特征重标定网络的高光谱影像分类方法

高光谱影像特征的利用率对提高其分类精度具有重要意义。为充分利用影像的特征,提出了一种特征重标定网络的高光谱影像分类方法。该方法通过全局平均池化将特征图转换为具有全局信息的实数,利用全连接层与非线性层生成能够代表各通道相对重要性的权值,进而采取加权法完成初始特征的重标定。为验证该方法的有效性,选取PaviaU和KSC两组高光谱影像数据进行实验。结果表明,提出方法总体分类精度分别达到98.38%和95.61%,可为高光谱影像提供有效的类别判定特征,有助于提高影像分类精度并获取平滑的分类结果图。     

嫦娥一号干涉成像光谱仪数据再校正与全月铁钛元素反演

月球表面的元素和物质成分分布是理解月球成岩与地质演化历史的重要线索。嫦娥一号干涉成像光谱仪(IIM)是我国首台月球探测成像光谱仪器,其获得的大量月球高光谱数据已成为我国未来探测月球成分与地质演化研究的宝贵基础数据。本文利用探月工程地面应用系统发布的IIM B版本2C级数据,开发出一套数据再定标流程,获得了较为可靠的月表相对反射率数据。我们在新校正数据的基础上开展月球表面FeO、TiO_2的反演建模,获得了全月FeO和TiO_2分布图,这些图件是进行月球地质填图的基础。校正数据反演的FeO和TiO_2分布与前人对Clementine UVVIS数据的反演结果相近,表明干涉成像光谱仪数据具有较大的应用潜力。高地的低铁岩石成分(一般小于8%)佐证了月球月壳形成的过程中的岩浆洋分异假说,而月海玄武岩的TiO_2成分变化范围较大(0~13%)则表明月海玄武岩来源于不同的月幔源区。根据嫦娥一号干涉成像光谱仪全月FeO分布图,可将月球表面物质类型总体划分为高地斜长岩和月海玄武岩,而根据TiO_2分布可以进一步将月海玄武岩划分为5种不同钛含量的玄武岩岩石类型。FeO和TiO_2在全月范围内的分布表明Apollo和Luna返回的月球样品不能够代表全月范围内的矿物成分多样性,月球岩浆演化历史比前人认为的要复杂。未来月球样品返回任务(如嫦娥五号)如能赴这些特殊地区进行取样,将很有可能返回重要的月球科学研究发现和成果。     

Error analysis for the evaluation of model performance: rainfall–runoff event time series data

This paper provides a procedure for evaluating model performance where model predictions and observations are given as time series data. The procedure focuses on the analysis of error time series by graphing them, summarizing them, and predicting their variability through available information (recalibration). We analysed two rainfall–runoff events from the R‐5 data set, and evaluated 12 distinct model simulation scenarios for these events, of which 10 were conducted with the quasi‐physically‐based rainfall–runoff model (QPBRRM) and two with the integrated hydrology model (InHM). The QPBRRM simulation scenarios differ in their representation of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Two InHM simulation scenarios differ with respect to the inclusion of the roads at R‐5. The two models, QPBRRM and InHM, differ strongly in the complexity and number of processes included. For all model simulations we found that errors could be predicted fairly well to very well, based on model output, or based on smooth functions of lagged rainfall data. The errors remaining after recalibration are much more alike in terms of variability than those without recalibration. In this paper, recalibration is not meant to fix models, but merely as a diagnostic tool that exhibits the magnitude and direction of model errors and indicates whether these model errors are related to model inputs such as rainfall. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Error analysis for the evaluation of model performance: rainfall–runoff event summary variables

This paper provides a procedure for the evaluation of model performance for rainfall–runoff event summary variables, such as total discharge or peak runoff. The procedure is based on the analysis of model errors, defined as the differences between observed values and values predicted by a simulation model. Model errors can (i) indicate whether and where the model can be improved, (ii) be used to measure the performance of a model, and (iii) be used to compare model simulations. In this paper, both statistical and graphical methods are used to characterize model errors. We explore model recalibration by relating model errors to the model predictions, and to external, independent variables. The R‐5 catchment data sets that we used in this study include summary variables for 72 rainfall–runoff events. The simulations used in this study were previously conducted with the quasi‐physically based rainfall–runoff model QPBRRM for 11 different characterizations of the R‐5 catchment, each with increasing information or a refined spatial discretization of the overland flow planes. This paper is about proposing model diagnostics and not about procedures for using diagnostics for model modification. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Recalibration of the hohenpeissenberg dobson spectrophotometer 104 presuming ‘effective absorption coefficients’

The well calibrated Brewer spectrophotometer 17 (Sci-Tec Instruments Inc., Canada) stayed at the Meteorological Observatory Hohenpeissenberg (MOHP) from August 27 until September 1, 1984, in order to check and recalibrate Brewer 10, which had some stability problems. Brewer 17 was initially calibrated in July 1983, the validity of this calibration was repeatedly verified before and after the stay at the MOHP (Kerr et al., 1985; Kerr, 1984). The instrument proved itself to be very stable and appropriate as travellings standard instrument.As Dobson 104 didn't seem to be well calibrated at that time, the occasion was taken to perform also a Dobson recalibration. The methods normally used were not satisfactory, but a different method, presuming Effective Absorption Coefficients (EAC), presented by Kerr et al. at the Quadrennial Ozone Symposium 1984 in Greece, yielded encouraging results. Before recalibration Dobson 104 showed a difference of 2–3% in comparison to Brewer 10-, Brewer 17- and TOMS- (on satellite Nimbus 7) measurements, whereas the agreement with the Brewers after EAC-calibration was good (X _rel < 1%). The different Dobson calibration methods are compared and the results of the Dobson 104 and Brewer 10 recalibrations are presented.

---

Zusammenfassung Vom 27. August bis 1. September 1984 befand sich das Brewer Standard Spektrophotometer 17 (Sci-Tec Instruments Inc., Canada) am Meteorologischen Observatorium Hohenpeißenberg (MOHP), um den nicht sehr stabilen Brewer 10 zu überprüfen und neu zu kalibrieren. Der Brewer 17 wurde erstmals im Juli 1983 kalibriert, die Gültigkeit dieser Eichung wurde mehrfach vor und einmal nach dem Aufenthalt am MOHP bestätigt (Kerr et al., 1985; Kerr, 1984). Das Instrument erwies sich als sehr stabil und geeignet als transportables Standardinstrument.Da der Dobson 104 zum damaligen Zeipunkt ebenfalls nicht gut kalibriert schien, wurde die Gelegenheit einer Dobson-Neukalibrierung wahrgenommen. Die normalerweise benutzten Methoden waren nicht zufriedenstellend im Gegensatz zu einer Methode, die von Effektiven Absorption Coeffizienten (EAC) ausgeht. Diese von Kerr et al. auf dem Quadrennial Ozon Symposium 1984 in Griechenland vorgestellte Methode lieferte hier ermutigende Ergebnisse. Vor der Neueichung zeigte der Dobson 104 eine Differenz von etwa 2–3% im Vergleich mit Brewer 10-, Brewer 17- und TOMS- (auf dem Nimbus-7-Satelliten) Messungen, während die Übereinstimmung mit den Brewer-Geräten nach der EAC-Kalibrierung gut war (X _rel < 1%). Die verschiedenen Dobson-Kalibrierungsmethoden werden verglichen und Ergebnisse der Dobson 104- und Brewer 10-Neukalibrierungen werden vorgestellt.

     

风云三号微波温度计长序列再定标历史数据集质量评估

以METOP-A、Suomi-NPP历史资料作为参照,系统分析比较了2008—2020年4颗风云三号卫星的微波温度计(Microwave Temperature Sounder,MWTS)再定标历史资料质量。结果表明,4颗卫星的MWTS探测性能稳步上升,再定标数据集有效消除了遥感仪器在轨期间数据异常跳变、寿命期内遥感仪器辐射响应衰变、不同卫星间的辐射定标差异等因素影响,大幅提升了MWTS历史数据集的准确性和均匀性,使得再定标后的对流层和平流层通道数据与国外同类型仪器数据偏差在±0.1 K范围内。本文还重点分析比较了对流层中高层和平流层低层两个探测通道,结果表明FY-3D MWTS再定标数据和美国NOAA卫星应用研究中心STAR长序列数据集针对中高层大气的表现类似,平均亮温在时间变化和空间分布具有相似的特征,月均全球高空亮温年变化趋势差异最大为0.002 4。因此,2020年之后的FY-3D再定标数据,可以接续STAR长序列数据集,用于中高层大气的温度变化检测与分析。