Benchmarking and inter-comparison of Sentinel-1 InSAR velocities and time series
Benchmarking and inter-comparison of Sentinel-1 InSAR velocities and time series
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.rse.2021.112306
复制
发表时间：
2021-01-30
影响因子：
13.5
通讯作者：
Biggs, J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sadeghi, Z.;Wright, T. J.;Biggs, J.
不同的干涉合成孔径雷达算法和方法产生的速度和时间序列是不相同的，即使在同一地区使用相同的数据。这种不一致性可能造成混乱，阻碍商业部门吸收和广泛使用数据。随着Sentinel-1 SAR数据的广泛使用以及商业和学术部门的一套新算法，开发一种比较不同结果的方法是及时的。在这项研究中，我们专注于开发和测试一个独立的和强大的方法来评估不同的干涉合成孔径雷达处理结果。我们提出的方法是改编自Terrafirma过程验证项目;我们比较地理编码的视线速度和时间序列，密度和覆盖范围，以及一些定性指标。我们使用哨兵-1数据从一个地区在格拉斯哥（英国）处理，使用4种不同的方法修改RapidSAR，SqueeSAR，伽马-IPTA和传统的StaMPS。地面运动的主要领域检测使用所有的方法，在所有多边形等于1.1毫米/年的所有内部比较对的速度差的平均标准偏差。因此，Sentinel-1干涉合成孔径雷达提供了与处理方法无关的可比结果。然而，在结果的某些方面，特别是在其密度和覆盖面方面，存在着相当大的差异。我们讨论了这些差异的原因，并提出了一个验证框架，可用于未来的国家或泛国家的地面运动服务。
Different InSAR algorithms and methods produce velocities and times series that are not identical, even using the same data for the same area. This inconsistency can cause confusion and be a barrier to uptake and widespread use of the data in the commercial sector. With the widespread availability of Sentinel-1 SAR data and a suite of new algorithms in the commercial and academic sectors, it is timely to develop a method for comparison of different results. In this study, we focus on developing and testing an independent and robust methodology for assessment of different InSAR processing results. Our proposed method is adapted from the Terrafirma Process Validation project; we compare geocoded line-of-sight velocities and time series, density and coverage, as well as some qualitative metrics. We use Sentinel-1 data from an area in Glasgow (UK) processed using 4 different approaches modified RapidSAR, SqueeSAR, GAMMA-IPTA and conventional StaMPS. The main areas of ground motion are detected using all approaches, with the average standard deviation of velocity differences for all inter comparison pairs in all polygons equal to 1.1 mm/yr. Sentinel-1 InSAR therefore provides comparable results that are independent of processing approaches. However, there are considerable differences in some aspects of the results, in particular in their density and coverage. We discuss the reasons for these differences and suggest a framework for validation that could be used in future national or pan-national ground motion services.