Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 319

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inversion methods for physically‐based models

Kimes, D.S., Knyazikhin, Y., Privette, J.L., Abuelgasim, A.A., Gao, F.·2000·Remote Sensing Reviews

Abstract

Physically‐based models of vegetation reflectance serve as a basis for extracting vegetation variables using directional and spectral data from modern‐borne sensors (e.g., MODIS, MISR, POLDER, SeaWiFS). Although many models have been inverted, only recently have significant efforts been made to provide operational algorithms. These efforts have exposed a need to significantly improve efficient and accurate methods for inverting these physically‐based models. The characteristics of the traditional inversion, table look‐up, neural network and other methods are discussed as well as the major achievements, advantages/disadvantages, and research issues for each method. The traditional inversion methods using repeated model runs are computationally intensive and are not appropriate for operational application on a per pixel basis for regional and global data. Thus, for larger data sets, simplified (reduced number of variables and/or physical processes) physically‐based models are generally used. The table look‐up and neural network methods are computationally efficient and can be applied on a per pixel basis. Moreover, they can be applied to the most sophisticated models without any simplifications. Finally, they do not require initial guesses to model variables as do the traditional inversion methods. However, traditional inversion and table look‐up methods are inherently designed to handle any arbitrary set of Sun‐view angles. Neural networks have not been generalized, as of yet, to handle arbitrary angles. We believe the most pressing research priority is to perform a rigorous comparison of the various inversion methods in terms of accuracy and stability, computational efficiency, general applicability, and number of variables obtainable.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02757250009532396

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 319

Metadata

Authors
Kimes, D. S., Knyazikhin, Y., Privette, J. L., Abuelgasim, A. A., & Gao, F.
Venue
Remote Sensing Reviews
Published
2000-09
Volume
18
Issue
2-4
Pages
381-439
ISSN
0275-7257 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2054497277
Cited by
319
References
4
FWCI
7.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inversion methods for physically‐based models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02757250009532396
The paper
Kimes, D. S., Knyazikhin, Y., Privette, J. L., Abuelgasim, A. A., & Gao, F. (2000). Inversion methods for physically‐based models. Remote Sensing Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757250009532396

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.