remote sensing

Article
An Information Entropy-Based Sensitivity Analysis
of Radar Sensing of Rough Surface
Yu Liu and Kun-Shan Chen * ID

The State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; liuyu@radi.ac.cn
* Correspondence: chenks@radi.ac.cn; Tel.: +86-010-64848730

Received: 31 December 2017; Accepted: 8 February 2018; Published: 12 February 2018

Abstract: We apply Shannon entropy, an information content measure, in sensitivity analysis (SA),
stemming from the fact that the essence of SA is to preserve the maximum information content of
the parameters of interest that are inverted from the radar response. Then, the sensitivity to the
observation configuration and surface parameters is subsequently analyzed. Attempts are also made
to explore advantages, by maximizing the information content, of dual-polarization and multi-angle
in improving the parameter retrieval from radar sensing of rough surface. Simulation results show
that the entropy is a good indicator of the sensitivity of the radar response to the surface parameter,
as it contains information on not only the probability distribution of the scattering coefficient but also
on its deviation. By information entropy, richer details, to large extent, on the scattering behavior
are offered through quantitatively predicting the scattering signal saturation, evaluating the effect of
using multi-polarization and multi-angle observation configuration, and identifying non-significant
variables. It is found that Shannon entropy, compared to Renyi entropy, appears to better represent
the sensitivity with respect to monotonic variation and narrower parameter ranges. The proposed
entropy-based SA method helps to deepen our understanding of the microwave scattering behavior
in response to surface parameters.

Keywords: radar sensing; sensitivity analysis; backscattering; information theoretic criterion

1. Introduction
Parameter sensitivity analysis (SA) of electromagnetic waves scattering from a randomly rough
surface is pivotal in the field of remote sensing of surface geometrical and dielectric parameters [1–3].
For example, it is common to retrieve the geophysical parameters of interest, such as soil moisture and
roughness, from the scattering measurements [4–7], based on analyzing the sensitivity of the scattering
behavior and mechanisms. Additionally, by knowing the scattering patterns, one could effectively
avoid undesired parameters, while accordingly devising a means to retrieve the parameters of interest.
One of the critical issues in the estimation of surface parameters from radar responses is that the
surface parameters, including surface roughness (rms height and correlation length) and dielectric
constant, are strongly coupled under a certain set of radar parameters (wavelength, incident angle
and polarization) [4–8]. Therefore, it has been both theoretically and practically motivated to conduct
a parameter SA to determine an optimal observation configuration and to determine an appropriate
approach for sensing and decoupling, to an optimal level, the surface roughness and dielectric constant.
There have been numerous studies concerning SA for scattering behavior from rough surfaces.
Most of them employ partial derivative-based approaches, e.g., the studies by Chen et al. [9],
Mao et al. [10], and Brogioni et al. [11]. These studies generally focus on the average impact of
the input factors on the model outputs, and show difficulty, to certain extent, in accurately coming
up with the sensitivity when the model input is uncertain or when the model is nonlinear [12,13].

Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 286; doi:10.3390/rs10020286 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 286 2 of 16

For a random rough surface, it becomes a firm and indisputable fact that the scattering response varies
nonlinearly with the surface conditions. Furthermore, there is a well-known problem of uniqueness
in the radar response measurement, partly due to the complex wave–target interactions, and partly
because of uncertainty sources, such as the random characteristics of rough surface and noise-corrupted
radar echoes [9]. Thus, their uncertainties must be resolved, or at least quantified, before parameter
retrieval algorithms can be applied with known and acceptable accuracy in surface observations.
Recently, global-based SA methods, such as extended Fourier amplitude sensitivity test
(EFAST) [14–21] and Sobol’s method [22–24], have begun to consider the probability distribution
functions of parameters as prior knowledge in examining changes in the model response. However,
these methods often suffer difficulty in illustrating SA variations for specific surface conditions or
observational configurations, which is essential in establishing surface sensing algorithms. Moreover,
they are always based on a uniformly distributed sampling of input parameters, which results in
questionable validity in practical predictions of the random processes involved in rough surface
scattering [25] as well as the radar returns that are embedded in a noisy background, which are
probabilistic in nature. In addition, it is found that the parameter ranges affect both the sensitivity
indexes and their relative importance, and the different parameter intervals exhibit different
sensitivities [15], which can produce uncertainty in the interpretation of the importance of the
parameters and may be misleading in the parameter selection. Thus, a more essential approach
that considers both the derivatives as well as the scattering response distributions is expected to
improve the SA that is required to meet a given surface condition’s retrieval accuracy specification.
The goal of SA is to preserve the maximum information content of the parameters of interest,
which are transferred from inputs to outputs of the radar response. Therefore, we attempt to
adopt information theory, originally developed by Shannon [26], to characterize the information
content in terms of communications theory, to quantitatively and objectively evaluate the information
of the sensor configurations and to evaluate observational uncertainty that is associated with
parameter sampling.
To the best of our knowledge, SA on microwave scattering from rough surface using information
theoretic criteria is not yet available in the literature. Apparently, quantitative and systematic insights
from information theory into rough surface scattering properties should be attempted to explore the
potential sensing capabilities.
The objective of this paper can be summarized as follows: (1) introduce information theory in the
SA of scattering from rough surfaces; (2) provide a comprehensive SA of the surface parameters and
observation geometries; and (3) conduct an intensive investigation exploring the potential advantage
of using dual-polarization and multi-angle in improving rough surface sensing.
Section 2 firstly briefly outlines the rough surface scattering simulation and the data model of
radar measurements, and then introduces the method of applying information theoretic criteria
in SA of scattering from rough surfaces. Section 3, the main body of this paper, analyzes the
parameter sensitivity dependence of rough surface and radar configurations from extensive scattering
simulations. Section 4 discusses the proposed information-based SA approach. Potential applications
of dual-polarization and multi-angle are also given. Finally, in Section 5, conclusions are drawn to
close the paper.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Surface Scattering Model

(1) Radar Scattering Coefficients
Referring to the geometry of scattering in Figure 1, supposed a plane wave impinges onto
a dielectric rough surface which scatters waves up into the incident plane and down into the lower
medium, with the electric and magnetic fields been written as
2.1. Surface Scattering Model

(1) Radar Scattering Coefficients

Referring to the geometry of scattering in Figure 1, supposed a plane wave impinges onto a
dielectric
Remote Sens.rough surface
2018, 10, 286 which scatters waves up into the incident plane and down into the lower
3 of 16
medium, with the electric and magnetic fields been written as

(1)
→i
→  
→
E = p̂E0 exp − j k i · r (1)

*i 1 *i (2)
H = k̂ i × E (2)
η
where √ ; is the
theunit
unitpolarization vector;E Eis0 the
polarizationvector; is the amplitude of incident
the incident electric
where j = −1; p̂ is 0 amplitude of the electric field;
field;
and ηand the intrinsic
the intrinsic impedanceimpedance of themedium.
of the upper upper medium. The wavenumber
The wavenumber plane in plane in and
incident incident and
scattering
directionsdirections
scattering are defined areasdefined
follows,asrespectively [1].
follows, respectively [1].
→
k i = kk̂ i = x̂k ix + ŷk iy + ẑk iz ; (3)(3)
k ix = k sin θi cos φi , k iy = k sin θi sin φi , k iz = k cos θi

→
k s = k k̂ s = x̂k sx + ŷk sy + ẑk sz ; (4)(4)
k sx = k sin θs cos φs , k sy = k sin θs sin φs , k sz = k cos θs
Forlinearly
For linearlyhorizontal-polarized
horizontal-polarizedandand vertical-polarized
vertical-polarized waves,
waves, the polarization
the polarization , forp̂,
vectorvector
for incident
incident and scattering
and scattering waves,
waves, is defined
is defined as as

ĥi = − x̂ sin φi + ŷ cos φi

v̂i = ĥi × k̂ i = −( x̂ cos θi cos φi + ŷ cos θi sin φi + ẑ sin θi )
(5)
(5)
ĥs = φ̂ = − x̂ sin φs + ŷ cos φs
v̂s = θ̂ = ĥs × k̂ s = x̂ cos θs cos φs + ŷ cos θs sin φs − ẑ sin θs

ẑ

! ĥi
E v̂i Es
 i v̂s

ĥs

k̂i (θi ,φi ) k̂s (θs ,φs )

θi θs

φi
φs
ŷ
x̂

Figure
Figure1.1.AAgeometry
geometryofofrough
roughsurface
surfacescattering.
scattering.

For
Forbackscattering,
backscattering,which
whichisisthe focus
the ofof
focus this study,
this thethe
study, incident azimuth
incident angle
azimuth angle φiisisset
settotozero,
zero,
◦

andscattering
and angleisis θs = θi , φi = 180 .
scatteringangle
In this paper, an Advanced Integral Equation Model (AIEM) is adopted as a working model
for numerical simulations of backscattering coefficient from rough surface. The detail description
concerning the model can be seen in papers by Chen et al. [27], Wu et al. [28] and Chen et al. [29].
(2) Surface Parameters
The range of parameters we used in this study is listed in Table 1. The dielectric coefficient relating
to the moisture content is obtained using Dobson model [30,31] which is a mixed dielectric constant
model. Moreover, we focused on the L-band (i.e., 1.26 GHz) as it shows good sensitivity to moisture
content found in numerous studies.
Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 286 4 of 16

Table 1. Simulation surface and radar parameters.

Parameters Range
ks Normalized root mean surfaces height 0.01~2
Surface Parameter kl Normalized correlation length 0.01~10
mv Moisture content (m3 m−3 ) 0.01~0.45
θi Incident angle 10◦ ~70◦
Radar Parameter θs Scattering angle =θ i
ϕs Scattering azimuthal angle 180◦
Note: Exponential correlation function was used in all cases.

(3) Data Model of Radar Measurements

A proper data model is to enable a mapping of measurement space to parameter space in which
we are of interest. Here, we detail the procedures. The radar backscattering from a rough surface can
be mathematically modeled as Chen et al. [32].

y = Ax + u (6)

where x is the surface parameters vector; matrix A relates the surface parameters vector x to
radar scattering coefficients y; and u represents the measurement error vector induced by system
and calibration errors, and speckle noise. Note that the radar response is formed by, in general,
the scattering matrix. For the purpose of this paper, and without loss of generality, we assume it is
formed by multi-polarized scattering coefficients:

o o o t
y = [σhh , σhv , σvv ] (7)

The surface parameters of interest are the normalized rms height ks, correlation length kl,
and moisture content mv that is related to dielectric constant [30,31], where k is wavenumber:

x = [ks, kl, mv ]t (8)

When it comes to estimation and perhaps to filtering as well, the measurement Equation (1) takes
the form for one-step time or sample n in framework of adaptive filtering such as Kalman filter:

yn = Axn + un , (9)

where the subscript n denotes the measurement at a discrete nth time or sample step. The process
equation relates the transition states of the surface parameters vector x:

xn +1 = Φ n xn + Bn vn , (10)

where Φn is a transition matrix, vn is the process error vector, and Bn is the error matrix.

2.2. Information Theoretic Criteria

In this section, we first briefly introduced information theoretic criteria. Then, its relationship
with data distributions parameters is analyzed with a purpose of application in SA of microwave
scattering from rough surface.
(1) Information Theoretical Analysis
Shannon entropy, a measure of information content, can be used to characterize the amount of
information that we obtain when we observe the result of an experiment. Moreover, the entropy
can also be interpreted as a measure of uncertainty because it is numerically equal to the amount
of uncertainty contained in the outcome of an experiment before it is conducted [26,33]. It has been
 scatteringscattering
from In roughfrom
this surface.
roughwe
section, surface.
first briefly introduced information theoretic criteria. Then, its relationship
heoretic Criteria
with data distributions parameters is analyzed with a purpose of application in SA of microwave
(1)introduced
on, we first briefly Information
(1) Information
Theoretical
fromTheoretical
information
scattering Analysis
theoretic
rough Analysis
criteria.
surface. Then, its relationship
utions parameters is analyzed with a purpose of application in SA of microwave
Shannon entropy,
Shannonaentropy,
measureaof measure
information
of information
content, can
content,
be usedcantobe
characterize
used to characterize
the amounttheofamount of
ough surface. (1)that
Information
information
information that Theoretical
we obtain we
when
Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 286obtain Analysis
we observe
when wethe
observe
result the
of an
result
experiment.
of an experiment.
Moreover,Moreover,
the entropy
thecan
entropy can 5 of 16
also be interpreted
also be interpreted
Shannon as a entropy,
measure as aaof measure
uncertainty
measure ofof uncertainty
because itbecause
information is numerically
content, itcanis benumerically
equaltotocharacterize
used the
equalamount
to the the ofamount
amountofof
heoretical Analysis
uncertainty uncertainty
contained contained
in the outcome
in the of
outcome
an experiment
of an experiment
before
information that we obtain when we observe the result of an experiment. Moreover, the entropy it is
before
conductedit is conducted
[26,33]. It [26,33].
has been It has beencan
widely
tropy, a measure widely
of used
information
usedwidely
also in various
content,
in various
beused models
can
inmodels
interpreted be
various and
used
and
as modelsapplications,
to characterize
applications,
a measure andof suchthe
applications, as engineering
amount
such as engineering
uncertainty such of design
as engineering
because itdesign [34],
[34],
is numerically network
design
network anomaly
[34],anomaly
equal network
to the amount anomalyof
we obtain when we detection
detection [35]
observe[35] theand
detectionand
result
uncertainty species
species
[35] and distribution
ofcontained
an experiment.
distribution
species modeling
Moreover,
in distribution
themodeling
outcomemodeling [36].
thean
[36].
of entropy[36].can before it is conducted [26,33]. It has been
experiment
Considering
ed as a measure of uncertainty
Considering that
because
Considering
that the it
thegoal
isgoal
thatof SA
numerically
of
the is
SAto
goal
widely used in various models and applications, suchpreserve
isequal
of
to SA tothe
preserveisthemaximum
to amount
the
preserve information
ofas
maximum theengineering
maximum content
information ofcontent
the[34],
information
design parameters,
ofcontent
networkthe anomaly
of the
ained in the outcome and that
of
parameters, anthere exists
experiment
parameters,
and that[35]
detection uncertainty
before
and
there
and that it
existsin
is the
there
species scattering
conducted
uncertainty
exists uncertainty
distribution process
[26,33].
inmodeling It of
has
the scatteringa random
been
in[36]. surface,
the scattering
process ofprocess we attempt
a random to introduce
of a surface,
randomwe surface, we
arious models and the concept
applications,
attempt of entropy
toattempt such
introduce to as into
introduce
Consideringthe our
engineering
concept SA
that ofconcept
thethe
of microwave
design
goal [34],
entropy ofinto
of scattering.
network
entropy
SA our
is toSA into Itour
anomaly
of is natural
microwave
preserve SAtheof to measure
microwave
scattering.
maximum theItinformation
scattering.
is natural
information asnatural
Itcontent
isto to
of the
a first
d species distribution
measure step,
modeling
the using
measure entropy,
[36].
information
the which
information
as a is
first a measure
step,
as a first
using of unpredictability
step,
entropy,
using which
entropy, of
is
parameters, and that there exists uncertainty in the scattering process of a random surface, we information
awhich
measure is a content
of
measure [26]. We
unpredictability
of aim to
unpredictability
of of
observe
SA is the
that the goal ofinformation to entropy
preserve
information
content
attempt toandthe
[26].mutual
maximum
content
introduce We [26]. coherence
aim to
We
the concept among
information
observe
aim the
oftoentropy
the
observeparameters.
contententropy
intoof the
theourand This
entropy
SA ofscheme
mutual enables
and coherence
microwave mutual us to quantify
coherence
among
scattering. Itthe among
is naturaltheto
and objectively
that there existsparameters.
uncertainty in
parameters. evaluate
the how
scattering sensitive
process ofthea output
random is to the
surface, input
we
measure the information as a first step, using entropy, which is a measure of unpredictability isof
This scheme This enables
scheme us enables
to quantify
us to and
quantify
objectively
and variable
objectively
evaluate how (surface
evaluatesensitive
how roughness
the
sensitive
output and
theis output
duce the concept to dielectric
of entropy
the input constant).
into our (surface
toinformation
variable
the input SA of microwave
variable
content roughness
(surface
[26]. We scattering.
roughness
andaim dielectric
toandItobserve
isconstant).
natural
dielectricthetoconstant).
entropy and mutual coherence among the
ormation as a first step, Considering
using
Considering
parameters. that
entropy,
Considering
that therethere
which
This thatare
are
scheme many
is many
a measure
there entropy
are
entropy
enables manyof criteria,
us unpredictability
criteria,
toentropy
quantify we
we shall
criteria, ofstart
shallobjectively
and start
we shallwithstart
with two widely
two
evaluate widely
with two
how used
usedwidelycriteria,
criteria,
sensitive used criteria,is
the output
tent [26]. We aim Shannon entropy
to observe
Shannon entropy
Shannon the(SE)
(SE)
entropy[26]
entropy
[26] and
and and
(SE) Renyi
Renyi
[26]mutualentropy
and
entropy
Renyi (RE)
coherence
(RE)
entropy
to the input variable (surface roughness and dielectric constant). [33],
[33], which
among
(RE)
which are
the
[33],
are defined
which
defined areas
as defined as
scheme enables us to quantify and objectivelythat
Considering evaluate
there how are manysensitive entropythe output
criteria, is we shall start with two widely used criteria,
ble (surface roughness and dielectric constant). SE = [ I ( y )] = [− ln ( P ( y ))] (11)
(11) (11)
Shannon entropy (SE) [26] and Renyi entropy (RE) [33], which are defined as
that there are many entropy criteria, we shall start with two 1widely used criteria,
α −1
(SE) [26] and Renyi entropy (RE) [33], which are defined RE = as 1 − α log[ ( P (y))] (12) (11)
(12) (12)
where is an expected value operator; I is Hartley’s information (11) content of observation vector y;
where where
is an expectedis an value
expectedoperator;
value I
operator;
is Hartley’s
and P is the probability density function (pdf). Note that SE is a special I is information
Hartley’s information
content
case ofcontent
observation
RE, i.e.,of limit of;vector(12);
it observation
vector
is the
and
RE asP is
α= the
and
1. probability
P this
In is the probability
study, density
we adopt function
density (pdf).
function
the quadratic Note (pdf).
that Note
entropy, SE isthat
which a isspecial
SE RE
the is case
awhen of αRE
special =case of it
2., i.e., RE is ,the
i.e., it is the
(12)
limit In RE
of practice,
limit
whereasofwe REuse as
. the
is an In this
Parzen
expected study,
. In this
we
method
value study,
adopt
[37] with
operator; wethe
I isadopt
aquadraticthe information
Gaussian
Hartley’s quadratic
entropy,
kernel Gwhich
entropy, is of
to estimate
content which
theobservation
REispdf
the when
theinRE when ;
vector
Equation. (12), P. is the at
and arriving probability density function (pdf). Note that SE is a special case of RE , i.e., it is the
xpected value operator; In Ipractice,
is Hartley’s
limitInof
we information
RE
practice,
use the usecontent
asweParzen the
. method of observation
InParzen
this [37]
method
1 with
study,
N N[37] vector
weaadopt Gaussian
with thea; Gaussian
kernel
quadratic kernel
to estimate
entropy, to the
whichestimate
pdf
is theinthe
REpdf in
when
Hr (b) = − log[ 2 ∑ ∑ G (yi − y j , σ2 )] (13)
bability density function
Equation(pdf).
(12), Note
Equation
arriving
. that
(12), atSE is
arriving a special
at case of RE
N i =1 j =1 , i.e., it is the
. In this study, we adopt In the quadratic
practice, we use entropy,
the Parzen whichmethod is the [37] RE whenwith a Gaussian kernel to estimate the pdf in
where yi are components of y. The base of the log function can be 2, e, or 10. In this study, the natural
Equation (12), arriving at (13) (13)
we use the Parzen(e-based)
methodlog [37]iswith
used.a Gaussian kernel to estimate the pdf in
riving at (2) Relationship between Information Entropy and Data Parameters
(13)
where are components
where are components
of . Theofbase. of Thethe baselogof function
the log can function
be 2, can
e, orbe10.2,Ine, this
or 10. study,
In this thestudy, the
To explore the performance of the entropy in SA, we begin by looking into its relationship to
natural (e-based)
naturaloflog
the distribution (e-based)
is used.
parameters, log isincluding
used. the probabilistic distribution (13) and the standard deviation σ.
where are components of . The base of the log function can be 2, e, or 10. In this study, the
For probability distributions, the skewness, γ, and excess kurtosis, κ, are used to indicate asymmetry
(2) Relationship
(2) Relationship
natural between
(e-based) Information
between
log Information
is used. Entropy and Entropy
Data Parameters
and Data Parameters
and normality, respectively. These parameters are given as
mponents of . The base of the log function can be 2, e, or 10. In this study, the
To exploreTo theexplore
performance
the performance
of the entropy of theinentropy
SA, we in begin
SA, bywelooking
begin by into
looking
its relationship
into its relationship
to the to the
log is used. (2)ofRelationship between Information
u n Entropy and ! Data Parameters
v
distribution distribution
parameters, of parameters,
including including
the probabilisticthe probabilistic
distribution distribution
and the standard
and the deviation
standard deviation . .
∑ 2
u
For probability
For probability
distributions, distributions, σ
the skewness, = t
theof skewness,( x − x
, and excess) /n (14)
between Information Entropy andTo explore
Data the
Parameters performance i
the entropy in, SA,
andkurtosis,
weexcess
begin kurtosis,
by, looking
are used , are
into toitsindicate
used to indicate
relationship to the
i =1
asymmetry asymmetry
and normality,
distribution and
of normality,
respectively.
parameters, respectively.
These parameters
including These
the parameters
are given
probabilistic are
as given as
distribution and the standard deviation .
he performance of the entropy Forin probability
SA, we begindistributions,
by looking into its relationship to the
γthe= Eskewness,
( x − µ)3 /σ3 , and excess kurtosis, , are used (15)to indicate
arameters, including the probabilistic distribution and the standard
asymmetry and normality, respectively. These parameters deviation . are given as (14) (14)
distributions, the skewness, , and excess kurtosis, κ =, E (x −
are µ)4 /σ
used to4 − indicate
3 (16)
normality, respectively. These parameters are given as
where µ is the mean of random variable x, σ measures statistical dispersion, γ measures the asymmetry (14)
of the data around the sample mean and κ indicates how outlier-prone a distribution is. Thus, γ and (15) κ (15)
for a normal distribution are zero. If γ is negative, the data(14) are spread out more to the left of the
mean than to the right. Distributions that are more outlier-prone than the normal distribution have (15)
positive κ, with negative values of κ indicating distributions that are less outlier-prone than the
normal distribution. (15)
In this study, seven typical probability distributions, namely, uniform, exponential, normal, beta,
Weibull, Lognormal, and Gamma distribution, were generated. Their distribution parameters and
corresponding entropies are given Table 2, and their probability distributions are presented in Figure 2.
It was observed that the entropy, both SE and RE, has a close relationship with the distribution
parameters. Overall, high entropy always corresponds to a normal-like distribution whose γ and κ are
Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 286 6 of 16

close to 0.0. It decreases for a greater deviation from the normal distribution, which is characterized by
asymptotic and normality. Moreover, for most distributions, a greater standard deviation σ always
corresponds to greater entropy. Thus, it can be inferred that the output parameter is expected to be
non-sensitive if the input parameter is disturbed normally, and the output parameter deviates greatly
from the normal distribution and has a small σ. It is not difficult to understand this phenomenon,
because, if the input is decentralized, a sensitive system is expected to have a decentralized output,
while an insensitive system tends to be centralized, which can be reflected by a large amount of
asymmetry and a normal probabilistic distribution, with small dispersion. Therefore, the entropy can
be used as an indicator of the SA because it reflects not only the data deviation but also the probability
distribution, which is also given by its definition in Equations (11) and (12).

Table 2. The distribution parameters of seven typical distributions and their entropy.

Distribution Equation 1 Number Parameters γ κ σ SE (nat) RE (nat)

Uniform Case 1 a = 0.0, b = 0.1 0.01 −1.18 0.57 3.75 3.76
Exponential y = f ( x |µ) = e x/µ /µ Case 2 µ = 2.0 1.90 5.59 1.99 3.42 3.28

−( x −µ)2
Case 3 µ = 2.0, σ = 0.125 −0.01 0 0.13 3.88 3.78
Normal y = f ( x |µ, σ ) = √1 e 2σ2
Case 4 µ = 2.0, σ = 0.25 −0.02 0.17 0.25 3.90 3.76
σ 2π

Case 5 µ = 2.0, σ = 1.25 0.00 −0.03 1.25 3.88 3.77

y = f ( x | a, b ) Case 6 a = 2.0, b = 0.125 −3.30 11.86 0.14 1.47 −0.23

2
Beta 1
= B(a,b x a−1 (1 − x )b−1 I(0,1) ( x ) Case 7 a = 2.0, b = 0.25 −2.03 3.8 0.18 2.66 1.77
)
Case 8 a = 2.0, b = 1.0 −0.59 −0.55 0.23 3.77 3.67
Case 9 a = 2.0, b = 0.25 0.61 0.21 0.33 3.90 3.74
x b
Weibull y = f ( x | a, b ) = ba−b x b−1 e−( a ) I(0,∞) ( x ) Case 10 a = 2.0, b = 1.25 −0.61 0.45 0.11 3.90 3.72
Case 11 a = 2.0, b = 2.5 −0.84 1.14 0.06 3.84 3.73
Case 12 µ = 2.0, σ = 0.06 0.18 0.08 0.47 3.88 3.78
−(ln x −µ)2
Lognormal 1
y = f ( x |µ, σ ) = √ e 2σ2
Case 13 µ = 2.0, σ = 0.25 0.86 1.33 1.96 3.86 3.72
xσ 2π

Case 14 µ = 2.0, σ = 0.50 1.56 3.45 4.38 3.63 3.56

x Case 15 a = 2.0, b = 0.25 1.33 2.47 0.35 3.69 3.58
Gamma y = f ( x | a, b ) = x a−1 e b /(b a Γ( a))
Case 16 a = 2.0, b = 1.0 1.36 2.7 1.76 3.64 3.61
1µ is the mean; γ, κ, and σ are skewness, kurtosis and standard deviation, respectively; 2 B(.): Beta function. I(0,1)
ensures that only the values in the range (0–1) have nonzero probability.

To further explore the entropy performance and determine suitable criteria, we compared the
two entropy parameters, SE and RE, as a function of the data distribution parameters, for both the
beta and normal distribution, with denser generated samples, as shown in Figure 3. The reason that
we chose those two distributions lies in that field-measured rough surface parameters are always
random normal distributed. In addition, the scattering response distributions are more likely to be
those distributions when the inputs are normally distributed, which would be discussed in Section 3.1.
In the figure, it can be seen that, for the beta distribution, SE increases with increasing σ while the
absolute value of the γ and κ decreases, as expected. Similar results can be found for the normal
distribution, except for the γ and κ, which are approximately 0, due to the function for generating
simulation data.
Moreover, it is interesting to find that, of the two entropy parameters, the SE can provide
a better representation of the sensitivity with respect to a monotone variation and sometimes a linear
relationship with the distribution parameters, in addition to having the narrow range of 0.0–4.0. The
RE fluctuates, and could have some extremely anomalous high value, as shown in Figure 3a,c,e.
In Figure 3b,d we also see very weak dependences of entropy on γ and κ for Normal distribution,
compared to Beta distribution. Therefore, in the following section, we choose SE as the indicator of SA.
 0.2
Exponential Case 2

0
0 7 14 21
0.2
Normal Case 4
Remote
RemoteSens. 2016,10,
Sens.2018, 8, x286
FOR PEER REVIEW 77ofof16
17
0
1.0 1.7 2.4 3.1
0.2
0.2 Uniform

Probability
Beta Case 1 7
Case
00
0.0
1.0 0.5
1.7 1.0
2.4 1.5
3.1
0.2
0.2
Weibull
Exponential Case 10
Case 2

00
00.3 70.6 0.9
14 1.2
21
0.2
0.2 Normal
Lognormal Case 13
Case 4

00
1.00 1.75 10
2.4 15
3.1
0.2
0.2
Probability

Gamma
Beta Case
Case15
7
00
0.00 0.55 10
1.0 15
1.5
0.2 Random sample value
.
Weibull Case 10
Figure 2. Seven typical probability
0 distributions. Case n (n = 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, and 15) corresponds to the
case in Table 1. 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
0.2 Lognormal
Case 13
To further explore the entropy performance and determine suitable criteria, we compared the
two entropy parameters, SE0and RE, as a function of the data distribution parameters, for both the
beta and normal distribution, with 0 5
denser generated 10
samples, as shown15in Figure 3. The reason that
0.2
we chose those two distributions Gamma
lies in that field-measuredCase rough15 surface parameters are always
random normal distributed. 0In addition, the scattering response distributions are more likely to be
those distributions when the inputs 0 are normally
5 distributed,
10 which would 15 be discussed in Section
3.1. In the figure, it can be seen that, for the Random sample value SE increases with
beta distribution, . increasing while
the absolute value of the and decreases, as expected. Similar results can be found for the
Figure2.2.Seven
Seventypical
typicalprobability
probability distributions.Case
Casenn(n
(n==1,1,2,2,4,4,7,7,13,
13,and
and15)
15)corresponds
correspondsto
tothe
the
Figure
normal distribution, except for thedistributions.
and , which are approximately 0, due to the function for
case in Table
case in Table 1.1.
generating simulation data.
To further explore the entropy performance and determine suitable criteria, we compared the
two entropy parameters,
5 SE and RE, as a function of the20data distribution parameters, for both the
Beta distribution
beta and normal distribution, with denser generated samples, as shown
Normal in Figure 3. The reason that
distribution
Entropy ( nat )

we chose those two4 15

distributions lies in that field-measured rough surface parameters
SE are always
Entropy ( nat )

RE
random normal distributed. In addition, the scattering response distributions are more likely to be
3 10
those distributions when the inputs are normally distributed, which would be discussed in Section
3.1. In the figure,2 it can be seen that, for SEthe beta distribution,
5 SE increases with increasing while
the absolute value of the and RE
decreases, as expected. Similar results can be found for the
1
normal distribution, except for the and , which are0 approximately 0, due to the function for
-6 -4 -2 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
generating simulation data. γ γ
(a) (b)

5 Figure 3. Cont.20
Beta distribution Normal distribution
Entropy ( nat )

4 15 SE
Entropy ( nat )

RE
3 10
SE
2 5
RE
1 0
-6 -4 -2 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
γ γ
(a) (b)
Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 286 8 of 16
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

5 20
Beta distribution Normal distribution

Entropy ( nat )

Entropy ( nat )
4 SE 15
SE
RE RE
3 10

2 5

1 0
0 10 20 30 40 -20 -10 0 10 20
k k
(c) (d)

5 20
Beta distribution Normal distribution
Entropy ( nat )

Entropy ( nat )
4 15
SE
3 10 RE
SE
2 RE
5

1 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.12 0.24 0.36
σ σ
(e) (f)
Figure 3. Renyi entropy (RE) and Shannon entropy (SE) as a function of the distribution parameters
Figure 3. Renyi entropy (RE) and Shannon entropy (SE) as a function of the distribution parameters of:
of: (a,b) ; (c,d) ; and (e,f) , for: (a,c,e) Beta distribution, a = 20; b = 0.1, 0.1, , 1.6 ; and
(a,b) γ; (c,d) κ; and (e,f) σ, for: (a,c,e) Beta distribution, a = 20; b = 0.1, 0.1, · · · , 1.6; and (b,d,f) Normal
(b,d,f) Normal distribution, m = 30; s = 0.02, 0.04, , 0.32.
distribution, µ = 30; σ = 0.02, 0.04, · · · , 0.32.

Moreover, it is interesting to find that, of the two entropy parameters, the SE can provide a
(3) Application of Information Entropy in SA of Scattering from Rough Surface
better representation of the sensitivity with respect to a monotone variation and sometimes a linear
For the with
relationship experiment, the procedure
the distribution wasindivided
parameters, additioninto three the
to having parts:
narrowinput
rangedata sampling,
of 0.0–4.0. The
SEREcalculation,
fluctuates,and andsensitivity
could have analysis. In the inputanomalous
some extremely data samplinghighpart, weas
value, generate
shownnormal distributed
in Figure 3a,c,e. In
random
Figure samples
3b,d we that
also involve
see verysurface
weak parameters
dependences and ofincident
entropyangles.
on In
andthis paper, 1000 samples
for Normal were
distribution,
generated.
comparedThe standard
to Beta deviation,
distribution. σ, was estimated
Therefore, to assesssection,
in the following the uncertainty
we choose caused
SE asbythesystem noiseof
indicator
and
SA.the scattering properties of the random rough surfaces. Next, the parameters associated with each
sample are fed into the AIEM model to obtain the backscattering coefficients and the corresponding
entropy. Finally, the
(3) Application sensitivity toEntropy
of Information the surface condition
in SA and the
of Scattering fromobservation configuration are analyzed
Rough Surface
comprehensively. Notice that, in this paper, we consider linear scale for radar signals.
For the experiment, the procedure was divided into three parts: input data sampling, SE
3. Results and sensitivity analysis. In the input data sampling part, we generate normal distributed
calculation,
random samples that involve surface parameters and incident angles. In this paper, 1000 samples
3.1.
wereSA generated.
of Surface Condition
The standard deviation, , was estimated to assess the uncertainty caused by
system noise and the scattering properties of the random rough surfaces. Next, the parameters
(1) Distribution Response of the Backscattering Coefficient
associated with each sample are fed into the AIEM model to obtain the backscattering coefficients
andFigure 4 is scatteringentropy.
the corresponding coefficient distribution
Finally, with thetonormal
the sensitivity disturbed
the surface roughand
condition surface parameter
the observation
asconfiguration
inputs. Theare exponential correlation function is used ◦
analyzed comprehensively. Notice that,atinanthis
incident
paper,angle of 45 . linear
we consider In thescale
figure,
for
we can see
radar signals. that, for dry and smooth surface, the scattering coefficient remains normal distributed.
With increasing surface roughness and moisture content, the behavior of the rough surface scattering
is3.not normally distributed, as is frequently assumed. It is more likely to be Beta distribution, as shown
Results
in Figure 5, and referring to Figure 2. This disagreement can be described by the departures of the
γ3.1.
andSA κ of Surface
returnsCondition
from normal distribution counterparts. Moreover, we can see that, compared to
surface with varying kl and mv , the scattering response deviation is more obvious when varying ks.
(1) Distribution
Finally, Response that
it can be observed of thetheBackscattering
HH-polarizedCoefficient
distribution response is generally similar, but not
exactlyFigure
the same,4 isasscattering
the VV-polarized ones.distribution with the normal disturbed rough surface
coefficient
parameter as inputs. The exponential correlation function is used at an incident angle of 45°. In the
figure, we can see that, for dry and smooth surface, the scattering coefficient remains normal
surface scattering is not normally distributed, as is frequently assumed. It is more likely to be Beta
distribution, as shown in Figure 5, and referring to Figure 2. This disagreement can be described by
the departures of the and of returns from normal distribution counterparts. Moreover, we
can see that, compared to surface with varying and , the scattering response deviation is
more obvious
Remote Sens. when
2018, 10, 286 varying . Finally, it can be observed that the HH-polarized distribution
9 of 16
response is generally similar, but not exactly the same, as the VV-polarized ones.

99.999 99.999 99.999 VV

VV HH HH
VV HH
Symbol Symbol
Symbol
99.5 99.5 γ -0.27 -0.39 99.5 γ -2.37 -2.54
γ -0.17 -0.09
95 95 κ 7.53 8.95

Normal Percentiles

Normal Percentiles
95 κ -0.00 0.11
Normal Percentiles

κ -0.04 -0.06
σ 0.81 0.97 σ 0.58 0.89 σ 0.13 0.14
70 70 70
40 40 40
kl = 5.0
10 kl = 5.0 10 3 -3 10 kl = 5.0
3 -3 mv = 0.2 m . m
mv = 0.2 m . m 3
mv = 0.2 m . m
-3
1 1 o 1
o θi= 45
θi= 45 θi= 45
o

0.01 ks (Mean = 0.1 ,σ = 0.01) 0.01 ks (Mean = 1 , σ = 0.1) 0.01 ks (Mean = 2.0 , σ = 0.2)
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -15.0 -12.5 -10.0 -7.5 -5.0 -9 -8 -7 -6
Scattering coefficient (dB) Scattering coefficient (dB) Scattering coefficient (dB)
(a) (b) (c)
99.999 99.999 99.999
VV HH VV HH VV HH
Symbol Symbol Symbol
99.5 99.5 γ -0.13 -0.15 99.5
γ -0.16 -0.82 γ -0.01 -0.01
95 -0.11 -0.11 95
Normal Percentiles

Normal Percentiles
95 κ
Normal Percentiles

κ 0.14 0.83 κ 0.11 0.11

σ 0.10 0.07 σ 0.24 0.24 σ 0.32 0.31
70 70 70
40 40 40
ks = 1.0 ks = 1.0 ks = 1.0
10 3 -3 10 3 -3 10 3 -3
mv = 0.2 m . m mv = 0.2 m . m mv = 0.2 m . m
1 o 1 o 1 o
θi= 45 θi= 45 θi= 45
0.01 kl (Mean = 2.5, σ = 0.25) 0.01 kl (Mean = 5, σ = 0.5) 0.01 kl (Mean = 10, σ = 1.0)
-9.0 -8.6 -8.2 -7.8 -10.0 -9.5 -9.0 -8.5 -8.0 -13 -12 -11 -10
Scattering coefficient (dB) Scattering coefficient (dB) Scattering coefficient (dB)
(d) (e) (f)
99.999 99.999 99.999
VV HH VV
VV HH
HH
Symbol Symbol Symbol
99.5 γ 0.02 -0.04 99.5 99.5 γ -0.26 -0.27
γ -0.21 -0.22
-0.07 -0.09 95 κ 0.03 0.04

Normal Percentiles
95 95
Normal Percentiles

Normal Percentiles

κ κ -0.01 0.00
σ 0.09 0.32 σ 0.32 0.34
σ 0.26 0.19
70 70 70
40 40 40
ks = 1.0
10 ks = 1.0 10 kl = 5.0 10 ks = 1.0
kl = 5.0 o kl = 5.0
1 o 1 θi= 45 1 o
θi= 45 θi= 45
0.01 mv (Mean = 0.025 m3. m-3, σ = 0.0025 m3. m-3) 0.01 3 -3
mv (Mean = 0.25 m m , SD = 0.025 m m )
3 -3
0.01 3 -3
mv (Mean = 0.5 m . m , σ = 0.05 m . m )
3 -3

-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6

Scattering coefficient (dB) Scattering coefficient (dB) Scattering coefficient (dB)
(g) (h) (i)
Figure 4. Probability of the scattering coefficient with normal distributed input surface parameters
Figure 4. Probability of the scattering coefficient with normal distributed input surface parameters
of:
of: (a–c)
(a–c) ks; ;(d–f)
(d–f)kl; and
; and (g–i)
(g–i) mv , at ,the
at the incident
incident angle
angle of◦ .45°.
of 45 TheThe solid
solid lineline is the
is the reference
reference lineline
for
a normal distribution fit. (a,d,g) Small ks, kl, and mv ; (b,e,h) medium ks, kl, and mv ; and (c,f,i) large
for a normal distribution fit. (a,d,g) Small , , and ; (b,e,h) medium , , and ; and
ks, kl, and m . The parameters on upper left of the figures show the distribution of the scattering
Remote Sens. 2016, 8,v x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17
(c,f,i) large while
coefficients, , on, and . The
the bottom areparameters on upper left of the figures show the distribution of
the input parameters.
the scattering coefficients, while on the bottom are the input parameters.
0.6 0.6
ks ( Mean = 2.0, σ =0.2) mv ( Mean = 0.5 m m , σ = 0.05 m m )
3 -3 3 -3

kl = 5.0 kl = 5.0
0.4 3 -3 0.4 ks = 1.0
mv =0.2 m m
Probability
Probability

o
o
θi = 45
θi = 45
0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
-8.5 -8.0 -7.5 -7.0 -6.5 -9.0 -8.5 -8.0 -7.5
Scattering coefficient ( dB ) Scattering coefficient ( dB )
(a) (b)

Figure5. 5.
Figure Probability
Probability distribution
distribution response
response of backscattering
of backscattering forsurface
for rough roughwith:
surface with:
(a) great (a) great
roughness;
roughness; and (b) high
and (b) high water content. water content.

(2) SA by Information Entropy

Figure 6 is a volumetric slice of SE with three key surface parameters, namely, ks , , and
in the x, y, z directions, respectively. In the figure, we observe that the entropy related to the HH
polarization is generally similar to that of VV polarization. Moreover, the backscattering signals
were found to be more sensitive to ks than to and . Those results are highly consistent with
those by other methods, such as EFAST methods [15,16]. The consistency between the different
 Scattering coefficient ( dB ) Scattering coefficient ( dB )
(a) (b)

Figure 5. Probability distribution response of backscattering for rough surface with: (a) great
roughness; and (b) high water content.
Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 286 10 of 16

(2) SA by Information Entropy

(2) SA by Information Entropy
Figure 6 is a volumetric slice of SE with three key surface parameters, namely, ks , , and
in the x, y, z directions, respectively. In the figure, we observe that the entropy related tomthe
Figure 6 is a volumetric slice of SE with three key surface parameters, namely, ks, kl, and v inHH
the
x, y, z directions, respectively. In the figure, we observe that the entropy related to the HH polarization
polarization is generally similar to that of VV polarization. Moreover, the backscattering signals
is generally similar to that of VV polarization. Moreover, the backscattering signals were found to be
were found to be more sensitive to ks than to and . Those results are highly consistent with
more sensitive to ks than to mv and kl. Those results are highly consistent with those by other methods,
those
such as byEFAST
other methods
methods, [15,16].
such asThe EFAST methodsbetween
consistency [15,16]. the
Thedifferent
consistency between
models the again
indicates different
the
models indicates again the feasibility of the proposed
feasibility of the proposed entropy-based method in SA. entropy-based method in SA.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure
Figure 6.
6. SE
SE response
response toto rough
rough surface
surface when
whenvarying:
varying:(a,d)
(a,d) ks; ;(b,e)
(b,e); ;and
and(c,f)
(c,f)mv at aatpolarization
a polarization
of:
(a–c) VV; and (d–f) HH. The incident angle is 45 ◦ and the frequency is 1.26 GHz. Normal distribution
of: (a–c) VV; and (d–f) HH. The incident angle is 45° and the frequency is 1.26 GHz. Normal
disturbancesdisturbances
distribution were addedwere to the input
added parameters,
to the with σ equal
input parameters, with to equal1% oftothe
1%maximum of the
of the maximum
corresponding surface parameters. As an example, σ is set to 0.02, 0.1, and 0.005 m3 m−3 3when -3
of the corresponding surface parameters. As an example, is set to 0.02, 0.1, and 0.005 m m
varying: (a,d) ks; (b,e) kl; and (c,f) mv , respectively.
when varying: (a,d) ; (b,e) ; and (c,f) , respectively.

Note that, compared to other SA methods, the proposed entropy-based method can provide
Note that,
specific and compared
detailed to other
parameter SA methods,
sensitivity underthe proposed
various entropy-based
rough methodwhile
surface conditions, can provide
there is
specific and detailed parameter sensitivity under various rough surface conditions, while there is
always only single SA data for global-based methods or limited data for local-based method. Therefore,
the proposed method can give us more insight into the scattering behaviors of rough surface and,
thus, ensure better use of microwave scattering data in surface monitoring.
Another interesting finding is that it is easy to determine the saturation point of backscattering
signals in the form of rapidly decreasing entropy. For example, it can be seen that backscattering
signals tend to saturate for a rougher surface, and wet soil prompts the saturation.

3.2. Sensitivity of Observation Configuration

Figure 7 shows the distribution parameters and entropy as a function of the incident angles.
The figure shows that, when the incident angle increases, for surfaces with different values of ks,
the γ and σ decrease first and then increase, while the κ increases first and then increases. The turning
points of those parameters are almost at the same incident angle. Correspondingly, the SE decreases
first and then increases, and the smallest entropy is always found around the small incident angles for
a smooth surface, and it shifts toward a greater incident angle for rougher cases. This finding indicates
that, for roughness sensing, the backscattering observation at greater incident angles is preferable
 figure shows that, when the incident angle increases, for surfaces with different values of ks , the
and decrease first and then increase, while the increases first and then increases. The turning
points of those parameters are almost at the same incident angle. Correspondingly, the SE decreases
first and then increases, and the smallest entropy is always found around the small incident angles
Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 286 11 of 16
for a smooth surface, and it shifts toward a greater incident angle for rougher cases. This finding
indicates that, for roughness sensing, the backscattering observation at greater incident angles is
for a preferable for a smooth
smooth surface, surface,
while smaller while smaller
incident incident
angles for rough angles forwith
surfaces, rough
thesurfaces, with thethe
aim of retaining aim of
retaining the
maximum information. maximum information.

3 3
0.50 0.75
2 2
1.00 1.50
1 2.00 1
0 0
γ

γ
-1 -1 0.05 0.10
0.20 0.30
-2 -2 0.45
-3 -3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
o o
θi ( ) θi ( )
(a) (b)
10 10
8 0.50 8 0.05
0.75 0.10
6 6
1.00 0.20
4 1.50 4 0.30
κ

κ
2 2.00 2 0.45
0 0
-2 -2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
o o
θi ( ) θi ( )
(c) (d)
0.4 0.4
0.50 0.75 0.05
1.00 1.50 0.10
0.3 0.3
2.00 0.20
0.2 0.2 0.30
σ

0.45
0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
o o
θi ( ) θi ( )
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17
(e) (f)
6 0.50 0.75 6 0.05
1.00 1.50 0.10
SE ( nat )

4 2.00 0.20
SE ( nat )

4
0.30
0.45
2 2

0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
o o
θi ( ) θi ( )
(g) (h)

FigureFigure 7. Distribution
7. Distribution response
response and corresponding
and corresponding SE asSEa as a function
function of incident
of incident angles
angles for varying:
for varying:
3 -3
(a,c,d,g)
(a,c,d,g) . mv = 0.2
ks. kl = 5.0, mv3 m=
, m −30.2 m(b,d,f,h)
; and m ; andmv . (b,d,f,h)
ks = 1.0, kl =. 5.0; and (a,b)
, γ; (c,d) ;κ;and (a,b)
(e,f) σ;
and (g,H) SE. Normally
; (c,d) ; (e,f) distributed inputs are the same as those in Figure 5.
; and (g,H) SE. Normally distributed inputs are the same as those in Figure 5.

For the
Formoisture content,
the moisture it is itinteresting
content, to note
is interesting thatthat
to note the the
distribution of m
distribution ofv is notably different
is notably different
from that of ks. For example, a surface with a varying mv has a negative γ, while it is positive when
fromks.that
varying . For example,
Theofdistribution responsea for surface withsurface
a smooth a varying has aksnegative
with a small does not vary, while
with it is positive
incident
when
angle, whilevarying . The distribution
a similar phenomenon can beresponse
found forfor a smooth
a wet surfacesurface with
with high mva. The
smallturningdoes notofvary
point
with incident angle, while a similar phenomenon can be found for a wet surface with high . The
turning point of the distribution parameters always appears at larger incident angles ( ) for
various values of , while it is at smaller incident angles for rough surfaces ( ) for various
. In addition, the SE curve with varying shows monotone, and the scattering signal
 For the moisture content, it is interesting to note that the distribution of is notably different
from that of . For example, a surface with a varying has a negative , while it is positive
when varying . The distribution response for a smooth surface with a small does not vary
with incident
Remote Sens. 2018,angle,
10, 286 while a similar phenomenon can be found for a wet surface with high 12. of
The16

turning point of the distribution parameters always appears at larger incident angles ( ) for
◦
various
the values of
distribution , while
parameters it is at
always smalleratincident
appears angles angles
larger incident for rough surfaces
(> 60 (
) for various ) for various
values of mv ,
◦
while it is at smaller incident angles
. In addition, the SE curve with varying for rough surfaces ( < 60 ) for various ks. In addition,
shows monotone, and the scattering signal the SE curve
with
saturation ks shows
varyingappears monotone,
earlier for a and
wet the scattering
surface, whilesignal
it is saturation appears
funnel-shaped, andearlier
the for a wet surface,
scattering signal
while it is funnel-shaped,
saturation dip shift is greater andatthe scattering
incident signal
angles withsaturation
roughness. dip shift is greater at incident angles
with roughness.
The above results are based on VV polarization. Similar analyses with HH polarization indicate
almostTheidentical
above results
behavior.are based on VV polarization. Similar analyses with HH polarization indicate
almost identical behavior.
3.3. SA of Dual-Polarization and Multi-Angle
3.3. SA of Dual-Polarization and Multi-Angle
Motivated by the different responses of the scattering signals from different polarizations, as
Motivated
shown in Figure by 5,the
twodifferent
sets ofresponses
simulationofdatathe scattering signals from are
with dual-polarization different polarizations,
combined (i.e., the
as shown in Figure 5, two sets of simulation data with dual-polarization
polarization ratio and the polarization difference), as given in Figure 8. The figure shows are combinedthat
(i.e., the polarization
dual-polarization ratio andto
is expected theprovide
polarization
some difference),
improvements as given in Figurethe
in estimating 8. The figurecontent
moisture shows
that dual-polarization
compared is expected
to single-polarized to provide some
measurements improvements
by reducing in estimating
the scattering the moisture
coefficient content
saturation for
compared to single-polarized measurements by reducing the scattering
rough and wet surfaces, which is a problematic issue in surface parameter retrieving. coefficient saturation for rough
and wet surfaces, which is a problematic issue in surface parameter retrieving.

4 4

3 3
σVV
SE ( nat )

SE ( nat )

2 2 σHH
σVV / σHH
1 σVV 1 σVV - σHH
σHH
0 σVV / σHH 0
σVV - σHH
-1 -1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
3 -3
ks mv (m .m )
(a) (b)

Figure 8.
Figure 8. SE
SE of
ofsingle-
single-and
anddual-polarization
dual-polarizationfor
forvarying:
varying:(a) = m5.0,
(a)ks. kl. =kl5.0, v = v =
m0.2 m30.2
m−m m-(b)
3 ; 3and 3
; and
mv .
◦
ks = 1.0, kl = 5.0 at θi = 45 .
(b) . ks = 1.0, kl = 5.0 at .
◦ ◦
For multi-angle observations, we investigate the SE response of two angles (θi = 30 , 45 ),
◦ ◦ ◦
and three angles (θi = 30 , 45 , 50 ) in simulations, as shown in Figure 9. Note that only varying
the roughness ks and moisture content mv were considered because the scattering response to kl is
comparatively less sensitive, as stated in Section 3.1. The figure shows that a multi-angle observation
can help to address the issue of the scattering signal saturation for wet and rough surfaces, which is
similar to the using dual-polarization. Moreover, it is interesting to note that for multi-angle, which
is the combination of backscattering coefficients at two incident angles (σVV (30◦ ) /σVV (45◦ ) ), the SE is
 2  
sensitive to ks but not to mv , while the combination of three angles ( σVV (30◦ ) / σVV (45◦ ) σVV (50◦ ) )
shows sensitivity to both ks and mv . This finding implies that one can use the ratio between the values
of the backscatter data at two angles to estimate the roughness while assigning the soil moisture a
constant value. The soil moisture can then be estimated based on the ratio of the three backscatter
values using the estimated roughness. Note that there is an obvious SE dip for a multi-angle observation
due to the almost equal scattering coefficients of those angles.
shows sensitivity to both and . This finding implies that one can use the ratio between the
values of the backscatter data at two angles to estimate the roughness while assigning the soil
moisture a constant value. The soil moisture can then be estimated based on the ratio of the three
backscatter values using the estimated roughness. Note that there is an obvious SE dip for a
multi-angle
Remote observation
Sens. 2018, 10, 286 due to the almost equal scattering coefficients of those angles. 13 of 16

4 4

3 3

SE ( nat )
SE ( nat )

2 2

1 1

0 σvv1 - σvv2 2σvv1 - σvv2- σvv3 0 σvv1 - σvv2 2σvv1 - σvv2- σvv3
σvv1 σvv1
2 2
σvv1 / σvv2 (σvv1) / σvv2/ σvv3 σvv1 / σvv2 (σvv1) / σvv2/ σvv3
-1 -1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
3 -3
ks mv (m .m )
(a) (b)
-3
3 −
Figure 9. SESEofofthe
thesingle
singleand
andmulti-angle
multi-anglewhen
whenvarying: . klkl==5.0,
(a) (a) ks.
varying: 5.0,mmv v == 0.2
0.2 m
m3 m
m 3 ;; and
(b) mv . ks = 1.0, kl = 5.0. σVVi is the VV-polarized scattering coefficient with the incident angle
(b) ◦ = ◦1.0, kl = 5.0 .
◦ . ks is the VV-polarized scattering coefficient with the incident
θi = 30 , 45 , 50 .

angle .
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
In Figures 4 and 5, we start with exploring the distribution response of the backscattering
coefficient under4different
In Figures and 5, bare surface
we start withconditions
exploring with
thethe normal disturbed
distribution response rough surface
of the parameter.
backscattering
We can see that, for rough and wet surface, scattering returns does not
coefficient under different bare surface conditions with the normal disturbed rough surface agree with the frequently
assumed
parameter.normal
We candistribution,
see that, forand is more
rough and wet likely to bescattering
surface, Beta distribution.
returns does Therefore,
not agreescattering
with the
distribution response should be considered carefully to reduce the uncertainty
frequently assumed normal distribution, and is more likely to be Beta distribution. Therefore, in rough surface sensing.
To further indicate the sensitivity of radar response to surface parameters,
scattering distribution response should be considered carefully to reduce the uncertainty in rough we use information
entropy because it not only reflects probabilistic distribution, but also the deviation. In Figure 6, we find
surface sensing.
that the entropy-based
To further indicateSAtheresults are highly
sensitivity of radarconsistent
response with those byparameters,
to surface other methods,we usesuch as EFAST
information
methods
entropy because it not only reflects probabilistic distribution, but also the deviation. In Figureof
[15,16]. The consistency between the different models indicates again the feasibility 6, the
we
proposed entropy-based method in SA. Moreover, compared to other SA methods,
find that the entropy-based SA results are highly consistent with those by other methods, such as the entropy-based
method can provide
EFAST methods specific
[15,16]. Theand detailed parameter
consistency between the sensitivity
differentunder
models various roughagain
indicates surfacetheconditions,
feasibility
while
of thethere is always
proposed only single method
entropy-based SA data in for SA.global-based
Moreover,methodscompared or limited
to otherdataSAfor local-based
methods, the
method. Another interesting finding is that it is easy to determine the saturation
entropy-based method can provide specific and detailed parameter sensitivity under various rough point of backscattering
signals
surface in the form of
conditions, rapidly
while theredecreasing
is alwaysentropy.
only single Therefore,
SA data thefor
proposed method
global-based can give
methods orus more
limited
insight
data forinto the scattering
local-based method. behaviors of rough surface
Another interesting findingand, thus,
is that it isensure
easy tobetter use of
determine themicrowave
saturation
scattering data in surface monitoring.
point of backscattering signals in the form of rapidly decreasing entropy. Therefore, the proposed
Considering that the scattering’s response to the incident angles and polarization are of great
interest in optimizing the radar system designs, we analyze the scattering sensitivity as a function
of incident angles in Figure 7. The different distributions and entropy responses to the roughness
and moisture content in terms of the incident angles and polarization imply a different degree of
sensitivity, and thus, multiple incident angles and polarizations can help improve accuracy of the
retrieval of parameters.
We then combine simulation data with dual-polarization and multi-angle, as shown in
Figures 8 and 9. The results indicate that the entropy-based SA can estimate visually the advantage of
multi-polarization and multi-angle, and combining multi-polarization and multi-angle could help to
decouple the effect of the moisture content and roughness on the scattering observations.

5. Conclusions
In this paper, we applied SE in SA of scattering from rough surface, and comprehensively
analyzed the sensitivity to observation configuration and surface parameters including surface
roughness (rms height, correlation length) and moisture content. Attempts were also made to explore,
by maximizing the information content, the potential advantages of duel-polarization and multi-angle
Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 286 14 of 16

in improving retrieval of surface parameters from radar sensing. The results show that information
entropy is a good indicator of sensitivity of radar response to surface parameters because it not only
reflects probabilistic distribution, but also the deviation. By information entropy, richer details on
scattering behavior is offered through evaluating in detail the parameter sensitivities, predicting
quantitatively the scattering signal saturation, estimating visually the advantage of multi-polarization
and multi-angle, and identifying non-significant variables, similar to normal SA attempts. Moreover,
compared to Renyi entropy, Shannon entropy seems to better represent the sensitivity with respect to
monotone variation and narrower data range. From the sensitivity analysis, it is therefore confirmed,
on a more theoretically solid ground, that measurement from multi-polarization and multi-angle
greatly helps alleviate the saturation of scattering coefficient at rougher and wetter surface, and even
has the potential to decouple the effect of moisture content and roughness on surface observation.
Thus, the entropy-based SA offers to deepen our understanding of the microwave scattering behavior,
and, as such, to devise an effective retrieval of moisture content from radar measurements.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under
grants 41531175, and in part the Director General’s Innovative Funding-2015, and Youth Funding-2016 of the
Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Author Contributions: Kun-Shan Chen and Yu Liu conceived and designed the experiments; Yu Liu performed
the experiments; Yu Liu analyzed the data; Kun-Shan Chen and Yu Liu contributed analysis tools; and Yu Liu
wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ulaby, F.T.; Long, D.G. Microwave Radar and Radiometric Remote Sensing; University of Michigan Press:
Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2014.
2. Crosson, W.L.; Limaye, A.S.; Laymon, C.A. Parameter sensitivity of soil moisture retrievals from airborne
L-band radiometer measurements in SMEX02. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2005, 43, 1517–1528.
[CrossRef]
3. Du, Y.; Ulaby, F.T.; Dobson, M.C. Sensitivity to soil moisture by active and passive microwave sensors.
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2000, 38, 105–114. [CrossRef]
4. Zribi, M.; Dechambre, M. A new empirical model to retrieve soil moisture and roughness from C-band radar
data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003, 84, 42–52. [CrossRef]
5. Verhoest, N.E.; Lievens, H.; Wagner, W.; Álvarez-Mozos, J.; Moran, M.S.; Mattia, F. On the soil roughness
parameterization problem in soil moisture retrieval of bare surfaces from synthetic aperture radar. Sensors
2008, 8, 4213–4248. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Lievens, H.; Verhoest, N.E.; De Keyser, E.; Vernieuwe, H.; Matgen, P.; Álvarez-Mozos, J.; De Baets, B. Effective
roughness modeling as a tool for soil moisture retrieval from C-and L-band SAR. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
2011, 15, 151–162. [CrossRef]
7. Zribi, M.; Gorrab, A.; Baghdadi, N. A new soil roughness parameter for the modelling of radar backscattering
over bare soil. Remote Sens. Environ. 2014, 152, 62–73. [CrossRef]
8. Bindlish, R.; Jackson, T.J.; Wood, E.; Gao, H.; Starks, P.; Bosch, D.; Lakshmi, V. Soil moisture estimates from
TRMM Microwave Imager observations over the Southern United States. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003, 85,
507–515. [CrossRef]
9. Chen, K.S.; Yen, S.K.; Huang, W.P. A simple-model for retrieving bare soil-moisture from radar-scattering
coefficients. Remote Sens. Environ. 1995, 54, 121–126. [CrossRef]
10. Mao, K.B.; Tang, H.J.; Zhang, L.X.; Li, M.C.; Guo, Y.; Zhao, D.Z. A method for retrieving soil moisture in
Tibet region by utilizing microwave index from TRMM/TMI data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2008, 29, 2903–2923.
[CrossRef]
11. Brogioni, M.; Pettinato, S.; Macelloni, G.; Paloscia, S.; Pampaloni, P.; Pierdicca, N.; Ticconi, F. Sensitivity of
bistatic scattering to soil moisture and surface roughness of bare soils. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2010, 31, 4227–4255.
[CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 286 15 of 16

12. Saltelli, A.; Ratto, M.; Andres, T.; Campolongo, F.; Cariboni, J.; Gatelli, D.; Saisana, M.; Tarantola, S.
Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer; John Wiley & Sons: West Sussex, UK, 2008.
13. Wagner, S. Global sensitivity analysis of predictor models in soft- ware engineering. In Proceedings
of the International Workshop on Predictor Models in Software Engineering, Minneapolis, MN, USA,
20–26 May 2007; p. 3.
14. Petropoulos, G.; Srivastava, P.K. (Eds.) Sensitivity Analysis in Earth Observation Modelling; Elsevier:
Oxford, UK, 2016.
15. Ma, C.F.; Li, X.; Wang, S.G. A global sensitivity analysis of soil parameters associated with backscattering
using the advanced integral equation model. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2015, 53, 5613–5623.
16. McNairn, H.; Jackson, T.J.; Wiseman, G.; Belair, S.; Berg, A.; Bullock, P.; Colliander, A.; Cosh, M.H.; Kim, S.B.;
Magagi, R.; et al. The soil moisture active passive validation experiment 2012 (SMAPVEX12): Prelaunch
calibration and validation of the SMAP soil moisture algorithms. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2015, 53,
2784–2801. [CrossRef]
17. Wang, J.; Li, X.; Lu, L.; Fang, F. Parameter sensitivity analysis of crop growth models based on the extended
Fourier amplitude sensitivity test method. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 48, 171–182. [CrossRef]
18. Estrada, V.; Diaz, M.S. Global sensitivity analysis in the development of first principle-based eutrophication
models. Environ. Model. Softw. 2010, 25, 1539–1551. [CrossRef]
19. Li, D.; Jin, R.; Zhou, J.; Kang, J. Analysis and reduction of the uncertainties in soil moisture estimation with
the L-MEB model using EFAST and ensemble retrieval. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2015, 12, 1337–1341.
20. Lentini, N.E.; Hackett, E.E. Global sensitivity of parabolic equation radar wave propagation simulation to
sea state and atmospheric refractivity structure. Radio Sci. 2015, 50, 1027–1049. [CrossRef]
21. Neelam, M.; Mohanty, B.P. Global sensitivity analysis of the radiative transfer model. Water Resour. Res. 2015,
51, 2428–2443. [CrossRef]
22. Sobol, I.M. Sensitivity estimates for nonlinear mathematical models. Math. Model. Comput. Exp. 1993, 1,
407–414.
23. Sudret, B. Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2008, 93,
964–979. [CrossRef]
24. Saltelli, A.; Sobol, I.M. About the use of rank transformation in sensitivity of model output. Reliab. Eng.
Syst. Saf. 1995, 50, 225–239.
25. Saltelli, A.; Annoni, P. How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2010, 25,
1508–1517. [CrossRef]
26. Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. In ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and
Communications Review; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2001; Volume 5, pp. 3–55.
27. Chen, K.S.; Wu, T.D.; Tsang, L.; Li, Q.; Shi, J.C.; Fung, A.K. Emission of rough surfaces calculated by the
integral equation method with comparison to three-dimensional moment method simulations. IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens. 2003, 41, 90–101. [CrossRef]
28. Wu, T.D.; Chen, K.S.; Shi, J.C.; Lee, H.W.; Fung, A.K. A study of AIEM Model for Bistatic Scattering from
Randomly Surfaces. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2008, 46, 2584–2598.
29. Chen, K.L.; Chen, K.S.; Li, Z.L.; Liu, Y. Extension and validation of an advanced integral equation model for
bistatic scattering from rough surfaces. Prog. Electromagn. Res. 2015, 152, 59–76. [CrossRef]
30. Dobson, M.C.; Ulaby, F.T.; Hallikainen, M.T.; El-Rayes, M.A. Microwave dielectric behavior of wet
soil—Part II. Dielectric mixing models. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 1985, 1, 35–46. [CrossRef]
31. Peplinski, N.R.; Ulaby, F.T.; Dobson, M.C. Dielectric-properties of soils in the 0.3–1.3-GHz range. IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens. 1995, 33, 803–807. [CrossRef]
32. Chen, K.S.; Wu, T.D.; Shi, J.C. A model- based inversion of rough surface parameters from radar
measurements. J. Electromagn. Waves Appl. 2001, 15, 173–200. [CrossRef]
33. Rényi, A. On measures of entropy and information. In Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on
Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Berkeley, CA, USA, 20 June–30 July 1960; Volume 1, pp. 547–561.
34. Liu, H.; Chen, W.; Sudjianto, A. Relative entropy based method for probabilistic sensitivity analysis in
engineering design. J. Mech. Des. 2006, 128, 326–336. [CrossRef]
35. Ziviani, A.; Gomes, A.T.A.; Monsores, M.L.; Rodrigues, P.S. Network anomaly detection using nonextensive
entropy. IEEE Commun. Lett. 2007, 11, 1034–1036. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 286 16 of 16

36. Phillips, S.J.; Dudík, M.; Schapire, R.E. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling.
In Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Machine Learning, Banff, AB, Canada, 4–8
July 2004; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2004; p. 83.
37. Parzen, E. On the estimation of a probability density function and the mode. Ann. Math. Stat. 1962, 33,
1065–1076. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).