4.7 Article

Gap-Filling of NDVI Satellite Data Using Tucker Decomposition: Exploiting Spatio-Temporal Patterns

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 13, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs13194007

关键词

missing data; imputation; data completion; remote sensing; tensor decomposition; Tucker; multiway analysis; machine learning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, EM Tucker method was used to fill missing information in NDVI images, and consistently yielded the most accurate results compared to simple mean imputation, spatio-temporal hybrid method, and iterative method based on principal component analysis across three simulated data sets.
Remote sensing satellite images in the optical domain often contain missing or misleading data due to overcast conditions or sensor malfunctioning, concealing potentially important information. In this paper, we apply expectation maximization (EM) Tucker to NDVI satellite data from the Iberian Peninsula in order to gap-fill missing information. EM Tucker belongs to a family of tensor decomposition methods that are known to offer a number of interesting properties, including the ability to directly analyze data stored in multidimensional arrays and to explicitly exploit their multiway structure, which is lost when traditional spatial-, temporal- and spectral-based methods are used. In order to evaluate the gap-filling accuracy of EM Tucker for NDVI images, we used three data sets based on advanced very-high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) imagery over the Iberian Peninsula with artificially added missing data as well as a data set originating from the Iberian Peninsula with natural missing data. The performance of EM Tucker was compared to a simple mean imputation, a spatio-temporal hybrid method, and an iterative method based on principal component analysis (PCA). In comparison, imputation of the missing data using EM Tucker consistently yielded the most accurate results across the three simulated data sets, with levels of missing data ranging from 10 to 90%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据