4.7 Review

Distance Measures of Polarimetric SAR Image Data: A Survey

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 14, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs14225873

关键词

PolSAR image; norm distances; geodesic distances; maximum likelihood distances; GLRT distances; stochastic distances; inter-patch distances; metric learning

资金

  1. Chinese Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2021M702672]
  2. National Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China [2022JM-157]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [62071474, 61773396]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper provides a systematic survey and analysis of distance measures in polarimetric synthetic aperture radar (PolSAR) image data, and offers advice for choosing distances in algorithm design. It serves as a reference for researchers in PolSAR image processing, analysis, and related fields.
Distance measure plays a critical role in various applications of polarimetric synthetic aperture radar (PolSAR) image data. In recent decades, plenty of distance measures have been developed for PolSAR image data from different perspectives, which, however, have not been well analyzed and summarized. In order to make better use of these distance measures in algorithm design, this paper provides a systematic survey of them and analyzes their relations in detail. We divide these distance measures into five main categories (i.e., the norm distances, geodesic distances, maximum likelihood (ML) distances, generalized likelihood ratio test (GLRT) distances, stochastics distances) and two other categories (i.e., the inter-patch distances and those based on metric learning). Furthermore, we analyze the relations between different distance measures and visualize them with graphs to make them clearer. Moreover, some properties of the main distance measures are discussed, and some advice for choosing distances in algorithm design is also provided. This survey can serve as a reference for researchers in PolSAR image processing, analysis, and related fields.

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