
consider multilook data and provides a natural bridge to the Stokes vector
formulation of scattering in Section 11.8. Texture in polarimetric data is dis-
cussed in Section 11.9. Finally, Section 11.10 discusses how the results of this
chapter are applicable to other forms of multidimensional data, especially inter-
ferometric SAR.

11.2 Polarimetric Measurements

Here we deal only with the most common form of polarimetric SAR, in which
a linearly polarized signal is transmitted and two orthogonal polarizations of the
backscattered signal are measured. When a horizontally polarized wave is trans-
mitted, the signals received in the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) channels
undergo separate SAR processing to produce measurements 5hh and 5vh of the
local copolarized and crosspolarized complex scattering amplitudes. By inter-
leaving H and V polarized transmitted pulses, the corresponding terms Sw and
5hv can also be measured to give the full polarimetric response of a scatterer.
These four measurements allow the response to an arbitrary transmitted polari-
zation to be calculated (for a fixed frequency, incidence angle, resolution, and
time), as follows. Any polarization state of the transmitted wave can be uniquely
described by an electric field vector of the form

E = EJ + E.J (in)

where the subscript i denotes incident and h and v are unit vectors defined by
h = z X k/\z X k and v — h X k. Here z is a unit normal to the Earths
surface and k is a unit vector parallel to the wave vector k. The backscattered
wave observed at a distance R in the far field of the scatterer is then given by

{ }
U J R Uh O U J
where the subscript s denotes scattered. Note that in this expression the coordi-
nate system is throughout defined relative to the direction of the transmitted
wave (the backscatter alignment convention); the transformations needed if the
scattered wave is defined relative to its propagation direction (the forward
scattering alignment convention) are discussed in [3]. Notice also that a single-
channel SAR measures only one of the complex scattering amplitudes Spq, which
is normally one of the copolarized responses 5 hh or Sw.
Implicit in this formulation are the conditions:

• Adequate sampling for the returns from both the H and V transmitted
pulses;
• Preservation of phase coherence between pulses;
• Correct sampling so that all responses are measured at the same posi-
tion;
• Preservation of the internal state of the scatterers between pulses.

While the first three of these conditions are concerned with the system
and can be treated as an engineering problem, the last depends on the physics
of the target. For targets whose internal state is unaltered by the polarization of
the probing wave, reciprocity will hold [4], that is,

Shv=Svh (11.3)
This is expected to be the case for most naturally occurring scatterers. However,
targets can be constructed for which this condition is violated, and (11.2) may
then become meaningless except for pure H and V inputs.
Even when the targets are reciprocal, measured values of 5hv and Syh may
not be equal, because of system imperfections. In fact, polarimetric SAR can be
affected by a number of forms of distortion, in addition to those due to
uncorrected spatial or temporal variations in power or gain discussed in Chapter
2. These include:

• Crosstalk due to coupling of orthogonal polarizations on transmit

and/or receive;
• Channel imbalance caused by different transmitted powers in the H
and V channels, differing gains on receive and/or system-induced phase
shifts between channels.

Of these the first is the most pernicious because it scrambles the informa-
tion in the different channels. Fortunately, methods to correct for crosstalk are
well developed [5-7] although incomplete because of the inadequate treatment
of PSF effects [8,9]. Channel imbalance can be separated into correction of
phase and amplitude distortions. Calibration targets or internal calibration
tones are needed to remove these effects [10,11]. In this chapter we assume that
all corrections have been made and that targets are reciprocal. The data at each
pixel can then be represented by a three-vector:

°hh °i
S= Shv = S2 (11.4)
V o w7 v°3/

An alternative representation of the data in terms of Stokes vectors and Stokes

scattering operators will be described in Section 11.8.

11.3 Polarimetric Data Distributions

With single-channel data, only one of the copolarized quantities 5hh or 5W is

normally available and, as we have seen in Chapter 4, for distributed targets the
phase carries no useful information. Hence, taken in isolation, each channel
provides only one useful number per pixel, viz. an estimate of o~° in that channel.
When multiple channels are available, the true basis of speckle in electromag-
netic scattering becomes manifest. Phase (or rather, phase difference) now
provides information both as a useful statistical parameter and in the physical
sense of corresponding to dielectric and geometric properties of the scattering
medium. Hence, for polarimetric data the potential information per pixel is five
real numbers, given by the intensities and the phase differences of the three
channels. However, when dealing with distributed scatterers, we showed that the
actual information per pixel is much lower because individual pixels are simply
random samples from distributions characterized by a small number of parame-
ters. In fact, large areas of single-channel SAR images are completely charac-
terized by the mean a° (if untextured) or the mean o~° and an order parameter
(and possibly spatial correlation properties) if textured.
If there exist similar simple models for the distributions observed in
polarimetric data they would clearly be of great value because they would do the
following:

• Define the information content of the data.

• Isolate the set of measurements needed to characterize the scattering
properties of distributed targets and, hence, that need to be explained
by physical theory.
• Permit an estimation theory for polarimetric parameters to be devel-
oped.
• Provide a sound basis for image analysis operations, such as filtering,
classification, target detection, and segmentation.

With these aims in mind, we now present an argument indicating the

form of statistical model likely to be appropriate for describing polarimetric
data.
As described in Chapter 4, the observations from a distributed target in
single-channel SAR can be explained by interference of waves scattered from
many point sources in the target. Such a treatment arises naturally from scattering
models dealing with discrete scattering events, such as the finite-order Born or
distorted Born approximations. In this way a link can be established between the
statistical distributions displayed by SAR measurements and the numerical values
of the parameters involved in these distributions [12]. When the number of
scatterers is very large in each resolution cell, the complex signal is circular
mean-zero Gaussian, the phase is uniformly distributed, and the signal amplitude
and intensity display Rayleigh and exponential distributions (see (4.2) to (4.4)).
Many SAR observations exhibit such behavior, but significant departures
occur at high resolutions [13] (see also references in Chapter 5) and at longer
wavelengths [14]. Jakeman [15] made a fundamental contribution to under-
standing such phenomena by noting that if the number of scatterers in the
resolution cell is treated as a random variable, non-Gaussian behavior could
result. He placed particular emphasis on negative binomial number fluctuations,
which give rise to K-distributed intensity observations. This model has been
adopted by numerous authors as a model for radar data, with much success
[13,16]. It has also been extended to polarimetric data [17], although in this
case its comparison with data gave mixed results at long wavelengths (see Section
11.9 and [14]). In addition, the multivariate K distribution has been shown to
be equivalent to a product model in which the observation at a point can be
regarded as the product of two independent processes, one Gaussian and one
representing local fluctuations in a texture variable [17].
In this section we generalize these treatments. In doing so we establish the
links between arbitrary number distributions of statistically identical scatterers
(but for which the mean number is large) and the observed polarimetric data.
A crucial result is that any number fluctuation model gives rise to data that is
multivariate Gaussian at each pixel. This has strong implications for the meas-
urements relevant to radar polarimetry.

11.3.1 Theoretical Formulation

Since the results developed here have relevance beyond single-frequency po-
larimetric data, they will be set in the more general context of measurements
made in M channels. For calibrated polarimetric data, M = 3, but other
interesting cases include M= 4 for uncalibrated data and M = 2 for two-chan-
nel interferometric data. It is also useful to compare the multichannel results
with the single-channel case, for which M=I. Assuming that Nindependent
scatterers contribute to the observed signal in each of the M channels, the
processed signal is the complex data vector

a W r
\ ^ \ N k\e
s= ; - x '- e^k (n-5)
[aM +ibM) k=
\rkMel%M)

This equation represents the observed complex reflectivity in channel j , a-

+ ibp as the sum of contributions from N elementary scatterers, where N is
treated as a random variable. The £th scatterer has a complex reflectivity in
channel j whose amplitude and phase are rk- and B^, while the phase 4>^ is a
propagation variable dependent on the distance of scatterer k from the sensor.
The resolution cell is typically many wavelengths across, and scatterers are con-
sidered randomly placed in it. Hence, <$>k will be uniformly distributed and
independent of the scatterer properties. This, therefore, represents the multidi-
mensional version of the single-channel speckle model introduced in Section 4.3.
 The analysis of this data model is complicated and is deferred to Appendix
1IA, but the crucial result is as follows.
If the mean number of scatterers [N) contributing to the measurement at
each pixel is large, then whatever the PDF of the number fluctuations, the data
S can be represented by a product of two independent processes T and G,

S = 7G (11.6)

where T is a positive scalar texture variable; the moments of T2 are determined

by the number fluctuations via the relation

(T*) = (N*)/(N)k (11.7)

so (T2) = 1. The random variable G is a multivariate Gaussian, with the same

covariance structure as S because

(S1Sj) = (TG1TG)) = ( r 2 )(GtG) ) = (Gfi)) (11.8)

The observations will be pure Gaussian (so that we can set J ' = 1) only for
number distributions in which (Nk)/(N)k —> 1 as (N) —» <*>.
This result places the multivariate Gaussian distribution at the heart of
polarimetric data analysis, for two reasons.

1. In many cases the observations would be expected to be pure Gaussian,

for example, if the number fluctuations obey a binomial or Poisson
distribution. An important case where this is not true is when the
fluctuations obey a negative binomial distribution. Then, as (A^) —» °°,

where v is an order parameter. The equivalent continuous random

variable T2 with moments determined by (11.7) is a gamma distribu-
tion with mean 1 and order parameter v. This then leads to the
multidimensional K distribution [17] whose one-dimensional form is
discussed in Chapter 5.
2. As we shall see, most of the key polarimetric parameters are derived
from ratios of channels. Hence, by (11.6), they are independent of T
 and depend only on the corresponding ratios for the Gaussian variable
G.

11.3.2 Relation to the One-Dimensional Multiplicative Noise

Model for Speckle
Before exploring the consequences of the multivariate product model, we will
relate it to the one-dimensional treatment found in earlier chapters and in much
of the literature on single-channel SAR data. There the product model for
one-dimensional SAR data is expressed (see (4.17)) as

S = Va m (11.10)

where S represents the observed complex data, m (the speckle) is a circular

zero-mean complex Gaussian with unit variance, and O" is the local RCS (to be
understood in the sense discussed in Section 4.3 as proportional to the backscat-
tering coefficient, so we omit the 4TT normalizations present in (2.24) and
(2.29)). The phase of S is completely randomized by the uniform phase distri-
bution associated with m. The intensity data is then given by

I = \S\2 =(j\m\2 =an (11.11)

In this data model the speckle is seen as a multiplicative stationary noise

corrupting the true information carried by a.
Ignoring for the moment the argument given in Appendix 1IA, the most
obvious way to extend this to M dimensions appears to be to describe the
complex reflectivity in channel k, 1 ^ k ^ M, as

Sk = Jj~ke*kmk (11.12)

where the speckle vector m = (mlf . . . >m^1, with superscript t denoting

transpose, has a jointly Gaussian distribution and we associate a phase 6^ with
each true observation. Then

(sks;) = <V^>te*-e/)>< v ; > (i i.i3)

 The multidimensional equivalent of (11.11) requires the mean of the
measured covariance to be the true covariance of the data; the speckle should
average out. In order to retain this property we are forced to set (mkm]) = 1 for
all k, /(unless the channels are uncorrelated). A Gaussian random variable with
such a covariance structure is degenerate in the sense that the joint PDF of the
speckle vector, P(m), is only nonzero when all the mk are identical. In other
words, (11.12) must have the form

Sk =myfcei*k (11.14)

where mis a circular zero-mean Gaussian variable with unit variance, which is
independent oi k. Although apparently similar to (11.10), this decomposition is
of little value for a number of reasons.

• Unlike (11.10) it provides no separation of texture and covariance

structure—this is all still encapsulated in the behavior of the a k and 0^.
• It contains no information on the joint distribution of the ok and 0^.
• The jointly Gaussian nature of m has turned out to be spurious.
• It asserts that the speckle contribution is identical in each channel,
which would lead us to expect images formed from ratios of channels
to appear quite smooth, contrary to observations (see, for example,
Figure 11.7).

Other methods to force a stationary speckle model onto polarimetric data

are equally unsatisfactory. Fundamentally this is because, except for a single
channel, we cannot ignore the electromagnetic basis of speckle. Hence, the
stationary multiplicative noise model does not extend in any natural way to
more than one dimension. Instead, casting (11.6) into its one-dimensional
form, we can write

S = TG (11.15)

In this formulation, G carries the covariance structure, so that (l Gl2) describes

the mean RCS, and ^controls the fluctuation about the mean, with (T2) = 1.
This should be compared with (11.10) in which (\m\2) = I, mis thought of as
a noise term, and the single variable a carries the information about both the
RCS and its fluctuations.
11.4 The Multidimensional Gaussian Distribution

Section 11.3 indicated the importance of the multidimensional Gaussian distri-

bution in describing polarimetric data, and we now develop its implications.
The fundamental fact about a homogeneous Gaussian-distributed target is that
all the information is carried by the covariance matrix C, which can be expressed
in the form

f a
i V<W>L2 V° r i q '3ft3 >
a a
C= V i 2pL2 O" 2 V a 2 a 3 P23 (11.16)
^V°"ia3Pi*3 V°"2°"3P2*3 °"3 ,

where

Q/ = ( v ; ) ai.17)

^ = (N2) a us)
is the backscattering coefficient in channel k and

ft,= ^ ^ (1U9)

is the complex correlation coefficient of channels k and /. If we have accurate

estimates of these nine real parameters (three real backscattering coefficients and
three amplitudes and phases of the correlation coefficients) we know everything
there is to know about the measurable properties of the target. This at last allows
us to display images that describe the information content of the data.
Figures 11.1 to 11.3 show estimates of these parameters from the
NASA/JPL AirSAR system [18] at C-, L-, and P-bands for an agricultural region
in East Anglia, UK, acquired during the. MacEurope campaign in 1992 [19].
The detailed properties of these images will be discussed later, but certain
features are immediately obvious.

1. The dynamic range and image contrast increase with wavelength.

2. The copolarized correlation coefficient appears to carry more informa-
tion than the crosspolarized, both in its amplitude and phase, espe-
cially at C-band.
 (a) (b) (c)

(d) («0 (O

(g) (h) 0)

Figure 11.1 Estimated C-band polarimetric parameters from Feltwell, UK, Imaged by the
NASA/JPL AirSAR system: (a) ahh, (b) ahv, (c) a w , (d)| Phh,hv|, (e)| Phhf J , (f)| PhV/
J , (g) ZPhhf hv, (h) ZPhh vv, and (i) Zp h v w . The channel powers apq are indi-
cated by the dB scales. The scaling of the amplitude and phase of the corre-
lation coefficients is from 0 to 1 and from -TT to IT, respectively.
 (a) (b) M

(d) (e) (0

(g) (k) 0)

Figure 11.2 As for Figure 11.1 but for L-band.

3. Correlation phase is better defined when the correlation amplitude is

larger and appears noiselike when the correlation amplitude is low.

The second of these is related to the fact that for azimuthally symmetric
targets, the cross-polarized correlation coefficients will be zero [20], so the
 (a) (b) M

(d) («0 (f)

(g) (*0 «

Figure 11.3 As for Figure 11.1 butfor P-band.

covariance matrix (11.16) contains only five real parameters. This condition
would be expected to hold for the shorter wavelengths if the canopy appears
isotropic, but row effects in the soil could rise to the observed asymmetry due
to the greater penetrating power at longer wavelengths. Additionally, we will
show in Section 11.9 that the longer wavelength data need further parameters
for a full description, because they are not pure Gaussian and exhibit texture.
Hence Figures 11.1 to 11.3 do not tell the full story.

11.4.1 Real and Complex Gaussian Distributions

In order to derive the basic properties of the complex Gaussian distribution and
its various marginal distributions, it is useful to have available its equivalent real
and complex forms. As in Section 11.3, we denote the £th complex channel by
Sk = ak -\- ibk, \ < k ^ M. Under the multiple independent scatterer model
(11.5), the uniform distribution of the total phase term §k implies that

(SA) = E I ( % « P * V + e?/)><expz(4>, + *,)) = 0 (11.20)

p q

for all ky L Using ak = ~(Sk + S*k) a n d b k = — — (Sk — S*k), we then have

(*&) = M) = iH^s;) = iHcki) di-21)

and

{akbt) = -{atbk) = -\Im(SkS;) = - ^ Im(Q) (11.22)

These equations relate the covariance matrix CR of the real data vector SR = (av
bv . . . , aMy bj^)1 to the corresponding complex covariance matrix C
The Gaussian PDF is completely defined by its covariance matrix and in
the real case is given by

P S
( *) = I L 1 , e x P H S R C R ' S R ) <1L23)
V(2lT) ICRI
where I Q l is the determinant of CR. It can be shown that I Q l = 2~2Afl Cl2 and
Sj1C^1S11 = 2S1^C-1S, where S+ is the conjugate transpose of S. Hence,

^S) = -^exp(-StC-'S) (11.24)

11.4.2 Moments
All the moments of a Gaussian distribution can be derived once the second-
order moments (11.17) and (11.20) are known. For our purposes, only mo-
ments up to the fourth order will be needed, and it is convenient to summarize
these. From (11A.14), any odd moment of the field is zero. The fourth-order
moments are easy to calculate from the well-known relation for arbitrary
jointly distributed Gaussian variables X1, Xj, Xk, Xt [21]:

(X1XjX11X1) = (x,x)(XkX) + (X1X1)(XjX) + (X1X1)(XjX1) (11.25)

An important special case arises when X1 = S1, Xj = SJ, Xk = Sk, and Xt =

S*k, Since the intensity of channel i is given by I1 = ISp, we then have

(/,./,) = (s,s;sks;) = (/,)(/,) + \cik\2 (i 1.26)

We know from the elementary properties of speckle described in Chapter

4 that for single-channel data, v a r ( / ) = (/.} and var(S) = ( / } . Hence,
(11.26) is equivalent to

P^=W2 (n-27)
where p^ is the correlation coefficient of intensity between channels i and k
This important connection between the correlation structures of the fields and
intensities, known as the Siegert relationship [22], has already been encountered
in a different guise as (4.34).
It should also be noted that for polarimetric data all fourth-order field
/ \
moments are zero unless they are of the form (SS -SlS*,), otherwise each
corresponding term on the right-hand side of (11.25) contains a factor that is
zero. For moments of this form, we can write
(SiSjS;s;) = C^Cj1+cacjk (11.28)

11.5 Single-Look Distributions Involving Two

Polarimetric Channels

Of particular importance for polarimetric data are parameters formed from pairs
of channels, for which the PDF is jointly Gaussian with M = 2 (see, for
example, the images formed from the correlation coefficients in Figures 11.1 to
11.3). We will denote these channels as Sk = rke®k with k — 1, 2, and their
complex correlation by

p= ^£^ (11.29)

where a k is the RCS of channel k. Here 1 and 2 can stand for any of hh, hv, or
w.
Pairs of channels can be combined in a variety of ways, but for single-look
data, two combinations have particular importance. These are the complex
Hermitian product S1S2 and the channel ratio S1IS2. Since the phases of these
two quantities are the same, only three real quantities are involved, viz. rx r2, T1Zr2
and O1 — O2. The distributions of these quantities have been discussed by a
number of authors [17,23—25], and we only briefly indicate their derivations. A
first step is to set M — 2 and transform coordinates in (11.24) by

51 = Jc^1E cos tye^ (11.30a)

52 = Jo^Esmtye^ (11.30b)

where E ^ 0, 0 ^ vji ^ n / 2 , and — TT < O^ ^ IT. This transformation has

Jacobian \J\ = G1(J2E3 s'm\\scos\\f leading to the joint PDF

2TT 2 (I - IPI )

{-EA\ - IpI sin 211ICOs(O1 - G2 - Zp)X]

2
X exp != ^ ?—±± - ^ (11.31)
I i - IPI J
It is straightforward to integrate E out of this expression, yielding

4ir2 ( l - F s i n 2 i | i )
where Y = |p| COs(B1 — G2 — Z p ) . Substituting t = tan i|/ and using partial
fractions allows i|/ to be integrated out. The joint distribution P(Q i> 62) *s then
obtained as

P(Q1 ,e 2 ) = - ^ f ^ - t f - 1 1 + -J^-—cos-'(-r) I (11.33)

V ;
4ir2{l-Y2){ -Jl-Y2 J
from which the distribution of the phase difference 6 d = B1 — 6 2 (mod 2TT) is

p(ed) = -LfI=JiYi + -^J—cos-H-r)! (n.34)

where — TT < 0 d < TT and F = lplcos(9d — Zp).

To derive the amplitude ratio distribution, first integrate (11.32) over O1
and S 2 to obtain the PDF of \\f

PW= ,f2* .„ ("35)

Since the amplitude ratio is given by Q = I ^ / ^ J = r2/V1^J(J2IG1 tani);, a

change of variables yields its PDF as

7 1 1 7
P(Q) = ^ ^ ^ *> (1 L 3 6 )
2 2
[(7 + Q ) - H P I Q 2 ] '
2

where 7 = Cr2Za1.
For the amplitude product, we return to (11.31) and integrate out B1 and
O2 to yield the joint PDF

P(E,*) = 2E>MW ,-Ey^)1 (№2**2*} (1L37)

1
- IPI V 1 ^ IPI J

where I0 (•) is a modified Bessel function (Section 9.6 of [26]).

 Defining the amplitude product A by A = IS1S2I = rxr2 = \ E2 ^j(J1(J2 sin 2i|i
gives a joint PDF

*A«-M^4--%L-),,№i) (1,38,
X sm2\\) y Xsin2\\f) \ X J

where X = ^J(J1(J2 (1 — |p| J. The integral over \\f assumes a standard form with
the substitution u = cosec \\f and leads to

*>0 = ^ . ( f >„(«) 01.39)

where K0 (•) is a modified Bessel function (Section 9.6 of [26]).

11.6 Properties of the Distributions

The distributions (11.34), (11.36), and (11.39) each depend on two real pa-
rameters. For the phase difference distribution these are the amplitude and phase
of the complex correlation coefficient, IpI and Z p ; for the amplitude ratio they
are IpI and 7 = <J2I®\ while the amplitude product has a distribution involving
IpI and (T1CF2. For single-look data, the phase difference and amplitude ratios are
particularly important, and their properties are discussed in this section. The
significance of the Hermitian product becomes clearest in the context of pa-
rameter estimation and then in its multilook form. This is treated in Section
11.7, although a detailed treatment of the single-look form is given in [24].

11.6.1 The Phase Difference Distribution

This distribution is unimodal and symmetric (mod 2TT) about its mode, which
occurs at 6 d = Z p . Its minimum is at Z p + TT (mod 2 IT). The width of the
distribution is controlled by IpI. If IpI is near 1, the distribution is sharply peaked
about Z p ; in the limiting case, as IpI —> 1, (11.34) tends to a 8-function centered
on Z p . As IpI decreases, the distribution becomes flatter and is uniform if IpI =
0. As a result, phase difference images will appear noisier in areas where the
correlation coefficient is low. This is clear in the multilook images in Figures
11.1 to 11.3 and is illustrated for single-look data by Figure 11.4, which shows
L-band EMISAR images of (a) j/.ShhS^ and (b) Z.ShhS^v over an agricultural
region in Jutland, Denmark. Figure 11.4(c,d) shows histograms of the phase
difference for a single field of winter wheat at the bottom right of the image,
 (a) (b)
Frequency

Frequency

HH-W phase diff frad] HH-HV phase diff [rad]

(c) (d)

Figure 11.4 L-band EMISAR phase difference images from an agricultural area: (a) HH-VV and
(b) HH-HV. Observed and theoretical phase difference distributions for a single
winter wheat field of 5,537 pixels in the above images: (c) HH-VV, IpI = 0.67, Z p
= 33 degrees; and (d) HH-HV, IpI = 0.19, Z9 = - 8 9 degrees.
together with the associated theoretical distributions (shown by the solid curves)
using values of p estimated from the field. For the H H - W data, IpI ~ 0.67 and
Z p ~ 33 degrees while the corresponding values for H H - H V are 0.19 and
— 89 degrees, respectively. The good fit between theory and measurement is
clear, as is the dependence of the width of the distribution on IpI.
Quantitative measures of fit are much aided by the fact that the phase
difference distribution has an analytic CDF given by

W = Jl^dK
= /(<(> - Zp)+ /(IT + Zp) -TT < c)j < IT (11.40a)
where
= j _f IPI an* COS-I[-1P| COS *]\ (j i m
2
2*{ Vi-|p| COS^ J
This greatly simplifies the use of the K-S test of fit (see [14], for example).
It is clear that the natural measures of centrality and width for the single-
look phase difference distribution are Z p and IpI, but it is common in the
literature to find phase statistics described in terms of mean and standard
deviation. These quantities can be expressed in terms of p since [24]

|p|si nZp
(G,) = Zp + 2 cos-'dplcosZp) (11.41)
COS2
Vi ~ IPI ^P

and

M^) = , * ,7 b|2 2 , [^T ~ ™n-K|p|cosZp) + [sin-(|p|cosZp)] 2 ]

i — |p| COS2 Zp V 4 J
. oo -I \ \ 2 n

2 ^i n2

Both have serious flaws as summary statistics that arise from the circular
nature of the phase measurement. These are easily demonstrated by a simple
example. Consider the two phase difference distributions indicated in Figure
11.5. These are identical apart from a TT phase shift, with that on the left
 [rad]

[rad]

Figure 11.5 Examples of two phase difference distributions, identical except for a phase shift
of TT radians.

centered on zero and that on the right centered on u radians. Note that both
distributions have mean zero but the variance is much larger for the distribution
on the right. Hence, the mean and variance can provide a very misleading way
of summarizing the distributional shape unless the modal phase difference is
near zero. However, it is not uncommon in polarimetric data for modes well in
excess of IT/2 to occur (e.g., in woodland at longer wavelengths [14]). A
thorough quantitative analysis of this issue is given in [27].
Avoiding the use of mean and variance presents no problem when the
distribution is given by (11.34), but alternative measures are needed for more
general cases (including multilook data; see Section 11.7). Such measures,
described in [28,29], are based on assigning to each observed phase 6d a unit
vector (cos 0d, sin 0d). Taking the average of all these vectors yields a
vector R(cos 0, sin Gj. The mean direction 0 is independent of choice of origin;
the resultant length lies^n the range [0,1], with 1 indicating coincident points.
The quantity V = 1 — R is known as the sample circular variance. It is easy to see
that with these definitions the distributions illustrated in Figure 11.5 would have
the same sample circular variance and have mean direction zero and IT as desired.
Examples of the use of these measures are shown in Figure 11.6 for L-band
AirSAR data for regions of two different cover types. In Figure 11.6(a) the
measured values of A^S^S^) are plotted on a circular dial for regions of wheat;
while Figure 11.6(b) shows_the same quantity for coniferous woodland. The
arrows indicate the vector i?(cos 0, sin Oj and the circles are each of radius 1.
The mean direction is similar for both cover types (26 degrees for wheat and
19.8 degrees for conifer), but there is much greater dispersion in the wheat
measurements. This is reflected in the sample circular variance measures of
0.206 for wheat and 0.003 for conifers.

11.6.2 The Amplitude Ratio Distribution

The amplitude ratio has a number of important uses, both as a means of inferring
physical properties of a medium and as a way of removing terrain effects. As an
example of the former, we note that since scattering models predict that the
copolarized ratio depends only on surface dielectric and not on surface roughness,
this ratio can be used to estimate soil moisture [30]. In [31], the crosspolarized
ratio is also used to mask out vegetated areas when retrieving soil moisture. For
terrain effects, uncorrected variations in local incidence angle cause changes in the
effective scattering area [32]. This multiplicative geometrical factor applies
equally to all channels and, hence, can be removed by taking channel ratios [33].
The price paid is to lose one degree of freedom in describing the data.
Although the distribution (11.36) has an analytic CDF given by

F(Q) = i 1 + ^-=^ r (11.43)

2 2 2 a 2
[ [(7 +Q ) -4|p| -YQ pJ
making distributional fitting easy, its moments have no simple form. Figure 11.7
shows results corresponding to Figure 11.4, where now (a) and (b) are the
I H H / W l and IHV/Wl images while (c) and (d) show a comparison between
theory and data. As in Figure 11.4, the theoretical curves use estimated parame-
 (a) (b)
Figure 11.6 Circular plots of the HH-VV phase difference for L-band AirSAR data from (a) 10
wheat fields and (b) 10 conifer regions. The arrows indicate the mean vector, and
the circles are of unit radius.

ters, in this case IpI = 0.67 and 7 = 0.9 for the I H H / W I data and IpI = 0.195,
7 = 0.056 for IHV/WI. It is noticeable in this figure that the IHV/WI ratio (b)
gives better defined structure, but the I H H / W I ratio in (a) picks out a region at
lower left that is not obvious in (b). This probably indicates a crop with vertical
structure, such as standing cereal [31]. The widths of the curves are not as easy to
interpret as for the phase difference because the amplitude ratio distribution gets
narrower as IpI increases and wider as 7 increases [34]. Hence, in the two plots
shown as (c) and (d) there are competing effects (note the difference in scales).

11.7 Estimation of Polarimetric Parameters

The properties of a homogenous region in a SAR image that is made up of

independent normally distributed pixels are completely described if we can
provide an accurate estimate of the covariance matrix. For single-channel data
this is straightforward, since the in-phase and quadrature channels are uncorre-
lated Gaussian variables with the same variance a/2. Hence, only a need be
estimated, and it is easy to show that, given TV observations of spatially uncorre-
lated data, the MLE of a is given by multilooking, as discussed in Section 4.4.
For Gaussian polarimetric data the MLE of the covariance matrix C is
similarly shown to be [35]

N
1
C = -XS^S^t (11.44)
N k=i
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

F i g u r e 11.7 L - b a n d E M I S A R a m p l i t u d e r a t i o i m a g e s f r o m a n a g r i c u l t u r a l a r e a : (a) I H H / W I a n d

(b) I H V / W i . O b s e r v e d a n d t h e o r e t i c a l a m p l i t u d e r a t i o d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r a s i n g l e

w i n t e r w h e a t f i e l d in t h e p r e v i o u s i m a g e s : ( c ) I H H / V V I , IpI = 0.67, 7 = 0.9; a n d (d)

I H V / W I , IpI - 0 . 1 9 , 7 - 0 . 0 5 6 .

where S^ denotes the £th complex data vector. In other words, the sample
covariance matrix is the MLE of the true covariance matrix. In the case of two
channels, the covariance matrix has the form

so the MLE estimates are the multilook averages

a^i-fl^l2 (11.46a)

^2 =77 2 K T (n-46b)
and

R = Z? •'* = A + iB = —^ Slk)S(2kr (11.46c)

N k=\

The joint PDF of the estimates has the form of a complex Wishart distri-
bution [35] given by

P(S,,S7,A,B) = ^ ^V—
V ! 2 ;
TtT(N)T(N-I)W

I
r » i " Ii
1(T2(J1 + (T1(J2 - 2J(T1(T2 Re(pR*)\
A
-N± i
I (11.47)

where A = (T1(T2(I — |p| j and ^1O"2 — ^ • T ^ e niarginal distributions of

O-J and (T2 are gamma distributions identical to the multilook distribution (4.9)
and need no Jurther discussion. The specific polarimetric parameters are
conveyed by R, the PDF of whose amplitude and phase is found by in-
tegrating CT1 and 6"2 out of (11.47) and making the change of variable
A = Zcos<J>, B = Z sin O, yielding

,. . v 2N(NZ)N f27VVo:^:2~|p|Zcosfi>-Zpl"
P(Z9 * 2 - ^ 1 exp - J *
V ;
TrAr(TV)(Vo1^) [ A

A
I J
where KN_l(.) is a modified Bessel function (Section 9.6 of [26]). From the joint
distributions (11.47) and (11.48) we can derive the marginal distributions of
three parameters, detailed in the following subsections, which are of particular
interest (see also [24]).
11.7.1 The Multilook Phase Difference Distribution
The first of these is the phase difference, whose marginal distribution has the
form [24,36]

PtJ)J-W I (27V~2>!
*l I 2TT [[(N- I)!] 2 2 2 ^ " »
(2N -I)Y . x i 1 i
l
X -i '— cos-H-Y) + -—J7 + —-^
_(1-K2)^ {\-Y*f\ 2(7V-I)
y T(TV-I) r ( ^ - l - r ) l+(2r + l ) ^ |
2 l j
i r ( ^ - i - r ) r(7v-i) (i-r^r J

where Y = |p| cosf O — ^ p ) . Other formulations of the phase distribution have

been derived [34,37,38] involving a hypergeometric function, which must be
evaluated by numerical quadrature. By contrast, (11.49) involves only a finite
summation that is more convenient for data analysis. Note that when N=I
the summation contains no terms and the distribution reduces to the single-look
case (11.34).
Examples of theoretical distributions for different values of TV and IpI and
comparison with observations will be found in [34,38], while practical applica-
tions of multilooking are shown in Chapter 12 (see Figure 12.1). As one would
expect, the distribution (11.49) becomes narrower as TVincreases, but around its
mode, Z.p, which is conserved by multilooking. The invariance of the mode
confirms its value as the best representative of the phase difference distribution.
No analytic expressions for the mean and variance of the phase exist except in the
case N=I (see (11.41) and (11.42)), although limiting cases are discussed in
[36,24]. The arguments given in Section 11.6.1 again apply here: the mean and
variance have defects as representative statistics unless the mode is near zero or the
measurements are defined relative to the mode. A complete treatment of the
estimation problem including correction for the estimated mode has not yet been
carried out.
The distribution of $ also becomes narrower as IpI increases. This is
clearly seen in Figures 11.1 to 11.3, which are for 16-look data; regions for
which the estimated value of IpI (panels (d-f) in the figures) is large show much
less variation in $ (panels (g—i)).
11.7.2 The Multilook Coherence Distribution
From the PDF (11.48) it is straightforward to derive the marginal PDF and
estimation properties of Z — R [24], but this is of limited value. Of much
greater importance in applications is the estimate of IpI, the magnitude of the
complex correlation coefficient, which is often called the interchannel coherence.
Since IpI is a function of the polarimetric parameters, its MLE, r, is given by
replacing each parameter by its MLE [39]; hence,

? = |p| = - J U = (n.50)

The distribution of r is given in [35] as

P(r) = 2(N - I)(I - IPI 2 )" r(l - r*)N~2 2i^(A^, A^;l;|p|2P2)

2(1 -|p| 2 )"f(l -r*f-2 - Tr(Z + N)T 2l

= (1L51)
T(N)T(N-I) S[T(T+I)-J ^
where 0 < r < 1 and the second inequality arises by writing the hypergeometric
function as an infinite sum (Section 15.1 of [26]). Plots of the theoretical PDFs
for different values of TV and p are available in [40,41], with practical applica-
tions in Chapter 12 (see Figure 12.1).
From (11.51) it is easy to calculate the moments of r as

, ^ J 1 - M 2 T f [T(I + N)? TXl+ Y2 + I) 2l

v
' T(N) A L r ( Z + i)J T(I + Y2 +Ny]
+1
= (i - IPI 2 )" HTV)^ J F2(Y2 + I,N,N-XY2 + N;\P\2)(11.52)

where

1
Fl* h J \- W 1 W Y TjI + a)T(l + bfjl + c) zi
3 2 i
' " " ' T(a)T(b)T(c)k T(l + d)T(l + e) /!

is a generalized hypergeometric function. Since r is the M L E of IpI, it is asymp-

totically unbiased, so that r —> IpI as YVincreases. However, setting m = 1 allows
us to calculate the bias in r for a finite sample. This bias is positive and increases
as IpI decreases [40]; for small values of IpI it can be significant even for quite large
TV. In fact, for p = 0,

22{N-1) Y2IN) 1 / ;
(U53)
M—i^o ±^
where the approximation is for large TV using Stirling's formula (Section 6.1 of
[26]), so at least 314 samples would be needed to reduce the bias to less than
0.1. This bias can be seen in Figures 11.1 to 11.3, where panels (d—f) show r
with N= 16. Very few pixels take values less than 0.1; for the large areas in
the crosspolarized channels that are essentially featureless, most of the pixels
lie in the range 0.1 to 0.3. Perhaps more important than (11.51) is the a
posteriori PDF Pnp|\r J, which is proportional to the PDF given in (11.51) if IpI
is equally likely to take any value in the range [1, O]. However, it is now
considered as a function of IpI; the constant of proportionality normalizes the
expression to have unit area as it is integrated over the range 0 ^ IpI ^ 1. Plots
of this PDF and a discussion of its use in estimating confidence intervals for IpI
are given in [41,42].

11.7.3 The Multilook Intensity Ratio

As discussed in Section 11.6.2, the amplitude or intensity ratio of channels can
be important both as a direct measure of physical effects or to remove topo-
graphic effects. The multilook intensity ratio Q = <jj (T1 has a PDF given by

^-fafffia C-W)W.,+ox?- , (1,54)

which yields the single-look expression (11.36) when we set L = 1. (Note that
(11.36) gives the amplitude ratio, so a simple change of variables is also in-
volved.) The derivation of this result together with theoretical plots and a
comparison with data can be found in [34,38]. The result is identical to the
single-channel form in (7.6) (with M = 2L, k = Z, and R = (T1Z(T2) if the
channels are uncorrelated, so IpI = 0.
11.8 The Stokes Scattering Operator Formulation of
Polarized Scattering

The previous section showed that, for Gaussian polarimetric data, multilooking
provides the best estimates of the information-bearing parameters. Here we
provide another description of the scattering behavior, originally developed for
optical data, which provides a useful route to forming such data.
Radar systems can make direct phase measurements on the received data,
permitting the scattering matrix to be measured. Essential to this is the avail-
ability of stable local oscillators providing a reference phase over the period
of the measurement. By contrast, in optical data, the time scales for coherence
of the individual wave packets making up the signal are so short that phase
measurements must be inferred. This provides the basic motivation for the
description of polarization state introduced by Rayleigh, using the Stokes vector
[3,43]. The Stokes vector corresponding to a completely polarized wave with
polarimetric field vector (Ey, B^)1 is a four-component real vector given by

F I2 - I F
2
£
F- vl Fh (II.55)
^ 2 Im(^A*) J

The incident and scattered complex field vectors, E1 and E s , are related by
the scattering matrix S according to (see 11.2)

pikR
Es =—SV (11.56)
R

This corresponds to a transformation of Stokes vectors given by

P =—QMF[ (11.57)
r2

where the matrix M is known as the Stokes scattering operator, and Q is the
matrix
 A O O O^

Q= ° ' ° ° (.1.58,
0 0 1 0
vO O O -h

For reciprocal scattering, 5 and M are symmetric, and the terms in M are
given by

Mn = ^ J 2 + 2 K v | 2 + | S h h | 2 ) (11.59a)

M11 =\{\SJ-\SJ) (11.59b)

^13 = ^Re(SvAv + \ A * v ) (11.59c)

M14 = - ^ I m ( 5 w 5 h ; - 5hh5h;) (11.59d)

M12=1A(\SJ-2K\2+\SJ) (11.59e)

M2i=L2M^Sl-S^Sl) (11-590

M24 = - ^ I m ^ S , ; + ShhS*hv) (11.59g)

^33 = ^ ( K v I 2 + Re(^wW)) (H.59h)

M34 = - I l m ( 5 v v 5 * h ) (11.591)

^44 = ^ ( l \ v | 2 - R e ( ^ W ) ) (11.59J)

These definitions and other associated formulations of the scattering description

are given, for example, in [3]. Note that:
 • T h e Stokes scattering operator contains only Hermitian products of
field terms, so absolute phase has been lost, but phase differences are
preserved.
• S can be recovered from Af, up to a single unknown phase.
• Swapping the roles of h and v causes Af12, Af14, Af23, and Af34 to change
sign but leaves the other coefficients unchanged (this is relevant because
the values supplied by the JPL AirSAR system contain this modification).

For a distributed target, AT is a random matrix, whose mean value is the

relevant quantity. As can be seen, the expected value of each term in Af is formed
from sums of terms from the covariance matrix, so the M L E of Af is given by
combining terms from the sample covariance matrix. Hence, in applications
where parameter estimation for distributed targets is more important than resolu-
tion, it is common to pre-average Stokes scattering operators to form multilook
data. This provides an important method of reducing the data volume. Note that
averaging scattering matrix data is of no value because this would not improve the
estimates of the covariance terms that carry the actual information (see the
discussion in Section 4.4). As discussed in Chapter 4, multilooking can be carried
out within the processor, or by spatial averaging of pixels. Multilook Stokes
scattering operators can be further averaged within homogeneous regions to
provide M L estimates of the covariance parameters with greater accuracy.
Although scattering information may be supplied in the form of multilook
Stokes scattering operator terms (this is normal for the JPL AirSAR system),
from the point of view taken in this chapter, the primary object of interest is the
sample covariance matrix. This can be estimated from the Stokes scattering
operator by the relations

C 11 = Af11 + Af22 + 2Af12 (11.60a)

C 22 - A T 3 3 + A f 4 4 (11.60b)

C 3 3 = Af11 + Af22 - 2Af12 (11.60c)

C12 = ( ^ 3 + ^23) - KMu + MIA) (11-6Od)

C32 = (Mi3 - ^ 2 3 ) + KMi4 - M

2i) (11-6Oe)

C 13 = Af33 - Af44 - 2/Af34 (11.6Of)

Here, the subscripts 1, 2, and 3 on the covariance terms correspond to W , HV,
and H H , respectively, while the Stokes scattering operator terms are as defined
in (11.59). The results derived in Section 11.7 can now be applied.

11.9 Texture in Polarimetric Data

In Appendix 1IA we establish that a number fluctuation model leads to a

description of the scattering matrix data as

S = TG (11.61)

where T is a positive real texture variable and G is a multivariate Gaussian

variable independent of T. The properties of the Gaussian component, G, can
be estimated from the data since (S^*) = [G1G* j (see (11.8)). Hence S and G
have the same covariance matrix. Also, since S1ISj = G1I Gj is independent of T,
the single-look amplitude ratio and phase difference distributions are exactly the
same as for the Gaussian case. Tests confirming this have been reported [14].
The Hermitian product S1S* = T1G1G* will, however, show evidence for the
departure from Gaussian behavior either through its real and imaginary parts or
through its amplitude (though not through its phase, since this is the phase
difference distribution discussed in Section 11.6.1); the corresponding analysis
in given in [44].
For the particular case of negative binomial number fluctuations, T2 is
gamma-distributed with mean 1; hence, 7"has a square-root gamma distribution
given by

P(T) = 2-^-T2v~l e~vT2 (11.62)

T(v)

where v is an order parameter. In this case we can derive the PDF of the
scattering matrix data for the Af-dimensional product model as

= - J - J ^ - r r ^ « - e~^ cJ-S!C^)dT
ir^|c|r(v) Jo \ T2 )
=
^ q ^ )(vStc"ls)"f ^ - - f 2 7 ^ ^ ) (11 63)
-
This is a multidimensional K distribution. In similar fashion, any of the other
PDFs arising from the product model can be derived by integrating over T.

11.9.1 Multilook Textured Data

When considering multilook data, two cases are relevant. In the first, the texture
variable is assumed constant over each area for which the pixels are being
averaged. Hence, any vector or scalar quantity Xknown in the Gaussian case to
have the conditional PDF P(X\ T) gives rise to the corresponding PDF in the
texture model

P(X) = J0" P(X\T)P(T) dT (11.64)

Since in this case the multilook phase difference, amplitude ratio, and sample
coherence are all independent of T, they are also independent of texture. In the
second case, the texture variable fluctuates between the samples being averaged.
Few, if any, analytic results are available in this case. For example, even the PDF
of a sum of samples has no analytic form.

11.9.2 Parameter Estimation

For the product model with gamma-distributed texture, 10 real parameters need
to be estimated in the general case (the three channel powers, the phase and
amplitude of the three interchannel correlation coefficients, and the order
parameter). As already observed in Section 8.3, the ML estimation problem has
no analytic solution even for single-channel data. Following the analysis in [45],
an approximate ML estimate of the covariance matrix is given by

Ctj = — X S\n)Sf = — X Tn2G^Gf* (11.65)

N n=i Nn=i

Using (11.8) and the fact that [T1) = 1 implies that C- is an unbiased
estimate of Q7-. For each single channel, the analysis described in Section 8.3
indicates that a reasonable estimate of the order parameter v (see (11.62)) is
given by solving the equation

Inv - i|j«»(v) + 7 E = I n / - m 7 = ln(7//) (11.66)

 1 N
where, for any quantity x, x denotes — X xr If all three channels have the

same order parameter, there are effectively 3./V(correlated) samples. Two possible
approaches to using all the information would be to estimate v for each channel
and average the results or instead to solve [24]

ln ,_ r , w+7E .j_| ln (|.) +ln ji.) +ln (A) (1 , 67)

where 6" = I (see (11.46)). The relative merits of these two approaches is at
present unknown.

11.9.3 Texture Observations in Polarimetric Data

Data from the NASA/JPL AirSAR polarimetric system acquired during the
1991 MacEurope campaign from the Feltwell, UK, agricultural site provided a
surprising opportunity to examine texture in polarimetric data [14]. The sur-
prise was that at the low resolutions used (15.5m in azimuth by 11m in slant
range), texture was observed at all, since it is normally associated with higher
resolutions (see Chapters 5 and 8). Figures 11.1 to 11.3 have already shown the
channel powers and correlation terms for 16-look C-, L-, and P-band images
for a section of the test site. Figure 11.8 shows the estimated value of v~l for
the same region at H H polarization for all three wavelengths, using single-look
data. All the images are shown with the same gray scale and the calculated values
are per segment values, based on an image segmentation (see Chapters 7 and
12), in order to improve estimation accuracy. The occurrence of negative values
indicated by the scale is a result of estimation error in some of the small
segments. The increased texture at longer wavelengths is very obvious. The field
structure observed in Figures 11.1 to 11.3 becomes progressively clearer as we
move from C- to P-band. Most of the C-band image exhibits low values,
corresponding to large values of v and hence near-Gaussian behavior. As wave-
length increases, the data progressively depart from being Gaussian; measure-
ments of the observed distributions and reasons for this behavior are discussed
in the following paragraphs.
A crop map compiled for the day of the data acquisition (July 28, 1991)
facilitated an investigation of how the polarimetric distributions and parameters
varied with crop type and frequency. For this purpose, measurements were made
on 10 regions of conifer forest, barley, grass, wheat, potatoes, and sugarbeet,
giving 60 regions in total. The broader classification into conifers, cereals
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 11.8 Estimated values of v~] calculated overthe same region as in Figures 11.1 to 11.3,
using single-look HH data from the NASA/JPL AirSAR at (a) C-band, (b) L-band,
and (c) P-band.

(barley, grass, and wheat), and root crops (potatoes and sugarbeet) gave rise to
very clear distributional differences, as summarized in Table 11.1. It was found
that the Gaussian model appeared viable for all vegetation types at C-band.
While conifers and root crops remained Gaussian, cereal crops became non-
Gaussian at L-band, in most cases being reasonably well fitted by a K distribu-
tion. At P-band only the conifer forest appeared Gaussian. Root crops were
better fitted by K distributions; cereal crops, although modeled better by K
distributions, in many cases gave a poor fit [14].
 Table 11.1
Distributional Forms Observed as a Function of Wavelength and
Cover Type for the Feltwell Region in AirSAR Data

Cereals Root Crops Conifer

C Gaussian Gaussian Gaussian

L K Gaussian Gaussian
P K ? K Gaussian

The Gaussian behavior of the C-band data is as expected, since at the low
resolution of the imagery we would expect many independent scatterers per
resolution cell, with the backscatter arising predominantly from volume scatter-
ing in the vegetation canopy. In contrast, no satisfactory physical interpretation
of the results at the longer wavelengths is currently available. It is hard to see
how scattering in the canopy could produce the spatial variability implied by
the measurements: the data were gathered in late July, so in most cases the fields
would exhibit full ground cover with crops at a late stage of development.
Alternatively, we may see a soil effect because significant penetration to the soil
surface and even some penetration into the ground will occur at L-band and
particularly at P-band. However, the soil surface would appear comparatively
smooth at these wavelengths. Hence, it may not contribute greatly to the
backscatter nor be able to give rise to the fluctuations in backscattering coeffi-
cient needed to explain the observed behavior. A possibility is that agricultural
treatment gave rise to long-scale variations in surface slope. However, these are
likely to be greater for the root crops than the cereals, whereas the cereals show
the greatest degree of non-Gaussian behavior. In these circumstances, we should
perhaps regard these data as providing a good example of where image analysis
outstrips our current understanding of the underlying physics.
An attractive aspect of these data is that they allowed us to test whether
the phase difference and amplitude ratio distributions were independent of
whether the data are Gaussian or K-distributed, as predicted by the product
model for texture. To this end, K-S fits were performed for all frequencies and
regions using the CDFs given as (11.40) and (11.43). The results confirmed
the robustness of these distributions, particularly at C- and L-bands; at P-band,
a few of the cereal fields gave poor fits, associated with the departure from the
K distribution [14]. A further aspect of the model that was investigated was
the behavior of the order parameter between channels. (The order parameter
was calculated by inverting (8.31), but it should be noted that the interpreta-
tion of this parameter is clear only for those regions displaying a K distribu-
tion.) According to the product model, the order parameter should be the
same for all channels; this was observed in the C- and L-band data. However,
at P-band, significant differences between the estimated order parameters in
the three channels were observed for cereal crops, especially for the grass fields
[14]. This suggests a breakdown in the simple texture model, which could
occur because at the long wavelengths the assumption of a large mean number
of scatterers is no longer valid or because the different polarizations are effec-
tively not seeing the same scatterers due to different attenuation properties.
The theoretical basis for differences in texture variables between polarizations
is discussed in [12], and observed differences are also described in [46]. In the
latter case, the significance of the differences is unclear, because we currently
do not have a well-developed theory to establish confidence intervals for the
order parameter.

11.10 lnterferometric, Multifrequency, and Multitemporal Data

Although the developments in this chapter have been principally motivated by

the properties of polarimetric data, they are applicable to other forms of multi-
dimensional data, with some simplifications and modifications. Closest in spirit
to polarimetric data is interferometric data, since this is critically dependent on
correlation between channels, where now the channels are distinguished by their
viewing angle of the scene [47]. In fact, all the information characteristic of
interferometry is carried by the complex correlation of channels, from which
can be inferred, inter alia, a terrain map of the scene [48,49], disturbances to
the surface due to agricultural treatment [50], and surface motion or deforma-
tion [51]. Hence, from the point of view of image statistics, interferometric data
have the same properties as polarimetric data because the channels will be jointly
Gaussian (possibly with texture) and the quantities of interest are the complex
correlation coefficients. The MLEs of interferometric phase and coherence are
as described in Section 11.7. As noted there, accurate estimates of phase require
high coherence or large numbers of samples. This has a direct impact on the
properties of the information that can be extracted from interferometry. For
example, accurate measurements of phase in areas of low coherence require a lot
of spatial averaging, with consequent loss of spatial resolution. Since phase is the
quantity used to infer topography, this affects the quality of any inferred digital
elevation model; consistent height accuracy across a scene implies differing
spatial resolution. Although the local estimation problem is essentially the same
as that for polarimetry, a rather important difference is that phase measurements
are often of most interest where there is a phase gradient. Hence, there is the
problem of trade-off between local homogeneity (in order to measure an unbi-
ased local phase) and acceptable variance (the precision of the measurement).
This has given rise to methods of adaptive filtering, as described in [52]. In
many cases the statistical model for interferometric data can be simplified
compared to that for polarimetry because only two channels are used (although
more are needed in differential interferometry [48,53]) and often the channel
powers will be the same. However, cases have been reported for repeat-pass
interferometry where significant changes in cr° have occurred between the
acquisition of the images, but coherence is still obtained [53].
For multifrequency polarimetric or single-channel SAR, the data will be
independent between frequencies; hence, the covariance matrix will simply con-
sist of blocks down the leading diagonal, with zeroes elsewhere. This means that
there is no value in forming crossfrequency parameters as far as extracting infor-
mation goes, and each channel can be considered separately. In particular, texture
is likely to be different between channels, as already observed in Section 11.9.
For multitemporal data exhibiting no coherence (and hence of no value
for interferometry), the situation becomes simpler still. Since the data are
uncorrelated between dates, the covariance matrix is diagonal and all the infor-
mation is carried in the a° values at each date, together with any texture
parameters.

11.11 Summary

Despite the apparent complexity introduced when multichannel data are avail-
able, simple models provide a viable means of describing the information
available from distributed targets. For a single frequency, physical reasoning and
measurement support descriptions based on local Gaussian behavior modulated
by a scalar texture, which can be interpreted as a number fluctuation effect. This
interpretation cannot be pushed too far, because, for example, the differing
penetration depths of H and V polarized waves into media that show preferred
horizontal or vertical structures (e.g., cereals) indicate that not all scatterers
receive the same incident wave. Nonetheless, distributions derived from this
model appear consistent with observations, except in some cases at the longest
wavelengths.
Because such simple models can be used, the information-bearing parame-
ters in the data are readily identified. When the data are Gaussian, there is a
well-developed estimation theory for these parameters. In principle, few diffi-
culties arise in applying this theory. In practice, the complicated expressions for
the sample coherence and phase difference distributions have at present pre-
vented the development of a simple treatment for confidence intervals and
moments, for example. For textured data, the estimation theory runs into the
problems identified in Chapter 8, preventing analytic MLE solutions; only
approximate solutions are currently available.The success of a simple tractable
model for the data provides a sound basis for our investigations of filtering,
classification, and segmentation in later chapters. However, it must be remarked
that the empirical basis for this model is currently very incomplete. Compara-
tively few studies over a limited set of terrain types have attempted to validate
it. We have indicated that problems occur at long wavelengths, but more
investigation is needed to establish the effects of, for example, resolution and
cover type. Nonetheless, we will adopt the product model as our basic descriptor
of single-frequency multichannel data in the following chapters, with data
gathered at different frequencies being considered independent.

References
[1] Le Toan, T., A. Beaudoin, S. Goze, J. A. Kong, C. C. Hsu, H. C. Han, and R. T. Shin,
"Microwave Interaction and Analysis of Polarimetric Data: Retrieval of Forest Biomass,"
Final report to ESA ESTEC on Contract No. 9352/91/NULC(SC), 1992.
[2] Le Toan, T, A. Beaudoin, J. Riom, and D. Guyon, "Relating Forest Biomass to SAR Data,"
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 30, 1992, pp. 403-411.
[3] Ulaby, F. T, and C. Elachi, Radar Polarimetry for Geoscience Applications, Norwood, MA:
Artech House, 1990.
[4] Tsang, L., J. A. Kong, and R. T. Shin, Theory of Microwave Remote Sensing, New York: Wiley
Interscience, 1985.
[5] Quegan, S., "A Unified Algorithm for Phase and Crosstalk Calibration—Theory and
Observations," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 32, 1994, pp. 89-99.
[6] van ZyI, J. J., "Calibration of Polarimetric Radar Images Using Only Image Parameters and
Trihedral Corner Reflector Responses," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 28, 1990,
pp. 337-348.
[7] Freeman, A., J. J. van ZyI, J. D. Klein, H. A. Zebker, and Y. Shen, "Calibration of Stokes
and Scattering Matrix Format Polarimetric SAR Data," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing,
Vol.30, 1992, pp. 531-539.
[8] Quegan, S., and I. Rhodes, "Problems in the Linear Distortion Model for Polarimetric
Calibration," Proc. CEOS Calibration Workshop, ESA WPP-048, 1993, pp. 127-132.
[9] Sarabandi, K., L. E. Pierce, and F. T. Ulaby, "Calibration of a Polarimetric Imaging SAR,"
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 30, 1992, pp. 540-549.
[10] Sheen, D. R., A. Freeman, and E. S. Kasischke, "Phase Calibration of Polarimetric Radar
Images," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 27, 1989, pp. 719-730.
[11] Zebker, H. A., and Y. Lou, "Phase Calibration of Imaging Radar Polarimeter Stokes
Matrices," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 28, 1990, pp. 246-252.
[12] Williams, M. L., S. Quegan, and D. Blacknell, "Intensity Statistics in the Distorted Born
Approximation: Application to C-band Images of Woodland," Waves in Random Media,
1997 (in press).
[13] Oliver, C. J., "A Model for Non-Rayleigh Scattering Statistics," Opt. Acta, Vol. 6, 1984,
pp. 701-722.
[14] Quegan, S., and I. Rhodes, "Statistical Models for Polarimetric Data: Consequences,
Testing and Validity," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 16, 1995, pp. 1183-1210.
[15] Jakeman, E., "On the Statistics of K-Distributed Noise,"/ Phys. A: Math. Gen., Vol. 13,
1980, pp. 31-48.
[16] Jao, J. K., "Amplitude Distribution of Composite Terrain Radar Clutter and the K Distri-
bution," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 22, 1984, pp. 1049-1062.
[17] Yueh, S. H., J. A. Kong, J. K. Jao, R. T Shin, H. A. Zebker, T. Le Toan, and H. Ottl,
"K-Distribution and Polarimetric Radar Clutter," Polarimetric Remote Sensing, J. A. Kong
(ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990.
[18] Held, D. N., W E. Brown, A. Freeman, J. D. Klein, H. Zebker, T. Sato, T Miller, Q.
Nguyen, and Y. Lou, "The NASA/JPL Multifrequency Multipolarisation Airborne SAR
System," Proc. IGARSS '88 Symp., Edinburgh, 1988, pp. 345-349.
[19] Wooding, M., E Lodge, and E. Attema, (eds.), MAC-Europe 91: Final Results Workshop
Proc., ESAWPP-88, 1995.
[20] Nghiem, S. V, S. H. Yueh, R. Kwok, and E K. Li, "Symmetry Properties in Polarimetric
Remote Sensing," Radio ScL, Vol. 27, pp. 693-711.
[21] Papoulis, A., Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes, Singapore: McGraw-
Hill, 1984.
[22] Siegert, A. J. E, MIT Rad. Lab. No. 465, 1943.
[23] Davenport, W. B., and W. L. Root, Random Signals and Noise, New York: McGraw-Hill,
1958.
[24] Tough, R. J. A., D. Blacknell, and S. Quegan, "A Statistical Description of Polarimetric and
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar Data," Proc. Roy. Soc. London A, Vol. 449, 1995,
pp. 567-589.
[25] Middleton, D., Introduction to Statistical Communication Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill,
1960.
[26] Abramowitz, M., and I. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, New York: Dover,
1965.
[27] Quegan, S., L. V. Dutra, and K. D. Grover, "Phase Measurements in MAESTRO Po-
larimetric Data from the UK Test Sites," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 15, 1994,
pp. 2719-2736.
[28] Mardia, K. V, Statistics of Directional Data, New York: Academic Press, 1972.
[29] Fisher, N. L, Statistical Analysis of Circular Data, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1993.
[30] Oh, Y, K. Sarabandi, and F. T. Ulaby, "An Empirical Model and an Inversion Technique
for Radar Scattering from Bare Soil Surfaces," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 30,
1992, pp. 370-381.
[31] Dubois, P. C , J. J. van ZyI, and T. Engman, "Measuring Soil Moisture with Imaging
Radars," IEEE Trans. Geosci Remote Sensing, Vol. 33, 1995, pp. 915-926.
[32] Schreier, G., "Geometrical Properties of SAR Images," SAR Geocoding: Data and Systems,
G. Schreier (ed.), Karlsruhe: Wichmann, 1993, pp. 103-134.
[33] Shi, J., J. Dozier, and H. Rott, "Snow Mapping in Alpine Regions with Synthetic Aperture
Radar," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 32, 1994, pp. 152-158.
[34] Joughin, I. R., D. P. Winebrenner, and D. B. Percival, "Probability Density Functions for
Multilook Polarimetric Signatures," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 32, 1994,
pp. 562-574.
[35] Goodman, N. R., "Statistical Analysis Based on a Certain Multivariate Gaussian Distribu-
tion (an Introduction)," Ann. Math. Stat., Vol. 34, 1963, pp. 152-177.
[36] Tough, R. J. A., "Interferometric Detection of Sea Surface Features," DRA Memorandum
4446, 1991.
[37] Barber, B. C., "The Phase Statistics of a Multichannel Radar Interferometer," Waves in
Random Media, Vol. 3, 1993, pp. 257-266.
[38] Lee, J.-S., K. W. Hoppel, S. A. Mango, and A. R. Miller, "Intensity and Phase Statistics of
Multilook Polarimetric and Interferometric SAR Imagery," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sensing, Wichmann, Vol. 32, 1994, pp. 1017-1028.
[39] de Groot, M. H., Probability and Statistics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[40] Touzi, R., and A. Lopes, "Statistics of the Stokes Parameters and of the Complex Coherence
Parameters in One-Look and Multi-Look Speckle Fields," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sensing, Vol. 34, 1996, pp. 519-531.
[41] Giani, M., C. Prati, and F. Rocca, "Study on SAR Interferometry and Its Applications,"
ESRIN Contract No. 8928/90/F/BZ, 1992.
[42] Foster, M. R., and J. Guinzy, "The Coefficient of Coherence, Its Estimation and Use in
Geophysical Data Processing," Geophys., Vol. 32, 1967, pp. 602—616.
[43] Born, M., and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, New York: Pergamon Press, 1965.
[44] Quegan, S., and I. Rhodes, "Statistical Models for Polarimetric Data," Proc. IEE Seminar
on Texture Analysis in Radar and Sonar, IEE Digest No. 1993/207, London, 1993,
pp. 8/1-8/8.
[45] Oliver, C. J., "Optimum Texture Estimators for SAR Clutter," / Phys. D, Vol. 26, 1993,
pp.1824-1835.
[46] Sheen, D. R., and L. P. Johnston, "Statistical and Spatial Properties of Forest Clutter with
Polarimetric Synthetic Aperture Radar," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 30, 1992,
pp. 578-588.
[47] Rodriguez, E., and J. M. Martin, "Theory and Design of Interferometric Synthetic Aper-
ture Radars," IEE Proc.-F, Vol. 139, 1992, pp. 147-159.
[48] Zebker, H. A., and R. M. Goldstein, "Topographic Mapping from Interferometric Syn-
thetic Aperture Radar Observations,"/. Geophys. Res., Vol. 91, 1986, pp. 4993-4999.
[49] Kwok, R., and M. A. Fahnestock, "Ice Sheet Motion and Topography from Radar Inter-
ferometry," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 35, 1996, pp. 189-200.
[50] Wegmuller, U., and C. Werner, "Retrieval of Vegetation Parameters with SAR Inter-
ferometry," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 35, 1996, pp. 18-24.
[51] Massonnet, D., M. Rossi, C. Carmona, F. Adraga, G. Peltzer, K. Feigi, and T. Rabaute,
"The Displacement Field of the Landers Earthquake by SAR Interferometry," Nature, Vol.
364, 1993, pp. 138-142.
[52] Werner, C. L., P. Rosen, S. Hensley, E. Fielding, and E. Chapin, "Detection of Aseismic
Creep Along the San Andreas Fault Near Parkfield, California with ERS-I Radar Inter-
ferometry," Proc. Third ERS Scientific Symp., Florence, Italy, March 18-22, 1997.
[53] Gabriel, A. K., R. M. Goldstein, and H. A. Zebker, "Mapping Small Elevation Changes
over Large Areas: Differential Radar Interferometry," /. Geophys. Res., Vol. 94, 1989,
pp. 9183-9191.

A p p e n d i x 11A N u m b e r Fluctuations a n d t h e G e n e r a l i z e d
Product M o d e l

Assume that TV independent scatterers contribute to the observed Af-channel

signal, S. The complex reflectivity of the £th scatterer in channel j is rk-e1^ ,
and propagation between the scatterer and the sensor causes a phase change, cj)^,
assumed uniformly distributed on (0, 2TT) and independent of scatterer proper-
ties. The data vector S is then given by

( ax + Ib1 \ N(rkl e'% )

S= i = £ i e'+k (11A.1)
KaM + ibM) t=\rkM e^Mj

(see (11.5)) and has characteristic function

x(u) = (exp/(u.S R ))
N I f M M
= n ^ ' I " , % COs(^ + < ( , , - af)\) (11A.2)

where SR = {av bv . . . , aM, bM)1 is the real vector corresponding to S, u = (uv

. . . , U1MJ) and we have set u^p _ x = vp cos a^ and u^p — vp sin a^. The angle
brackets indicate averaging over the joint PDF of rkp, Qkp, and <$>k.
Expanding the cosine in terms of cos <$>k and sin <§>k allows us to write
(Section 9.1 of [26])

X(u) = n (ZoK)) (11A-3)

where J0 (.) is the zero-order Bessel function and

(M Y (M Y
RI = |J>, % ««K -«,)) [S o, % K - a,)J + sin
MM

= 1 1 Vf vw cos ( 0 ^ " e% - a , + a J (11A 4)

-
^=1^=1

If the scatterers are identically distributed, [J0(R k)j is independent of £ and

we can write

X(u) = ( / o ( * ) ) " (HA.5)

Now consider A^ as a random variable with PDF PN and mean value TV

and impose the condition that for large N the second-order moments of S are
rzr
finite, that is, N [rpr^j < °° as TV —> °° . Renormalizing the ^ by v ^ implies
that YpTqJ < °° as TV —> °° . With this renormalization the expected characteristic
function has the form

xW^fi/ofi! (HA.6)

The Bessel function can be expanded as a power series in the form

i+{ (IIA 7)
(M)= 4 -
where y = — > 7——— — = , so
As TV —> °°,(j/) -> - (R2)/4 since i?2 stays finite, and

The apparently complicated expression for [R2J given by averaging (11A.4)

has, in fact, a simple form. If the £th scatterer contributes a field vector (akv bkv
. . . , /2^, bkM)z with covariance matrix CR, then in the notation of (11A.2), but
dropping subscripts,

u<CRu = ( ( u . S R ) 2 )

M
cos 6
= £ (w/* ( ^ ~ ap+ (t))cos(0^ • a * + *))

where the last equality arises from averaging over the uniformly distributed
phase, (f). Hence,

2 1
(R ) = 2U CRU (11A.9)

and

A crucial result is that (11A.10) is equivalent to a representation of the

data, SR, as a product

SR = T G R (HA. 11)

in which Tis a positive real scalar (texture) variable, G R is a mean-zero Gaussian

variable with covariance matrix CR, and T'and G R are independent.
 To establish this, note that if (11A.11) is the case, then the characteristic
function of SR is given by

x(u) = (exp(/Tu.G R ))

= JJexp(/7u.GR) P[T)P(G^dT dGK

= ji{J^(^'GR)k P(GK)dGK (11A.12)

For Gaussian GR, the characteristic function is

XGR = expj-Iu^Qu} = £ i ^ i - P ( G R ) ^ G R (11A.13)

Expanding the exponential in (HA. 13) and equating terms yields

((u.G R ) 2 * + 1 ) = 0 (11A.14)

and

((u.GR)") = 1 A^,y
(2*)! k<\ 2 S

SO

x(u) = i^(r^)f^^Y (11A.16)

Comparing (1IA. 10) and (1IA. 16), it is immediately clear that any model
based on number fluctuations of scatterers where the mean number of scatterers
is large has an equivalent representation as a product model. The form of the
number fluctuations only affects the texture variable X which must be chosen
to have the moments

(T2k) = (Nk)/Nk (HA. 17)

Since (HA. 17) provides all of the moments of T2, this allows the PDF of T1
to be constructed; a change of variable will then yield the PDF of T.
Note that in the multichannel case, this model relies on all channels seeing
the same scatterers, so that the random walk in each channel has the same
number of steps. The model would therefore be valid if the scattering is accu-
rately described by a first-order Born approximation from a uniform layer of
scatterers. However, both multiple scattering and differing penetration depths
of different polarizations weaken the argument and its validity [12].
 1 2

Analysis Techniques for

Multidimensional SAR Images

12.1 Introduction

Multidimensionality arises in SAR data whenever the same scene is imaged in

several channels, which may be separated by differences in polarization, fre-
quency, time, aspect angle, or incidence angle. All of these can be exploited to
provide extra information. A fundamental distinction between multidimen-
sional data types is whether the channels are correlated at the pixel level or not.
When correlation is present, the correlation parameters provide possible extra
information about the scene. However, as we shall see, correlation can reduce
our ability to remove speckle by combining channels. Images gathered in
nonoverlapping frequency bands are expected to be uncorrelated. Multitempo-
ral images of many types of terrain are correlated over short time scales (and
hence can be exploited for interferometry) but decorrelate if the images are
gathered a long time apart. The decorrelation time is highly dependent on the
frequency and the terrain type (essentially because it depends on significant
changes in the relative positions of the scatterers contributing to the return at a
particular frequency). Interchannel correlation is an essential feature of po-
larimetric SAR but, as noted in Chapter 11, is nonzero only for the copolarized
channels when the target displays azimuthal symmetry.
In this chapter, we discuss a variety of ways to extract the information
present in multidimensional data. Here another important distinction is needed
between the statistical information available from a distributed target and the
 structural information that defines the shapes and boundaries that mark out
those distributed targets. In the first case our main concern is to estimate the
parameters describing the target accurately. In the second case, we wish to bring
out the structure as clearly as possible. Reflecting this distinction, Section 12.2
is primarily concerned with single-frequency polarimetric data and with filters
that locally estimate the parameters of the product model set out in Chapter 11.
The treatment is very close in spirit to that in Chapter 6, but with significant
differences due to the extra mathematical richness of the statistical model. In
particular, the concept of a speckle term that is stationary and noiselike only
appears meaningful in one dimension (see the discussion in Section 11.3.2).
Hence "removing the speckle," which formed the essential theme of Chapter 6,
has no obvious meaning here.
In Section 12.3 we describe methods to combine channels in order to
produce a single intensity image with reduced speckle compared with the
separate channels. Such speckle reduction is intended to improve our ability to
extract structural information from the data. For polarimetric data we consider
methods starting with scattering matrix, full Stokes scattering operator, or with
only intensity data. The latter methods are equally relevant to combining
uncorrelated channels, such as those gathered with different frequencies, differ-
ent geometries, or with time separations exceeding the decorrelation time of the
scene.
A specific problem that arises in multitemporal data is the detection of
areas of change. Changes can be in the internal parameters of distributed targets
or in scene structure. In Section 12.4, we deal with the first of these, which is
closely related to problems of edge detection (see Chapter 7) and the properties
of channel amplitude ratios discussed in Section 11.5.
Extraction of structural information and changes in structure are discussed
in Section 12.5. Figures 11.1 to 11.3 illustrate clearly that images of the same
scene can show marked differences in the features they display when polariza-
tion or frequency is changed. Equally obvious effects occur due to changes in
aspect angle [1], incidence angle [2], or time [3-7]. Hence, the recovery of true
scene structure may be aided by combining information from multiple chan-
nels. For example, some field boundaries are only obvious in a single channel of
the polarimetric data shown in Figures 11.1 to 11.3 even though they are
certainly present in the other images. Once a boundary is established, however,
it allows more sensitive parameter estimation and enables us to bring out subtle
differences between segments. Methods for carrying out segmentation using
multiple channels are developed in this section.
Although they are developed separately in this chapter, the different meth-
ods discussed are highly interrelated when it comes to applications. This is
illustrated via a case study concerned with discriminating forest from nonforest
in Brazilian Amazonia in Section 12.6. Here filtering and segmentation tech-
niques are compared in the context of a change detection problem using ERS-1
SAR data, in the process weaving together many of the strands encountered in
this and earlier chapters.

12.2 Polarimetric Reconstruction Filters

In the most general context, the purpose of a reconstruction filter is to recover

the "true" signal from data in which this signal has been corrupted by system
effects and/or noise. This requires a statistical model for the data that includes
some definition of what constitutes the true signal. In the context of polarimet-
ric data, our approach to this is through the product model developed in
Chapter 11, in which the observed data S from a distributed target can be
written as

S = TG (12.1)

with T a positive real scalar for which (T2) = 1 and G a zero-mean Gaussian
variable specified completely by its complex covariance matrix.
In one dimension, S and G are simply complex scalars and only intensity
data need be considered because phase carries no information about distributed
targets. In this case, the product model has an alternative form given by

/ = \S\2 = T2\G\2 = r 2 (|G| 2 ) X G2/(\G2\) = (Jn (12.2)

This form is useful because, for any distributed target, it decomposes the
data into an RCS term a, and a unit mean speckle term «, that is target-inde-
pendent. Hence, we can think of the data as a process cr affected by stationary
multiplicative noise, n. The RCS, a, is made up of a mean intensity term (since
(/) = (lGI2)) and a texture term T2. The local estimation of a formed the theme
of Chapters 6 and 7, while separation out of the texture was discussed in
Chapter 8.
It was shown in Section 11.3.2 that, in polarimetric data, there is no useful
way to make a similar separation into a stationary "noise" term and an "infor-
mation" term unless all the channels are uncorrelated. Instead, it is more fruitful
to consider estimation of the information-bearing quantities, of which a key
element is the covariance matrix characterizing G. The information carried by
the texture T is not defined a priori unless we assume some prior PDF for T.
Despite this change in perspective, we find that several of the filters developed
in Chapter 6 have polarimetric equivalents, as we now describe.

12.2.1 Multilook Reconstruction

When we assume that a collection of N polarimetric pixels is drawn from the
same Gaussian population (so that the texture variable is constant over the
collection), the MLE for the covariance matrix is the sample covariance matrix,
as discussed in Section 11.7 [8]. This is the multidimensional version of (6.8).
Because we are now dealing with multichannel data, a visual assessment of the
effects of this filter requires that all the information-bearing parameters be
displayed. However, Figure 6.2(a) illustrates what happens in the intensity
channels, with smoothing being gained at the expense of resolution. To illustrate
the effect of multilooking on the other elements in the covariance matrix, we
use L-band data from the DCRS airborne EMISAR system.
Figure 12.1 is the result of adding single-look H H and W intensity
images for an agricultural region in Jutland, Denmark. Figure 12.2(a) is the
corresponding H H - W phase difference image, while Figure 12.2(b) displays
the modulus of the two-look H H - W correlation coefficient (notice that the
modulus of the one-look coefficient is not useful because it is identically unity).
In Figure 12.2(c,d) the corresponding 16-look images are shown, with a striking
decrease in the noisiness of the parameters but loss of resolution. An exact
description of the effects of multilooking on the output distributions was given
in Section 11.7. Although the PDFs of both correlation phase (equivalent to
phase difference) and amplitude are known for Z-look data (see (11.49) and
(11.51)), only the correlation amplitude has an analytic expression for its
moments; this is given as (11.52). However, as expected, both distributions
become narrower as L increases; this is what causes the reduced noise evident in
Figure 12.2(c,d). To exemplify this, the observed phase difference distributions
of the single-look and 16-look data for a single rye field are shown as Figure
12.2(e,f). Note the conservation of the mode and the marked narrowing of the
distribution in the multilook data.

12.2.2 MMSE Reconstruction

We can derive the MMSE of covariance by treating T as a perturbing "noise"
variable to be smoothed out. This leads to a filter that is quite different from the
one-dimensional MMSE filter discussed in Section 6.4.2. It is not attempting
to reduce the speckle but to remove textural effects that will hinder the recovery
of the local covariance structure. Neither MMSE filter requires a specific statis-
tical model for the texture PDF.
Figure 12.1 EMISAR L-band image of an agricultural region in Jutland, Denmark, formed by
the summation of the HH and VV intensity images.

For calibrated fully polarimetric data, it is helpful to describe the informa-

tion carried by the covariance in terms of the real nine-vector [9]

z =
c (kl^KI^H >Re(^i4)ylrn(zlzl)iRe(S1*;),

Im(S 1 *;), Re(s 2 *;), Im(S 2 *;))' (12.3)

associated with any complex three-vector z = (S1, Z2, Z5)1. More generally, if there
are M channels, the corresponding vector requires M2 terms. (For M= 1, zc is
simply the channel power.) By the product model,

Sc = :PG C (12.4)

Although (12.4) is ostensibly in single-look form, Sc only involves Hermi-

tian products, and (12.4) is still valid for Z-look data as long as the texture
variable T2 does not vary between looks. The following treatment is then
applicable to Z-look data, with the elements of Sc derived from the Stokes
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
Frequency Frequency

(e) (f)
Figure 12.2 (a) The HH-VV phase difference image corresponding to Figure 12.1; (b) the
modulus of the two-look HH-VV correlation coefficient; (c,d) the 16-look images
corresponding to (a,b); (e,f) observed phase difference distributions from a field
of rye for single-look and 16-look data, respectively.
scattering operator rather than from the scattering matrix. This is more general
than the MMSE filter described in [9] using single-look data. The treatment in
[9] is also much complicated because it deals with uncalibrated data. However,
calibration can be carried out in an optimized way as a separate step [10]. It is
also simpler than the filter derived in [11], which is based on a concept of
speckle that, as argued in Section 11.3.2, does not seem appropriate for po-
larimetric data.
A linear estimate of Gc from the data S is given by

G c = A + BS c (12.5)

where A and B are matrices to be determined. For Gc to be unbiased requires

(GC) = (G C ) = ^ + 5(S C ) (12.6)

Hence,

G c = <GC) + B(SC - (S e » (12.7)

2
/\ Il
The MMSE filter chooses B to minimize \e), where e — Gc — Gc and
I • I is the Euclidean norm. Writing

e = (G' - BS^(G' - BS) (12.8)

where G' = G c — \GC/ and S' = Sc — \SC), and differentiating with respect to
the coefficients of B yields a minimum for \ej when

B = CGS C 5 ' ' (12.9)

Here Q is the autocovariance matrix of Sc and CGS is the crosscovariance

matrix of G c and Sc. Using (12.4),

Caiij) = ( C M ) = (Ti){G'(i)G'(j)) = CG(i,j) (12.10)

so the MMSE filter is

G C =(G C ) + C G Q>(S C -(S C )) (12.11)

We can express CG in terms of the observed covariance C5 using

cs(i,j) = (sc(i)sc(j))-(SM[SAJ))
= (T*){CG(i,j) + (Gc(i))(Gc(j))) ~ (GM(GAJ)) (12-12)

The MMSE filter therefore has the form

Gc = (G c ) + ^ y ( A - [<r4> - 1 I(Gc)(^)C 5 -I)(S, - (S c » (12.13)

where I9 is the 9 X 9 identity matrix. In this form, all the terms can be directly
estimated from the observed data. The mean vector \SC) = \GC) can be estimated
from a window surrounding the pixel of interest. In order to estimate (T"4), note
that

(^)SAJ)) _ ( r 0 (GAi)GAj))
[
(SM(SAJ)) '(GM(GAJ)) '
Since G is Gaussian, the normalized moment on the right-hand side of
(12.14) can be readily calculated using (11.2). It is most convenient to set i —
/ w i t h 1 < / < 3, whereupon it takes the value 1 + XIL for Z-look data. A
problem in using (12.14) was already encountered in Section 6.4.2: finite
sampling effects may cause the estimate of (T4) to be less than 1, despite the fact
that (T4) ^ 1 in the population. This can have nonphysical consequences, such
as leading to negative estimates of the powers in the channels. Since this
occurrence indicates an artifact of the sampling, (T4) should be constrained to
be the maximum of 1 and the value supplied by (12.14).
The one-dimensional version of the MMSE filter reduces to

| $ j = (/) + ( 7 ~ (1V (12.15)

LV1

where / is the measured intensity and V1 = var(/)/(/) 2 . Without estimation

error, in an untextured region V1 — 1/Z, so the original data value is returned.
However, with significant texture, V1 becomes large and the filter returns the
local average intensity (/). However, the above sampling problems are very
clear in this case, since if / < (/) (1 — LV1), the estimator will be negative.
 This cannot occur if V1 is not allowed to be less than 1/Z, which is equivalent
to forcing (T4) > 1.
Assessing the performance of this filter is not easy because it is trying to
reconstruct the whole covariance matrix. It can be seen from (12.13) that in an
untextured region (for which (T4) — 1) the MMSE output should be the original
data, up to estimation error. This has been confirmed [12]. Figure 12.3 shows the
effects of the filtering on the phase difference distribution for single-look L-band
AirSAR data from a forest region for different sizes of the window used to estimate
the local mean value of Gc and T4. The original distribution (solid line) is
progressively sharpened about the mode (which is almost unchanged) as the
window size increases; results are shown for 3 by 3 and 7 by 7 windows.

12.2.3 Gamma MAP Estimation

In the previous section we considered the problem of estimating the Gaussian
component in the product model. If instead we are interested in the texture
variable, we can perform an analysis similar to that in Section 6.5 and [13] if
Frequency

Phase difference HH-VV [rad]

Figure 12.3 Histograms of the HH-W phase difference for single-look L-band AirSAR data
from a forest region before and after MMSE filtering using window sizes of 3 by 3
and 7 by 7 pixels to estimate the population parameters (see plot for key).
the texture variable T2 is assumed to be gamma-distributed with mean 1. For
single-look Af-channel data with covariance matrix C, the actual covariance
matrix at a particular pixel is T2C. Given the observed data S, we can therefore
write, by Bayes theorem,

P(T\S)*P(S\T)P(T)

= - exp{-tr[(r2C;f 1SSt]) • Iv-^^e-^1 (12.16)

where f denotes complex conjugate and tr denotes trace. The log likelihood is
then given by

k = t r ( C ~ 1 S S t ) + (2v -2M- I)InT - v P (12.17)

where terms not involving Thave been omitted. Setting 8X/8 T= 0 leads to the
MAP solution for T as

vT4 +(M -v + \)T2 - H-(C-1SSt) = 0 (12.18)

This treatment can be cast into multilook form by noting that the expres-
sion for P{T\S) would be unchanged if one-look Stokes scattering operator data
were available, since P(TIS) = P(TISSt). For data in multilook Stokes form, we
instead have an Z-look average covariance matrix C at each point (SSf is the
one-look form of C). Then P(TlC) ex P (OT)P(T). As before, the actual
covariance matrix at the point is T2 C The multilook data C are known to obey
a complex Wishart distribution [8], given by

CL~Mexp(-Ltr(C-iC)/T2)
P(C T) = i i f- '- (12.19)
V
' K{L,M)T2ML\C\L

where K[L, M) = ifWM-vn T(L)- -T(L -M+ \)L~ML and P[C) refers to the
joint_PDF of Re(Cy) and Im(C1) for 1 < i, j < M. Forming K =
In(T^CI T)P(T)), assuming gamma-distributed T1 as before, and differentiating
with respect to 7"yields

vT4 + (ML - v + ^)T2 - LtT(C-1C) = 0 (12.20)

This is the multilook version of (12.18).

 If we had chosen to find the MAP solution for T1 instead of T, we would
arrive at the same equations but with 1 /2 replaced by 1 in the coefficient of T1.
For single-channel data, this yields a solution identical to (6.15) when we set
M=I; note that in (6.15) C=I, C~l = 1/JUL, and crMAP = JULT2.
Note that the explicit model for the PDF of texture used in Section 12.2.3
should be more powerful than the modelfree approach used in Section 12.2.2
as long as the model is correct. In fact, a model-based approach to estimating
the texture variable for use in MMSE filtering gave better results [12]. The
relation of this approach to texture estimation in polarimetric data and that
discussed in Section 11.9.2 has not yet been investigated.

12.3 Speckle Reduction by Polarimetric or

Multichannel Filtering

In Section 12.2 we considered the problem of filtering polarimetric data in order

to estimate the parametric information that characterizes the local statistical
distribution. Alternatively, multiple channels can be used to improve our ability
to recognize the structural information in the data by forming a single intensity
image in which the speckle fluctuations are reduced. The treatment here deals
with a general situation that can include multiple frequencies and multitem-
porality as well as polarimetric data. Hence, the data vector will be written as z
rather than S.

12.3.1 Using Covariance Matrix Data

The principle of multilooking was discussed in Section 4.4, where it was noted
that if M uncorrelated identically distributed looks or pixels are incoherently
averaged (i.e., averaged in intensity), then the normalized variance decreases by
a factor M. More generally, the complex data vector z = (zv . . . , Z1^- at each
pixel may have correlated channels, or channels drawn from different distribu-
tions (due to different polarizations or frequencies). Then a simple addition of
the intensities does not produce optimum speckle reduction. Instead, a linear
transformation

w = Pz (12.21)

that decorrelates (prewhitens) the channels should first be employed [14,15]. To

see this, we observe that the incoherent addition of the channels in the vector
w gives an intensity
 M
=w t w =z U z
J =X N = tr(Azt) (12.22)
Z=I

where ^4 = P^P is Hermitian. It is straightforward to show that

(J) = tr(AC) = Xt[CA) (12.23)

where C = (zzt) is the covariance matrix of z, since (z) = 0. Furthermore,

(/2)=I^4(WX) (12-24)
jklm

When z is Gaussian, (11.28) shows that

(*>**/*„) = ^ - C w + CMi Cu (12.25)

SO

(72)-trUC)2+(trUC))2 (12.26)

and

var(y) = tr(^C) 2 (12.27)

Note that any orthogonal transformation P gives the same mean and
variance as the original data z, since A is then just the identity matrix. Note also
that,foreach component of w, (l^-l4) — 2\\wp/. Hence, the intensity I wt\2 in
channel / always has normalized variance 2. This follows by setting P to be a
matrix containing a single nonzero row and is independent of texture.
The trace of a matrix is equal to the sum of the eigenvalues; and clearly, if
X is an eigenvalue of AQ then X2 is an eigenvalue of (AQ2. Hence,

</) = X \ - (12.28)

and

var(/) = J > ? (12-29)

i
where Xz are the eigenvalues of AC. Hence, the normalized variance of/ is given
by V7=XKj/[XX1)2.
A more general result is available when single-frequency polarimetric data
are used and texture is described by a product model. Then z can be written as
z = 7G with Ta real scalar and G Gaussian. In this case, the mean value o f /
given by (12.23) is unchanged, but

(P) = (T^u(AC)2 + [(T*) - l)(tr(^C))2 (12.30)

(Here, as in earlier sections, we assume (T2) = 1 and that T and G are

independent.) Hence, in this case the normalized variance is

= Mil = ,T4x 2>? . ITA\ _ i ( 12 .3i)

For both the Gaussian and product model, Vj is minimized when the ratio
XX?/(XA.,-) is minimum. Lagrange multiplier methods immediately show that
this occurs when all the X- are equal, so A = C~l (up to a scalar multiple). This
implies that the minimum value of normalized variance is given by

Vj(mm) = IT4\ + — ) \ - 1 (12.32)

for the textured case, which reduces to just HMm the Gaussian case. Experi-
mental verification of this result is reported in [12,14,16].
From (12.21), the covariance matrix of the transformed data w is given by

C w = (Pzzt P f ) = PCP^ (12.33)

If q is an eigenvector of CA with eigenvalue X, then

CJPq) = PCPR1 = PCAq = X(Pq) (12.34)

so that Cw has the same eigenvalues as CA and the eigenvalues of Q, are related
to those of CA by the transformation P. In the particular case of optimum
speckle reduction, CA is the identity matrix and so the eigenvalues are all unity.
Also, from (12.33)
 Cw = TM-1Pt = p(pt p) 1 Pt = IM (12.35)

where IM is the MXM identity matrix, so the individual components in w are

uncorrelated with unit variance. / is then formed by the incoherent addition of
M independent channels, each with the same variance. Hence, if we start from
correlated Gaussian data, Vy(min) = IlM, as already noted.
Although the matrix A is completely determined by the condition A =
C"1, this leaves considerable freedom in P. In fact, since A is Hermitian, it is
defined by M2 real numbers, whereas the matrix P satisfying P^P = A contains
2M2 real numbers. However, as shown in (12.22), only A is needed to form the
desired intensity image.
Notice that this filter relies on a local estimate of the covariance matrix (or,
more precisely, its inverse), which will suffer from the estimation errors dis-
cussed in Chapter 11. Notice also that, as defined, the mean value of the output
image, that is, the mean value of/, is M at all positions. The preservation of
image structure requires some other constraint to be applied, for example, that
the total average power (z+z) should be unchanged at each pixel. The averaging
could, for example, be performed over the same window as that used to estimate
C Figure 12.4(a) shows the output of the full polarimetric filter when applied
to the scene shown as Figure 12.1. In this case, we display the quantity (C11 +
C33)^(C-1ZZt), that is, the quantity / defined in (12.22) multiplied by the sum
of the copolarized powers. All the terms in C are estimated from a 3 by 3
window surrounding the current pixel of interest.
The need to estimate Clocally impacts on the resolution achievable by the
filter. In the ideal case, the resolution of the output is the same as that of each
channel. In practice, energy spreads out in the filtered image. This is illustrated
in Figure 12.5, which shows the original EMISAR intensity data along a range
profile containing a trihedral corner reflector and the corresponding profile after
filtering using full polarimetric data (for filtering using intensity data only, see
next section). The data points are joined by interpolated curves (hence the
negative values shown are artifacts), and the different amplitudes of the trihedral
response are a result of the local weighting. (No attempt has been made to
correct for this since it improves the clarity of the figure.) As can be seen, the
filtering causes some widening of the trihedral response, due to the 3 by 3
window used to estimate the filter coefficients. Optimal filtering requires better
estimates of the local covariance, implying larger windows (see [16] for a
discussion of the best window size), with obvious impacts on the final resolution
in the filtered image.
Finally, we observe from (12.22) that the filter does not need the scattering
matrix data, only the terms in zzt, which can be obtained from the Stokes
 (a)

(b)
Figure 12.4 (a) The output from full polarimetric filtering of the scene shown in Figure 12.1 and
(b) the corresponding output using intensity data only.

scattering operator. A similar analysis is therefore possible using Gaussian or

textured multilook data as long as the texture variable is assumed constant over
the averaged looks. In (12.31) this simply causes the first term on the right-hand
side to be multiplied by a factor 1/Z, so A = C~l as before. The optimum
speckle-reducing filter therefore takes the form

/ = trfc^c) (12.36)

where C is the multilook average covariance matrix extracted from the Stokes
scattering operator data. As shown in the discussion in the next section, practical
implementation of this filter produces speckle reduction consistent with theory.
The impact of the polarimetric whitening filter on target detection is discussed
Intensity

Pixel
Figure 12.5 Profile of intensity in the range direction through a trihedral corner reflector in an
original HH EMISAR image and after filtering using full polarimetric data or only
intensity data.

in [17] in which it was found that the local estimate of the covariance matrix
required by (12.36) had little effect on target detection and that a fixed value of
C could be used. However, in the dataset used, the correlation coefficients
showed little variation with cover type. More general investigation of this issue
is needed.

12.3.2 Using Intensity Data Only

The speckle-reducing filter described in Section 12.3.1 uses all the local Hermi-
tian products z-z* in order to minimize speckle fluctuations. If only the inten-
sities in each channel are used, the problem becomes one of finding the linear
combination / = jT At\zt\ that minimizes the normalized variance. This can
be treated as in Section 12.3.1, but for A a diagonal matrix whose diagonal terms
are given by the vector A1 = (A1, . . ., A^). The single-look case can be absorbed
into that for L looks, where we have an average covariance matrix C whose
one-look form is zz*. Again using Lagrange multiplier methods (but in this case
directly, without involving eigenvalues) we find the normalized variance is
minimized in the Gaussian case when

A oc Cy1U (12.37)

where CTt = ( C 1 1 , . . . , CMM) and C1 is the covariance matrix of one-look intensity

CAi'J) = (1Jj) - Ci)(Ij) = \C{i,jf (12.38)

This last equality is the Siegert relationship (see (4.34) and (11.27)). The
constant of proportionality in (12.37) is arbitrary and can be chosen locally.
For Z-look textured data obeying the product model, the minimizing
vector is again given by (12.37) and the value of the minimum normalized
variance is

7
L (A'tr) 2 x
'

= (7M)(l + - 1-1 (12.39)

The minimum value in the Gaussian case is given by setting (T4) = 1.

Unlike the full polarimetric filter described in Section 12.3.1, when the
constant of proportionality in (12.37) is independent of position, the output of
the filter has a varying mean value dependent on the local correlation coeffi-
cients (but is independent of the individual channel powers). However, unless
there are strong variations in the interchannel correlation coefficients, features
will be lost in the filtered image; so it is again necessary to weight the filter
output by some local property, such as the mean total power. Figure 12.4(b)
shows the effect of filtering using only intensity data on the same scene as Figure
12.4(a), again using a weighting by the sum of the local copolarized powers.
Although not visually very different from Figure 12.4(a), we record in Table 12.1
the values of normalized variance obtained in the two filtered images for a
number of fields. Values for the full polarimetric filter lie around 1/3, as
expected (see the discussion following (12.35)). For the intensity-only filter,
values are higher (since the filtering is not optimal) and show slightly more
variation, since the minimum value depends on the local value of the interchan-
nel correlation coefficients. The effects of this filter on resolution are indicated
 Table 12.1
Normalized Variance for a Selection of Fields in the Scene of Figure 12.1 After Full
Polarimetric and Intensity-Only Filtering

Field Number Polarimetric Filtering Intensity-Only Filtering

77 0.2932 0.4041
19 0.3383 0.4958
63 0.3187 0.4667
48 0.3314 0.4720
65 0.3116 0.4601
61 0.3689 0.4717

in Figure 12.5. Some resolution is lost, but this appears less marked than for the
full polarimetric filter.
While this treatment was concerned with finding the filter giving mini-
mum normalized variance, it is instructive to consider arbitrary weighted sums
of intensities in the special case where the like and crosspolarized channels are
uncorrelated. Setting (lS-12) = a- for 1 < i < 3 and (S1S3*) — ^a1Cr3 p, the
normalized variance of a weighted sum of intensities for untextured data is then
given by

where A1 is set to 1, 7 = Cr3Za1, and e = (J2I(Jx. Figure 12.6 indicates regions in

the (A2, A3) plane where Vj < L~l (so speckle is reduced) or Vj > L~l (so speckle
is enhanced). The boundary between the two regions occurs when

e A
A 3 = - , , |2, (12.41)
y(eA2 + 1 - |p|2)

and is indicated in Figure 12.6 by the solid curves, separating two regions in
which Vj is reduced and a single region in which Vj is enhanced. Also marked
on the figure is the line along which Vj takes infinite values. The global
minimum has the value
 v
**»-2xJ7tf (nA2)

which is achieved when A is any multiple of the vector (1/(T1, (1 + Ipl2)/a2,

l/a 3 ) r . Under these circumstances, these are precisely the values given by (12.37)
and (12.39). When we set A1 = 1, the minimum therefore occurs at A2 = (1 +
Ipl2)e~!, A3 = 7 " 1 as noted on Figure 12.6.
From (12.42) it is clear that when only intensity data are used, the possible
degree of speckle reduction depends on the local correlation structure. Only in
the case where the channels are all uncorrelated can the value of Vj be reduced
to 1/(3Z), which is the value achievable in all cases when full polarimetric data
are used. From Figure 12.6, we can see that the global minimum lies in the first
quadrant but that any pair of positive values (A2, A3) gives speckle reduction.
Hence, a good estimate of the local correlation structure is needed if the global
minimum is to be achieved, but some degree of speckle reduction will still be
obtained even if there are errors in this estimate. Also clear is that filtering
schemes that allow negative coefficients (such as can arise, for example, in
principal components analysis) run the risk of creating very noisy images or
image sections.

12.3.3 Principal Components Analysis in Multichannel SAR Data

When correlated multichannel data are available, a standard procedure to com-
press the information and eliminate redundancy between channels is to apply
an orthogonal transformation (equivalent to a set of linear filters), which decor-
relates the data. This is effected by the principal components transformation
(PCT), which projects the data onto the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix.
The variance of the /th component of the transformed data is Kiy where X, is the
associated eigenvalue. Hence, by ordering the eigenvalues in decreasing value,
the components of the transformed data successively exhibit less variance.
Typically, for optical data the images generated by the first few principal com-
ponent images tend to carry most of the information, whereas the later principal
components become noisy. (This reflects the fact that the signal-to-noise ratio
decreases as X- decreases.)
This method can be applied to multifrequency polarimetric data, but with
significant limitations. Since images produced at different frequencies are statis-
tically uncorrelated, the only scope for information compression is within the
polarimetric channels at each frequency. When the like and crosspolarized
channels are uncorrelated, the PCT will in fact operate only on the two copo-
 speckle reduction
speckle
enhancement
global minimum

speckle reduction

speckle
enhancement

Figure 12.6 Plot of regions in the (A2, A3) plane where linear filtering of polarimetric intensity
data with uncorrelated like and crosspolarized components gives rise to speckle
reduction or enhancement. Boundaries between these regions (where Vj — L~])
are marked as solid curves. The axes are normalized in terms of eA2 and yA3, and
the global minimum of normalized variance is marked in the first quadrant.

larized channels. In SAR data, the variance is proportional to the mean intensity,
so ordering principal components by variance causes the frequencies that carry
most power to have the larger eigenvalues and thus apparently carry more
information. Finally, the noise concepts applicable to optical data (with additive
noise) do not apply in any simple way to SAR data. A thorough analysis of the
PCT is given in the context of scattering matrix data in [18], where it is shown
that for azimuthally symmetric targets or scenes the PCT effectively attempts to
remove the phase difference between the two copolarized channels, so this
information is lost in the displayed image of each principal component. The
phase information is embedded in the eigenvectors. It is not clear, therefore, that
the PCT performs a useful function in terms of bringing out information.
Similar reservations about its value are raised in [19] when it is applied simply
to the channel powers. In particular, the great sensitivity to channel scaling is
demonstrated (see also [20]).
Despite these negative impressions of the utility of the PCT for SAR data,
it should be noted that it forms a central concept in [21], where the eigenvectors
of the covariance matrix are interpreted as representing different scattering
mechanisms with the eigenvalues corresponding to probabilities. A type of
nonorthogonal transform referred to as a generalized form of the PCT is also
developed in [22], based on the concept of speckle in polarimetric data as a
nonstationary noise. It appears to give degenerate results in the context of the
product model, and there has been no in-depth assessment of its value for image
analysis purposes.

12.4 Measuring and Detecting Differences Between

Two Images

When dealing with pairs of images of the same scene, produced at different
times or by different frequencies or polarizations, it is often necessary to describe
differences between the images. Such differences can be in the structure appar-
ent in the different images (see Figures 11.1 to 11.3) or in the parameters
describing a distributed target present in both images. Particular importance
attaches to images gathered at different times, so differences correspond to
change. In this section (and Section 12.5) we will develop the tools needed to
carry out this task, but defer examples of their use to Section 12.6.

12.4.1 Pixel-Based Change Detection

Here, we will consider the problem of measuring and detecting change at the
pixel level between two multilook intensity images and, in particular, its depend-
ence on the number of looks. It will be assumed that the images are registered,
calibrated, and have the same geometry (as would be the case for repeat-pass
satellite images).
A possible approach, and that normally adopted for optical data, is pixel-
wise subtraction of images. Whatever the data type, if the observed value at a
given position in the two images is Z1 and I2, respectively, then the difference d

— I1 — I2 has mean value and variance given by

(d) = (Z1) - (Z2) (12.43)

and
var(y) = VOr(Z1) + var(Z2) - 2^JV^i(I1) W2i(l2) P1 (12.44)

where p 7 is the correlation coefficient of the intensity images at that point. For
uncorrelated image pairs, the variance is simply the sum of the variances of each
image pixel. As an example, for optical data with uncorrelated identically
distributed additive noise in the two images, the difference image would have a
mean giving the true difference but with double the noise variance of a single
image. For uncorrelated Z-look SAR intensity images, detailed descriptions of
the distribution and first two moments of d are given in [23,24]. For our
purposes it is sufficient to observe that if the true values of the RCS at a point
in the images are (T1 and (J2, respectively, then d is an unbiased estimator of (J1
— (J2 but

var (^) = ^LZ_^I (12.45)

(using (4.10)). This means that simple thresholding of the difference image will
yield bigger errors for a given change in a bright area than a darker area. This is
a familiar problem, encountered in various guises when dealing with speckled
data.
To counter this problem, an alternative approach is to consider the ratio
image, Q = I2II1 (which is equivalent to the difference of the log of the
images). The ratio image has the advantages of being unaffected by multipli-
cative calibration errors (as long as they are the same for both images) and by
slope-induced effects on the backscattering coefficient (such effects are multi-
plicative and identical for images with the same imaging geometry [25]).
For image regions in which there is an underlying complex correlation
with value p between the two times, the distribution of Q is given by (11.54).
When the channels are uncorrelated this takes the simple form

^' T'(I.)(y+Qfl
where 7 = (J2I(Ji is the true change in RCS. This result also follows directly
from (7.6). For a given L and 7, the probability that the ratio exceeds a threshold
T is therefore the detection probability

Pd(T,L) = p{Q_>T} = £p(Q)dQ_

P(Z)^f 0 I * j 2 Z - * - l [ 7J
A convenient reduction formula for computation is

/> ( 7 \ Z + l) = />d(7\ Z) + X(R, L) (12.48a)

where 7? = T/y, Pd(T, 1) = (1 + ^ ) " 1 , and

_ pZ - i\ **(l - Jg)

= - (2Z - l) ^ - r X(T?, Z - I ) (12.48b)

Z (l + /?)

with X(^, 1) = 72(1 - /0/(1 + Ry.

From (12.48) it can be seen that if a region in which the true change is 7
is thresholded with T — 7, so that R=I, then the detection probability is Vi,
whatever the number of looks. Since useful detection probabilities would nor-
mally exceed 50%, the threshold required is less than the change to be detected,
so R < 1. Then Pd increases as L increases.
As in other detection problems, a second important quantity is the false
alarm probability Pfa, which is the probability of exceeding the threshold if no
change has occurred. This can be calculated from (12.47) by setting 7 = 1 or
from (12.48) by setting R=T.
Given 7, T, and L, (12.47) tells us how to calculate Pd and Pfa. In practical
applications, it is often more important to know how to select 7"and L in order
to generate a defined value of Pd and Pfa for a given 7. In order to do this, note
that, if 7 is fixed, (12.47) defines for each L a threshold level T1 needed to meet
a given detection probability. This then fixes Pfa for each L, and L can be chosen
so that Pfa does not exceed some specified value. This procedure is most easily
carried out using graphical methods. As an illustration, plots of T1 and P^
against L for detection of a 3-dB change (7= 2) with probabilities of detection
Pd = 0.9, 0.95, and 0.99 are shown as Figure 12.7(a-c), respectively. We can
see, for example, that for Pd = 0.95, a 1% false alarm rate requires the data to
be pre-averaged in order to give an equivalent number of looks L ~ 67 and a
threshold to be set at T~ 1.5 (1.76 dB). Note that this approach is the converse
to that normally adopted in detection theory where the probability of false alarm
is selected first. This then determines the threshold level and the ensuing
probability of detection (see, for example, Sections 10.3 and 10.4).

12.4.2 Area-Based Difference Measures

When an image is segmented (manually or automatically) so that segments
represent homogeneous statistical populations, area-based rather than pixel-
based measures of difference or change can be adopted. This involves compari-
sons of averages from regions normally containing different numbers of
independent pixels. The same region in two different images can also involve
different numbers of pixels if the imaging geometry has changed. In both these
circumstances we would expect the regions being compared to be statistically
uncorrelated.
As discussed in the previous section, measures based on differences will
give false alarm probabilities that are dependent on the local intensity, so that it
is more useful to consider ratios. Given two independent speckle populations of
size L1 and L2 pixels, characterized by mean intensities (T1 and (J2 with ratio 7
= (J2I(Jx, the MLE of 7 is given by

7
ft ^
y = ^^r— ( 12 - 4 9)
A /=1

where k and / are pixel labels. This estimate has a PDF (a generalized form of
(12.46)) given by (7.6) with the replacements r ^ 7 , 7? -> 7, k-^ L2, and M
—> L1 + L2, with moments

W 4 =(^*) = J T[L1)T[L2) [L1 ) ( 1 1 5 o)

00 Z1 <k
 TL ^a

L
(a)

TL Pfa

(b)

T L ^ a

L
(C)

Figure 12.7 Plots of t h e threshold value, TL, needed for detection of a 3-dB change as a

f u n c t i o n of L a n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g f a l s e a l a r m probability, Pfa, at t h r e e levels of

d e t e c t i o n p r o b a b i l i t y : ( a ) P6 = 0 . 9 , ( b ) P6 = 0 . 9 5 , a n d ( c ) P6 = 0.99.
 If L1 is small, 7 is significantly biased, since

l
( 7 ) = ml= 7 if A > (12-51)
l
A~
An unbiased estimate is therefore given by 7 c = L[1L1(L1 — 1)7; this estimate
has variance

2
var(7c) = ^ * / " V if A > 2 (12.52)
L2[L1 2)

Given an observed value of 7 c , an exact confidence interval for 7 can be

calculated making use of the exceedance probability

PE(T) = R > T}
= r(A + L2) ^n2 - n (-i)^-*-1
k
T(L1)T(L2) £X JL1 +L.-k-i

X l + J^ r- (12.53)

Hence, the probabilities that 7 is at least a factor 8U greater than 7 c and S1 less
than 7 c are given by

pb > 8U^d = pbc < y/K} = 1 - ^(y/K) (12.54a)

and

^ 7 < 8,7c} = p{yc > 7 / 8 , } = ^ ( 7 / S 1 ) (12.54b)

Both of these are independent of 7, so that for chosen confidence values, 8U and
S1 can be determined.
Less accurate but more convenient estimates of the confidence interval for
7 can be made for large values of L1 and L2 by assuming that 7 c is normally
distributed. Then

p{y > 8ui} - 0.5 - Ff(l - Kl)j^~*\) (12-55)

Next Page

where F(^) = ,— e t2l2 dt . The lower confidence value is found using a simi-

lar expression, but with (l — S~l) replaced by (8p* — l) in the argument of F(-).
These expressions can also be used to estimate the number of independent
looks required to measure a ratio to a specified level of precision. For example,
taking Lx-L1- L> estimating 7 to within 3 dB with 95% confidence involves
setting 8U = 2, S1 = 0.5, and both probabilities to 0.05. The argument of F in
both cases will then be 1.645, yielding L ^ 23 to put an upper limit on 7 or L
> 7 for the lower limit. If the precision is increased to 1 dB, the required
numbers of independent looks increase to 129 and 82, respectively.
The number of independent pixels required based on the Gaussian ap-
proximation is in fact bigger than is indicated by an exact calculation based
on (12.53). This is illustrated by Figure 12.8, which shows the exact and
approximate probabilities that 7 exceeds 8U7C, based on (12.54a) and (12.55).
In both cases, 7 = 2. Figure 12.8(a) shows the two probabilities as a function
of Z for 8U = 1.259 (1 dB), while Figure 12.8(b) gives the same information
for 8U = 1.995 (3 dB). From Figure 12.8(b) it can be seen that, in fact, only
11 looks are needed for a 3-dB 95% upper confidence limit, not the 23
inferred from the Gaussian approximation. Similarly, Figure 12.8(a) shows
that 102 looks are required for a 1-dB confidence limit, not 129.
Note that these methods allow a quantitative answer to the question of
whether two regions are different: if 1 is not within the confidence interval for
7, then they are statistically different. Equivalently, this question can be ad-
dressed using the normalized ratio

rT - m i n f i ^ 1 ] (12.56)

which deals only with the size of a change, not whether it is an increase or
decrease (see Section 7.3.3 and [23,26]).

12.5 Multichannel Segmentation

The estimates of the intensity ratio discussed in Section 12.4.2 relied on a prior
segmentation in order to define homogeneous areas in two images (or different
areas in the same image). That segmentation can be based on:
• Visual inspection;
• Transfer of a known segmentation from elsewhere (e.g., using a regis-
tered field map);
• Using the data themselves to learn the segmentation.
Previous Page

where F(^) = ,— e t2l2 dt . The lower confidence value is found using a simi-

lar expression, but with (l — S~l) replaced by (8p* — l) in the argument of F(-).
These expressions can also be used to estimate the number of independent
looks required to measure a ratio to a specified level of precision. For example,
taking Lx-L1- L> estimating 7 to within 3 dB with 95% confidence involves
setting 8U = 2, S1 = 0.5, and both probabilities to 0.05. The argument of F in
both cases will then be 1.645, yielding L ^ 23 to put an upper limit on 7 or L
> 7 for the lower limit. If the precision is increased to 1 dB, the required
numbers of independent looks increase to 129 and 82, respectively.
The number of independent pixels required based on the Gaussian ap-
proximation is in fact bigger than is indicated by an exact calculation based
on (12.53). This is illustrated by Figure 12.8, which shows the exact and
approximate probabilities that 7 exceeds 8U7C, based on (12.54a) and (12.55).
In both cases, 7 = 2. Figure 12.8(a) shows the two probabilities as a function
of Z for 8U = 1.259 (1 dB), while Figure 12.8(b) gives the same information
for 8U = 1.995 (3 dB). From Figure 12.8(b) it can be seen that, in fact, only
11 looks are needed for a 3-dB 95% upper confidence limit, not the 23
inferred from the Gaussian approximation. Similarly, Figure 12.8(a) shows
that 102 looks are required for a 1-dB confidence limit, not 129.
Note that these methods allow a quantitative answer to the question of
whether two regions are different: if 1 is not within the confidence interval for
7, then they are statistically different. Equivalently, this question can be ad-
dressed using the normalized ratio

rT - m i n f i ^ 1 ] (12.56)

which deals only with the size of a change, not whether it is an increase or
decrease (see Section 7.3.3 and [23,26]).

12.5 Multichannel Segmentation

The estimates of the intensity ratio discussed in Section 12.4.2 relied on a prior
segmentation in order to define homogeneous areas in two images (or different
areas in the same image). That segmentation can be based on:
• Visual inspection;
• Transfer of a known segmentation from elsewhere (e.g., using a regis-
tered field map);
• Using the data themselves to learn the segmentation.
 Note that, in general, all three approaches will produce different answers
and problems. A visual inspection can input much greater world knowledge into
the process, to the extent of ignoring data that conflict with what is expected.
It, however, performs differently in bright and dark areas, despite similar statis-
tical conditions. Transferring a segmentation carries a number of problems: map
data can often be erroneous; different structures on a map may produce similar
responses in the image; and registration and matching of geometries are essen-
tial. Using the data to learn the image structure relies on an image model, which
probability

(a)
probability

number of looks
(b)
Figure 12.8 Approximate and exact probabilities that the true intensity ratio exceeds the
observed unbiased ratio by a factor 8U, as a function of the number of looks (a) 8U
= 1dBand(b)8u = 3dB.
 must be complete enough and realistic enough to produce meaningful segmen-
tations that conform with known properties of typical scenes. Resistance to
speckle is an important concern in such methods.
Methods for learning image structure were discussed in Chapter 7 for
single-channel data. However, a glance at Figures 11.1 to 11.3 makes clear that
increased information on scene structure is provided by combining images
acquired with different frequencies, polarizations, or at different times. In this
section we discuss how the methods developed in Chapter 7 can be extended to
multidimensional data.
When multiple channels are available, an immediate concern is the defi-
nition of what is meant by a segmentation and the parameters on which it is to
be based. In the context of single-frequency polarimetric data, the simplest data
model is that segments are statistically homogeneous and completely charac-
terized by a covariance matrix. This is the polarimetric version of the cartoon
model developed in Section 7.3. Two segments are distinct if any of the nine
parameters (three channel powers and three amplitudes and phases of the
correlation coefficients) differs significantly between them. Hence, in principle,
segmentation of polarimetric data should be based on estimates of all nine
parameters. In practice, the sampling properties of the correlation coefficient
terms render them less useful than the channel powers when making decisions
about edges and merging of regions. For example, there are no easily applicable
rigorous tests for when the phases or amplitudes of the correlation coefficients
of two regions are significantly different. We, therefore, consider only algo-
rithms based on the powers in the three channels. MuItitemporal and polarimet-
ric segmentation can, therefore, be treated similarly.

12.5.1 Multidimensional RGW Segmentation

Given a multichannel image, the simplest way to segment it is apparently to
segment each channel separately and combine the results. Unfortunately, the
different speckle patterns in the different channels tend to cause random "jitter"
in edge location, so features present in all channels give rise to thickened edge
features. To illustrate this, Figure 12.9(a,c,e) shows the L-band HH, HV, and
W intensity channels of an agricultural region imaged by the NASA/JPL
AirSAR system; while Figure 12.9(b,d,f) shows the individual segmentations
using the RGW algorithm [27,28] described in Section 7.3.1. Figure 12.9(g)
shows the effects of overlaying the segmentations of each separate channel.
(Segments are shown filled with their mean H H intensity.) The thickening and
fragmentation of edges is obvious. Better performance would be expected if the
optimum edge-detection strategy set out in Section 7.3.3 was adopted, but it is
unlikely that this would remove the problem entirely.
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)
Figure 12.9 (a) L-band HH intensity image acquired by the NASA/JPL AirSAR system;
(b) single-channel segmentation using the RGW algorithm; (c,d) same as for (a,b)
but for the HV channel; (e/f) same as for (a,b) but for the VV channel; (g) segmen-
tation formed by retaining any edge found in (b), (d), or (f); and (h) multidimen-
sional segmentation using modified RGW.
 The alternative is to treat the multichannel image as a single entity and
make decisions on the existence and position of an edge using information from
all channels simultaneously. In order to do this, both the edge-detection and
region-growing components of RGW have been modified [29,30]. As described
in Section 7.3.1, for edge detection RGW uses a threshold applied to the
normalized gradient calculated from the two halves of a series of windows of
various sizes. In the multichannel case, the threshold is instead applied to the
rms value of the normalized gradient in all channels. This produces a single edge
map that can be used to control segment growing. Similarly, merging disks uses
an rms measure of the difference between the mean values of disks in each
channel. The average contrast in each channel is calculated after each iteration,
and the algorithm stops when there is an increase in the rms average contrast.
Figure 12.9(h) shows the result of applying this process (again indicating the
mean H H intensity in each segment). Note the clear visual improvement in edge
structure as compared with Figure 12.9(g). Notice also possible loss of informa-
tion; for example, an edge detected only in the HV image in the top right of the
image is lost in the multidimensional segmentation.
The edge map generated by this procedure can be used to test whether a
given segment boundary occurs in all or only some of the channels. For each
channel, the probability that the test edge is due purely to speckle can be calcu-
lated. Those edges for which this probability exceeds a given threshold are thus
ascribed to speckle and considered not to be present in that channel. The result of
applying this operation to each of the intensity images in Figure 12.9(a,c,e) is
shown as Figure 12.10(a—c). Clearly this provides a means of interrogating the
data to establish the contribution to overall structure provided by each channel.
This is most easily illustrated using color overlays (so that edges present in
different combinations of channels can be identified). However, in Figure 12.10
we instead show (a) the edges present in H H alone; (b) the edges in both H H and
W (shown in black), in H H but not W (dark gray), and in W but not H H
(light gray); (c) the edges present in H H , W , and HV (black), in H H or W but
not HV (dark gray), and in HV but not in either H H or W (light gray). We can
see that much of the structure is common to all channels but that there are
significant differences and each channel adds information about the overall field
structure. In addition, use of multichannel segmentation to improve the estimates
of polarimetric or texture parameters is discussed in Section 11.9.3 and [29,30].

12.5.2 Multidimensional Annealed Segmentation

Although the combination of channels by RGW as described appears to produce
reasonable results, the way in which the information is combined between
channels is not ideal. An obvious objection is that the use of an rms criterion to
locate edges means that an edge detection that is significant in only one channel
 (a)

(b)

to
Figure 12.10 (a) Edges in the multidimensional segmentation shown in Figure 12.9(h) that are
present in the HH channel, (b) Edges present in both the HH and VV channels
(black), HH but not VV (dark gray), and VV but not HH (light gray), (c) Edges
present in HH, VV, and HV (black); HH or VV but not HV (dark gray), and HV but
not HH or VV (light gray).
 may not be strong enough to put the rms measure above threshold. However,
this is by design, otherwise problems of edge jitter would not be eased by
combining channels. The price paid for an image that is easier to interpret is
therefore a potential loss of information that is carried in only one or a small
number of the available channels. A more rigorous approach when the images
are uncorrelated is to extend the annealed segmentation algorithm described in
Section 7.3.5. This is possible because, if the boundaries in the different images
of the scene are expected to lie in the same position, the log likelihoods for each
image for given boundaries can be summed to form the total log likelihood. The
optimization can then proceed as for single-channel data. However, as yet there
is no rigorous criterion for the false alarm probability, so a postprocessing merge
stage to yield a defined P^ is not possible.
The three ERS-I PRI images in Figure 12.11 (a—c) were gathered on April
16, June 9, and August 18, 1992, respectively, from the Feltwell area, UK. The
same display conditions are adopted for each, revealing the markedly different
multitemporal behavior of the backscattering coefficient in different fields during
the year. Crop development and soil moisture changes give rise to images that
have very different structures (see Section 13.2 for a further discussion of this
point). Field definition appears better in the two earlier images due to significant
changes in crop state over the growing period. The August image exhibits gener-
ally low contrast, probably reflecting the fact that many of the fields have already
been harvested by this date so that the image is dominated by soil effects.
Each individual image was first segmented using annealed segmentation
with an average region size chosen to be 50 pixels, corresponding to 1,310
segments [31]. The average intensities within each segment for the three indi-
vidual images are shown in Figure 12.1 l(d—f). Figure 12.11 (d,e) yields reason-
able evidence of field boundaries, whereas the segments in (f) are more
fragmented. The corresponding edge maps are shown in Figure 12.11(g-i).
They seem to have little detailed structure in common except for the drainage
channel on the left of the image, parts of which are visible in the different scenes.
In contrast, the edge map from multidimensional annealed segmentation shown
as Figure 12.11 (j) appears distinctly superior to any of the individual cases
shown as (g-i). The structure of the fields and the river appears much cleaner,
more complete, and better defined in this composite result.
The average intensities within the multidimensional segments for each of
the original images are shown in Figure 12.12(a-c). If Figure 12.12(a) is com-
pared with (b), the very different behavior of the backscattering coefficient of
different fields is dramatically evident. Moreover, we can use the inferred struc-
ture to examine the more subtle differences present in the August image of
Figure 12.12(c). The statistical significance of these spatial and temporal
changes can then be assessed using the analysis developed in Section 12.4. The
 (a) (d)

(b) (e)

(C)
(f)

Figure 12.11 (a-c) ERS-1 PRI images of an agricultural area near FeItWeII7 UK, gathered on (a)
April 16, (b) June 9, and (c) August 18, 1992 (Copyright ESA). (d-f) The corre-
sponding one-dimensional annealed segmentations; (g-i) the associated edge
maps; and (j) the edge map resulting from multidimensional annealed segmen-
tation. (British Crown Copyright, 1997/DERA.)
 (i)
(9)

(h) (J)
Figure 12.11 (continued).

importance of such tools for monitoring large agricultural areas is made much
clearer in Section 13.2, where we discuss some of the empirical background
relevant to analyzing the multitemporal behavior of a° for crops.
Before closing this section, it should be remarked that in addition to the
currently inadequate treatment of false alarm probabilities noted previously, another
shortcoming is that multidimensional annealed segmentation provides a rigorous
approach only when the channels are independent. Further development is needed
to provide optimal methods when channels are correlated, as in polarimetric data.

12.6 Comparison of Algorithms—A Case Study

Quantitative methods for assessing algorithm performance based on internal

properties of the imagery have been discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. In this
 (a) (b)

(C)
Figure 12.12 Mean intensities within the segments indicated by Figure 12.11(j) for the individ-
ual images shown as Figure 12.11(a—c). (British Crown Copyright, 1997/DERA.)

section we instead start from an application and use it to evaluate several of

the tools described in this and earlier chapters. This evaluation is based on
an excellent dataset gathered over the Tapajos National Forest in Brazilian
Amazonia including airborne SAR, ERS-I, JERS-I, Radarsat, and TM data
[32,33] (for examples of airborne SAR and Radarsat data from this region
see Chapters 8 and 13, respectively). For the purposes of this section, our
main interest will be in a multitemporal ERS-I dataset gathered in 1992.
The three acquisitions (May 22, July 31, and December 18) are all from the
3 5-day repeat cycle and, hence, provide images with almost identical viewing
geometries. We also make use of a cloudfree Landsat TM image of the test
site acquired on July 29, 1992.
 The particular problem discussed here is an assessment of the extent to
which the C-band ERS data will permit a discrimination of forest from non-
forest. It must be stressed that ERS is not expected to be ideal for this ap-
plication since both modeling and observations indicate that low, wet
vegetation canopies may give similar responses to fully developed forest cano-
pies [4]. Essentially, the C-band signature saturates at low levels of biomass,
and longer wavelengths are needed for forest monitoring [34,35]. Therefore,
we do not expect particularly good results from ERS-I. However, we can
explore how the data should be treated to best effect. Hence, the case study
is less to evaluate ERS-I for this application than to compare a range of
image analysis approaches.
The primary factor underlying the analysis is the temporal and spatial
stability of the RCS of the tropical forest [36]. By contrast, other areas tend to
exhibit temporal variability. This is illustrated in Figure 12.13 (a,b) and shows the
July and December images of a region on the edge of the Tapajos forest. The July
image exhibits very low contrast; while in December more image structure is clear,
dominated by a roughly square area of pasture in the lower part of the image. Also
visible are areas of settlement and shifting agriculture along the Santarem-Cuiaba
highway (running roughly top to bottom) and along two roads perpendicular to
this highway, one at the top and one at the bottom of the image. In addition, areas
of relief associated with drainage patterns are clear in both images.
On the basis of backscatter models, the differences in backscattering
coefficient between the two images can be ascribed to soil moisture changes in
areas of little vegetation or bare soil, with the December image corresponding
to drier conditions (despite this being in the rainy season). This is supported by
field work and meteorological data [4]. In areas of higher vegetation (including
the forest canopy) the soil moisture signature is effectively masked, so there is
little response to rainfall and the backscattering coefficient is approximately
constant.
One approach to forest discrimination would be to try to detect areas of
reduced backscatter compared to the known level of the primary forest after dry
periods, as occurs in Figure 12.13(b). The disadvantage of this approach in a
general context is that topographic effects (which are significant in many tropi-
cal forest areas, though not of major impact for Tapajos) will cause significant
misclassification. To prevent this, change between wet and dry periods can be
measured using ratio images, as discussed in Section 12.4. Simple ratioing of the
two images produces Figure 12.l4(a), which, after applying a 1.5-dB threshold,
gives rise to Figure 12.l4(b). It can be seen that topographic effects have been
suppressed (though not entirely removed, perhaps due to slight misregistration).
However, both images appear very noisy, as would be expected from the analysis
of Section 12.4.1, since the ERS data are only 3-look.
 (a)

(b)
Figure 12.13 ERS-I PRI images of a region bordering the Tapajos National forest on (a) July
31 and (b) December 18,1992. (Copyright ESA.)
 (a)

(b)
Figure 12.14 (a) Ratio of the images shown as Figure 12.13(a,b) and (b) thresholding of the
ratio image at 1.5 dB.

Reasonable performance clearly requires speckle suppression. Following

Section 12.4.1, this could be achieved by averaging pixels before ratioing, at the
expense of resolution. Another alternative is to apply adaptive feature-preserving
filters before taking ratios (in order to preserve resolution); here we use gamma
MAP reconstruction (see Section 6.5.1 and [13]) and annealed despeckling
(Section 6.9). We also use multichannel RGW segmentation (Section 12.5.1) to
provide homogeneous regions; this allows ratioing of the average backscattering
coefficient within the confines of detected segments. Related work over a
tropical forest area in Sumatra is reported in [37]; this makes use of both
temporal [15] and gamma MAP filtering [13].
The result of carrying out an 18 by 18 average of the July and December
images is shown in Figure 12.15(a,b) with their ratio (in decibels) shown in
Figure 12.15(c) and the histogram of the ratio given as Figure 12.15(d). (The
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 12.15 (a,b) Images formed by 18 X 18 block averaging of the images shown in Figure
12.13; (c) ratio of the images shown in (a,b); and (d) histogram of values in the
ratio image, truncated at - 3 and 4.99 dB.

range of —3 to 4.99 dB indicated on the histogram includes a clipping of

extreme values.) Relief effects (which are obvious in the averaged images) are
clearly suppressed by ratioing, although the stream beds running through the
area of pasture are still visible. In the histogram the modal value is 0 dB and
there is a long positive tail, but we observe no separation of classes.
The corresponding ratio images and histograms for the other techniques
are shown in Figure 12.l6(a—f). In all these cases, the data were first block-av-
eraged using a 2 by 2 window in order to reduce spatial correlation, giving rise
to speckle distributions close to 5-look [26]. In Figure 12.l6(a) the July and
December images were filtered with a structure-preserving 9 by 9 gamma MAP
filter before ratioing. The histogram (b) is wider than in all other cases, indicat-
 (a) (b)

(C) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 12.16 Images and histograms corresponding to Figure 12.15(c,d)for postprocessing by:
(a,b) gamma MAP filtering, (c,d) annealed despeckling, and (e,f) multidimen-
sional RGW segmentation.
 ing less smoothing. The global MAP result (implemented by annealed despeck-
ling) is shown in Figure 12.l6(c,d), with a comparatively narrow histogram.
Finally, the effect of performing a multidimensional segmentation and ratioing
mean values within segments is shown in Figure 12.l6(e,f). Each spike in the
histogram indicates the ratio values within one or a small number of segments.
To carry out a classification requires a threshold to be chosen, but the lack
of structure in the histograms means that this choice is not clear-cut. Classifica-
tions based on a 1.5-dB threshold are shown as Figure 12.17(a-d) for the four
methods employed, together with the results for a ratio image that has not been
preprocessed (Figure 12.17(e)). Based on the theory in Section 12.4.1, this
threshold corresponds to a false alarm rate of 4.74 X 10~5 in Figure 12.17(a)
when we make allowance for the correlation of samples in the ERS-I data. This
correlation means that the 18 by 18 3-look averages are equivalent to approxi-
mately 257 looks (see Section 4.8, especially the discussion following (4.43)).
The preprocessed images all pick out the main structural blocks of the
data. The blurring produced by the large averaging window is clear in Figure
12.17(a). Annealing preserves the edge structures much better, while segmenta-
tion displays an intermediate behavior. Very noticeable in the gamma-MAP
filtered data is the noisiness of the image, with many random false detections in
the forest areas. By contrast, the other three algorithms produce little random
noise; detections in the forest areas tend to occur as coherent regions.
Also shown as Figure 12.17(f) is a forest/nonforest classification based on
a threshold applied to band 5 of the TM data. Under the assumption that this
is a reliable classification (this is discussed in detail in [4]), we can carry out a
quantitative comparison of the various methods. Table 12.2 shows the classifi-
cation accuracies for the different methods. The first and second columns
indicate the proportions of correctly detected nonforest and forest pixels, respec-
tively. The third column indicates the area of false nonforest detections as a
proportion of the true nonforest area, which in this image forms 22.3% of the
total area.
As expected, the table indicates that ERS-I is not ideal for forest dis-
crimination, with less than 50% of the nonforest areas being correctly de-
tected. Missed detections are clear when comparing Figure 12.17(f) with any
of Figure 12.17(a—d). For example, the nonforest area protruding from the
right side of the square pasture region is not picked out in the radar image
by any of the methods. This reflects the fact that even low vegetation canopies
can have a backscattering coefficient similar to that of primary forest at C-
band. Longer wavelengths are more appropriate to this application, such as
the L-band data provided by JERS-I; a comparison of ERS-I and JERS data
for Tapajos will be found in [4]. Two other comments are relevant here. First,
a more complete temporal coverage of the region may have given better per-
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 12.17 (a-d) One-bit images formed by thresholding the images shown as Figures
12.15(c), 12.16(a), 12.16(c), and 12.16(e), respectively; (e) the corresponding
image using the ratio of the original (unpreprocessed) ERS-1 images; and (f) a
forest/nonforest template prepared by thresholding band 5 of a TM image ac-
quired on July 29,1992.
 Table 12.2
Classification Accuracies of the Preprocessing Methods

p{NFINF} p{FIF} p{F}p{NFIF}/p{NF}

Averaging (18 x 18) 0.420 0.942 0.156

GMAP (9 X 9) 0.467 0.931 0.180
Anneal 0.457 0.942 0.157
Segmentation 0.453 0.940 0.164

formance. Long time sequences of ERS images gathered over temperate forests,
which also show very stable behavior, allow good forest discrimination using
change-detection techniques. We do not have enough images from Tapajos
to test this. Second, C-band systems are capable of good forest discrimination
in the tropics if they have sufficient resolution (preferably combined with
not too steep an incidence angle). This has been demonstrated in Chapter 8
for airborne data and will also be illustrated using spaceborne data from Ra-
darsat in Chapter 13.
Nonetheless, Table 12.2 does provide a means by which to compare the
performance of the different algorithms. The removal of small areas of change
and the poor definition of edges cause simple averaging to give the lowest
percentage of correct nonforest detections. The highest detection rate is that
which uses the gamma MAP filter, but at the expense of significantly increased
false detections (18%) that also have a highly random noiselike quality, as noted
previously. Overall, annealed despeckling gives the best performance, while
segmentation performs a little worse than annealing, with a slightly lower
detection rate and more false detections.
These results illustrate once more the importance of algorithm selection
discussed in Sections 6.10 and 7.4. In this application, annealing appears to
provide the best performance of the algorithms tested. However, it requires
considerably more computing power than the simplest method based on block
averaging. For large-area estimates, or an initial assessment of overall pattern,
this suggests that averaging may provide the most useful approach. However,
because large windows must be used for averaging to give adequate performance,
this is at the price of lost boundary detail, failure to detect small areas, and
underestimation of nonforest areas. When a higher level of performance is
required, a more sophisticated and powerful method such as annealing must be
used, possibly in a selective manner to regions identified to be of interest by
averaging.
12.7 Concluding Remarks

This chapter has covered a wide range of techniques for extracting information
from multidimensional SAR images. It is very much based on foundations built
in earlier chapters, extending techniques developed for single-channel data to
this more general and demanding environment. Other aspects of multichannel
filtering for which there are no useful one-dimensional analogies (e.g., po-
larimetric matched filtering) are discussed in the next chapter, since these are
closer to classification techniques.
What should be clear here and from Chapter 11 is that the development
in this area is far from complete. Among a variety of areas of weakness, we note
that there has been comparatively little testing of algorithms, objective methods
for algorithm performance are not established, and there are known limitations
in the data model used by the segmentation algorithms in the context of
polarimetric data. In a more general context, the state of development of these
algorithms is such that large-scale assessment of their value to selected applica-
tions is now timely but has not yet been carried out. Section 12.6 indicated an
approach to this problem. In doing so, it raises the difficult issue of separating
the possible contribution of radar images to a given application (what informa-
tion is potentially available?) from the information provided after postprocessing
(has an algorithm destroyed or misrepresented the available information?). This
is perhaps the central issue in methods for image understanding because it
requires us to ensure that our data models are true representations of informa-
tion sources in radar data and that the algorithms correctly embody these
models. There is little doubt that on both counts our current level of under-
standing is not complete.

References

[1] Quegan, S., A. Hendry, and J. Wood, "The Visibility of Linear Features in SAR Images,"
Proc. IGARSS 88, Edinburgh, 1988, pp. 1517-1520.
[2] Greeley, R., and D. G. Blumberg, "Preliminary Analysis of Shuttle Radar Laboratory
(SRL-I) Data to Study Aeolian Features and Processes," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing,
Vol. 33, 1995, pp. 927-933.
[3] Quegan, S., R. G. Caves, K. D. Grover, and R. G. White, "Segmentation and Change
Detection in ERS-I Images over East Anglia," Proc. of the First ERS-I Symp., Cannes, ESA
SP-359, 1993, pp. 617-622.
[4] Grover, K. D., S. Quegan, and C. C. F. Yanasse, "Quantitative Estimation of Tropical Forest
Cover by SAR," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, in press 1997.
[5] Borgeaud, M., J. Noll, and A. Bellini, "Multitemporal Comparisons of ERS-I and JERS-I
SAR Data for Land Applications," Proc. IGARSS 94, Pasadena, 1994, pp. 1603-1605.
 [6] Schmullius, C , J. Nithack, and M. Kern, "Comparison of Multitemporal ERS-I and
Airborne DLR E-SAR Image Data for Crop Monitoring," Proc. Second ERS-I Symp.,
Hamburg, ESA SP-361, 1994, pp. 79-84.
[7] Wooding, M. G., A. D. Zmuda, and G. H. Griffiths, "Crop Discrimination Using
Multitemporal ERS-I SAR Data," Proc. Second ERS-I Symp., Hamburg, ESA SP-361,
1994, pp. 51-56.
[8] Goodman, N. R., "Statistical Analysis Based on a Certain Multivariate Gaussian Distribu-
tion (an Introduction)," Ann. Math. Stat., No. 34, 1963, pp. 152-177.
[9] Goze, S., and A. Lopes, "A MMSE Speckle Filter for Full Resolution SAR Polarimetric
Data,"/ Elect. Waves and Appns., No. 7, 1993, pp. 717-737.
[10] Quegan, S., "A Unified Algorithm for Phase and Crosstalk Calibration—Theory and
Observations," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 32, 1994, pp. 89-99.
[11] Touzi, R., and A. Lopes, "The Principle of Speckle Filtering in Polarimetric SAR Imagery,"
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 32, 1994, pp. 1110-1114.
[12] Schou, J., "Validation of Filters and Statistical Models," Short Course report, University of
Sheffield, 1996.
[13] Lopes, A., E. Nezry, R. Touzi, and H. Laur, "Structure Detection and Adaptive Speckle
Filtering in SAR Images," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 14, 1993, pp. 1735-1758.
[14] Novak, L. M., and M. C. Burl, "Optimal Speckle Reduction in Polarimetric SAR Imagery,"
IEEE Trans. Aerospace Elect. Sys., Vol. 26, 1990, pp. 293-305.
[15] Bruniquel, J., and A. Lopes, "Multi-variate Optimal Speckle Reduction in SAR Imagery,"
Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 18, 1997, pp. 603-627.
[16] Lee, J., M. R. Grunes, and S. A. Mango, "Speckle Reduction in Multipolarisation, Multi-
frequency SAR Imagery," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 29, 1991, pp. 535-544.
[17] Novak, L. M., M. C. Burl, and W W. Irving, "Optimal Polarimetric Processing for
Enhanced Target Detection," IEEE Trans. Aerospace Elect. Sys., Vol. 29, 1993, pp. 234-244.
[18] Quegan, S., and L. V. Dutra, "SAR Calibration and Principal Component Analysis," Proc.
ThirdAirborne SAR(AIRSAR) Workshop, Jet Propulsion Lab, Pasadena, 1991, pp. 138-146.
[19] Quegan, S., "Application of Principal Components Analysis to Quadpolarised Data,"
GEC-Marconi Research Centre: Studies of Multi-frequency and Multi-polarisation SAR Appli-
cations, Appendix E, MTR 93/73, Contract RAE IB/89, 1993.
[20] Singh, A., and A. Harrison, "Standardised Principal Components," Int. J. Remote Sensing,
Vol. 6, 1985, pp. 883-896.
[21] Cloude, S. R., and E. Pottier, "An Entropy Based Classification Scheme for Land Applica-
tions of Polarimetric SAR," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 35, 1997, pp. 68-78.
[22] Lee, J.-S., and K. W. Hoppel, "Principal Components Transformation of Multifrequency
Polarimetric SAR Imagery," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 30, 1992,
pp. 686-696.
[23] Touzi, R., A. Lopes, and P. Bousquet, "A Statistical and Geometrical Edge Detector for SAR
Images," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 26, 1988, pp. 764-773.
[24] Rignot, E. J. M., and J. J. van ZyI, "Change Detection Techniques for ERS-I SAR Data,"
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 31, 1993, pp. 896-906.
[25] Schreier, G., "Geometrical Properties of SAR Images," SAR Geocoding: Data and Systems,
G. Schreier (ed.), Karlsruhe: Wichmann, 1993, pp. 103-134.
[26] Caves, R. G., "Automatic Matching of Features in Synthetic Aperture Radar Data to Digital
Map Data," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sheffield, UK, 1993.
[27] White, R. G., Low Level Segmentation of Noisy Lmagery, Tech. Report 3900, Roy. Signals
and Radar Estab., Malvern, 1986.
[28] White, R. G., "Change Detection in SAR Imagery," Int. J. Remote Sensing Vol. 12, 1991,
pp. 339-360.
[29] Caves, R. G., and S. Quegan, "The Role of Segmentation in Multi-channel SAR Image
Analysis," Proc. RSS '95: Remote Sensing in Action, Southampton, Remote Sensing Society,
1995, pp. 1171-1178.
[30] Caves, R. G., and S. Quegan, "Multi-channel SAR Segmentation: Algorithm and Applica-
tions," Proc. European Symp. on Satellite Remote Sensing IL, Paris, 1995, pp. 241—251.
[31] McConnell, L, and D. Stewart, "Multi-dimensional Annealed Segmentation," N.A. Soft-
ware Rpt. No. 10, DRA Contract No. CSM1/072, 1997.
[32] Quegan, S., K. D. Grover, and C. C. E Yanasse, "Use of C Band SAR for Quantitative
Estimation of Tropical Forest Cover—Methods and Limitations," Proc. Lnternational Symp.
on Retrieval of Bio- and Geophysical Parameters from SAR Data for Land Applications,
Toulouse, 1996, pp. 167-178.
[33] Sant'Anna, S. J., C. C. F. Yanasse, and A. C. Frery, "Estudo Comparativo de Alguns
Classificadores Utilizando-se Imagens Radarsat da Regiao de Tapajos," Proc. First Latino-
American Seminar on Radar Remote Sensing: Lmage Processing Techniques, ESA SP-407,
1997, pp. 187-194.
[34] Le Toan, T, A. Beaudoin, J. Riom, and D. Guyon, "Relating Forest Biomass to SAR Data,"
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 30, 1992, pp. 403-411.
[35] Dobson, M. C , F. T. Ulaby, T. Le Toan, E. S. Kasischke, and N. L. Christensen,
"Dependence of Radar Backscatter on Coniferous Forest Biomass," IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sensing, Vol. 30, 1992, pp. 412-415.
[36] Lecomte, P, and E. P. Attema, "Calibration and Validation of the ERS-I Wind Scatterome-
ter," Proc. of the First ERS-I Symp., Cannes, ESA SP-359, 1993, pp. 19-29.
[37] Le Toan, T, F. Ribbes, N. Floury, and U. R. Wasrin, "Use of ERS-I SAR Data for Forest
Monitoring in South Sumatra," Final Report, TREES Project, 1997.
1 3

Classification of S A R Imagery

13.1 Introduction

A central theme throughout earlier chapters is that the information in a SAR

image is embodied in image structure (objects) together with a statistical de-
scription of the properties of these objects. Our major drive was to derive, test,
and exploit progressively more highly developed data models and consequently
find optimal methods to infer this structure and to characterize the objects. The
endpoint of most of the work described up to now is an estimate of the relevant
model parameters at each pixel based either on image reconstruction or in the
context of an image segmentation. Arriving at this description of the image relies
on two types of knowledge about the world: (1) semiempirical inferences about
the types of statistical data likely to be needed in describing the observations
from distributed targets and (2) general descriptors of scene structure carried in
such concepts as the cartoon model (Chapter 7). Essentially we were concerned
with measurement what should be measured in a SAR image, which methods
should be used, and how accurate are the results? At a fundamental level, these
measurements are all we have. A theory of measurement that is complete tells
us everything there is to know about a pixel or object in the scene and circum-
scribes what needs to be explained about it. Nonetheless, to make measurements
useful, we need to assign high-level meanings to them, which requires consider-
ably more world knowledge. A ubiquitous requirement is one of recognition of
objects in the scene. This can be at the object level (this is a field or a village or
a tank, for example) or at the pixel labeling level (e.g., crop type, water, or
single-year ice). When segmentation or target-detection techniques are used,
 both aspects can be combined. A general approach to the first level is well
beyond the scope of this book, but in this chapter we deal with the second,
which is a problem of classification. Essentially we try to make the links between
a low-level classification into parameter values at a pixel or within a segment (as
dealt with in Chapters 7 to 9, 11, and 12) and a high-level classification into
specific cover types.
It must be recognized that there may be a significant disparity between the
classes of interest in a given application and the ability of the sensor to discrimi-
nate them. At one extreme, unless the desired classes can produce measurable
differences in the available parameters (such as texture parameter and covari-
ance), they are indistinguishable. In this case, no classification is possible. At the
other extreme, the complex nature of the microwave interaction with natural
media may cause an individual desired class to contain subclasses with different
behavior (e.g., different parts of a body of water can display a radically different
backscattering coefficient as a result of local wind patterns). When the number
of these disturbing effects becomes large, it becomes hard to find a robust
classifier that maps onto application needs. Any form of robust classification,
therefore, depends not only in knowing what parameters to measure but on an
appreciation of the physical factors likely to affect those measurements. In other
words, the decision rules by which we distinguish objects must be firmly based
in the information provided by the imaging system.
A realistic assessment of the role of SAR in any classification scheme must
also take account of other available information sources. In some cases SAR may
be all we have. This can occur because of cloud cover or darkness (examples
include agricultural monitoring in Northern Europe, rain forest mapping, and
sea ice mapping). SAR may be the only sensor available at a given location
and/or time or that can provide a repetitive time series to observe a process (only
ERS-I data provided observations of the break-up of the Larsen ice shelf [I]).
In addition, the special properties of microwave images may mean that they are
the only way to observe a phenomenon (e.g., canopy penetration at longer
wavelengths and polarimetric capabilities allow us to detect inundated forest
and measure biomass; sensitivity to geometric and dielectric properties can be
used to distinguish different soil roughnesses and to estimate soil moisture). In
other circumstances, SAR may supplement or complement other data. In agri-
cultural monitoring, for example, the data provided by optical sensors is in most
cases preferred over SAR because of the comparative stability and predictability
of the spectral response of many cover types (although affected by such factors
as atmospheric transmission, sun angle, season, and natural variability of the
crop). Information is also available in several spectral bands, and, of course,
there are none of the problems in image interpretation that arise from speckle.
However, for early season estimates, radar may be an important information
source because of its sensitivity to agricultural treatment of the soil. In addition,
as already noted, it can provide a monitoring capability when cloud cover
prevents optical data acquisition.
The potential contribution of SAR to classification therefore needs us to
understand how the system configuration (polarization, wavelength, incidence
angle, and revisit time) and the choice of measurement (such as phase differ-
ence, backscattering coefficient, texture parameter, and amplitude ratio) impact
on characterizing the objects of interest and their properties. Considerable
progress in this direction has been made as the number and type of radar
systems supplying reliable measurements over diverse regions has grown. Nu-
merous parameters related to the radar system and the medium being observed
are now known to affect the information encoded in the SAR image. In the
context of natural surfaces covered by vegetation, factors affecting the radar
signal include:

• The geometric and dielectric properties of the vegetation cover, which

are related to the structure and biomass distribution in the canopy.
Within one vegetation type, these parameters are strongly dependent
on the density, growth stage, and moisture content of the plants.
• The geometric and dielectric properties of the underlying soil; these are
related to the soil roughness and moisture, which in turn are related to
agricultural practices and weather conditions.

The relative importance to the radar response of these different properties

of the scattering medium depends on the frequency, polarization, and incidence
angle of the radiation.
As a result, the backscatter from a given terrain type may have a "within
class" variability due to the variation of one or more of the parameters determin-
ing the dominant scattering mechanisms (e.g., differing row directions, soil
moisture variations due to irrigation, and biomass and structure change due to
variations in crop calendar may all cause significant variability in the backscatter-
ing coefficient observed from a single crop class). There may also be large
temporal variations due to evolution in the characteristics of the medium. Taken
in combination, this means that in many cases of interest not only will a given
class exhibit internal variation, but there will also be significant overlap in the
observed backscatter from different classes for a given set of radar characteristics.
While the world may contain much variability when seen at radar wave-
lengths, classification relies on (1) objects of a given class having repeatable
behavior that is known or can be inferred from the data and (2) objects from
different classes exhibiting distinguishing behavior under some circumstances.
 Identifying those circumstances needs physical understanding combined with
observation. To this end, in Section 13.2 we survey some of the empirical
evidence concerning the conditions under which SAR data meet these two
criteria. Dealing with the full range of applications of SAR data would not be
appropriate, so we restrict ourselves to issues related to land use, agriculture, and
forestry. Related information on other areas can be found in [2-9]. However,
the concerns raised here are of general relevance.
The empirical evidence indicates what may be possible with the data, but
in order to turn this into reality we need to define procedures for handling the
data. In Section 13.3 general issues in defining classification procedures are
discussed and three main categories of approach to this problem are set out.
These are then described in more detail in Sections 13.4 (data-driven methods),
13.5 (methods based on identifying scattering mechanisms), and 13.6 (rule-
based methods based on physical insight). In Section 13.7 we move one step
beyond taxonomy and use the ability of SAR to discriminate biophysical prop-
erties within a single class. This refinement of a broad classification uses capa-
bilities specific to SAR and is an indicator of how SAR may be used within a
wider classification framework.
Unlike many of the issues dealt with in earlier chapters, it will become
clear that the problem of classification does not permit a single optimal solution
except in an idealized world. The real world exhibits great variability at radar
wavelengths; and conceptually simple classes, such as wheat or water, may show
vastly different responses even within a local area. Equally, different desired
classes may exhibit very similar behavior. Understanding why this happens,
learning how to account for it, and designing systems that give the best possible
capability to provide the information needed present major challenges to the use
of SAR data. To a large extent, then, this chapter presents an overview of a wide
range of possible techniques; only in a few cases are preferred methods becoming
clear.

13.2 The Empirical Basis for Classification

Effective classification requires the desired classes to have distinguishing fea-

tures. Hence, a first approach to classification is to examine representative data
to see if such features exist. The choice of features is dictated by the statistical
structure of the data because, as we have seen, in many cases distributed targets
can be described by a small number of parameters, which describe all the
available information (Chapters 4, 5, and 11). We have also seen that there are
known optimal or near-optimal estimators (in a maximum likelihood or maxi-
mum a posteriori sense) for these parameters (Chapters 6 to 9 and 11). An
 investigation of the classification potential of SAR would therefore seem to be
comparatively straightforward.
In practice, this has not proved to be the case. A primary reason is that it
requires large, comprehensive, well-calibrated radar datasets accompanied by
extensive ground data. Considerable effort has been devoted to the acquisition
of such datasets, initially from ground-based scatterometers in the case of
agricultural crops and soils [10-20]. Early attempts to develop equivalent
datasets from airborne SAR and scatterometer systems were beset by system
defects and calibration problems [21-23]. Even for modern systems, radiomet-
ric calibration is still a major concern, although focusing and geometric fidelity
need not be a problem, as is made clear in Chapter 3. High-quality data are
being produced by several current systems; in this book we make extensive use
of data from the NASA/JPL AirSAR system and the DCRS EMISAR systems,
for both of which data calibration and image quality are given the utmost
importance. Similar care is typical of most of the numerous civilian systems
currently deployed or under development. (For military systems concerned with
target detection, calibration is normally not a major concern.) However, at the
time of writing the supply of well-documented, high-quality airborne data is still
fairly limited and restricted to a small number of test sites.
The flexibility and comparative ease of deployment of airborne SAR has
made it the main vehicle for technical development. All the available polarimet-
ric and multifrequency data, other than that from the Shuttle Imaging Radar
(SIR-C/X-SAR) mission, have been produced by airborne sensors. However, a
major drawback in these airborne datasets at present is that almost no high-qual-
ity multitemporal data are available. Instead, much of our knowledge of the
dynamics of scattering from natural targets has been provided by the regular
revisit time offered by orbital SAR. The excellent stability of the ERS-I SAR has
allowed long time series of reliable a° measurements to be assembled; this is
likely to continue to be the case with ERS-2 and the follow-up ENVISAT
mission. For the JERS-I SAR, image radiometry is fairly stable and of satisfac-
tory quality, although affected by artifacts [24,25]. The Radarsat data calibration
and evaluation phase is presently ongoing.
A major contrast between the data acquired by orbital SAR and data from
airborne or Shuttle missions is in the range of system configurations available.
The ERS, JERS, and Radarsat satellites carry single-frequency, single-polariza-
tion systems operating with C - W , L-HH, and C-HH characteristics, respec-
tively For ERS and JERS only a narrow range of incidence angles is available
(19.3 to 26.4 degrees for ERS and 32 to 38 degrees for JERS). Radarsat offers
considerable flexibility in its operating modes, with possible incidence angles
from 17 to 55 degrees and a variety of swath widths and resolutions. ENVISAT
is planned to have similar flexibility, but with the addition of polarization
 diversity (although it is not intended to acquire full polarimetric data). Another
important difference is in the resolutions available. Typically, airborne systems
provide data with a resolution of the order of a few meters, although higher
resolution systems are not uncommon, particularly in a military context. Of the
spaceborne systems, only Radarsat operating in fine mode currently offers
comparable resolution, of about 6m (slant range) by 8.9m (azimuth). The ERS
satellites can give this order of resolution only in the azimuth direction.
It will be observed that the available SAR data fall into two complementary
(and incomplete) categories. Orbital SARs offer a multitemporal capability and
large area coverage, but with only a limited range of system configurations.
Airborne SARs and the Shuttle Imaging Radar provide a wide range of parameters
but little in the way of multitemporal data. Airborne data in most cases cover
limited spatial areas. In addition, spaceborne data (including those provided by
the Shuttle) are in most cases of lower resolution than those from airborne sensors.
Hence, a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of resolution, frequency,
polarization, incidence angle, and time on the classification potential of SAR is
not possible from the existing data alone. Modeling and simulation combined
with inferences from ground-based experimental facilities, therefore, are essential
in extrapolating the available results. However, a large international effort is
devoted to exploring what is possible with current data; relevant publications
geared toward gaining such an overview are found in [2—9]. Here we do not
attempt to summarize all this activity but instead highlight main themes and
issues using examples from spaceborne and airborne data.

13.2.1 Spaceborne Multitemporal Data

The use of ERS data for agricultural and forest applications has attracted much
attention ([26] and references therein). Although interferometry provides a
potential information source in this regard [27,28], its use for monitoring is
limited when only single satellites are operating with long repeat times (as at
present). As a result, the primary information source for European agriculture
is a time series of field-averaged a° values. (As shown in Chapter 4, averaging
provides the MLE of a° within a field, assuming that it comprises a uniform
target.) An example of the observed behavior of sugarbeet and winter wheat is
shown in Figure 13.1 for a collection of fields in the Flevoland region of the
Netherlands [26].
Two features of these data are immediately obvious.

1. The two crop types only become separable in this case during the period
from June to August, with a peak separation between signatures of
around 5 to 7 dB. This corresponds to the period between sugarbeet
 Winter wheat
10 fields + average + stdev
[dB]
Go

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JuI Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1993
, * Flevoland 1993

Sugarbeet
10 fields + average + stdev
a0 [dB]

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JuI Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1993
<b) Flevoland1993
Figure 13.1 Time series of field-averaged a° values measured by ERS-1 in Flevoland, the
Netherlands, in 1993: (a) winter wheat and (b) sugarbeet [26].
 attaining full coverage and wheat being harvested. In the early part of
the year the signatures are practically the same in both cases, dominated
by soil effects. For sugarbeet, the comparatively rapid development of
full ground cover is marked by a rapid rise in or°, which then remains ef-
fectively constant throughout the rest of the year until harvesting. This
behavior is indicative of volume scattering in the canopy, which rapidly
saturates as the canopy density increases. For wheat, plant development
gives rise to a much wider trough in cro, which can be explained, given
the low-volume fraction occupied by the vegetation, in terms of increas-
ing attenuation of the soil response as the vegetation grows. Values be-
come comparable to those for sugarbeet around September, when the
behavior of both crops is again soil-dominated.
2. Within each crop type there is considerable variation in a° at a fixed
time, perhaps due to slight variations in plant growth stage and (in the
case of wheat) different soil roughness states. For our sample there is
no overlap in the signatures during the critical period.

This example indicates that for these two crop types (more generally, for
large-leafed root crops and cereals) there is reasonable expectation of good
classification performance, as long as the data acquisitions occur at the right
time and enough pixels can be averaged to give sufficient statistical separability.
Note that only data for 1993 are shown here. Other years show similar behavior,
although with time shifts possibly related to weather conditions, location, or
sowing times [26].
When discrimination of crop types with similar structure is desired, the
empirical evidence is less encouraging. Figure 13.2 shows a comparison of time
series for winter wheat and barley. It is obvious that the behavior of the two crop
types is closely related. The best conditions for separating them occur during
the reproductive stage when the difference in the two plant structures results in
different attenuation of the soil response at W polarization. Since this differ-
ence is small, viable classification relies on large fields and accurate calibration
(in order to minimize the uncertainty in cr°). A further important consideration
relevant to many areas (but not Flevoland) is correction for topographic effects.
Slopes of even a few degrees can induce apparent a° changes that are significant
in relation to the small dynamic range covering different crops. While this
macroscale variation in slope is a disturbing factor, the sensitivity of SAR to
microscale structure can be turned to an advantage. In particular, its ability to
detect changes and differences in soil roughness can provide information on
early season soil preparation, from which a broad crop type may be inferred
[29]. Similar inferences can be made from interferometric data [27].
 o 0 [dB]

(a) Julian Day

a°[dB]

(b) Julian Day

Figure 13.2 Time series of mean field-averaged a° values for winter barley and winter wheat
for the 1993 growing season: (a) Netherlands data and (b) Feltwell, UK, data [26].

13.2.2 Polarimetric Data

Figures 11.1 to 11.3 indicate that AirSAR polarimetric data can provide at least
five useful parameters per region with which to classify vegetation types. These
are the three channel powers and the phase and amplitude of the copolarized
complex correlation coefficient (see Section 11.4). Extra potential information
 is available in the correlation coefficient of the like and crosspolarized channels
when the target does not display azimuthal symmetry at the probing wavelength
[30]. Examples can be seen in the L- and P-band data of Figures 11.2 and 11.3
but we will not discuss this here. In addition, texture may show variation with
vegetation type (see Chapter 8 and Section 11.9). The impact of texture on
classification is dealt with in Sections 13.2.3 and 13.6.
Many studies of the empirical behavior of these five polarimetric pa-
rameters have been performed for vegetation targets [31-42]. Here we first
describe observations from the Feltwell region, UK, gathered in late July 1991
by the AirSAR system during the MacEurope campaign [31], since they il-
lustrate very well some important issues in classification using polarimetric
data, before examining the classification methods to which they give rise. The
SAR analysis was supported by crop data for the study area, and the results
described in this section are for ten areas from each of six different vegetation
types (barley, grass, wheat, potatoes, sugarbeet, and coniferous woodland). The
first three of these we will refer to generically as cereals, the fourth and fifth
as (large-leafed) root crops. A full description of the data is given in [31].
Figures 13.3 and 13.4 show the C- and L-band measurements, respectively,
for the 60 regions and correspond to region-based averages to form the MLEs
of the five polarimetric parameters. Notice that in the correlation plots the
phase (indicated by crosses) has been normalized by a factor IT in order to
lie in the range [— 1, I]; the correlation amplitude (coherence) is marked by
circles and lies between 0 and 1.
Several important features of these results are obvious.

1. Coniferous woodland shows stable behavior in all parameters. (This is

characteristic of mature stands of trees of the same species, for which
the backscatter exhibits saturation at C- and L-bands for all polariza-
tions.) Potatoes are stable at C-band but show more variation at
L-band. This may reflect a row direction effect that is only visible at
L-band because of the greater penetration depth. The cereal and
sugarbeet fields exhibit significantly higher variability in all parameters
except the C-band phase difference, which is close to 0 degrees for all
vegetation types.
2. The dynamic range increases with wavelength.
3. The conifers and root crops tend to give brighter responses in all
channels; this is most marked at L-band, where conifer woodland
separates out as the brightest return.
4. Except for conifers at L-band, there is much overlap between the
powers observed for different vegetation types.
 C Band HH power (dB)

barley conifer grass potatoes sugarbeet wheat

C Band HV power (dB)

barley conifer grass potatoes sugarbeet wheat

C Band W power (dB)

barley conifer grass potatoes sugarbeet wheat

correlation {C Band HH-W)

bare
ly confier grass potatoes sugarbeet wheat
Figure 13.3 Plots of the HH, HV, and VV backscattering coefficients and the amplitude (circles)
and phase (crosses) of the HH-W correlation coefficient for C-band AirSAR data
gathered over Feltwell, UK.
 L Band HH Power (dB)

barley conifer grass potatoes sugarbeet wheat

L Band HV Power (dB)

barley conifer grass potatoes sugarbeet wheat

L Band W Power (dB)

barley conifer grass potatoes sugarbeet wheat

correlation (L Band HH-W)

bare
ly confier grass potatoes sugarbeet wheat
Figure 13.4 As Figure 13.3 but for L-band.
 5. There is useful information in the correlation coefficient. At C-band,
phase differences tend to be small, but Figure 11.1 shows that much
of the field pattern can be seen. Conifers and root crops exhibit a stable
phase difference close to 0 degrees (except for one anomaly); whereas
the cereals display a noisy negative phase, around — 10 degrees on
average. Such differences are probably connected with the dominant
vertical orientation of the stalks in the cereal canopies, while the other
vegetation types have no such preferred orientation in their constitu-
ents. Root crops tend to show higher coherence, and in our dataset can
be separated from other vegetation types on this basis (except for one
exceptional sugarbeet field). At L-band the reduced value of coherence
and positive phase difference of conifers are notable, but the variability
within the other vegetation types weakens the value of this trend as a
classifier. (It should be noted, however, that a large positive phase
difference is a very clear indicator of conifer forest at P-band for this
test site [31].) Unlike C-band, the cereals and root crops have similar
average values of coherence, but this is very variable (extremely so for
barley). The correlation phase of the cereals is also very variable but
more stable for the root crops.

On the basis of these observations it would be expected that the three

broad classes of vegetation should be separable, but individual crop types within
each class would be hard to distinguish. An extensive study of fields from the
Feltwell area based on the Jeffries—Matsushita separability measure [43], in fact,
indicated good separability within the cereal type fields when C- and L-band
data are used [32]; the associated classification accuracies are not, however,
available. It should also be noted that these conclusions are based on a single
acquisition; strategies for separating classes may be clearer when multitemporal
data are available.

13.2.3 Texture in Classification

Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2 were concerned only with properties of the mean
backscattering coefficient or covariance matrix. However, Chapters 8, 9, and 11
showed that texture is certainly present and is a potential information source in
at least two circumstances: high-resolution and long-wavelength data. Most of
our knowledge about texture, therefore, has been gained from airborne SAR
because spaceborne data have not been available at wavelengths longer than
L-band and have been of comparatively low resolution. (An exception is the fine
mode of Radarsat, as will be discussed in Section 13.6.) As a result, we have little
knowledge of its multitemporal behavior.
 In addition, most of our understanding of texture is phenomenological: it
is a measured parameter whose physical meaning is obscure. Tentative explana-
tions for its occurrence in various circumstances include number fluctuations,
and RCS fluctuations (in both cases of unknown physical origin) or, in the case
of forest texture, patterns imposed by radar highlights and shadow connected
with tree spacing and shape. Inferences in this latter case have been used to
explain the increase of texture with incidence angle [44] and to predict condi-
tions under which texture will become measurable for a given forest type [45].
The connection between these different points of view is only just beginning to
be made [46]. Despite this uncertain theoretical basis for texture, it plays an
important role in several of the classification schemes described in Section 13.6.
In particular, it is critical in distinguishing regenerating from primary tropical
forest in Radarsat data.

13.3 Decision Rules for Classification

In order to carry out classification we need to define a procedure or a set of

decision rules to apply to the data. The approach to defining the decision rules
varies widely and is dependent on the amount of knowledge about the nature
of SAR statistics and the physics of scattering that goes into their definition. At
one end of the spectrum we have purely statistical, data-driven methods, in
which some parameters are measured on a given dataset and used in a supervised
or unsupervised scheme. A variety of such schemes is discussed in Section 13.4.
The most powerful methods to date make full use of the expected statistical
models for SAR data to drive a global MAP approach. However, all such
schemes have unknown generalizability in time and/or space and rely on large,
well-validated, comprehensive datasets if they are to have more than local
interest. At the other end of the spectrum, polarimetric data can be classified in
terms of the dominant scattering mechanism, as discussed in Section 13.5. This
provides a robust approach (if the rules for identifying the different mechanisms
are well founded) but suffers from two operational weaknesses: classes in which
we are interested may have similar dominant scattering mechanisms and thus
be indistinguishable by these means and the relation of the scattering mecha-
nism to a given terrain type is not yet clearly understood. Between these purely
statistical and the purely physical approaches lies a range of techniques combin-
ing empirical knowledge with physical reasoning. Several viable classification
schemes of this type are discussed in Section 13.6.
All these approaches rely to a greater or lesser extent on statistical proper-
ties of the data. They also rely on the data from different classes occupying
different regions in feature space without much overlap. For a given dataset, this
may not always be the case, as indicated in Section 13.2. A final issue is whether
to apply classification procedures at the pixel or region level. In the former case
some form of image reconstruction is normally needed to reduce statistical
variability. The latter case requires image segmentation. Both approaches have
been used and will be met in the following sections.

13.4 Data-Driven Methods of Classification

A purely statistical, data-driven approach to classifying an M-channel data

vector A into one of TV classes can be based on Bayesian methods by means of
the relation

P(n\A) oc P(A\n)P(n) (13.1)

where the prior probability of class n occurring is given by P(n) and P(A\n) is
the likelihood that A occurs, given that the measurement is from class n. The
MAP classifier selects that n for which P{n\A) is maximal. This is equivalent to
minimizing (lnP(A\n) + In P(n))> which is often a more convenient expression
to handle. In order to use MAP classification, both the likelihood P(A\n) and
the prior probabilities P(n) must be available. If the P(n) are unknown, they are
often assumed equal for all classes, in which case this approach reduces to ML
classification.
For multichannel SAR data, we have seen that there are three basic models
for P(AI n) in which the underlying complex single-look data:

• Are jointly Gaussian;

• Obey a product model for which the texture is the same in all channels
(single-frequency polarimetric data);
• Have independently textured channels.

Only for jointly Gaussian data has the classification theory been well-
developed (although an approach for single-channel textured SAR data has
been proposed in [47]) and we concentrate on this case.

13.4.1 Gaussian MAP Classification

When the multichannel data are Gaussian, all the information is carried by the
covariance matrix. Each class is therefore identified by a single covariance matrix
or possibly by a range of covariance matrices. The need for considering a range
is well illustrated by Figure 13.1. In this figure, the temporal spacing of the data
is large enough to remove any correlation between the measurements (so that
they would be of no value for interferometry) and texture is not expected to be
present in data from agricultural crops at the ERS-I resolution of around 24m.
Hence, the temporal sequence can be thought of as an Af-vector of field-aver-
aged 3-look measurements where the underlying complex data consist of M
independent Gaussian channels. It can be seen that although the wheat and
sugarbeet classes display different characteristic temporal behaviors, there is
considerable variation within each class. This natural variation corresponds to a
range of covariance matrices describing a single class.
The basic tool for deriving the properties of Af-channel multilook Gauss-
ian data is the complex Wishart distribution [48,49] described in Section 11.6.
If A is the observed Z-look sample covariance matrix for a class n with fixed
covariance matrix Cn, we can associate with it a real vector A, as in (13.1), whose
elements are Ke(A1J) and Im(A1J). Then,

U
P(An) = — ^ \" (13.2)
L
K{L,M)\Cn\

where K(L, M) = TfMW-W2Y(L)-Y(L - M + l)L~ML and|-| is the determi-

nant. Since A is Hermitian, Au is real and A v = A*., so the random vector A
contains only M2 real terms. The MAP classifier will therefore assign an ob-
served A to the class for which

dH = -inP(n) + Z[tr(QM) + inflCj)] (13.3)

is minimized. (Note that this measure can be negative since we omitted terms
not involving n in In P(AIn)). The expression (13.3) is clearly linear in the
variables Ke(A^ and Im(Ay), which implies that the decision boundaries (that
is, where dn = d^) are hyperplanes in M2 dimensions. The one-dimensional
version of (13.3) is given as (7.1) for gamma distributed RCS values. This
makes clear that the term In(I CJ) corresponds to a measure of the overall spread
of values within the population of class n.
Although representing an optimal classifier, (13.3) relies for its success on
having known values for P(n) and Cn and the fact that Cn is uniquely defined for
class n. In practice, neither condition may hold. Typically P(n) and Cn have to be
inferred from the data, in the latter case either by use of training sets (supervised
classification) or from clusters inferred from the data (unsupervised classifica-
tion). Iterative learning of the Cn is possible and gives performance that has been
 reported to improve on that of supervised classification in a limited study of sea
ice classification [49]. The prior probabilities P(n) present more of a problem
because they are rarely known a priori. However, they can have a significant
impact on pixel-based classification. This is demonstrated in [50], where it is
shown that adaptive learning of the prior probabilities can give markedly im-
proved performance. Notice that if the classes of interest are homogeneous
enough to be well represented by a single known covariance matrix, then (13.3)
implies that the prior probabilities P(n) become less important as L increases.
(Equivalently, as L increases, the MAP and MLE classifiers become equivalent.)
Hence, an alternative to learning the prior probabilities is instead to minimize
their impact by making L large. However, for large Z, mixed populations will
often occur within an arbitrary classification window, which indicates that the full
power of the classification is best attained within a segmentation where homoge-
neous regions are first identified, as described in Chapters 7, 8, and 12.
A bigger obstacle to applying (13.3) in practical applications is the vari-
ability of the covariance matrix describing a single desired class. This intrinsic
variability (rather than variability as a consequence of estimating the class
covariance) is obvious from Figures 13.1, 13.3, and 13.4. In some cases this does
not represent a fundamental difference in covariance structure and can be dealt
with using a normalization by the power in one of the channels [51]. This
cannot, however, remove the effects of the highly fluctuating phase differences
observed for some cover types in Figure 13.4(b), for example. Where a given
class n must be described by a distribution of covariance matrices P(Q), the
likelihood function of class n takes the form

P(A\n) = \P{A\Cn)P{Cn)dCn (13.4)

Currently no useful results have emerged from this generalization except

in the trivial case where P(Q) consists of a set of weighted 8-functions (i.e., class
n is made up of a set of well-defined subpopulations). However, a procedure
based on fuzzy r-means optimization has been reported in [38], which may
provide the best approach to this problem, since it allows the data itself to define
clusters with adequate separability (which may or may not correspond to desired
classes).
The classifier based on (13.3) is very general because:

1. It can be applied to data with any number of looks (including single-

look complex, from which an estimate of the covariance matrix would
be formed).
 2. The decision criterion is applicable to areas of different sizes within
the same image.
3. The data type can be polarimetric, interferometric, uncorrelated mul-
tichannel (multifrequency, multitemporal), or any combination of
these.

The forms of the classifiers for some of these special cases are now
discussed.

13.4.2 Single-Frequency Polarimetric Classification

In the special case where only the like-polarized channels have significant
correlation, the covariance matrix in each class has the form

(T1 0 V°"ia3P
C= 0 (J2 0 (13.5)
V°W* 0 (J3 ^

For notational simplicity the subscript n appropriate to class n has been omitted
from the parameters (J1 and p. Then

\C\ = (T1(J1(J5(I ~ |p|2) (13.6a)

and

tr(c-M) = ik + i |4i + ^L _ 2 ^ p 4 J (13j6b)

(J2 1 — |p| [CT1 (J3 JV1V3 J

13.4.3 Repeat-Pass lnterferometry

For classification based on a single interferometric pair the expressions devel-
oped in Section 13.4.2 can be used with all terms in (J2 omitted and subscripts
1 and 3 referring to the two times of image acquisition. Here the classifier tells
us how to exploit both the intensity and correlation properties in the image in
an optimal way. Notice that in the Gaussian case the Bayesian classifier is linear
in terms of the sample covariance matrix. Other linear combinations of these
terms or any nonlinear treatment (e.g., based on the log of the data) will not be
optimal.
13.4.4 Uncorrelated Channels

When the channels are uncorrelated, the covariance matrix of class n is diagonal

Cn = d i a g [ a l B , (T2n,... ,dMn]

with inverse

C;1 =diag[(r;1,cr;);,...)(r^]

Then

dn = -InHn) +L\tJA- +l n *Jj (13-7)

with the decision boundary between class m and n defined by

As expected, the decisions are based just on the sample intensities because
any observed correlations between channels are simply due to finite sampling
effects. In such circumstances, we can instead consider only the measured
intensities in our data vector. The joint PDF, therefore, is a product of inde-
pendent Z-look gamma distributions, and the distance measure between classes
is exactly the same as that given by (13.3). An advantage of taking this approach
is that it is applicable when the number of looks in different channels is
different. This can arise, for example, if the observing geometries for a given
region are different between channels because the flight lines of the sensor varied
between observations. In this more general case,

P(An, ^,...,ANM = Yl U - ^f-exp—i-* (13.9)

and

M
fA ^
dn = -\nP(n) + £ d -*- + h a , (13.10)
-i K, J

13.4.5 Applications of MAP Classification

The data type that has attracted most attention for the application of MAP
classification methods is multifrequency polarimetric data, in most cases ignor-
ing the correlation of the like and crosspolarized terms, as described in Section
13.4.2. As would be expected, different levels of performance are recorded,
dependent on the problem. Very high levels of accuracy are found in a three-class
separation into urban, vegetation, and ocean classes using iterative learning of
the prior probabilities [50]; other approaches applied to the same dataset using
nonadaptive methods do not perform as well [51—54]. Of these latter studies
[51] is noteworthy because it demonstrates the improvement in performance as
the number of looks increases. This is also demonstrated in [52] in a two-class
separation into grassland and forest; 16 looks were required to reduce the overall
probability of error to less than 10% in this case. Our own experience with MAP
crop classification in the Feltwell area gave poor results, in our view due to the
overlap of classes and the large variability within classes (see Figures 13.3 and
13.4). Similar poor performance was noted in [35] for a mixed agricultural and
forested test site.
However, the most refined assessments of MAP methods are those de-
scribed in [38,55,56], where they are embedded in a global MAP approach
using simulated annealing. Very good classification accuracies are recorded for
agricultural and geological applications in [55]. This study noted the impor-
tance of reducing within-class variability by restricting the range of incidence
angles encountered in the data. (Associated problems caused by relief are noted
in [38].) As a result of this restriction, the limited area considered, or the
intrinsic homogeneity of the areas considered, class clusters were both compact
and well separated, leading to the observed good performance. The application
of these techniques to a sea-ice classification in [38] provides good visual results,
although not quantitatively assessed due to absence of in situ data.
These techniques also provided classification accuracies exceeding 90% for
different Alaskan forest types, as reported in [56]. Interestingly, this study clearly
illustrates that the best results were obtained for this purpose using crosspolar-
ized data only at two frequencies. Results got worse when full polarimetric data
were employed, because the addition of channels that provide no discriminating
capability acts as a noise source to the classifier [56]. Although requiring
considerable computing power, such techniques currently appear to provide the
most promising approach to data-driven classification.

13.4.6 Other Data-Driven Approaches

In addition to the global MAP approach, other data-driven methods have been
reported, using rules derived from inspection of the data or clustering tech-
niques. The examples given in this section are completely data-driven and hence
suffer from the risk of particularity implicit in using a single dataset. We also
include in this section a brief review of classification methods based on image
filtering. These are data-driven in the sense that they rely entirely on estimated
or predefined covariance properties of the scene constituents. Rule-based sys-
tems with a more explicit physical content that therefore possess greater gener-
alization capabilities will be introduced in Section 13.6.
A typical example of a rule-based approach is given in [36], where SIR-C
data of the Amazon floodplain (C- and L-band a° values in the three channels
but no correlation parameters) were used in a hierarchical scheme to distinguish
flooded and nonflooded forest, clearings, floating vegetation, and open water,
with very good classification accuracies. The study of agricultural classification
using AirSAR data reported in [33] also made use of a hierarchical decision tree.
In this case thirteen different classes including relevant crop types were identi-
fied, with good classification accuracies reported, except for confusion between
cereal type crops (as might be expected from the results reported in Section
13.2.2). However, the decision rules were not recorded, and it was noted that
they were not transportable in time or space.
Cluster-based approaches simply attempt to identify types of pixels or
regions that clump together in feature space and then to mark in decision bounda-
ries that separate clusters in some way, usually on the basis of a distance measure.
Clusters can be identified in an unsupervised (use the data to identify clusters) or
supervised (use the desired classes to identify cluster centers and properties)
manner. Both methods have been used for SAR data, including those making use
of global MAP methods and simulated annealing reported previously [38,55,56].
Another example of such an approach is given in [39] that used the same dataset
as in [33], but no indication of comparative performance was given. Three-chan-
nel C-band polarized powers were combined with texture in an agricultural study
[40]; here it was shown that row direction must be included in the class descriptor
for cereal crops. Neural nets have also been used to carry out this process [41,42];
in [42] they were combined with a more direct maximum likelihood classifier that
was applied iteratively after cluster centers were identified.
The statistical classification schemes described previously and in Sections
13.4.1 to 13.4.4 make a direct class assignment based on the observed properties
of the covariance data. A different approach instead uses a particular feature or
set of features extracted from the data to make a decision [57-59]. Such features
can be displayed in image form and, hence, readily used for visual image
analysis. In essence, this approach is a target-detection problem, particularly
when only a two-class separation is performed. Since this problem is well-
reported elsewhere, here we only briefly review the work in this area. It is
particularly relevant to polarimetric data, and we describe it within this context.
In Section 12.3 we considered linear filters of the form w = Pz from
which an intensity image

= z M z =
/ = X K f tr(^zzt)
i

could be formed. Here A — P^P. For a two-class separation, the problem is then
to determine the matrix A giving the maximum mean intensity ratio between
the target class and the clutter class, that is, to maximize rtc = tr(y!Ct)/trC/4Cc)
where Cx and Cc are the covariance matrices of target and clutter classes,
respectively. This is known as polarimetric matched filtering [52,60,61]. As noted
in [60], a possibly more useful approach is to maximize the contrast between the
two classes. In this case, the matrices Amax and Am[n, which give rise to the
maximum and minimum values of rtc, are found; if rtc(max) > ^ ( m i n ) , Amzx
provides the maximum contrast filter; otherwise Ax^1n is selected. Both forms of
filtering can be translated into optimum transmit and receive polarizations
[52,53]. Explicit solution schemes for these problems and examples of the use
of this approach for distributed target discrimination in polarimetric data will
be found in [52,53]. However, the value of the full polarimetric approach has
been called into question by Novak et al. [61] when detecting man-made targets
in clutter. Here it was found that simpler detectors using only intensity infor-
mation provided comparable or better performance than the polarimetric
matched filter (for the same number of transmitted pulses), without requiring
the exact knowledge of target and clutter covariance needed for the polarimetric
matched filter. (By contrast, Novak et al. [62] note the value of the polarimetric
whitening filter in target detection; see Section 12.3.1.) Since target detection is
the most usual example of where a simple binary classification is sufficient, the
real value of such techniques in remote sensing is therefore still unclear.

13.5 Classification Based on Scattering Mechanism

The previous section considered the problem of classification in terms of the

experimental data available from different systems and for different types of land
 cover. When applied blind, such an approach is necessarily limited by the data
in hand; it is essentially about correlation and its conclusions are local. Only by
dealing with very large, diverse datasets can general conclusions emerge. In
recognition of this, several of the studies reported previously did not take a
purely data-related approach and used physical reasoning to explain the ob-
served properties of the classification.
While providing a normal and necessary first step in assessing the infor-
mation carried by the data, a correlative approach cannot explain its own
limitations or be generalized in any reliable way outside the conditions defined
by the existing observations. It is also constrained by the structuring of the data.
Unless all the significant controlling variables are recorded, variations in the
measurements (e.g., due to row direction, soil moisture, and slope) may simply
appear as unexplained factors causing scatter in the observations.
For this reason, there has been an increased use of physically based reason-
ing and models both to interpret the observations and to guide the nature of the
classification. In its purest form, this approach seeks a classification based on
scattering mechanism (in other words, what physically gives rise to the different
properties of the observed signal?), which we can then attempt to map onto
more familiar target descriptions by an understanding of how these targets
interact with microwaves. Classification by mechanism can be further refined
by detailed treatment of targets exhibiting similar broad scattering properties.
One of its major advantages, as noted in [63], is that this approach is completely
general. It requires no training or knowledge of the scene, only an understanding
of the signatures of different scattering mechanisms. A disadvantage is that it
provides no information in regions dominated by single scattering mechanisms;
for an example drawn from geology, see [38].
Polarimetric data provide the clearest example of this approach. As shown
in [63], polarimetry can distinguish scattering events in which an even or odd
number of reflections occur as well as a further class of diffuse scattering with
mixtures of even and odd reflections. These descriptions can be related to
deterministic scatterers but also to random surfaces and random media through
the use of scattering models. Figure 13.5 shows an example of this classification
applied to a region of mixed forest and agriculture near Feltwell, UK, using
AirSAR polarimetric data at C-, L-, and P-bands, with white and gray denoting
odd and even numbers of reflections, respectively, and black indicating diffuse
scattering. A comparison with a map indicates that the diffuse scattering regions
in the L-band data are forest and provide a very good discrimination of forest
from agricultural fields; the latter are characterized by an odd number of
reflections at this frequency. The C-band results indicate that some of the forest
regions give rise to diffuse scattering, but most areas provide single reflection
signatures. The P-band results are hardest to interpret. Even number reflection
 C band

L band

P band

Figure 13.5 Classification of C-, L-, and P-band AirSAR data by scattering mechanism for an
area consisting of mixed forest and agricultural fields. White denotes an odd
number of reflections, gray an even number, and black corresponds to diffuse
scattering.
signatures are found in several agricultural fields (unfortunately, we do not have
a detailed description of the cover types or region characteristics for these areas),
and diffuse scattering is encountered in many areas other than the forest. (In at
least some cases, these correspond to regions with low shrubs.) These results are
found even though the P-band forest data in particular show the large H H - W
phase differences expected for an even number of reflections.
Recognition of a dominant scattering mechanism within each region also
forms the basis of the classification scheme described in [64]. In this case the
eigenvectors of the covariance matrix are interpreted as evidence of different
scattering processes and the degree of mixing or randomness of the mechanism
is quantified by an entropy measure. Two examples of resulting classifications
will be found in [64]: in one case applied to distinguishing urban, ocean and
vegetated areas, and in the other for discriminating forest from clear cut areas.
However, whether this approach provides new insights into the information
carried by polarimetric data needs further investigation, since it relies on post-
processing of the covariance matrix, which is the primary information source
(and is directly provided by scattering models, for example). Also, in moving to
quantities derived from the covariance matrix, the estimation theory for the
extracted parameters loses the well-known structure available for the covariance
matrix itself (see [48] and Chapter 11).

13.6 Knowledge-Based Classification

In a knowledge-based approach, generic characteristics of different cover types

are derived, based on the available empirical evidence, and combined with
physical reasoning to define classification rules. Because of their emphasis on the
physical content of the SAR data, they attempt to generate robust, widely
applicable methods that nonetheless have to take into account local conditions.
An important and spectacular example of the power of this approach is in the
use of the ERS-I SAR for monitoring wetland rice. In contrast to the well-struc-
tured field pattern, large fields (in many areas), and season-related crop calendar
characteristic of European agriculture that informed our discussion in Section
13.2, tropical areas often have small fields with diverse crops and overlapping
growing cycles. Under these circumstances, spaceborne SAR monitoring may
seem unlikely to be useful. However, one can exploit the large dynamic range of
the C-band a° signature of wetland rice through its growing cycle, of the order
of 10 dB, together with understanding of how this change is related to the crop
state [65,66]. In particular, the dominant scattering mechanism that gives rise
to the observed backscattering behavior is provided by the vegetation/water
interaction, which increases as plant biomass increases. Without the underlying
water, this scattering mechanism would be replaced by a much weaker interac-
tion of the canopy and soil surface and the characteristic multitemporal signa-
ture displayed by wetland rice would be lost.
Change detection on images from different dates can therefore provide a
classification into early rice, late rice, and nonrice areas, as demonstrated in a
study of a test site in Indonesia [65]. As in the Tapajos forest study described in
Section 12.6, the data required preprocessing to reduce the effects of speckle on
classification performance, in this case based on multitemporal filtering [67]
followed by maximum a posteriori (gamma MAP) spatial filtering [68]. Figure
13.6 shows ERS-I PRI images acquired on (a) February 16, 1994 and (b) March
6, 1994; while (c) displays the filtered ratio image and (d) the classified image.
In (d) the dark regions correspond to early rice, light gray to late rice, and white
to nonrice. Separability is made much clearer by the use of color [65].
Although the methods used are closely related to those for tropical for-
est/nonforest separation described in Section 12.6, some points of difference
must be noted if the results are to be compared.

1. The changes for wetland rice are much larger than the 3 dB observed
for nonforest regions at Tapajos, in principle allowing greater classifi-
cation accuracy.
2. The gamma MAP filter did not perform very well for the forestry
example given in Chapter 12 (see Figure 12.17(b)) but produces
acceptable results here. This may be because no postprocessing was
performed in Figure 12.17(b). In Figure 13.6, however, a last stage
reclassifies isolated pixels to be consistent with their neighbors [65].
3. No extensive ground data or corroborative evidence were available to
validate the classification in Figure 13.6(d), whereas in Section 12.6
TM data was used to provide a reference. (SPOT data were available
over the study area but were unable to provide a useful discrimination
of the growth stage of the rice.) The justification for the classification
is therefore primarily on the basis of the known relation of RCS to rice
growth stage [65].

Physical insight combined with examination of data has lead to a number of

other viable rule-based classification schemes, in a variety of contexts. In [35] a
hierarchical scheme was used to classify image pixels from combined L- and
C-band AirSAR data into four classes: tall vegetation (trees), short vegeta-
tion, urban, and bare surfaces, using polarimetric parameters (but not phase
difference) and texture. Accuracies between 9 1 % and 100% were recorded.
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 13.6 (a) ERS-I PRI image of the Demak area, Indonesia, for February 16, 1994; (b)
corresponding image for M a r c h 6,1994 (Copyright ESA). (c) Ratio image formed
after preprocessing; (d) image classification: early rice (black); late rice (mid-
gray); nonrice (white) (From: [65]. © 1997 IEEE).
 (a)

(b)
Figure 13.7 (a) Radarsat fine-mode image from Tapajos, Brazilian Amazonia (© Canadian
Space Agency/Agence Spatiale Canadiene, 1997). (b) Image in (a) after applica-
tion of 5 by 5 Frost filter, (c) Coefficient of variation in (a) using a 7 by 7 sliding
window, (d) Order parameter in (a) within an 11 by 11 sliding window [69].
 (C)

(d)
Figure 13.7 (continued).
 Similar principles were used in [37] (which also includes a survey of previous
classification studies) for ERS-I /JERS-I coregistered images, where now the tree
class was further broken down into structural form and leaf type (broad leaf or
needles). Another hierarchical scheme combined AirSAR and SIR-C data to
distinguish agricultural crops and other sorts of land cover using pixel-based
methods [34], with reasonable accuracies obtained.
Texture in SIR-C L-band data was one of the parameters used in [35] to
make a separation between forest and low vegetation. Its value as a discriminator
of forest from nonforest in tropical regions was also clearly demonstrated using
airborne data in Chapter 8. A further striking example of how it may provide the
most important information source in tropical forest monitoring is illustrated by
Figure 13.7 [69]. The four panels in the figure show (a) a fine-mode Radarsat
image (resolution of the order 6m by 8.9m) from the Tapajos region of Brazilian
Amazonia (which is the same region as that shown in Figure 12.13); (b) the image
in (a) after applying a 5 by 5 Frost filter [70]; (c) the coefficient of variation in
image (a) calculated within a 7 by 7 sliding window; (d) the estimated order
parameter in image (a), assuming K-distributed data, calculated within an 11 by
11 sliding window. The data were obtained under the Radarsat Announcement of
Opportunity under a Principal Investigator ship held by Dr. C. C. F. Yanasse of
I N P E . This set of images illustrates a number of important issues. First, the
resolution and incidence angle afforded by the Radarsat fine mode clearly allows
texture to be discriminated from space and as predicted for the Tapajos region in
[45]. Second, as expected from airborne data gathered during the SAREX cam-
paign [44,71], texture is perhaps the most important discriminator for distin-
guishing cover types in tropical regions (and probably other forested regions of the
world) if C-band data are to be used. Third, and of great significance, is that
texture allows us to distinguish regions of regenerating and primary forest. This
can be seen at the upper left of the roughly rectangular area of pasture in the
middle of the image, which is an area of regenerating forest. It displays compara-
tively low values in the coefficient of variation image, which are equivalent to large
order parameters. Hence it is dark in Figure 13.7 (c) and bright in Figure 13.7(d).
We can interpret this as indicating that in the regenerating forest there is a more
uniform canopy than in the primary forest; in the latter, emergent trees create a
much "rougher" canopy topography, leading to greater variation in backscatter
due to radar shadows and highlights.

13.7 Using SAR Properties To Refine a Classification

In Section 13.1, we discussed how the sensitivity of SAR to biophysical parame-

ters such as plant structure, biomass, and soil moisture can complicate its use in
classification. This sensitivity can, of course, be turned to an advantage when
interpreting a classified image (with classification derived from a map or optical
data or from the SAR itself) because it may permit internal properties of each
class to be inferred. This type of refined classification may in some cases provide
the most telling contribution of SAR to monitoring and understanding the
dynamics of vegetated surfaces.
As an example, we show in Figure 13.8 a biomass map inferred from SIR-C
data acquired on October 1994, from the Nezer test site in the Landes Forest,
France. In this case both the classification and the biomass are inferred from the
SAR data alone by a two-step process. The discrimination of forest from nonforest
(clear cut) is achieved by use of the C-band H H - W correlation coefficient,
estimated from the 8-look data by means of a 3 by 3 sliding window. This provides

Figure 13.8 Biomass map of the Nezer test site, les Landes, France, derived from SIR-C data
[72].
a robust classifier because it is consistently higher for soil surfaces than for forest,
whatever the soil moisture or roughness state. It is also insensitive to miscalibra-
tion and slope effects because it is formed by channel ratios, as discussed in
Chapter 11. The accuracy of the forest/nonforest separation is around 87% [72].
The mapping of forest biomass relies on the L-band HV backscattering
coefficient, estimated after applying the Kuan et al. filter [73] over a 9 by 9
window. This parameter is known to be sensitive to biomass in the range of 0 to
65 tonnes/ha [74]. A strong relationship between the two can be established in les
Landes because of the dominance of maritime pine in this area, with ensuing
regularity of tree structure [74]. Training stands indicate an accuracy of about
80% for classification into five biomass ranges (clear cut, 8 to 20 tonnes/ha, 21 to
33 tonnes/ha, 34 to 50 tonnes/ha, and greater than 50 tonnes/ha).

13.8 Concluding Remarks

Classification is a requirement for many applications of SAR data, both as

an end in itself and as a precursor to bringing other knowledge to bear. As
an example, once an object is recognized as a field of wheat or rice, knowledge
of its multitemporal or polarimetric signature may permit us to infer its state
of development or its health. Many approaches to classification are possible,
ranging from those making extensive use of the scattering physics of different
kinds of terrain, which are inherently transportable and capable of generali-
zation, to limited studies that are purely data based and of little general value.
Most informed studies to date lie somewhere between these two extremes,
with physical argument being used to comment on the interpretation and
generalizability of statistical or rule-based approaches.
Because of the diversity of data types, test sites, and applications, there are
few areas in which preferred or optimal methods are clear. Equally, rigorous
evaluation of methods has only been attempted in a small number of cases.
What does seem clear is that in order to minimize the within-class variability
and hence to provide a well-defined description of the classes, disturbing effects
must be accounted for or steps taken to mitigate them (e.g., in an agricultural
context, there are known effects on a single crop type from such factors as
incidence angle, row direction, soil type variations, differing crop calendars, and
crop variety). The extent to which this will prevent the development of widely
applicable reliable methods is not known. The fundamental issue is whether the
classes desired for a given application show the degree of stability, homogeneity,
and separability in the available radar data to be accurately identified. As
indicated in this chapter, this is a focal point at which experiment, physical
modeling, data models, parameter estimation, statistical methods, computa-
tional techniques, and applications all meet.

References

[1] Rott, H., P. Skvarca, and T. Nagler, "Rapid Collapse of Northern Larsen Ice Shelf, Antar-
tica," Science, Vol. 271, 1996, pp. 788-792.
[2] New Views of the Earth: Scientific Achievements of ERS-I, ESA SP-1176/1, 1996.
[3] New Views of the Earth: Applications Achievements of ERS-I, ESA SP-1176/11, 1996.
[4] Second ERS Applications Workshop, London, ESA SP-383, 1996.
[5] Special Issue on SIR-C/X-SAR, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 33, 1995.
[6] Elachi, C , Spaceborne Radar Remote Sensing: Applications and Techniques, New York: IEEE
Press, 1987.
[7] Proc. of the First ERS-I Symp., Cannes, ESA SP-359, 1993.
[8] Proc. of the Second ERS-I Symp., Hamburg, ESA SP-361, 1994.
[9] Proc. of the Third ERS-I Symp., Florence, ESA SP-414, 1997.
[10] Le Toan, T., "Scatterometer Measurements on Crop and Soil Surfaces," Proc. ESA-EARSeL
Workshop, Alpbach, ESA SP-166, 1981, pp. 99-110.
[11] Le Toan, T., A. Lopes, and M. Huet, "On the Relationships Between Radar Backscattering
Coefficient and Vegetation Canopy Characteristics," Proc. IGARSS 84 Symp., Strasbourg,
ESASP-215, 1984, pp. 155-160.
[12] Lopes, A., and T. Le Toan, "Effet de Ia Polarisation d'une Onde Electromagnetique dans
l'Attenuation de l'Onde dans un Couvert Vegetal," Proc. Third Int. Symp. on Spectral
Signatures of Objects in Remote Sensing, Les Arcs, ESA SP-247, 1985, pp. 117-122.
[13] Alphonse, and T. Le Toan, "Retrieving Vegetation and Soil Parameters from Radar Meas-
urements," Proc. Fourth International Symp. on Spectral Signatures of Objects in Remote
Sensing, Aussois, ESA SP-287, 1988, pp. 105-111.
[14] Bush, T. E, and E T Ulaby, "Fading Characteristics of Panchromatic Radar Backscatter
from Selected Agricultural Targets," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Electronics, No. 13, 1976,
pp. 149-157.
[15] Ulaby, F. T, "Radar Response to Vegetation," IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagation, Vol.
23, 1975, pp. 36-45.
[16] Ulaby, F. T , T. F. Bush, and P P. Batlivala, "Radar Response to Vegetation II: 8-18 GHz
Band," IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagation, No. 23, 1975, pp. 608-618.
[17] Bush, T. E, and F. T. Ulaby, "An Evaluation of Radar as a Crop Classifier," Remote Sensing
of Environment, Vol. 7, 1978, pp. 15-36.
[18] Ulaby, F. T , C. Allen, G. Eger, and E. Kanemasu, "Relating the Radar Backscattering
Coefficient to Leaf Area Index," Remote Sensing of Environment, Vol. 14, 1984,
pp. 113-133.
[19] Hoekman, D. H., L. Krul, and E. P W. Attema, "A Multi-Layer Model for Backscattering
 from Vegetation Canopies," Proc. IGARSS 82 Symp., Munich, IEEE Pub., 1982,
pp. 41-47.
[20] Ulaby, F. T., R. K. Moore, and A. K. Fung, Microwave Remote Sensing: Active and Passive,
Vol. 2, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982.
[21] Yanasse, C. C. E, S. Quegan, and R. J. Martin, "Inferences on Spatial and Temporal
Variability of the Backscatter from Growing Crops Using AgriSAR Data," Int. J. Remote
Sensing, Vol. 13, 1992, pp. 493-507.
[22] Snoeij, P., and P J. E Swart, "Processing and Calibration of the DUTSCAT Data During
the AGRISCATT Campaigns," Proc. MAESTRO IAGRISCATT Final Workshop: Radar
Techniques for Forestry and Agricultural Applications, ESA WPP-31, 1992, pp. 160-164.
[23] Hawkins, R. K., and L. D. Teany, "SAREX 1992 Data Calibration," Proc. SAREX-92
Workshop: South American Radar Experiment, ESA WPP-76, 1993, pp. 41-53.
[24] Shimada, M., and M. Nakai, "Inflight Evaluation of L Band SAR of Japanese Earth
Resources Satellite-1," Adv. Space Res., Vol. 14, 1994, pp. 231-240.
[25] Rossi, M., B. Rognon, and D. Massonnet, "JERS-I SAR Image Quality and Interferomet-
ric Potential," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 34, 1996, pp. 824-827.
[26] Satellite Radar in Agriculture: Experience with ERS-I, ESA SP-1185, 1995.
[27] Wegmuller, U., and C. Werner, "Retrieval of Vegetation Parameters with SAR Inter-
ferometry," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 35, 1997, pp. 18-24.
[28] Hagberg, J. O., L. M. H. Ulander, and J. Askne, "Repeat-pass SAR Interferometry over
Forested Terrain," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 33, 1995, pp. 331-340.
[29] Lemoine, G., H. de Groof, and H. J. C. Leeuwen, "Monitoring Agricultural Land Prepa-
ration Activities with ERS-I to Complement and Advance Early Season Crop Estimates in
the Framework of the MARS Project,"Second ERS Applications Workshop, London, ESA
SP-383, 1996, pp. 7-12.
[30] Nghiem, S. V, S. H. Yueh, and R. Kwok, "Symmetry Properties in Polarimetric Remote
Sensing," Radio ScL, Vol. 27, 1992, pp. 693-711.
[31] Quegan, S., and I. Rhodes, "Statistical Models for Polarimetric Data: Consequences,
Testing and Validity," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 16, 1995, pp. 1183-1210.
[32] Cordey, R. A., J. T. Macklin, P. A. Wright, P. J. Saich, S. Quegan, A. Wielogorska, and W
P. Loughlin, "Studies of Multi-frequency and Multi-polarisation SAR Applications," Final
Report on DRA Contract RAE IB/89, GEC-Marconi Research Centre Doct. MTR
93/73A, Vol. 3, 1993.
[33] Freeman, A., J. Villasensor, J. D. Klein, P Hoogeboom, and J. Groot, "On the Use of
Multi-Frequency and Polarimetric Radar Backscatter Features for Classification of Agricul-
tural Crops," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 15, 1994, pp. 1799-1812.
[34] Ferrazoli, P., S. Paloscia, P. Pampaloni, G. Schiavon, S. Sigismondi, and D. Solimini, "The
Potential of Multifrequency Polarimetric SAR in Assessing Agricultural and Arboreous
Biomass," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 35, 1997, pp. 5-17.
[35] Pierce, L. E., F. T. Ulaby, K. Sarabandi, and M. C. Dobson, "Knowledge-based Classifica-
tion of Polarimetric SAR Images," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 32, 1994,
pp. 1081-1086.
[36] Hess, L. L., J. M. Melack, S. Filoso, and Y. Wang, "Delineation of Inundated Area and
 Vegetation Along the Amazon Floodplain with the SIR-C Synthetic Aperture Radar," IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 33, 1996, pp. 896-904.
[37] Dobson, M. C , L. E. Pierce, and E T. Ulaby, "Knowledge-based Land-Cover Classification
Using ERS-I/JERS-I SAR Composites," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 34, 1996,
pp. 83-99.
[38] Rignot, E. J. M., R. Chellappa, and P Dubois, "Unsupervised Classification of Polarimetric
Data Using the Covariance Matrix," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 30, 1992,
pp. 697-705.
[39] Wong, Y.-E, and E. C. Posner, "A New Clustering Algorithm Applicable to Multispectral
and Polarimetric SAR Images," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 31, 1993,
pp. 634-644.
[40] Anys, H., and D.-C. He, "Evaluation of Textural and Multipolarisation Radar Features for
Crop Classification," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 33, 1995, pp. 1170—1181.
[41] Chen, K. S., W. P. Huang, D. H. Tsay, and E Amar, "Classification of Multifrequency
Polarimetric SAR Imagery Using a Dynamic Learning Neural Network, IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sensing, Vol. 34, 1996, pp. 814-820.
[42] Hara, Y., R. G. Atkins, S. H. Yueh, R. T. Shin, and J. A. Kong, "Application of Neural
Networks to Radar Image Classification," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 32,
1994, pp. 100-109.
[43] Swain, P. H., and S. M. Davis, Remote Sensing: The Quantitative Approach, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1978.
[44] Beaudoin, A., M. Deshayes, S. Hardy, T. Le Toan, and D. Girou, "Use of Airborne SAR
Data for the Mapping of Shifting Cultivation in French Guiana," Proc. SAREX-92 Work-
shop, ESA WPP-76, 1994, pp. 185-191.
[45] Oliver, C. J., A. Blake, and R. G. White, "Optimum Texture Analysis of SAR Images,"
SPIE Conf. on Algorithms for Synthetic Aperture Radar Imagery, Orlando, FL, SPIE Proc,
Vol. 2230, 1994, pp.389-398.
[46] Williams, M. L., "The Influence of Canopy Shape on SAR Speckle Distributions over
Woodland," Proc. IGARSS 97, Singapore, 1997, pp. 755-757.
[47] Nezry, E., A. Lopes, D. Ducrot-Gambart, C. Nezry, and J.-S. Lee, "Supervised Classifica-
tion of K-Distributed SAR Images of Natural Targets and Probability of Error Estimation,"
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 34, 1996, pp. 1233-1242.
[48] Goodman, N. R., "Statistical Analysis Based on a Certain Multivariate Gaussian Distribu-
tion (an Introduction)," Ann. Math. Stat., Vol. 34, 1963, pp. 152-177.
[49] Lee, J.-S., M. R. Grunes, and R. Kwok, "Classification of Multi-look Polarimetric SAR
Imagery Based on Complex Wishart Distribution," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 15, 1994,
pp.2299-2311.
[50] van ZyI, J. J., and C. F. Burnette, "Bayesian Classification of Polarimetric SAR Images
Using Adaptive a Priori Probabilities," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 13, 1992, pp. 835-840.
[51] Yueh, H. A., A. A. Swartz, J. A. Kong, R. T. Shin, and L. M. Novak, "Bayes Classification
of Terrain Cover Using Normalized Polarimetric Data," /. Geophys. Res., Vol. 93, 1988,
pp. 15261-15267.
[52] Kong, J. A., H. A. Yueh, H. H. Lim, R. T Shin, and J. J. van ZyI, "Classification of Earth
Terrain Using Polarimetric Radar Images," Progress in Electromagnetics Research: Polarimetric
 Remote Sensing, J. A. Kong (ed.), New York, Amsterdam, and London: Elsevier, 1990,
pp. 327-370.
[53] van ZyI, J. J., H. A. Zebker, and C. Elachi, "Polarimetric SAR Applications," Radar
Polarimetry for Geoscience Applications, F. T. Ulaby and C. Elachi (eds.), Norwood, MA:
Artech House, 1990, pp. 315-360.
[54] Lim, H. H., A. A. Swartz, H. A. Yueh, J. A. Kong, R. T. Shin, and J. J. van ZyI,
"Classification of Earth Terrain Using Polarimetric Synthetic Aperture Radar Images," /.
Geophys. Res., Vol. 94, 1989, pp. 7049-7057.
[55] Rignot, E. J. M., and R. Chellappa, "Segmentation of Polarimetric Synthetic Aperture
Radar Data," IEEE Trans.Image Processing, Vol. 1, 1992, pp. 281-299.
[56] Rignot, E. J. M., C. L. Williams, J. B. Way, and L. A. Viereck, "Mapping of Forest Types
in Alaskan Boreal Forests Using SAR Imagery," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 32,
1994, pp. 1051-1059.
[57] Evans, D. L., T. G. Farr, J. J. van ZyI, and H. A. Zebker, "Radar Polarimetry: Analysis Tools
and Applications," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 26, 1988, pp. 774-789.
[58] Zebker, H. A., J. J. van ZyI, and D. N. Held, "Imaging Radar Polarimetry from Wave
Synthesis,"/ Geophys. Res., Vol. 92, 1987, pp. 683-701.
[59] Touzi, R., S. Goze, T. Le Toan, and A. Lopes, "Polarimetric Discriminators for SAR
Images," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 30, 1992, pp. 973-980.
[60] Swartz, A. A., H. A. Yueh, J. A. Kong, L. M. Novak, and R. T. Shin, "Optimal Polarisations
for Achieving Maximum Contrast in Radar Images," /. Geophys. Res., Vol. 93, 1988,
pp. 15252-15260.
[61] Novak, L. M., M. B. Sechtin, and M. J. Cardullo, "Studies of Target Detection Algorithms
that Use Polarimetric Radar Data," IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Elect. Systems, Vol. 2, 1989,
pp. 150-165.
[62] Novak, L. M., G. J. Owirka, and C M . Netishen, "Radar Target Identification Using
Spatial Matched Filters," Pattern Recognition, Vol. 27, 1994, pp. 607-617.
[63] van ZyI, J. J., "Unsupervised Classification of Scattering Behaviour Using Radar Po-
larimetry Data," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 27, 1989, pp. 36—45.
[64] Cloude, S. R., and E. Pottier, "An Entropy Based Classification Scheme for Land Applica-
tions of Polarimetric SAR," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 35, 1997, pp. 68-78.
[65] Le Toan, T, F. Ribbes, L.-F. Wang, N. Floury, K.-H. Ding, J. A. Kong, M. Fujita, and T.
Kurosu, "Rice Crop Mapping and Monitoring Using ERS-I Data Based on Experiment
and Modelling Results," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 35, 1997, pp. 41-56.
[66] Kurosu, T, M. Fujita, and K. Chiba, "Monitoring of Rice Crop Growth from Space Using
ERS-I C-band SAR," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 33, 1995, pp. 1092-1096.
[67] Bruniquel, J., and A. Lopes, "Multi-variate Optimal Speckle Reduction in SAR Imagery,"
Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 18, 1997, pp. 603-627.
[68] Lopes, A., E. Nezry, R. Touzi, and H. Laur, "Structure Detection and Adaptive Speckle
Filtering in SAR Images," Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 14, 1993, pp. 1735-1758.
[69] Sant'Anna, S. J. S., C. C. F. Yanasse, and A. C. Frery, "Estudo Comparativo de Alguns
Classificadores Utilizando-se Imagens Radarsat da Regiao de Tapajos," Proc. First latino-
 American Seminar on Radar Remote Sensing: Image Processing Techniques, Buenos Aires, ESA
S?-407, 1997, pp. 187-194.
[70] Frost, V. S., J. A. Stiles, K. S. Shanmugan, and J. C. Holtzman, "A Model for Radar Images
and Its Application to Adaptive Filtering of Multiplicative Noise," IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal.
Machine IntelL, Vol. 4, 1982, pp. 157-166.
[71] Grover, K. D., and S. Quegan, "Image Quality, Statistical and Textural Properties of
SAREX Data from the Tapajos Test Site," Proc. SAREX-92 Workshop, ESA WPP-76, 1994,
pp. 15-23.
[72] Souyris, J. C , T. Le Toan, N. Floury, C. C. Hsu, and J. A. Kong, "Inversion of Forest
Biomass Using SIR-C/X-SAR Data," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, submitted 1997.
[73] Kuan, D. T., A. A. Sawchuk, T. C. Strand, and P C. Chaval, "Adaptive Restoration of
Images with Speckle," IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process., Vol. 35, 1987,
pp. 373-383.
[74] Le Toan, T, A. Beaudoin, J. Riom, and D. Guyon, "Relating Forest Biomass to SAR Data,"
IEEE Trans. Geosci Remote Sensing, Vol. 30, 1992, pp. 403-411.
 1 4

Current Status and Future Prospects

14.1 Introduction

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of our understanding of SAR images is that
very simple, approximate models can provide good representations of the prop-
erties of the images. Almost all of the developments described in this book flow
from four such models.

1. The complex SAR image is formed by linear filtering of the complex

reflectivity of the scene; this linear filter (the SAR PSF) is divisible into
the product of a range and azimuth PSE
2. The complex reflectivity of the scene can be described by a set of
discrete scatterers, envisaged as point scatterers, facets, or volume
scattering elements. For distributed targets, these scatterers are ran-
domly positioned in the resolution cell.
3. Within distributed scatterers, the properties of the underlying scatter-
ers change slowly in comparison with the resolution length.
4. Image structure arises from discontinuities in one or more measurable
image properties.

From the first of these, we can immediately infer the behavior of single point
targets, or small clusters of targets, with correct representations of the interference
between them. The sampling properties of the data are also immediate. From the
second, in combination with the first, the properties of speckle arise. When there
 are very many scatterers in every resolution cell, the complex reflectivity can be
represented as a white Gaussian process, so the complex image is a correlated
Gaussian process where correlation is determined by the PSE All the elementary
properties of distributed and point targets follow and allow us to quantify the role
of targets, distributed scatterers, and system noise in the observed image.
This basic model needs only to include number fluctuations in the scat-
terer populations between resolution cells in order to provide viable repre-
sentations of texture. Both single-point PDFs and the correlation properties of
textured regions are explained consistently within this simple structure. It also
extends readily to deal with the multidimensional SAR images produced by
polarimetry and interferometry.
A crucial but not obvious consequence is that, for most purposes, the
information contained in the scene only becomes available when products of
channels are formed. For a single channel, this means generation of the intensity
image; while for correlated multichannel data we must include quantities such
as phase difference, amplitude ratio, or correlation coefficient. From the com-
plex image itself we can mainly infer only properties of the sensor, such as the
PSF. The principal exception to this is for isolated point targets, where the phase
signature is given by the SAR PSF and can be used as a detector, as well as being
critical in super-resolution.
While the first two models are central in explaining what we see in SAR
images, the third is crucial in recovering the information they contain. Interfer-
ence between scatterers manifests itself as speckle in single-channel images and
more generally in the multivariate Gaussian distribution encountered for higher
dimensional images. In order to deal with these high-frequency fluctuations we
assume that they mask a real-world complex reflectivity that changes on much
slower scales (except at edges and near isolated targets). All the approaches to
filtering, reconstruction, and segmentation described in earlier chapters have at
their root this assumption of a comparatively smooth reflectivity, punctuated by
structural elements in the scene. The fourth model allows us to build this
knowledge about discontinuities into our algorithms and to make them adaptive
to local structure. The validation of these methods takes us back, at least for
single-channel data, just to the properties of one-dimensional speckle.
Expressed in these terms, the physical content of much of the material in
this book is low because we made little use of electromagnetic theory, the
dielectric properties of materials, or the nature of the scattering medium.
Equally, only the most general concepts about the nature of a scene were
introduced. Instead, we principally concerned ourselves with the processes by
which the arrays of numbers corresponding to digital SAR images need to be
treated in order to isolate the information-bearing components of the data. It is
through these components that the links to deeper physical theories can be
 made: by characterizing the data, we bring into focus what physical theory needs
to explain. Equally, the structure we see in an image, on which we can bring our
knowledge of the world to bear, relies on the choice of what to display and how
to display it. This means we must deal properly with situations where more than
a single parameter is needed to capture the information in the data, either
because of multidimensionality or texture.
In this sense, we were concerned with providing the bridge that connects
the physics of scattering, through measurement, to investigation of real world
processes, as illustrated in Figure 14.1. Notice that the arrows connecting the
boxes in this figure are two-way, due to the fact that, in some cases, we can
measure an effect (e.g., texture) without having any clear idea of the physical
phenomenon causing it (indeed, we may have several theories, but be unable to
decide which, if any, is correct). An examination of many of the images in this
book reveals numerous effects that we cannot currently explain. Image analysis
then acts as a stimulus to physical understanding. Equally, the need to apply
images places requirements on the performance of image analysis methods in
order for them to be useful. For example, the loss of much of the prominent
drainage channel shown in Figure 6.12(a) in the reconstruction of Figure 6.12(b)
and to a lesser extent in the segmentation shown as Figure 7.10(b) indicates that
neither algorithm is currently reliable in a mapping context at this spatial resolu-
tion. Such failures motivate new and more powerful methods.
In order to make this bridge as safe as possible, we tried to establish firm
foundations and rigorous developments based on data models. However, as with
all attempts to represent complex phenomena by models (and hence make them
susceptible to mathematical treatment), it is critical to assess the extent to which
the models are complete, accurate, tractable, and useful. By surveying these
highly interrelated issues, we will summarize what was achieved, identify fail-
ings, and indicate directions where further efforts are required.

14.2 Are the Models Complete?

A model can be considered complete in a statistical sense if measurements made

on the data are consistent with that model. For parametric statistical models,

Physical Image
Application
Theory Analysis

Figure 14.1 Image analysis bridges the gap between physical theory and the high-level un-
derstanding required to apply the images.
which form the backbone of most of the analysis in the earlier chapters,
completeness needs to be coupled with economy. We tried to identify a minimal
set of parameters from which all other measurements can be inferred. Striking
success was demonstrated over a variety of systems for the Gaussian model and
the K distribution model. By measuring a covariance matrix and an order
parameter, all the information is captured. However, we also identified situ-
ations where these models begin to break down, including:

• Very high resolution data ( < Im), where mixture distributions or other
types of distribution become necessary to describe the data (see Section
5.7);
• Long wavelength data (50 to 100 cm), where for some cover types the
distribution may not be properly characterized by either of these mod-
els (see Section 11.9);
• Very long wavelength data (tens of meters) provided by systems such as
CARABAS [1] in which the assumption of many comparable scatterers
per resolution cell is likely to be violated;
• Urban areas, where semideterministic structures violate the conditions
leading to the local Gaussian model.

In the first three of these cases, the amount of data that is available and
has been thoroughly examined is very limited. Very high resolution data are
likely to remain of most relevance in the military context, so clutter models for
target detection will drive the developments. The second two data types have
both military and civilian applications but are unlikely to become widely avail-
able in the near future, not least because of problems of interference with other
systems. Where this problem can be circumvented, an important application for
both types is likely to be in forestry. Particularly for the very long wavelengths,
the data distributions will then need better characterization since they may carry
information on the number density of scatterers and hence tree spacing. (This
is currently very speculative.) Urban areas present special problems due to corner
reflector and specular effects but represent possibly important target types for
application of SAR [2].
If we inquire whether the models are complete in the physical sense,
our answer must be no, for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most pertinent
is that the linear imaging model and the speckle model both rely to some
extent on a representation of the world as a collection of discrete scatterers
whose interaction with the incident wave is by single scattering. The product
model for polarimetric data (Appendix 1 IA) effectively made the further as-
sumption that all scatterers see the same field. In scattering theory terms, this
 corresponds to the Born approximation, while the inclusion of attenuation
effects can be described by the distorted Born approximation. This simplifi-
cation may seem unreasonable, since it ignores multiple scattering and situ-
ations, such as surface scattering, for which a continuous model of the medium
seems more appropriate. We nonetheless find that the predictions based on
it are often consistent with the data. For example, since different polarizations
penetrate to different depths in forest canopies, measured order parameters
in the H H and W channels could, in principle, be different. The few meas-
urements that address this question seem to indicate otherwise. In theoretical
terms, [3] also indicates that, at least for one formulation of surface scattering,
the continuous medium model effectively reduces to a discrete single scattering
model.
Another gap in our physical description is in texture modeling. At various
points we discussed texture as a number fluctuation effect, a shadowing/high-
light effect, or a random variation in the underlying continuous RCS. The links
between these points of view are only just becoming established [4,5]. This
physical understanding of texture is important in our statistical modeling of the
process, since Section 5.8 indicated that only by inserting such knowledge can
we produce textures corresponding to those observed in woodland. It is also
crucial in fully exploiting texture because it indicates the geophysical parameters
controlling texture. This insight also indicates the sensor and target conditions
under which texture is likely to be observable [6]. However, no such insight is
available for the texture distributions observed at very high resolutions. Indeed,
at these resolutions the world appears to become progressively more complex.
Simple statistical models break down and the links of more complicated models
to physical parameters become tenuous.
At the other end of the spatial scale, all of the algorithms described in this
book acquire their information locally and only build up long-range spatial
correlations by iteration. They contain no a priori knowledge, for example,
about linear structures or corners, despite these having very high information
content in human perception of scenes [7]. This is reflected in the failure, noted
previously, to detect some structural scene elements that are obvious to a human
observer. Some algorithms that can make use of long-range information exist,
such as the Hough transform for detecting extended linear features [8]. How-
ever, their integration into the Bayesian approach adopted in this book does not
seem straightforward. Indeed, it is questionable whether the type of information
inherent in scene structure is susceptible to any form of Bayesian analysis.
Nonetheless, work by Hellwich [9] demonstrated that line finding can be
introduced into a simulated annealing scheme, as mentioned in Chapter 7. Also,
some aspects of shape can be controlled within a Bayesian treatment, for
example, through the curvature penalty involved in annealed segmentation
(Section 7.3.5). The extent to which such methods can fully capture our prior
knowledge of the properties of scenes has yet to be established.

14.3 Are the Models Accurate?

Accuracy is highly coupled with completeness and economy. We observed that

very close approximations to the distributions observed in SAR scenes are
possible using simple models, and in Section 14.2 we indicated where these
break down. However, an accurate model does not necessarily imply accurate
conclusions or measurements unless it can be applied. This has three aspects.
First, the model may need to be approximated because it requires the solution
of nonanalytic equations, numerical methods, or techniques that are too time
consuming for the available computing power and application. As an example,
a rigorous process of fitting regions to a two-dimensional image to optimize a
cost function is computationally prohibitive. The impact of such considerations
on algorithm selection was dealt with in Sections 6.10 and 7A (see also Figure
7.11). This issue is closely connected with the questions of tractability, as
discussed in the next section. Second, the result of an algorithm derived from
an optimization principle may not be consistent with the model on which it is
based. For example, it is readily shown that the single-channel MAP filter, which
assumes a K-distributed input in its reconstruction, does not generate the
expected gamma distribution on output. Similarly, the reconstruction filters
discussed in Chapter 6 were all shown to cause radiometric distortion. Third, if
the accurate model leads to a solution that is itself too complicated for exploi-
tation, then either a simpler model or a way to degrade the solution needs to be
found. This is well illustrated by some of the very complex edge maps shown in
Figure 7.13, which do not map readily onto map features or human perceptions
of structure in the image. Hence, accuracy may in some circumstances have to
be placed in the context of what is needed to represent the desired information
rather than the available information. Similar issues arise in classification, where
the complexity of the world at radar wavelengths must be taken into account in
order to arrive at robust methods.

14.4 Are the Models Tractable?

The model-based development throughout this book relied mainly on develop-

ing statistical distributions involving small numbers of parameters that can
successfully describe a wide range of target types encountered in SAR images.
These were used to identify the measurements and image types that convey the
 information content of the data. Two-point distributions also entered the pic-
ture mainly through their spatial correlation properties, involving the interac-
tion between spatial properties of the scene and the SAR PSF.
The existence of viable parameterized models together with simple struc-
ture models for the scene allowed us to follow a Bayesian approach to informa-
tion extraction. This led to a range of optimization problems of varying degrees
of complexity. Much of the theory and analysis was concerned with investigating
the properties of the distributions or solving the optimization problems.
For the Gaussian model a nearly complete treatment applicable to mul-
tilook and multichannel data is possible. All the important distributions are
derivable, difficulties being encountered only for the moments of multilook phase
difference and Hermitian product amplitude (see Chapter 11 and [10]). There is
a very well-developed sampling theory, based on the complex Wishart distribu-
tion. From it, the estimation properties of the ML estimators of such important
parameters as coherence and phase difference can be derived, providing a firm
basis for estimating bias and establishing confidence intervals, for example.
The introduction of a product model changes the picture completely, even
in the simplest and most widely applicable case of a K distribution. Now, even
for single-look, single-channel data, the ML solution for the parameters is not
analytic and approximate methods must be used. Good progress was made in
this simplest case (see Chapter 7) and the required approximations shown not
to degrade performance significantly. However, we do not currently have a
readily applicable analysis of confidence intervals for order parameters. Hence,
questions concerned with discrimination of textures and even the existence of
texture within a data sample cannot be adequately resolved at present. For
multilook, single-channel data, useful methods are only available when the
texture is effectively constant across the looks. (In the case of multilooking by
averaging image pixels, this means that the texture must vary on scales longer
than that of the averaging window.) When this condition holds, the product
model still applies and approximate methods are available. When this condition
does not hold, there are few results available, since little work has been reported
on the distributions arising from sums of K-distributed pixels. For multichannel
data obeying the product model, optimal methods to estimate texture parame-
ters still await thorough investigation, but sensible approaches to this problem
are available (see Section 11.9 and [10]).

14.5 Are the Models Useful?

It must be recognized that the need for powerful methods depends on the
application. Very useful information can in some cases be inferred from SAR
images simply by looking at them. A very good example of this is the analysis
of the break-up of the Larsen iceshelf reported in [11], which effectively treated
the series of ERS-I images like a set of photographs. For this purpose, all the
relevant information was carried in the structure (the iceshelf margin, icefloes,
and fixed features) and there was sufficient radiometric contrast to pick these
out. Many of the images in this book contain structural information that is
obvious to a human being and, therefore, may be all that is needed for mapping.
However, once we go beyond treating the SAR image purely as a picture,
the machinery developed in this book becomes relevant. Parameter estimation
(e.g., in agricultural applications) and all aspects of handling multidimensional
data (e.g., EMISAR or AirSAR multifrequency polarimetric data) require proper
knowledge of the underlying distributions. Detecting small or weak targets in a
clutter background or rapid, consistent handling of large amounts of data
requires automatic or semiautomatic image analysis tools. To carry out these
tasks effectively it is essential to understand how information about the scene is
encoded in the data. The development of such understanding was an underlying
theme throughout this book.
However, the acid test of usefulness is whether these developments can aid
applications. There has, in fact, been little large-scale validation of any of the
methods in this book. We can attribute this to a number of factors:

1. Methods have been reported in a piecemeal fashion in a large variety

of journals, and it is hard for a potential user to get an overview of the
corpus of work. Basically, much of this work is not well-known to the
user community.
2. Many of the reports of algorithms have paid little attention to valida-
tion or assessment of their real value to applications. This in some
sense reflects a separation between the community that develops algo-
rithms and those with a remote sensing task.
3. Many of the algorithms reported here are comparatively sophisticated,
not easily implemented, and require considerable computing power.
Hence, there is a tendency to rely on simple methods, even if they are
not particularly effective.
4. Much of the analysis of SAR data has been on small datasets over local
areas where human interaction is a more efficient means to carry out
the task required. Where large-scale applications are underway, uncer-
tainties about the reliability of automatic methods may still make it
preferable for images to be handled by large numbers of human
analysts. The trade-off of accuracy against cost has yet to be done. It
is essential that the ability of the methods reported here to emulate or
 improve on the performance of human analysts be properly assessed if
they are to have serious impact on applications. (This does not apply
to the selection of data features that carry the relevant information,
since this is common to both human and automatic analysis. It does
apply to image analysis tasks such as reconstruction or segmentation.)
5. The methods reported here are comparatively new and continually
evolving. Very significant strides have been made in algorithm devel-
opment and validation inside the last few years (e.g., compare the
results described in [12] with those in earlier chapters in this book).
6. Very many civilian applications need the coverage and repeatability
provided by satellite data. Because of the lower resolution, the infor-
mation available to recover objects of interest is less. Hence, the local
methods on which all the reconstruction and segmentation algorithms
are based may not be sufficient to recover all the image structure. This
is particularly true when thin, dark features are important scene ele-
ments. A clear example of this is the prominent drainage channel in
the ERS-I image shown as Figure 6.12(a). It is poorly defined in the
reconstructions shown in Figures 6.12(b) and 7.10(b) and in the
single-channel segmentations displayed as Figure 12.1 l(d—f). Only
when several multitemporal images are combined does this feature
become well reproduced by segmentation (Figure 12.12). Notice that
even in this case the channel is represented as many different segments
and does not have the integrity that would be assigned to it by a
human being.
7. Only in some cases are robust methods for classification based on SAR
data alone available, as described in Chapter 13. Since this is a critical
step for many applications, the role of SAR in the information required
for the application may then be subordinate or ill-defined. The whole
question of how to combine SAR data with other data types in the con-
text of a variety of applications needs much further work. A related issue
is the availability of data; classification methods may be known but the
SAR systems required to carry them out may not yet be in operation.

14.6 Future Developments

Perhaps the most important issues with which to end this book are an assess-
ment of whether we have gone as far as is necessary along the road we have been
following and whether we can fruitfully try to go further. Our aim throughout
has been to try to identify the information in SAR images and to devise methods
 that display it to best advantage. For single-channel data we followed both
reconstruction and segmentation routes, and our best current efforts are epito-
mized by Figures 6.11 and 7.10(a) for high-resolution airborne data and Figures
6.12 and 7.10(b) for lower resolution satellite data. Visually the reconstructed
airborne data are of very high quality but are known to contain radiometric
distortion (see Section 6.10) and not to conform to the speckle model in regions
of the image with small-scale structure (see Figures 6.9 and 6.10). The seg-
mented data, on the other hand, are visually less attractive, largely because of
the steps in brightness forced by the cartoon model. However, they are ra-
diometrically unbiased and conform closely to the speckle model (see Figure
7.9). This suggests that the lack of such conformity in the reconstructions is a
failure of the algorithms, where there is small-scale structure, not a failure of the
speckle model.
Images like Figures 6.11, 6.12, and 7.10 represent the state of the art, and
we need to question whether the techniques that produced them are good enough
and whether there is any scope for them to be bettered. Although we have
described objective tests of algorithm performance and are currently working to
improve these tests (e.g., to evaluate the shape preservation aspects of the segmen-
tation algorithms), the first question can only be answered by assessing how they
perform in applications. As in all aspects of SAR imaging, this interplay between
technique and purpose will drive progress. Shortcomings of the algorithms be-
come immediately obvious from failures to emulate tasks that can be carried out
by a human being. However, it is not necessary (and is almost certainly unachiev-
able) that all aspects of image understanding should be automatically reproduc-
ible; only those relevant to the task are needed. The failure to reconstruct
faithfully the drainage channel in Figure 6.12 or 7.10(b) may not prevent these
images from being used effectively in crop classification, for example.
A Bayesian, MAP treatment implemented through simulated annealing
appears to provide the most powerful approach to image analysis currently
available. For single-channel data, the only way this is going to be improved is
by embedding improved prior knowledge in the process. One form of knowl-
edge known to be omitted is the existence of thin linear features, as was already
noted. For many civilian applications, however, multichannel (especially mul-
titemporal) data is likely to be more important. For polarimetric and inter-
ferometric data, there are inadequacies in the segmentation methods, since they
ignore interchannel correlation and texture. The existing MAP approach with
annealing extends correctly to multitemporal data in which interchannel corre-
lation is negligible, though again texture is not yet represented. The real chal-
lenges that seem likely to arise will be the incorporation, if possible, of new
forms of knowledge into the Bayesian framework, particularly other types of
data (such as map information and optical images).
 Finally, the methods and results described here provide a yardstick against
which other algorithms and further improvements must be measured. We tried
to make clear the continual development of the algorithms and why the cur-
rently preferred methods are judged to be the most powerful available. We also
tried to indicate the relative merits of other approaches so that users of SAR
imagery can make an informed choice in their selection of image analysis tools.
In the final analysis, it is the fitness of the tool to the task that decides its real
value.

References

[1] Israelsson, H., L. M. H. Ulander, J. I. H. Askne, P. F. Fransson, A. Gustavsson, and H.

Hellsten, "Retrieval of Forest Stem Volume Using VHF SAR," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sensing, Vol. 35, 1997, pp. 36-40.
[2] Henderson, F. M., and Z.-G. Xia, "SAR Applications in Human Settlement Detection,
Population Estimation, and Urban Land Use Patterns: a Status Report," IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sensing, Vol. 35, 1997, pp. 79-85.
[3] Jakeman, E., and P N. Pusey, "Non-Gaussian Fluctuations in Electromagnetic Radiation
Scattered by a Random Phase Screen. I. Theory," /. Phys. A: Math Gen., Vol. 8, 1975,
pp. 369-391.
[4] Williams, M. L, S. Quegan, and D. Blacknell, "Distribution of Backscattered Intensity in
the Distorted Born Approximation: Application to C-band SAR Images of Woodland", /
Electromagnetic Waves and Their Appls., 1997 (in press).
[5] Williams, M. L., "Influence of Canopy Shape on SAR Speckle Distributions over Wood-
land," Proc. IGARSS 97, Singapore, 1997, pp. 755-757.
[6] Oliver, C. J., A. P. Blake, and R. G. White, "Optimum Texture Analysis of Synthetic
Aperture Radar Images," SPIE Conf. on Algorithms for Synthetic Aperture Radar, Orlando,
FL, SPIEProc, Vol. 2230, 1994, pp. 389-398.
[7] Resnikoff, H. L., The Illusion of Reality, New York; Springer-Verlag, 1989.
[8] Murphy, L. M., "Linear Feature Detection and Enhancement in Noisy Images Via the
Radon Transform," Pattern Recog. Letts., Vol. 4, 1986, pp. 279-284.
[9] Hellwich, O., "Line Extraction from Synthetic Aperture Radar Scenes Using a Markov
Random Field Model," Europto Conf on SAR Image Analysis, Simulation and Modelling II,
Taormina, SPIEProc, Vol. 2958, 1996, pp. 107-113.
[10] Tough, R. J. A., D. Blacknell, and S. Quegan, "A Statistical Description of Polarimetric and
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar Data," Proc Roy. Soc London A, Vol. 449, 1995,
pp. 567-589.
[11] Rott, H., P. Skvarca, and T. Nagler, "Rapid Collapse of Northern Larsen Ice Shelf, Antar-
tica," Science, Vol. 271, 1996, pp. 788-792.
[12] Quegan S., R. G. Caves, K. D. Grover, and R. G. White, "Segmentation and Change
Detection in ERS-I Images over East Anglia," Proc. First ERS-I Symposium, Cannes,
France, 1992, pp. 617-622.
Index

Index terms Links

A
Adaptive feature-preserving filters 403
Agricultural monitoring 414
Airborne SAR 17 30 68 418
2-look 198
DRA X-band image 26 80
geometry 13
high-resolution data 460
See also SAR; SAR images
AirSAR system 2 349 352 353
373 393 394 417
data classes 438
polarimetric data 421 435
SIR-C combined with 442
Amplitude modulation (AM) 43 44
Amplitude product 335
Amplitude ratio distribution 335 340
analytic CDF 340
EMISAR images 342
uses 340
See also Phase difference distribution
Annealed CMAP (ACMAP) 186 189
iterated 192
for sloping RCS model 182
See also CMAP

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation. 465
466
Index terms Links
Annealed CML (ACML) 179 186 221
analysis 180
with constant RCS 182
execution time 189
iterated 192
Kth configuration in 180
with sloping RCS 189
See also CML
Annealed segmentation 208 408
application of 219
comparison 211
flow diagram 210
loop stages 209
multidimensional 395
texture 251
See also Segmentation
Annealed texture classification 247
Antenna
pattern 37 59
stabilization 59
Area-based difference measures 388
Armored infantry fighting vehicle (AIFV) 298
Atmospheric refractive index 45
Autocorrelation function (ACF) 22
amplitude 262 266
coefficients 262 263
of complex data 111
Gaussian 259 263
intensity 140 262 263 266
log 262 274
normalized 141 261
parameter fitting 270

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 467
Index terms Links
Autocorrelation function (ACF) (Continued)
results 264
texture 274
Autofocus
accuracy of 52
CO method 48 51 52
correction estimation 65
implementation 51
iterated 63
method choice 52
MLR method 48 50
PD method 48 49
PG method 48 49
PPP 48 49 51
residual acceleration power spectrum 68
scatterer properties effect on 53
techniques 5 48
See also Defocus
Automatic methods 458
Automatic target recognition (ATR)
defined 296
processing chain 300
target classification and 305
See also Target detection
Average intensity 89
Azimuth 12 25
beamwidth 26
intensity correlation coefficients 103 108
processing 28 33
processing parameters 28
PSF 32 69
resolution 27

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

468
Index terms Links
Azimuth (Continued)
strip 31
See also Range
Azimuthal distortion 56 58
geometric 56
residual 61

B
Background
distribution 280
effect of 285
Gaussian, speckle 308
K-distributed 287 290
PDF 280
properties 279 294
RCS 282 283
region, false alarm 280
speckled 311
weak 278
Backscattering coefficient 33 401 403
Bandwidth 12
Doppler 94
spatial 27
Bayesian approach 456
classifier 430
MAP treatment 460
reconstruction 7 161 189
target detection 278 279 314
Beam weighting 31
Bessel function 133 335 336 343
expanded 361
zero-order 361

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 469
Index terms Links
Binomial distribution 325
Biomass map 443
Blurring 406
Born approximations 323
Boundaries
decision 431
establishing 366
between regions 124
of texture 124

C
Calibration 5 34
errors 386
inadequate 5
internal, tones 322
necessity of 91
targets 322
Cartoon model 197 198 202
Change detection 8
on images from different dates 438
pixel-based 385
target 305 306
See also Target detection
Channels
in-phase (I) 36 93
polarimetric 333 341
quadrature (Q) 36 93
uncorrelated 431
Chirp pulse 21 24
Classification
accuracies 408 432 433
based on scattering mechanism 434

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

470
Index terms Links
Classification (Continued)
of C-, L-, and P-band AirSAR data 436
crop 432
data-driven methods 427 433
decision rules for 426
effective 416
empirical basis for 416
Gaussian MAP 427
image 8
knowledge-based 437
MAP 432
ML 196
object 79
RCS 195
refined 443
SAR image 413
SAR properties to redefine 442
sea-ice 432
single-frequency polarimetric 430
target 305
texture 245 425
threshold and 406
Clutter
class 434
K-distributed 287 289
natural 302
Clutter-to-noise ratio (CNR) 102 104
CMAP 170 185
annealed (ACMAP) 182
despeckling 169
iterated, despeckling 174
See also Correlated neighborhood model

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 471
Index terms Links
CML 170 185
annealed (ACML) 179
despeckling 168
iterated, despeckling 173
See also Correlated neighborhood model
Coefficient of variation (CV) 88
Coherent imaging 139 140
Complex (field) correlation coefficient 101
Complex image 85 86
Complex of reflectivity 29
Complex scattering amplitude 29
Complex Wishart distribution 343 428 457
Compression ratio 23
Constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detection 279 282 314
cell-averaging 282
condition estimation 287
contrast tests 301
corrected algorithms 287
one-parameter 295 302
standard 282 287
statistic 302
threshold 282
types of 295
See also Target detection
Constant RCS model 179 182
Contrast optimization (CO) 48
defined 51
focus parameter effects on 51
objects in 54
post-use illustration 52
Correlated neighborhood model 167
defined 167

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

472
Index terms Links
Correlated neighborhood model (Continued)
diagram 168
gamma MAP. See CMAP
ML. See CML
Correlated textures 259
average probability comparison 270
classification 266
ML correlated edge detection 271
ML edge-detection theory 271
model-based parameter estimation 261
random region selection of 261
See also Textures
Correlation 76
coefficient 102 386 422
local, structure 383
reducing 109
removing 110
spatial 99 105 119 164
Correlation length
fractional error dependence on 264
fractional error in 265
increase 264
Covariance matrix
data, using 375
distribution of 429
L-look 428
measuring 454
ML estimate of 351
postprocessing of 437
of transformed data 377
Cramer-Rao bound 243
Crimmins algorithm 171 185

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 473
Index terms Links
Crop
cereal 433
classification 432
types 420
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) 148
amplitude ratio 340
of configuration probability 179
trained 231

D
Data
characterization 126
covariance matrix 375
empirical distributions 128
intensity 380
interferometric 355
multifrequency 356
multilook textured 351
multitemporal 356
polarimetric 7 30 322 350
421
SAR 34 98 319
Data model 76 123 157
advantages 82
correlated K-distributed 142 151
homogeneity testing 128
interrelation flowchart 82
limitations of 142
parameter dependency 82
product model 123 130
verification 128
Defocus 45
cause of 46

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

474
Index terms Links
Defocus (Continued)
illustrated 46
See also Autofocus
Depth-of-focus (DOF) limit 64 68
Despeckling
CMAP 169
CML 168
gamma MAP 166
illustrations 163
iterated CMAP 174
iterated CML 173
iterated gamma MAP 172
iterated MMSE 171
MMSE 164
multilook 162
See also Speckle
Deterministic RCS 6
Differential backscattering coefficient 31
Dirac delta function 32
Direct classification 246
Direct measurements 34
Direct spectrum classification 266
Distortion 45 55
across-track 61
along-track 55
azimuthal 56 58
geometric 55
minimizing 60
over aperture 61
physical causes and 55
radiometric 55

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 475
Index terms Links
Distributed scatterer 87
Distributed targets 38 91 99
speckle model for 119
uniformly 102
Distributions 128
amplitude ratio 335 340
binomial 325
comparison of 135
complex Wishart 343
Fischer-Tippett 88
gamma 133 137 138 239
Gaussian 236 325 328
intensity 140
K 134 135 136 138
143 238
log normal 127 128 129 136
237
marginal 343 344
multilook coherence 345
multilook phase difference 344
phase difference 336
Poisson 325
polarimetric data 322
Rayleigh 89 129
sampling 112
single-look 333
theoretical 90
Weibull 126 127 128 129
Doppler centroid parameter 47 50
Doppler sensitivity 117
Doppler shift 28 31 33

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

476
Index terms Links
E
Edge detection 199
analysis 204
comparison 201
for correlated textures 271
defined 199
edge-detection criterion 199
flow diagram 200
improving 271
ML theory 271
operation of 200
PDF-based 274
performance 272
RGW 199 395
texture segmentation 249
See also RGW; Segmentation
Eigenimage classification 307
Elevation antenna pattern 30
EMISAR 368 417
amplitude ratio images 342
HH image 380
images 336
intensity data 378
L-band image 369
polarimetric system 116
stability 417
ENVISAT satellite system 1 417
Equivalent number of looks (ENL) 95
ERS-1 1
6-look, SAR 198
azimuth correlation coefficients 102
azimuth resolutions 27
data 18 20 401 414

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 477
Index terms Links
ERS-1 (Continued)
forest discrimination and 406 408
images 19 191 458 459
multitemporal dataset 400
parameters 17
PRI images 29 397 398 402
439
PSF 35
SLC imagery 5 89
for wetland rice monitoring 437
ERS-2 satellite 1
Estimating
autofocus correction 65
intensity 169
MAP 162
model-based parameters 231 235
moments 232
PDF 235
RCS 93 99 178
spatial correlation 110
Euler’s constant 263 288
Execution times
ACML 189
reconstruction 187
segmentation algorithm 217
Exponential variables 150

F
False alarm probability 211
dependence of 288
derivation 288
pixel-based detection 387

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

478
Index terms Links
False alarms
discriminating targets from 304
sources of 300
Fast Fourier transform (FFT) 109
Fischer-Tippett distribution 88
Fitting
classification by 245
regions 208
Fixed windows, scanned edge (FWSE)
configuration 205 249 250 273
edge-detection probability 272 275
SWCE vs. 273
Flat-Earth approximations 16
Focus parameter 27 47 66
Fokker-Planck rate equation 132
Forest
biomass, mapping of 444
discrimination 406 408 443
Forward mapping 149
Forward Problem 77 143
defined 77
requirement 79
solution of 79
See also Inverse Problem
Fourier transform (FT) 49
Frequency modulation (FM) 21 32
Furrows 6

G
Gain 36 37
Gamma-distributed RCS 6 133 134 140
259

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 479
Index terms Links
Gamma distribution 137 239
as approximations 138
L-look 133 431
Gamma MAP 166 185
algorithm 173
comparison 187
detection rate 408
estimation 373
filtered data 406
iterated, despeckling 172
reconstruction 166
selection 188
See also Maximum a posteriori (MAP)
Gamma variables 150
Gaussian background speckle 308
Gaussian distribution 236
complex 332
moments 333
multidimensional 328
multivariate 325
real 332
Gaussian hypergeometric function 133
Gaussian MAP classification 427
Gaussian random number generator 146
Gaussian random variables (GRV) 150 327
Gaussian resampling transformation 151
Geometrical Theory of Diffraction 143
Geometric distortion 55
azimuthal 56
minimizing 60
residual 60
Global Positioning System (GPS) 56 62

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

480
Index terms Links
Ground range 15
data 17
resolution 17
See also Range

H
Histograms 404
Hough transform 455
Hughes Map Drift technique 48
Huygens wavelets 92

I
Image classification. See Classification
Images. See SAR images
Image texture. See Texture
Imaging
coherent 139 140
consequences of 102
contrast averaging 141
incoherent 140
RCS fluctuations 138
Incoherent averaging 93
Incoherent imaging 140
Inertial Navigation System (INS) 56 57 62
In-phase (I) channel 36 93
Integrated sidelobe ratio (ISLR) 62 68
Intensity
ACF 140 262 263 266
data 380
distribution 140
estimates 169
fluctuations 123

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 481
Index terms Links
Intensity (Continued)
HH 368
K-distributed 233 238
moments 133 142
PDF 133 136
uncorrelated random 232
VV 368
Intensity correlation coefficients 20 103 108
calculated in azimuth direction 103 108
calculated in range direction 20
Intensity ratio
approximate/exact probabilities 392
multilook 346
SD of 216
Interchannel coherence 345
Interferometry
data 355
images 115
repeat-pass 114 430
SAR 114
Interpolation 109
Inverse mapping 149
Inverse Problem 78
defined 78
requirement 79
solving methods 78 79
See also Forward Problem
Iterated autofocus 63
Iterated CMAP despeckling 174
Iterated CML despeckling 173
Iterated gamma MAP despeckling 172
Iterated MMSE despeckling 171

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

482
Index terms Links
J
Jeffries-Matsushita separability measure 425
JERS-1 satellite system 1 406 417

K
K distribution 134 135 138 143
150 151 238 354
approximations to 238
background 287 290
clutter 238 287 289
intensity 233 238
log likelihood 239 246
ML calculation for 242
MLE for 242
moment evaluation 240
multivariate 324
pixels 457
texture 240
uncorrelated noise 270
Knowledge-based classification 437
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test 127 128 151 231
246 249 338 354

L
Lagrange multiplier methods 377
L-band amplitude images 116 117 118
Linear systems theory 100
L-look 93 94 160 162
average intensity 94
covariance matrix 428
gamma distributions 431
intensity data 130
log likelihood 196

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 483
Index terms Links
L-look (Continued)
speckle, gamma distribution 133
textured data 381
uncorrelated intensity images 386
Log likelihood
calculation 253 269
of classes 269
difference 250
as distance measure 266
K distribution 239 246
L-look 196
log normal distribution 237
ML, difference 292
for regions 271 272
total 397
Log normal distribution 127 128 129 136
237
log likelihood 237
PDF 127 234 266
Looks 29

M
Mapping
of forest biomass 444
forward 149
inverse 149
Marginal distributions 343 344
Match filtering 23
Maximum a posteriori (MAP)
classification, applications of 432
crop classification 432
detection criterion 279 280
estimate 162

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

484
Index terms Links
Maximum a posteriori (MAP) (Continued)
gamma, despeckling 166
global 406 426 432
global reconstruction 176 178
reconstruction 165
solution 166
Maximum entropy (ME) 234
Maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) 93 238 342
defining 253
derivation of 236
identifying 208
of interferometric phase 355
for K distribution 242
for mean and order 239
for mean and variance 237
Maximum likelihood (ML) 5
calculation for K distribution 242
classification 196
covariance matrix estimate 351
detection criterion 280
edge-detection theory 271
estimation problem 351
likelihood classifier 270
log likelihood difference 292
parameter estimates 284
See also ML split/merge theory
Mean direction 340
Mean-square error 53
Measurements 82
C-band 423
covariance matrix 454
imaging model and 102
information and 84

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 485
Index terms Links
Measurements (Continued)
interrelation of 82
L-band 424
polarimetric 320
RCS 83
texture 91
useful 413
Merge using moments (MUM) 222 251 254
application of 202
comparative execution times 254
comparison 201
edge maps 224
Gaussian 207
local 214
optimized 212 213 215
selecting 217
See also Segmentation
Metropolis algorithm 176
Minimum mean-square error (MMSE)
applying 165
despeckling 164
iterated, despeckling 171
one-dimensional filter 368 372
output 373
reconstruction 164 172 368
ML split/merge theory 203
implementation of 207
See also Maximum likelihood (ML); Segmentation
Model-based segmentation 251
Model-based texture parameter estimation 231 235
correlated texture 261
example 244
uncertainty in 240

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

486
Index terms Links
Model-free texture exploitation 231
Models
accuracy of 456
breakdown of 454
completeness of 453
correlated neighborhood 167
data 76 123 157
Gaussian 454 457
parametric statistical 453
product 123 130 360 369
457
RCS 131 165 179 180
speckle 113 157 159
textured target 289 455
tractability of 456
usefulness of 457
Moments
estimating 232
evaluating 240
fourth-order field 333
of Gaussian distribution 333
optimum selection of 234
See also Merge using moments (MUM)
Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse 308
Motion-compensation (MOCO) 44 45 57
conventional combined with signal-based 66
extended, system 58
focus parameter 66
high-frequency tracking 64
iterated autofocus 63
signal-based 58 63 71
techniques 2

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 487
Index terms Links
Moving target indicator (MTI) system 117
Multichannel SAR data 319 427
channel correlation 320
multidimensional Gaussian distribution and 328
polarimetric data distributions 322
polarimetric measurements 320
principal components analysis in 383
See also SAR data
Multichannel segmentation 391
annealed 395
average intensities 397 400
basis of 391
edges in 396
of polarimetric data 393
RGW 393
transferring 392
See also Segmentation
Multidimensional annealed segmentation 395
Multidimensional Gaussian distribution 7 328
Multidimensional RGW segmentation 393 403
Multidimensional SAR images 114
algorithm comparison 399
analysis techniques 365
data types 365
See also SAR images
Multifrequency data 356
Multilook 29
coherence distribution 345
data 93
despeckling 162
intensity ratio 346

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

488
Index terms Links
Multilook (Continued)
phase difference distribution 344
reconstruction 368
spatial effects on 105
Stokes scattering operators 349
textured data 351
Multilook registration (MLR) 48
defined 50
objects in 54
two-look 50
Multiplicative noise 76 96
Multitemporal data 356

N
Neumann series expansion 87
Neural nets 433
Neymann-Pearson criterion 286 294
Noise
effects of 99
Gaussian 100
multiplicative 76 96
speckle and 85
Nyquist condition 28

O
Objects
classification of 79
extended 53
relative positions of 125
spatial density of 54
Organization, this book 4

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 489
Index terms Links
P
Parametric information 375
Path length
comparison 47
fluctuations 46
Pentagamma function 242
Phase delay 26
Phase difference distribution 336
C-band 425
characteristics 336
examples 339
HH-W 370 373
multilook 344
shape 339
See also Amplitude ratio distribution
Phase difference (PD) method 48
defined 49
multiple scatterers and 54
Phase gradient (PG) method 48 49
Phase modulation
effects of 44
unwanted 43
Pixel-based change detection 385
false alarm probability 387
probability 387
threshold values 387 389
See also Change detection; Target detection
Point spread function (PSF) 4 85
azimuth 32 69
direct measurements 34
ERS-1 35
ideal form of 23

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

490
Index terms Links
Point spread function (PSF) (Continued)
slant range 21
Poisson distribution 325
Polarimetric channels 333
combining pairs of 334
estimation of 341
Polarimetric data 7 30
AirSAR 421 435
calibrated 324 369
at C-, L-, and P-bands 435 436
classification and 421
distributions 322
fourth-order field moments for 333
Gaussian 341
segmentation of 393
stationary speckle model into 327
texture observations in 352
theoretical formulation 324
uncalibrated 324
Polarimetric filtering
full 381
matched 434
optimal 378
output 379
whitening 379 434
Polarimetric measurements 320
Polarimetric parameters
C-band 329
empirical behavior of 422
L-band 330
P-band 331

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 491
Index terms Links
Polarimetric reconstruction 367
gamma MAP estimation 373
MMSE 368
multilook 368
Power spectral density (PSD) 66
Pre-averaging 108
Precision image (PRI) 18
ERS-1 29 397 398 402
439
illustrated 19
near/far range 20
Principle components transformation (PCX) 383
analysis 384
defined 383
function of 385
Probability density function (PDF) 124
amplitude 134
background 280
candidate 128
data type representation 274
edge detector 274
empirical 125 127
estimating 235
gamma 131 134
Gaussian 202 236 332
intensity 126 133
joint 88 111 169 268
343
of likelihood difference estimate 268
log normal 127 234 266
MLE derivation for 236
single-pixel intensity 288

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

492
Index terms Links
Probability density function (PDF) (Continued)
speckle 133
of spectral coefficients 167
theoretical 128 135
two-parameter 127
Weibull 136
Processor gain 37
Product model 123 130 369 457
number fluctuations and 360
processes 130
speckle in 130
validity for natural SAR clutter 141
Prominent point processing (PPP) autofocus 48
defined 49
restriction 51
Pulse compression 25
Pulse length 12 26
Pulse repetition frequency (PRF) 12 15

Q
Quadratic distance correlation classification 307
Quadrature (Q) channel 36 93

R
Radar cross section (RCS) 6 125
background 282 283
classification 195
deterministic 6
distribution sampling 112 304
estimating 93 99 178
fluctuations 102 114 128 138
197 234 426

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 493
Index terms Links
Radar cross section (RCS) (Continued)
gamma-distributed 6 133 134 140
259 428
mean 131
measurements of 83
ML estimates of 203
reconstruction filters 157 197
spatial stability of 401
swell 131
temporal stability of 401
variations 112 130
See also RCS model
Radarsat 417 425
fine-mode image 440
flexibility 417
Radiometric distortion 55
minimizing 60
residual 60
Range 12 14
far 15 20
fluctuations 46
ground 15 17
intensity correlation coefficients 20
near 15 20
processing 25
PSF 30
pulse compression 25
raw data 32
slant 15 16 17 21
swathwidth 15
variation 30 31
See also Azimuth
Ratioing 404

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

494
Index terms Links
Rayleigh distribution 89 129
Rayleigh resolution criterion 308
RCS exploitation 218
algorithm properties 218
application example 221
flowchart 219
See also Radar cross section (RCS)
RCS model 131
constant 179 182
correlated gamma-distributed 142
gamma-distributed 134
reconstruction with 165
sloping 180 189
See also Radar cross section (RCS)
Reconstruction 157
algorithm comparison 184
algorithm execution times 187
algorithm selection 188
Bayesian 161 189
comparison 223
correlated neighborhood model 167
gamma MAP 166 187 188 373
global MAP 176 178
by iterating structured neighborhood model 175
MMSE 164 172 368
multilook 368
with nonlinear iterated processing 171
polarimetric 367
properties 158
quality of 220 222
with RCS model 165
single-stage 160
with speckle model 162

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 495
Index terms Links
Reconstruction (Continued)
structural adaptive 170
visual inspection and 159
Region of interest (ROI) 281 284 301 302
averaging background over 283
rectangular 306
Regions 253
boundaries between 124
fitting 208
merging 202
RCS difference between 291
target 302
texture 253
Relief effects 404
Repeat-pass interferometry 114 430
Resolution 83
azimuth 27
ground range 17
slant range 16
spatial 4 27
RGW 199 222 254
comparison 201
defined 199
edge-detection criterion 199 395
edge maps 224
flow diagram 200
multidimensional 393 403
operation of 200
selecting 217
See also Segmentation
Root mean square (rms) 60
Rule-based methods 9

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

496
Index terms Links
S
Sample circular variance 340
SAR
2-look 198
6-look 198
airborne 13 17 68 418
calibration 5
correlation 37
data display 17
effective use of 4
focusing 27 38
interferometry 114
as linear measurement system 29
orbital 27
polarimetric 7 114
processor 37
role of 459
sensitivity of 442 443
sideways-looking 48
simulators 145
single-look 198 259 282 286
spaceborne 14 418
system parameters 12
SAR data
analysis of 458
application of 34
multidimensional 98 319
single-channel 98 319
variance 384
SAREX program 229
image 230
texture analysis 244

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 497
Index terms Links
SAR images
area-based difference measures 388
availability of 1
classification 8 413
defects and correction 43
DRA C-band 124
DRA X-band 3 144 158 190
formation principles 11
formulation of 4 98 126
geometry illustrations 13 14
global structure 4
high-resolution 158 296
histograms and 405
homogeneous region in 341
information extraction from 9
intensity ratio 187
local structure 4
multidimensional 114 365
nature of information in 77
pixel-based change detection 385
properties of 5 75
quality of 184 212
SAREX 230
simulated 296 297 298
thresholding 407
SAR processing 11
essence of 26
flexibility of 117
Scanned window, center edge (SWCE)
configuration 205 249 250 273
edge-detection probability 272 275
FWSE vs. 273
test 206

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

498
Index terms Links
Scatterers 87
Scattering
matrix 29
mechanism 435
Sea-ice classification 432
Segmentation 197
algorithm comparison 212
algorithm selection 217
annealed 209 219
classes of 198
conflicting requirements in 198
dual role 220
edge detection 199
execution times 217
failure 216
image quality and 212
ML split/merge theory and 203
multichannel 391
multidimensional annealed 395
multidimensional RGW 393 403
prerequisites 197
ratio measures for 216
region fitting 208
region merging 202
usefulness of 222
SCAN 212 222 251 253
254
comparative execution times 254
consistency 224
edge maps 224
excess fluctuations and 215
“flecks” and 214
global 214

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 499
Index terms Links
SCAN (Continued)
illustrated 213
selecting 217
See also Segmentation
Shift-invariant two-dimensional pattern matching 307
Sidelobe levels
excess 62
peak 63
Sideways-looking SAR 48
Siegert relationship 102 381
Signal-based MOCO 58 71
antenna stabilization and 59
application of 58 59 71
combined with conventional MOCO 66
refinements to 63
See also Motion-compensation (MOCO)
Signal-to-clutter ratio (SCR) 52 104 286
infinite 113
large values of 113
leading 55
variation 289 290 291 293
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) 104
Simulated annealing 176
comparison 211
Metropolis algorithm 176
Simulated SAR images 296
illustrated 297
variations of 298
See also SAR images
Simulation 145
comparison 152
correlated K-distributed image 150

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

500
Index terms Links
Simulation (Continued)
stages 146
texture 145 148
Sine function 23
Single-channel image types 84
Single-channel segmentation 394
Single-frequency polarimetric classification 430
Single-look distributions 333
Singular value decomposition (SVD) 308
SIR-C
SIR-C/X-SAR 417
texture 442
Slant range 15
data 17
PSF 21
resolution 16
See also Range
Slant range complex (SLC) 18
illustrated 19
near/far range 20
Sloping RCS model 180 192
Smoothing 198
Spaceborne SAR 30 418
geometry 14
multitemporal data 418
See also SAR; SAR images
Spatial bandwidth 27
Spatial correlation 99 105 119 164
data 341
effects on multilooking 105
estimating 110
problems with 107

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 501
Index terms Links
Spatial correlation (Continued)
system-induced 107
Spatial density 54
Spatial filtering 438
Spatial resolution 4 27
Speckle 6 31 124
contribution 160
defined 85
distributions 404
fluctuations 125
Gaussian 131 308
model 91
as multiplicative noise 76 96
noise and 85
PDF 133
in product model 130
pure, SD for 216
reduction 170 366 375
removing 229
unit mean term 367
vector 326
See also Despeckling
Speckle model 157 159
for distributed targets 119
limitations on 113
reconstruction with 162
Speckle-reducing filter 380
Spotlight mode 27
Spotlight SAR systems 44
Standard deviation (SD) 160 161
of intensity ratio 187 216
for pure speckle 216

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

502
Index terms Links
Standard deviation (SD) (Continued)
relative, comparison of 243
in uniform regions 187
Stationary multiplicative noise model 327
Stirling’s formula 346
Stokes scattering operators 369 378
contents 349
defined 347
formulation 347
multilook 349
pre-average 349
Stokes vectors 322 347
Strip map mode 27
Structural adaptive filtering 170
Structural information 365 375
defined 366
extraction of 366
Structured neighborhood model 175
Subsampling 107
Synthetic aperture
length 26
splitting 29
See also SAR; SAR images

T
TABOO algorithm 179
Target classification 305 434
confusion matrix for 307
description of 314
eigenimage 307
quadratic distance correlation 307
shift-invariant two-dimensional pattern matching 307

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 503
Index terms Links
Target classification (Continued)
See also Targets
Target detection 83 279
applied to airborne X-band SAR image 303
Bayesian 278 279 314
CFAR 279 282 295
change 305 306
configuration diagram 281
configuration drawback 295
false alarms and 300 304
introduction to 279
MAP criterion 280
ML criterion 280
optimized 284
optimized for textured target model 289
probability 281 285 289
refinements to 294
target type and 295
See also Targets
Target discrimination 299 314
defined 300
features 301
Target recognition 279 296
ATR 296 305
introduction to 296
with SAR images 296
target discrimination and 299
theoretical framework for 306
Targets 277
calibration 322
characterizing 278
defined 277
discriminating from false alarms 304

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

504
Index terms Links
Targets (Continued)
distributed 38 91 99 102
homogeneous 112
localized 311
point 38 54
superimposed on uniform clutter background 311
Swerling 1 286 290
types of 295
uniform 32
See also Target detection; Target recognition
Target super-resolution 308
conclusions 313
example 311
reconstruction stages 312
theory 308
Taylor expansion 47 164 311
Tetragamma function 241
Texture classification 245 425
annealed 247
average probabilities for 247
by fitting 245 266
correct, average probability comparison 247
correlated 266
direct 246
direct spectrum 266
likelihood 247
performance 271
See also Textures
Textured target model 289 455
defined 289
optimized detection for 289
Texture exploitation 229
flow diagram 254

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

 505
Index terms Links
Texture exploitation (Continued)
model-free 231
Textures 83
ACF 274
boundaries 124
comparison of 146 148
correlated 259
defined 124
K-distributed 240
likelihood 247
measurements 91
model-based parameter estimation 231 235
natural clutter 125
in polarimetric data 350
regions 253
simulated 145 148
woodland 140 148
Texture segmentation 249
algorithm comparison 253
annealed 251
edge detection 249
joint mean and order parameter 252
model-based 251
See also Segmentation; Textures
Theoretical distributions 90
Time-bandwidth product 23
Touzi ratio 205

U
Uncorrelated channels 431
Urban areas 454

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

506
Index terms Links
V
Voltage, converting 36

W
Weibull distribution 127 128 129 136
Wiener filter 310
World models 5 157

Z
Zero-padding 109

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.