Scale Mixture of Gaussian Modelling of Polarimetric SAR Data
 Anthony P. Doulgeris^{1}Email author and
 Torbjørn Eltoft^{1}
DOI: 10.1155/2010/874592
© A. P. Doulgeris and T. Eltoft. 2010
Received: 1 June 2009
Accepted: 28 September 2009
Published: 16 November 2009
Abstract
This paper describes a flexible nonGaussian statistical method used to model polarimetric synthetic aperture radar (POLSAR) data. We outline the theoretical basis of the wellknow product model as described by the class of Scale Mixture models and discuss their appropriateness for modelling radar data. The statistical distributions of several Scale mixture models are then described, including the commonly used Gaussian model, and techniques for model parameter estimation are given. Real data evaluations are made using airborne fully polarimetric SAR studies for several distinct land cover types. Generic scale mixture of Gaussian features is extracted from the model parameters and a simple clustering example presented.
1. Introduction
It is well known that POLSAR data can be nonGaussian in nature and that various nonGaussian models have been used to fit SAR images—firstly with single channel amplitude distributions [1–3] and later extended into the polarimetric realm where the multivariate Kdistributions [4, 5] and Gdistributions [6] have been successful. These polarimetric models are derived as stochastic product models [7, 8] of a nonGaussian texture term and a multivariate Gaussianbased speckle term, and can be described by the class of models known as Scale Mixture of Gaussian (SMoG) models. The assumed distribution of the texture term gives rise to different product distributions and the parameters used to describe them.
In this paper we only investigate the semisymmetric zeromean case, which is expected for scattering in the natural terrain, and the more general scale mixture model includes a skewness term to account for a dominant or coherent scatterer and a mean value vector. Extension to the nonsymmetric case or expanding to a multitextural/nonscalar product will be addressed in the future. It is worth noting that these methods are general multivariate statistical techniques for covariate product model analysis and can be generally applied to single, dual, quad, and combined (stacked) dual frequency SAR images, or any type of coherent imaging system. The significance and interpretation of the parameters, however, may be different in each case.
The scale mixture models essentially describe the probability density function giving rise to the measured complex scattering coefficients. They therefore model at the scattering vector level, that is, SingleLook Complex (SLC) data sets, which contain 4dimensional complex values. These complex vectors represent both magnitude and phase for the four combinations of both transmitted and received signals for both horizontal and vertical polarisation. Statistical modelling is achieved by looking at a small neighbourhood of pixels around each point and the model parameters are estimated from this collection of data vectors. Parameter estimation, particularly of higherorder statistical terms, is improved by using a larger neighbourhood size, but at the expense of image resolution and the introduction of class mixture effects at the boundaries. So a compromise must be made between a small neighbourhood to avoid mixtures and blurring and a large neighbourhood to improve parameter estimation.
The model fitting procedure generates the model parameters at each image pixel location which gives rise to a new feature space description of the image and can be used for subsequent classification or image interpretation. Although many different models have been used to describe nonGaussian data, with quite different orders of complexity and parametric descriptions, the parameters are usually estimated from measurable sample moments. Since the parameters are simply nonlinear relations of measured moments, one can say that the moments themselves represent the rawest form, and additionally they are independent of the particular model in question. We therefore see two quite different avenues to take regarding analysis: firstly, one can choose a specific nonGaussian model with an explicit probability density function (pdf) and use Bayesian statistical techniques to analyse the data, or alternatively, one can extract general scale mixture of Gaussian features (that are independent of any explicit model pdf) and work solely in a twomoment generic SMoG feature space. In this sense, the Gaussianbased analysis is a single moment method.
Speckle variation may be reduced by multilook averaging, either in the frequency domain during processing or in the spatial domain postimaging, and produces Multilook Complex (MLC) matrix data. Such multilook averaging modifies the intensity distribution of the data and subsequent statistical modelling must take this into account for parameter estimation or statistical inference. The multilooked matrixvariate distribution derived from purely Gaussian data is the complex Wishart distribution[9] and for the Scale Mixture case is the generalised Wishart distribution, for example, the KWishart [10]. Statistical clustering using these multilook matrixvariate models has been demonstrated elsewhere [6, 10, 11], and here we only describe multilook data for model parameter estimation.
The plan for this paper is to describe the modelling in Section 2, with general properties and suitability discussed in Section 3. Intercomparison and parametric feature results are shown for several data sets in Section 4, followed by our conclusions in Section 5.
We denote scalar values by either lower or upper case standard weight characters, vectors as lower case bold characters and matrices as bold uppercase characters. For simplicity, we have not distinguished between random variables and instances of random variables, as such can be ascertained through context.
2. Scale Mixture of Gaussian Scheme
The Scale Mixture of Gaussian models, also known as normalvariance mixtures [12, 13], are a statistical product model with a texture random variable times a speckle random variable. The pure speckle term has a standard complex multivariate Gaussian distribution and the texture term has any positive only scalar distribution. Since the textural random variable models the variance of the signal rather than its amplitude, it is introduced as a square root term in the data vector (described in [8]).
Mathematically, we model the vector of polarimetric scattering coefficients ( ) under the multidimensional SMoG scheme as
where is the mean vector, the scale parameter is a strictly positive random variable (scalar), is the internal covariance structure matrix, normalised such that the determinant , and is a standardised, complex multivariate Gaussian variable with zero mean and identity covariance matrix, that is, . We will hereafter assume that . This assumption is well justified for natural environments (i.e., distributed targets without dominant coherent scatterers), where the complex values of are theoretically expected to be, and generally are, zero mean. Theoretically, this is the case of distributed coherent imaging where the resolution cell size and roughness are large relative to the illuminating wavelength, leading to the absolute phase variation over all scatterers in the cell being uniformly randomly distributed and the integrated inphase and quadrature signals are therefore expected to be zero. We have chosen to normalise the covariance structure matrix instead of the scale parameter in our work, because of the analogy between the average scale, , and the radar cross section, , of 1dimensional data (also described in [8]), even though this interpretation is not straight forward for multidimensional data.
This scheme describes different parametric families of distributions, depending on the scale parameter probability density function, . Given the pdf for the scale parameter, the marginal pdf for can be obtained by integrating the conditional pdf of , which is multivariate Gaussian, over the density of . That is,
Scale mixture of Gaussian models.
distribution  Multivariate scale mixture distribution 

Constant (Dirac delta)  Gaussian, 
Exponential  Laplacian, 
Gamma  Kdistribution, 
 
Inverse Gaussian  Normal Inverse Gaussian, 


Given such a general scheme as in (1), it can be readily shown that
Moment expressions and parameter solutions for each model.
Model  distribution 

 Solution given and RK 
MG  Constant 
 not needed 

ML  Exponential ( ) 
 not needed 

MK  Gamma ( ) 



 
MNIG  Inverse Gaussian ( ) 




Estimation in the case of Llook MLC data is based upon the neighbourhood mean of the matrixvariate data, plus the variance of a mean squared Mahalanobis measure ( ) which is equivalent to trace . Assuming that for simplicity, it is easily shown that
Note that the expectation of equals because of the normalisation with respect to each local covariance matrix in . The parameters and are obtained from the mean matrix by applying the constraint that , and RK is obtained in terms of var( ) by rearranging (10). Subsequently, the texture parameters are solved for as in Table 2.
3. Properties and Suitability
All models are symmetric about the mean and although each dimension may have different relative widths, distributed by the covariance matrix , they will each have a similar (global) shape governed by the scalar parameters. All models are also sparse distributions, meaning that they are more pointed in the peak and heavier tailed than the Gaussian. The MG and ML distributions have a fixed shape and the scalar parameter varies the width. The MK's and MNIG's two scalar parameters lead to a range of shapes as well as overall width. The shapes range from more pointed than Laplacian, through to rounded like the Gaussian (see Figure 1). The effect of the shape parameter on the density function is highly nonlinear with value, with the clearly visible variation occurring for small parameter values (e.g., for the Kdistribution) and converging rapidly towards the Gaussian in shape from only moderate values (e.g., ) up to infinity. Also note that both the ML and MK distribution's pdfs can go to infinity at the mean value, whereas the MNIG always has a finite peak.
If we take our assumption of scale mixture of Gaussians modelling and our theoretical radar scattering as a vector sum with uniformly random phase, then three main properties emerge: zeromean, semisymmetric shape, and global shape. It seemed appropriate to investigate whether the real PolSAR data showed similar general features as a validation for using such a mixture model.
It is interesting to also note that the polarimetric information becomes visible in the form of the different widths of each dimension, which can vary distinctly as in the first set, showing very little crosspolarisation scattering, or be much more evenly scaled as in the other two locations. Also note the pairwise equality in the distributions, because the real and imaginary parts will have equal magnitudes, and the centre four dimensions being equally scaled due to reciprocity.
Clearly, the choice of semisymmetric, zeromean scale mixture of Gaussian models appears to be well suited for this type of PolSAR data.
4. Modelling Results
After obtaining four parametric descriptions of the data, we then compare a goodnessoffit measure of each to determine which model fits best. Since we are comparing four different parametric descriptions to the same data set, it is sufficient to use a relative ranking measure only, and we do not require an absolute or normalised measure of fit. The loglikelihood measure is fast and efficient and simply requires summing the log of the model pdf value at each data point. The logarithmic nature of this measure also makes it sensitive to differences in the tails of the distributions and is therefore well suited for testing heavytailed distributions.
 (i)
Uniform, smooth, or homogeneous areas are usually best fitted as Gaussian (white), as seen in the central lake area in (a), the large open snow areas in (b), the (presumably) snow covered old ice patches in (c), and the water inlet and several large fields in (d).
 (ii)
The land in general, the visible icy crevasses, rocky outcrops, urban areas, and certainly anything with small scale details and high contrast are certainly nonGaussian in nature and were poorly fitted by the Gaussian model.
 (iii)
All types of vegetated land appear to be best described by the normal inverse Gaussian distribution, whereas the sea ice image by the Kdistribution, although the difference compared to the NIG was negligible.
 (iv)
The urban areas and coastlines are best fitted more often by the Laplacian; however this may be due to high contrast edge mixture effects because it appears at all water/land boundaries, around point sources like known huts within the forest, and along hedge/fence lines around fields.
 (i)
The Gaussian model is usually a poor fit for significant parts of the image area, over 20%.
 (ii)
The Laplacian model is very good at detecting edges and point sources and is otherwise very poor at fitting to natural terrain types. Its seemingly good fit for urban areas is presumably because of the predominance of points and edges of mixed terrain in the urban landscape.
 (iii)
In all cases the two parameters of the MK and MNIG give a shape space that finds a "good" fit for the majority of the data points (over 90%), and mostly "fail", that is, are more poorly fitted, for the high contrast edges and point sources.
 (iv)
The normal inverse Gaussian model has the greatest "good" fitted area for all images and is usually the greatest best fit also.
Our results indicate that using a single, flexible two parameter model is sufficient to capture the majority of shapes seen in real PolSAR imagery. Our results indicate that the normal inverse Gaussian model is the best choice, and the Kdistribution model for sea ice analysis, although both are flexible enough for all types of data.
It is important to remember that only the goodnessoffit testing of each model has been depicted in the figures so far, and not an actual image segmentation based upon the modelled parameters. The modelled parameters consist of a brightness (or total intensity) value, a nonGaussianity (shape or texture) value, and a polarimetric matrix. The main emphasis of our method is to include the nonGaussianity measure, which gives additional information that is otherwise ignored in a purely Gaussianbased approach. Additionally, by working with the raw nonGaussianity measure, these features are independent of the specific scale model and can be considered a general two moment SMoG model.
The polarimetry can be interpreted in the usual manner because our matrix is simply a normalised covariance matrix. For example, a Pauli RGB colouring scheme, or the FreemanDurden decomposition [17], can be used for display and interpretation with respect to general scattering mechanisms. Simple polarimetric features, extracted from the covariance matrix, are crosspolarisation fraction, copol ratio, copol correlation magnitude, and correlation phase. In total we have six scalar features, and we found that a logarithmic transformation of the brightness, nonGaussianity, crosspol fraction, and copol ratio improved visualisation and linearity of those features.
Besides image segmentation, the features may be useful for physical parameter extraction or physical interpretation in terms of polarimetry or backscattering brightness or texture. This has not yet been rigourously studied, but the level of detail shown in these parameters is encouraging.
5. Conclusion
The scale mixture of Gaussians models indeed seems well suited to modelling PolSAR data which show inherently heavytailed distributions with zeromean and a global shape for each dimension.
We have confirmed that many terrain types are clearly nonGaussian in nature and that a flexible twoparameter model is able to capture the full shape range of PolSAR data distributions, whereas the Gaussian model cannot. Different terrain types can show quite different distribution shapes; therefore the nonGaussianity/shape parameter should be of benefit to subsequent image segmentation.
It was demonstrated that the normal inverse Gaussian distribution is the better fitting model, out of those analysed, and usually better than the more commonly used Kdistribution, with the exception of over sea ice. The MNIG model captures the greater proportion of distribution shape variations and has less trouble at boundary mixtures than the MK. The normal inverse Gaussian also has strong theoretical grounds derived from Brownian motion theory. A detailed study of why it is generally superior, and why not for sea ice, has not yet been undertaken.
We also described how a generic, twomoment, scale mixture of Gaussian analysis may be performed without the need for choosing a specific model. The feature space obtained from the modelling contains nonGaussianity, Brightness and a Polarimetric matrix. Six features were extracted, displayed, and discussed, with a final simple image segmentation as an example application.
The methods described here can be considered the foundation for our statistical analysis of PolSAR data and future work will investigate some of the observations made here as well as address several important extensions to the model that were discussed in the introduction.
Declarations
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Professor Henning Skriver, Dr. Jorgen Dall, and the Danish Technical University for the Foulum data set. Thanks to Dr. Daniel Delisle, Dr. Sahebi Mahmod Reza, and the Canadian Space Agency for the sea ice data set. Both datasets were downloaded from the European Space Agency website (http://earth.esa.int/polsarpro/datasets.html). Thanks to Norut Tromsø, Norway, for the Bleikvatnet and Okstinden data sets.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Jakeman E, Pusey PN: A model for nonRayleigh sea echo. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 1976, 24(6):806818. 10.1109/TAP.1976.1141451View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Jakeman E, Tough RJA: Generalized K distribution: a statistical model for weak scattering. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 1987, 4(9):17641772. 10.1364/JOSAA.4.001764View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Eltoft T: The Rician inverse Gaussian distribution: a new model for nonRayleigh signal amplitude statistics. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 2005, 14(11):17221735.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Yueh SH, Kong JA, Jao JK, Shin RT, Novak LM: Kdistribution and polarimetric terrain radar clutter. Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications 1989, 3: 747768. 10.1163/156939389X00412View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Lee JS, Schuler DL, Lang RH, Ranson KJ: Kdistribution for multilook processed polarimetric SAR imagery. Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS '94), August 1994, Pasadena, Calif, USA 4: 21792181.Google Scholar
 Freitas CC, Frery AC, Correia AH: The polarimetric G distribution for SAR data analysis. Environmetrics 2005, 16(1):1331. 10.1002/env.658MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Lopès A, Séry F: Optimal speckle reduction for the product model in multilook polarimetric sar imagery and the wishart distribution. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 1997, 35(3):632647. 10.1109/36.581979View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Oliver C, Quegan S: Understanding Synthetic Aperture Radar Images. 2nd edition. SciTech, Raleigh, NC, USA; 2004.Google Scholar
 Goodman N: Statistical analysis based on certain multivariate complex gaussian distribution. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1963, 34: 152177. 10.1214/aoms/1177704250View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Doulgeris AP, Anfinsen SN, Eltoft T: Classification with a nonGaussian model for PoISAR data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 2008, 46(10):29993009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Lee JS, Grunes MR, Kwok R: Classification of multilook polarimetric SAR imagery based on complex Wishart distribution. International Journal of Remote Sensing 1994, 15(11):22992311. 10.1080/01431169408954244View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Andrews AF, Mallows CL: Scale mixtures of normal distributions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B 1974, 36(1):99102.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 BarndorffNielsen O, Kent J, Sorensen M: Normal variancemean mixtures and z distributions. International Statistical Review 1982, 50(2):145159. 10.2307/1402598MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Eltoft T, Kim T, Lee TW: Multivariate scale mixture of Gaussians models. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Independent Component Analysis and Blind Source Separation (ICA '06), March 2006, Charleston, SC, USAGoogle Scholar
 Folks J, Chhikara R: The inverse Gaussian distribution and its application: a review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B 1978, 40: 263289.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Mardia KV: Measure of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrica 1970, 57(3):519530. 10.1093/biomet/57.3.519MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Freeman A, Durden SL: A threecomponent scattering model for polarimetric SAR data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 1998, 36(3):963973. 10.1109/36.673687View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Skriver H, Dall J, FerroFamil L, et al.: Agriculture classification using POLSAR data. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Applications of Polarimetry and Polarimetric Interferometry (PoLinSAR '05), January 2005, Frascati, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.