Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Quality Coefficients for Interferometric Phase Linking

Magnus Heimpel, Irena Hajnsek, Othmar Frey

TL;DR

This work introduces a unified theoretical framework for interferometric phase linking in distributed scatterer InSAR and defines three normalized quality coefficients: the closure phase coefficient $\gamma_{CP}$, the method-specific goodness-of-fit coefficient $\gamma_{GOF}$, and the ambiguity coefficient $\gamma_A$. The coefficients are computed from the coherence matrix and phase-linking solutions across eigendecomposition and phase triangulation methods, with noise-floor corrections and normalization to [0,1], enabling consistent cross-stack thresholding. Experiments on TerraSAR-X data over Visp validate that $\gamma_{CP}$ effectively pre-screens stable areas, $\gamma_{GOF}$ aligns with established indicators while generalizing them, and $\gamma_A$ flags unstable yet well-fitting solutions, collectively supporting robust pixel selection and quality control in DS-InSAR processing. The framework unifies existing phase-linking criteria, clarifies their connections to objective functions, and provides practical tools for improved deformation mapping in challenging decorrelated regions.

Abstract

In multi-temporal InSAR, phase linking refers to the estimation of a single-reference interferometric phase history from the information contained in the coherence matrix of a distributed scatterer. Since the phase information in the coherence matrix is typically inconsistent, the extent to which the estimated phase history captures it must be assessed to exclude unreliable pixels from further processing. We introduce three quality criteria in the form of coefficients, for threshold-based pixel selection: a coefficient based on closure phase that quantifies the internal consistency of the phase information in the coherence matrix; a goodness-of-fit coefficient that quantifies how well a resulting phase history estimate approximates the phase information according to the characteristic optimization model of a given phase linking method; and an ambiguity coefficient that compares the goodness of fit of the original estimate with that of an orthogonal alternative. We formulate the phase linking methods and these criteria within a unified mathematical framework and discuss computational and algorithmic aspects. Unlike existing goodness-of-fit indicators, the proposed coefficients are normalized to the unit interval with explicit noise-floor correction, improving interpretability across stacks of different size. Experiments on TerraSAR-X data over Visp, Switzerland, indicate that the closure phase coefficient effectively pre-screens stable areas, the goodness-of-fit coefficient aligns with and systematically generalizes established quality indicators, and the ambiguity coefficient flags solutions that fit well but are unstable. Together, the coefficients enable systematic pixel selection and quality control in the interferometric processing of distributed scatterers.

Quality Coefficients for Interferometric Phase Linking

TL;DR

This work introduces a unified theoretical framework for interferometric phase linking in distributed scatterer InSAR and defines three normalized quality coefficients: the closure phase coefficient , the method-specific goodness-of-fit coefficient , and the ambiguity coefficient . The coefficients are computed from the coherence matrix and phase-linking solutions across eigendecomposition and phase triangulation methods, with noise-floor corrections and normalization to [0,1], enabling consistent cross-stack thresholding. Experiments on TerraSAR-X data over Visp validate that effectively pre-screens stable areas, aligns with established indicators while generalizing them, and flags unstable yet well-fitting solutions, collectively supporting robust pixel selection and quality control in DS-InSAR processing. The framework unifies existing phase-linking criteria, clarifies their connections to objective functions, and provides practical tools for improved deformation mapping in challenging decorrelated regions.

Abstract

In multi-temporal InSAR, phase linking refers to the estimation of a single-reference interferometric phase history from the information contained in the coherence matrix of a distributed scatterer. Since the phase information in the coherence matrix is typically inconsistent, the extent to which the estimated phase history captures it must be assessed to exclude unreliable pixels from further processing. We introduce three quality criteria in the form of coefficients, for threshold-based pixel selection: a coefficient based on closure phase that quantifies the internal consistency of the phase information in the coherence matrix; a goodness-of-fit coefficient that quantifies how well a resulting phase history estimate approximates the phase information according to the characteristic optimization model of a given phase linking method; and an ambiguity coefficient that compares the goodness of fit of the original estimate with that of an orthogonal alternative. We formulate the phase linking methods and these criteria within a unified mathematical framework and discuss computational and algorithmic aspects. Unlike existing goodness-of-fit indicators, the proposed coefficients are normalized to the unit interval with explicit noise-floor correction, improving interpretability across stacks of different size. Experiments on TerraSAR-X data over Visp, Switzerland, indicate that the closure phase coefficient effectively pre-screens stable areas, the goodness-of-fit coefficient aligns with and systematically generalizes established quality indicators, and the ambiguity coefficient flags solutions that fit well but are unstable. Together, the coefficients enable systematic pixel selection and quality control in the interferometric processing of distributed scatterers.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 24 sections, 10 theorems, 88 equations, 12 figures, 5 tables, 1 algorithm.

Key Result

Lemma A.1

[lemma]cohposdef The sample coherence matrix as defined in cohestimator is positive semidefinite.

Figures (12)

  • Figure 1: Temporal and orbital baselines of the TerraSAR-X acquisitions.
  • Figure 2: Region of interest within the TerraSAR-X dataset over Visp, Switzerland. Top left: SLC of the acquisition of 11 Sep 2019 (magnitude). Top right: orthophoto of the scene (© CNES, Spot Image, swisstopo, NPOC, https://map.geo.admin.ch/). Bottom left: single-look differential interferometric phase between the acquisitions on 30 Jun 2017 and 11 Sep 2019 (reference). Bottom right: single-look differential interferometric phase between the acquisitions on 31 Aug 2017 and 11 Sep 2019 (reference).
  • Figure 3: Left: pixel-wise closure phase coefficient of the SLC stack. Right: histogram of all closure phase coefficients in the scene. N.B.: pixels with fewer than 50 neighboring statistically homogeneous pixels are set to have closure phase coefficient of zero. These are not included in the histogram.
  • Figure 4: Phase-linked differential interferometric phase between the acquisitions on 31 Aug 2017 and 11 Sep 2019 (reference), see bottom left of \ref{['fig:visp_rmli_mapds_infts']} for the original phase. Top left: equal-weighted eigendecomposition. Top right: equal-weighted phase triangulation. Middle left: coherence-weighted eigendecomposition. Middle right: coherence-weighted phase triangulation. Bottom left: maximum-likelihood eigendecomposition. Bottom right: maximum-likelihood phase triangulation. N.B.: the phase of every pixel in the original interferogram is replaced with the estimated phase, except where either the number of neighboring statistically homogeneous pixels is below 50 or matrix inversion (ML methods) is not possible, in which case the original phase is kept.
  • Figure 5: Equal-weighted eigendecomposition. Top left: goodness-of-fit coefficient with $f_\mathrm{max}=N$. Top right: ambiguity coefficient. Bottom left: scatter plot of both coefficients of all pixels. Bottom right: individual histograms of both coefficients. N.B.: pixels with fewer than 50 neighboring statistically homogeneous pixels are not considered part of distributed scatterers and the corresponding coefficients are set to zero. Pixels where either coefficient is exactly zero or one are not included in the scatter plot and histograms.
  • ...and 7 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (20)

  • Lemma A.1
  • proof
  • Lemma A.2
  • proof
  • Lemma A.3
  • proof
  • Lemma A.4
  • proof
  • Lemma A.5
  • proof
  • ...and 10 more