Abstract
A recent publication claims that closure phases in SAR interferometry bear no relationship to physical changes of the scatterer, but only to the statistical properties of the averaged pixels. We disprove this claim with a simple counterexample and remind the reader of cases in which closure phases indicate a clear physical content, including the exploitation of closure phases in other fields.
Highlights
In the above article [1], we claim to demonstrate that closure phases in SAR interferometry do not carry any physical information but are only related to the dispersion of phase and amplitude
2) We showed that closure phase [. . .] similar to InSAR coherence, [it] contains no information about the magnitude of physical changes
If the φs are proportional to moisture levels, the magnitude of the closure phase will obviously reflect the magnitude of the moisture variations
Summary
In the above article [1], we claim to demonstrate that closure phases in SAR interferometry do not carry any physical information but are only related to the dispersion of phase and amplitude. The first physical model explicitly predicting the presence of closure phases was in [2]. Closure phases are in the standard models for volumetric scattering and decorrelation, as in [3]. . .] similar to InSAR coherence, [it] contains no information about the magnitude of physical changes. . .] does not relate to the magnitude of physical, deforming, and nondeforming changes. These are general statements of the authors of [1], and we are going to disprove them with a counterexample
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
