New website, new luck.

https://trappmartin.github.io/website/

Let me know what you think. After the test phase I’ll merge it completely over.

@trappmartin hello Martin. I saw on your site that you co-organized a "Workshop on Uncertainty Quantification for Computer Vision".

That's a topic I know nothing about. I use a motion tracking method (MCC) to measure sea ice motion from satellite images. One issue I have is that I don't know how to reliably estimate uncertainties for my vectors.

Would you mind telling me if solution exists already in Computer Vision, and where I could look for them? It would be very helpful.

@lavergnetho part of the reason we organised the workshop is that current methodology for uncertainty quantification in CV is still rather immature and there is clearly a need for better techniques and better metrics.

I’m not familiar with MCC, but some of the existing techniques might be applicable. Depends on how the optical flow is estimated. You can write me an email and I can send some recommendations for reading.

@trappmartin i'll do that, thanks. The #satellite #RemoteSensing community has also such workshops to discuss how to estimate and report uncertainties. Since the two communities work from images, there might be connections and knowledge to exchange? Cheers.
@lavergnetho @trappmartin A few years back, there was a lot of impetus from ESA within the CCI initiative. But there wasn't any significant uptake from the community, so I things thinks went quiet. Loads of great material around, and well established and practical approaches.

@jgomezdans @trappmartin In Europe, the efforts on satellite-based retrieval have continued at a steady pace with the #FiduceEO project. #CCI teams and even new satellite missions (#CIMR, #TRUTH,...) try to embrace the #FiducEO approach all the way to geophysical products (Level-2).

It is hard, and sometimes an overkill, but with time we will get there.

FiducEO paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1681-7575/ab1705/meta

An recent example from #CCI :
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040875

@jgomezdans @trappmartin Also, I would like to mention the #python CoMet toolkit:

"The CoMet Toolkit (Community Metrology Toolkit) is an open-source software project to develop Python tools for the handling of error-covariance information in the analysis of measurement data."

If I had time to work on the details of my uncertainty propagation, I'll explore this toolkit. It seems well documented.
https://www.comet-toolkit.org/

CoMet Toolkit

An open-source software project to develop Python tools for the handling of error-covariance information in the analysis of measurement data.

CoMet Toolkit
@lavergnetho @trappmartin yeah, this is the sort of thing I had in mind. We have a recent paper on #AtmosphericCorrection (https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/15/7933/2022/), where the uncertainty considerations were the hardest thing to justify and explain. So far, v limited uptake on them :⁠-⁠P:⁠-⁠P:⁠-⁠P
Bayesian atmospheric correction over land: Sentinel-2/MSI and Landsat 8/OLI

<p><strong class="journal-contentHeaderColor">Abstract.</strong> Mitigating the impact of atmospheric effects on optical remote sensing data is critical for monitoring intrinsic land processes and developing Analysis Ready Data (ARD). This work develops an approach to this for the NERC NCEO medium resolution ARD Landsat 8 (L8) and Sentinel 2 (S2) products, called Sensor Invariant Atmospheric Correction (SIAC). The contribution of the work is to phrase and solve that problem within a probabilistic (Bayesian) framework for medium resolution multispectral sensors S2/MSI and L8/OLI and to provide per-pixel uncertainty estimates traceable from assumed top-of-atmosphere (TOA) measurement uncertainty, making progress towards an important aspect of CEOS ARD target requirements.</p> <p>A set of observational and a priori constraints are developed in SIAC to constrain an estimate of coarse resolution (500 m) aerosol optical thickness (AOT) and total column water vapour (TCWV), along with associated uncertainty. This is then used to estimate the medium resolution (10–60 m) surface reflectance and uncertainty, given an assumed uncertainty of 5 % in TOA reflectance. The coarse resolution a priori constraints used are the MODIS MCD43 BRDF/Albedo product, giving a constraint on 500 m surface reflectance, and the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) operational forecasts of AOT and TCWV, providing estimates of atmospheric state at core 40 km spatial resolution, with an associated 500 m resolution spatial correlation model. The mapping in spatial scale between medium resolution observations and the coarser resolution constraints is achieved using a calibrated effective point spread function for MCD43. Efficient approximations (emulators) to the outputs of the 6S atmospheric radiative transfer code are used to estimate the state parameters in the atmospheric correction stage.</p> <p>SIAC is demonstrated for a set of global S2 and L8 images covering AERONET and RadCalNet sites. AOT retrievals show a very high correlation to AERONET estimates (correlation coefficient around 0.86, RMSE of 0.07 for both sensors), although with a small bias in AOT. TCWV is accurately retrieved from both sensors (correlation coefficient over 0.96, RMSE <span class="inline-formula"><0.32</span> g cm<span class="inline-formula"><sup>−2</sup></span>). Comparisons with in situ surface reflectance measurements from the RadCalNet network show that SIAC provides accurate estimates of surface reflectance across the entire spectrum, with RMSE mismatches with the reference data between 0.01 and 0.02 in units of reflectance for both S2 and L8. For near-simultaneous S2 and L8 acquisitions, there is a very tight relationship (correlation coefficient over 0.95 for all common bands) between surface reflectance from both sensors, with negligible biases. Uncertainty estimates are assessed through discrepancy analysis and are found to provide viable estimates for AOT and TCWV. For surface reflectance, they give conservative estimates of uncertainty, suggesting that a lower estimate of TOA reflectance uncertainty might be appropriate.</p>

@lavergnetho @trappmartin also, this paper is quite relevant and nice to read. https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/8/4699/2015/
AMT - Known and unknown unknowns: uncertainty estimation in satellite remote sensing

@jgomezdans @trappmartin Thanks, I'll check it out.

We have a preprint out at @EuroGeosciences #EGUSphere where we look at uncertainty estimates for the #SeaIce extent and area timeseries indicator, also here with #MonteCarlo simulations.

https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1189/

EGUsphere - Estimating the uncertainty of sea-ice area and sea-ice extent from satellite retrievals

@lavergnetho @jgomezdans @trappmartin

Interesting, the second paper seems to account for non detected clouds, which is the the reason why I avoided such analyses in my products so far. Will read, but it's Sunday...