\documentclass[reqno]{amsart}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{subfigure}

\AtBeginDocument{{\noindent\small
Tenth MSU Conference on Differential Equations and Computational
Simulations. \newline
\emph{Electronic Journal of Differential Equations},
Conference 23 (2016),  pp. 119--129.\newline
ISSN: 1072-6691. URL: http://ejde.math.txstate.edu or http://ejde.math.unt.edu
\newline ftp ejde.math.txstate.edu}
\thanks{\copyright 2016 Texas State University.}
\vspace{9mm}}

\begin{document} \setcounter{page}{119}
\title[\hfilneg EJDE-2016/Conf/23 \hfil Fast solution]
{Fast solution of phase unwrapping partial differential equation using wavelets}

\author[M. Rahnemoonfar \hfil EJDE-2016/conf/23 \hfilneg]
{Maryam Rahnemoonfar}

\address{Maryam Rahnemoonfar \newline
Department of Computer Science,
Texas A\&M University-Corpus Christi, 
6300 Ocean Dr., 
Corpus Christi, TX 78412, USA} 
\email{maryam.rahnemoonfar@tamucc.edu}


\thanks{Published March 21, 2016}
\subjclass[2010]{65T60, 35-04}
\keywords{Wavelets}

\begin{abstract}
 Phase unwrapping is the most critical step in the processing of synthetic
 aperture radar interferometry. The phase obtained by SAR interferometry
 is wrapped over a range from $-\pi$ to $\pi$. Phase unwrapping must be
 performed to obtain the true phase. The least square approach attains the
 unwrapped phase by minimizing the difference between the discrete partial
 derivatives of the wrapped phase and the discrete partial derivatives of
 the unwrapped solution. The least square solution will result in discrete
 version of the Poisson's partial differential equation.
 Solving the discretized Poisson's equation with the classical method of
 Gauss-Seidel relaxation has extremely slow convergence. In this paper we have
 used Wavelet techniques which overcome this limitation by transforming
 low-frequency components of error into high frequency components which
 consequently can be removed quickly by using the Gauss-Seidel relaxation method.
 In Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) two operators, decomposition (analysis) and
 reconstruction (synthesis), are used. In the decomposition stage an image is
 separated into one low-frequency component (approximation) and three
 high-frequency components (details). In the reconstruction stage, the image
 is reconstructed by synthesizing the approximated and detail components.
 We tested our algorithm on both simulated and real data and on both unweighted
 and weighted forms of discretized Poisson's equation. The experimental results
 show the effectiveness of the proposed method.
\end{abstract}

\maketitle
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\allowdisplaybreaks


\section{Introduction}

Due to the nature of SAR imaging, it does not contain information about the 
absolute phase of the returning radar echoes, but the phase is wrapped to 
the interval $[-\pi ,\pi]$. Reconstruction of the absolute phase from the 
wrapped phase value is called phase unwrapping. Phase unwrapping is the key 
step in interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) processing. 
InSAR is a technique that uses two or more SAR images over the same area 
for extracting high-resolution digital terrain data. The technique relies 
on the measurement of the phase of the echoed signal rather than its amplitude, 
as found in conventional imaging radar system. The extreme sensitivity of the 
technique to altitude changes, high spatial resolution and broad swath coverage 
makes it an extensive and accurate measurement means in many fields; 
namely earthquake monitoring, erosion studies, and mining prospecting. 
The technique brings strong advantages such as independency of natural 
illumination or recognizable targets over classical stereoscopic optical imaging.

A variety of approaches to 2-D phase unwrapping have been proposed recently. 
They can be classified to path-following and least-squares methods, respectively. 
Path-following algorithms \cite{flynn97, gold88, gurov06} are based on the 
identification of residues, local errors in the measured phase caused by signal 
noise or by actual discontinuities, and the definition of suitable branch cuts 
to prevent any integration path crossing these cuts. The estimated neighboring 
pixel differences of unwrapped phase are integrated along paths avoiding the 
branch cuts where these estimated differences are inconsistent \cite{gold88}. 
The problems of this approach are the definition of suitable branch cuts and 
the time consuming computations.

The least-squares method is based on partial differential equation which extracts
the phase partial derivatives and then finds the unwrapped surface that best 
fits these derivatives.   This technique was introduced in the late 70's by 
Fried and Hudgin \cite{fried77, hudgin77} and later refined in 1989 and 
1994 by Ghiglia and Romero \cite{ghig89, ghig94}. Because this approach does not
depend on path-following or branch-cutting techniques, it is reliable. 
To accelerate the convergence of solution of the phase unwrapping partial 
differential equation, direct methods based on the fast Fourier transform 
(FFT) \cite{pritt94} or the discrete cosine transform (DCT) \cite{ghig94} 
can be applied.  Despite its robustness and speed, the technique has an 
inadequacy of unwrapping through phase inconsistencies rather than unwrapping
around them that causes errors in the unwrapped surface. 
This problem is overcome by introducing weight functions. In the weighted case, 
direct methods cannot be used and iterative methods should be adopted. 
Gauss-Seidel relaxation is the classical iterative method for solving the 
linear system. Due to its extremely slow convergence, Gauss-Seidel relaxation 
is not a practical method but it can be base of some practical algorithms 
such as multigrid \cite{pritt96} or wavelet \cite{kim2005, rahnemoonfar13} 
for solving the weighted least squares phase unwrapping. 
The multigrid method is an efficient algorithm to improve convergence rate. 
However, this method needs an additional weight restriction operator which is 
very complicated and can be erroneous.

In this article, wavelet technique is used for the fast solution of phase 
unwrapping partial differential equation. Wavelet technique overcomes the 
limitation of slow convergence of Gauss-Seidel relaxation by transforming 
low-frequency components of error into high frequency components which 
consequently will be removed quickly by using the Gauss-Seidel relaxation method. 
In Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) two operators, decomposition (analysis) and 
reconstruction (synthesis), are used. In the decomposition stage an image is 
separated into one low-frequency component (approximation) and three high-frequency 
components (details). In the reconstruction stage, the image is reconstructed by 
synthesizing the approximated and detail components. In this paper the proposed 
phase unwrapping approach is applied both on simulated and real data. 
Moreover, a post-processing step is applied to the wavelet unwrapped phase  
to ensure the congruency of the unwrapped phase to the wrapped phase. 
Another correction model is also introduced to remove the error - 
caused by atmosphere, phase and baseline - and to improve the accuracy of 
the generated DEM.  After this short introduction, phase unwrapping concept 
and the proposed wavelet technique for both weighted and unweighted least 
square are explained in section 2. 
Experimental results are presented in section 3, 
Finally conclusion is drawn.

\section{Phase unwrapping}

The first step of a typical InSAR processing routine is the co-registration of 
the slave image over the master one and computation of the interferogram 
by multiplying the complex value of the master image by the complex conjugate 
number of the corresponding pixel in the slave image. 
This Interferogram should undergo a flat earth correction, which is the 
removal of strong contribution due to the slant range geometry using the orbit data. 
An interferogram contains phase information which is directly related to 
topography. Since this phase is given in modulo $2\pi $, there is an ambiguity 
in calculating the correct integer number of $2\pi $ phase cycles that need to 
be added to each phase measurement in order to obtain the correct slant range 
distance. This ambiguity solution is referred to as phase unwrapping which 
is an important issue in the derivation of elevations using the InSAR technique.

The problem of phase unwrapping has been the focus of InSAR research for several 
years. Numerous methods were proposed and implemented for the most complex issue 
of the interferometric processing chain. The two major approaches are 
``path-following'' and ``least-squares'' algorithms. Path-following algorithms 
use localized pixel-by-pixel operations to unwrap the phase, while least-squares
 algorithms minimize a global measure of the differences between the gradients 
of the wrapped input phase and those of the unwrapped solution. 
In this article, we use a wavelet algorithm for solving the two dimensional 
least-squares phase unwrapping.

Let us assume that the phase of interferogram, ${{\psi }_{i,j}}$, 
which is between $-\pi $ and $\pi $ is known. We want to determine the 
unwrapped phase value, ${{\varphi }_{i,j}}$, at the same grid locations
\begin{equation}
{{\psi }_{i,j}}={{\varphi }_{i,j}}+2\pi k,
\end{equation}
where $k$ is an integer  and $-\pi <{{\psi }_{i,j}}<\pi $. 
The least square approach attains this unwrapped phase by minimizing the 
difference between the discrete partial derivatives of the wrapped phase and 
the discrete partial derivatives of the unwrapped solution. The partial 
derivatives of the wrapped phase is
\begin{equation}
\Delta {{x}_{i,j}}={{\psi }_{i+1,j}}-{{\psi }_{i,j}}\ ,\quad
 \Delta {{y}_{i,j}}={{\psi }_{i,j+1}}-{{\psi }_{i,j}}
\end{equation}
The differences are defined at the boundaries by means of boundary conditions:
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
  \Delta _{0j}^{x}=-\Delta _{1j}^{x},\quad \Delta _{i0}^{y}=-\Delta _{i1}^{y},  \\
  \Delta _{M=1,j}^{x}=-\Delta _{Mj}^{x},\quad \Delta _{i,N+1}^{y}
 =-\Delta _{iN}^{y}.  
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
The difference between these partial derivatives and the partial derivatives 
of the solution must be minimized in the least square sense:

\begin{equation}
\sum_{i}{\sum_{j}{{{({{\varphi }_{i,j}}-{{\varphi }_{i-1,j}}
-\Delta {{x}_{i,j}})}^{2}}}}
+\sum_{i}{\sum_{j}{{{({{\varphi }_{i,j}}-{{\varphi }_{i,j-1}}
-\Delta {{y}_{i,j}})}^{2}}}}
\end{equation}
Differentiating the above sum with respect to ${{\varphi }_{i,j}}$ and
 setting the result equal to zero, the following equation is obtained:
\begin{equation}
({{\varphi }_{i+1,j}}-2{{\varphi }_{i,j}}+{{\varphi }_{i-1,j}})
+({{\varphi }_{i,j+1}}-2{{\varphi }_{i,j}}+{{\varphi }_{i,j-1}})={{\rho }_{i,j}}
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
where  ${{\rho }_{i,j}}$ is equal to:
\begin{equation}
{{\rho }_{i,j}}=(\Delta {{x}_{i+1,j}}-\Delta {{x}_{i,j}}
 +\Delta {{y}_{i,j+1}}-\Delta {{y}_{i,j}})
\end{equation}
The values of the solution array at the boundaries are defined by the boundary
 conditions
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
  {{\varphi }_{-1,j}}={{\varphi }_{1,j}},\quad {{\varphi }_{i,-1}}
={{\varphi }_{i,1}},  \\
  {{\varphi }_{M+1,j}}={{\varphi }_{M-1,j}},\quad {{\varphi }_{i,N+1}}
={{\varphi }_{i,N-1}}.  
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{eq1} is a discretization of the Poisson equation in a 
rectangular grid:
\begin{equation}
\frac{{{\partial }^{2}}}{\partial {{x}^{2}}}\varphi (x,y)
+\frac{{{\partial }^{2}}}{\partial {{y}^{2}}}\varphi (x,y)=\rho (x,y)
\end{equation}

Writing the above equation in matrix format yields the equation
\begin{equation} 
A\varphi =\rho \label{eq2}
\end{equation}
where $A$ is a sparse matrix and $\varphi $ is the solution of phase unwrapping. 
The classical method for solving the discretized Poisson equation is  
Gauss-Seidel relaxation. Due to its extremely slow convergence, 
Gauss-Seidel relaxation is not a practical method, but it is the base 
of the wavelet method. The Gauss-Seidel relaxation is essentially a local 
smoothing operator that removes the high-frequency components of the 
error very rapidly but the low-frequency components extremely slowly. 
The wavelet technique overcomes this limitation by transforming low-frequency 
components of error into high-frequency components which consequently 
can be removed quickly by using the Gauss-Seidel relaxation method.

\subsection {Wavelet phase unwrapping}

The wavelet theory allows a very general and flexible description to transform 
signals from a time domain to a time-frequency domain, so-called time-scale domain. 
The representation is a suitable alternative to the window Fourier transform. 
Wavelet transform uses short window for high frequencies, leading to a good time 
resolution and larger windows for low frequencies leading to a good frequency 
resolution. The one-dimensional continuous wavelet transform of a signal
$x(t)$ is defined by \cite{meyer95}
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
 {{W}_{\psi }}(a,b)=\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }{x(t)}\psi _{a,b}^{*}(t)dt \\
 {{\psi }_{a,b}}(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|a|}}\psi (\frac{t-b}{a})
\end{gathered}\label{eq3}
\end{equation}
where ${{\psi }_{a,b}}(t)$ stands for a given wavelet function and 
 $a$ and $b$ are the scale and translation parameters, respectively. 
The wavelet transform provides the time-frequency information of a signal 
simultaneously. The continuous wavelet transform is computed by changing 
the scale of analysis window, shifting the window in time, multiplying 
by the signal and integrating over all the times. 
It is essentially a measure of correlation between a signal and various wavelets 
derived from a mother.  In Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT), this is turned 
into a filtering operation with a sequence of high-pass and low-pass filters 
of different cut-off frequencies to analyze the signal at different scales. 
The signal is passed through a series of high pass filters and low pass filters. 
Filtering a signal corresponds to the convolution of the signal with impulse 
response of a filter. The DWT is computed as the signals at different frequency 
bands with different resolutions by decomposing them into approximation 
and detail components. The decomposition is achieved at successive high pass 
and low pass filtering of the time domain signal. The approximation and detail 
components are convolved recursively with the same low-pass and high-pass 
filters until they reach a certain level. The discrete form of equation 
\eqref{eq3} can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
 c{{a}_{j,k}}[x(t)]=DS[\sum{x(t)\ g_{j}^{*}}(t-{{2}^{^{j}}}k)] \\
 c{{d}_{j,k}}[x(t)]=DS[\sum{x(t)\ h_{j}^{*}}(t-{{2}^{^{j}}}k)]
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where the coefficients $c{{a}_{j,k}}$ and $c{{d}_{j,k}}$
specify approximation and details components provided by the $g(n)$  
low-pass and $h(n)$  high-pass impulse responses, respectively, and the DS 
operator performs downsampling by a factor of 2.
The one-dimensional wavelet decomposition is extended to an image by applying 
it first to the row-direction and next to the column-direction. For the 
decomposition in stage one, we first convolve the rows of the image with 
low-pass and high-pass filters and discard the odd-numbered columns (downsample) 
of the two resulting arrays (Figure \ref{fig.1}). The columns of each of the
$N/2$-by-$N$ arrays are then convolved with low-pass and high-pass 
filters and the odd numbered rows are discarded. The result is the four
$N/2$-by-$N/2$ subimages which are approximation-approximation (LL), 
approximation-detail (LH), detail-approximation (HL), and detail-detail (HH) 
components. The one level decomposition of an image is depicted in 
Figure \ref{fig.1}.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig1}
\end{center}
\caption{Two dimensional discrete wavelet decomposition.}
 \label{fig.1} 
\end{figure}

The obtained approximation images can be decomposed again to obtain second-level 
detail and approximation images, and the process can be repeated for finer 
analysis as each iteration double the image scale.

In the reconstruction stage, the image is reconstructed by synthesizing the 
approximated and detail components.   The transformed coefficients are 
recovered to the original signal under the reconstruction procedure. 
At each level, the approximation component is convolved with the low-pass 
filter and the detail component is convolved with the high-pass filter. 
After the filtering, each part is oversampled by a factor of two and added 
to generate the approximation signal of the next higher level.

Gauss-Seidel relaxation is a local smoothing operator that removes the 
high-frequency components of the error very rapidly but the low-frequency 
components extremely slowly. Wavelet techniques overcome this limitation by 
transforming low-frequency components of error into high-frequency components 
which consequently can be removed quickly by using the Gauss-Seidel relaxation 
method. For solving equation \eqref{eq2}  by wavelet algorithm, after 
relaxing $v_1$ times on the equation \eqref{eq2}  with the initial guess 0, 
the residual error of this equation is transformed by the decomposition 
step of the DWT into the second level. Then, further relaxation is performed 
on the residual equation $Ae = r$ in the low-frequency component (LL) 
of the second level with the initial guess $e=0$, where
$r=\rho -A\hat{\varphi }$
is the known residual error. The resulting solution of the lower component 
of the coarser grid is regarded as an intermediate solution whose residual 
error is transformed to the third level with DWT. This process continues 
until we reach the coarsest grid. At this point the solution is then 
transferred to the finer grid by the reconstruction analysis of DWT; ultimately, 
it will be added to the approximation $\hat{\varphi }$. This process yields a 
better solution on the finer grid.

\subsection {Weighted wavelet phase unwrapping}

The weighted least square approach attains the unwrapped phase by minimizing 
the difference between the discrete partial derivatives of the wrapped phase 
and the discrete partial derivatives of the unwrapped solution. 
The solution ${{\varphi }_{i,j}}$ that minimizes $\mathcal{L}$ is the weighted 
least square solution, where $\mathcal{L}$ is
\begin{equation} 
\begin{aligned}
 \mathcal{L}&=\sum_{i}{\sum_{j}{w_{i,j}^{x}{{({{\varphi }_{i,j}}
 -{{\varphi }_{i-1,j}}-\Delta {{x}_{i,j}})}^{2}}}} \\
&\quad +\sum_{i}{\sum_{j}{w_{i,j}^{y}{{({{\varphi }_{i,j}}
 -{{\varphi }_{i,j-1}}-\Delta {{y}_{i,j}})}^{2}}}}
\end{aligned} \label{eq4}
\end{equation}
where ${{w}^{x}}$ and ${{w}^{y}}$ are weight functions and $\Delta x$ 
and $\Delta y$ are the partial derivatives of the wrapped phase:
\begin{equation} 
\begin{gathered}
 \Delta {{x}_{i,j}}=W\{{{\psi }_{i+1,j}}-{{\psi }_{i,j}}\} \\
 \Delta {{y}_{i,j}}=W\{{{\psi }_{i,j+1}}-{{\psi }_{i,j}}\}
\end{gathered} 
\end{equation}
where $W$  is the wrapping operator.  The least squares solution of 
\eqref{eq4} yields the  equation
\begin{equation}
\begin{split} 
&w_{i,j}^{x}({{\varphi }_{i+1,j}}-{{\varphi }_{i,j}})-w_{i-1,j}^{x}
 ({{\varphi }_{i,j}}-{{\varphi }_{i-1,j}}) \\
&+w_{i,j}^{y}({{\varphi }_{i,j+1}}-{{\varphi }_{i,j}})-w_{i,j-1}^{x}
 ({{\varphi }_{i,j}}-{{\varphi }_{i,j-1}})={{\rho }_{i,j}}
\end{split} \label{eq5}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} 
{{\rho }_{i,j}}=w_{i,j}^{x}\Delta {{x}_{i,j}}-w_{i-1,j}^{x}
\Delta {{x}_{i-1,j}}+w_{i,j}^{y}\Delta {{y}_{i,j}}-w_{i,j-1}^{y}
\Delta {{y}_{i,j-1}}
\end{equation} 
Equation \eqref{eq5}  is a weighted and discrete version of the Poisson's 
partial differential equation (PDE) which in matrix format yields the 
 equation
\begin{equation} 
B\varphi =\rho  \label{eq6}
\end{equation}
where $B$ is a sparse matrix and $\varphi $ is the solution of phase unwrapping.

As it can be seen from equation\eqref{eq6}, the weight array is embedded 
in the matrix $B$, and the wavelet decomposition of $B$ conducts the decomposition 
of the weight array simultaneously. Therefore, the reduction of the weight array 
to a smaller scale is accomplished automatically and the separate weight reduction 
operation is not required. Therefore solving this equation with wavelet transform 
is similar to unweighted case.
Because the least-squares solution minimizes the squares of the differences 
between the gradients of the solution and the phase, the solutions are not 
congruent to the wrapped phase \cite{pritt96}. Therefore, after solving 
equation \eqref{eq6} with a wavelet algorithm, it is necessary to perform a
post-processing step by subtracting the solution from the wrapped input phase, 
rewrapping the result, and then adding it back into the solution.

\section{Experimental results}

In this section we present the results of wavelet algorithm on several dataset 
including simulated data, SAR interferometry and differential SAR interferometry.

\subsection{Simulated Data}

In the first example, the phase pattern of  pixels is simulated as shown 
in figure \ref{fig2a}. Then the phase was wrapped to the interval of $-\pi$  
to $\pi$ (figure \ref{fig2b}). To evaluate the performance of the proposed 
method, we unwrapped the phase using wavelet technique and then compared it 
with the Gauss-Seidel, and  multigrid\cite{pritt96} methods. 
The reconstructed phase pattern via Gauss-Seidel, multigrid and wavelet method
with the same number of iterations (100 iterations) are shown in \ref{fig2a}.  
Comparing the results with the original shape (figure \ref{fig2a}), 
we achieved the average of 2.88 and 2.10 differences (error) for multigrid 
and wavelet methods, respectively. This shows that the wavelet method is more
accurate than the multigrid and it converges faster.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[Original function]{
 \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig2a}   \label{fig2a}}
\subfigure[Wrap Function]{ 
 \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig2b}   \label{fig2b}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig2c}  \label{fig2c}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig2d}   \label{fig2d}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig2e}   \label{fig2e}}
\end{center}
\caption{\ref{fig2a} Simulated phase pattern, \ref{fig2b} wrapped phase, 
\ref{fig2c} unwrapped phase with Gauss-Seidel method, \ref{fig2d} 
unwrapped phase with multigrid, \ref{fig2e} unwrapped phase with wavelet.}
 \label{fig.2} 
\end{figure}

In other experiment a terrain model is generated with fractal 
(figure \ref{fig3a}). The phase is wrapped to the interval of $-\pi$  
to $\pi$ to simulate the interferogram (Figure \ref{fig3b}). 
In this case a weighted wavelet and multigrid method is used. 
Figures \ref{fig3c} and \ref{fig3d} show the weights in x and y direction.
 Weights are extracted by variance of phase derivatives in $x$ any $y$ direction. 
Figure \ref{fig3e} shows the reconstructed phase pattern of wavelet method. 
In this case the RMS error for wavelets is 0.62 while it is 0.66 for multigrid 
that shows a better solution of wavelet in weighted case. 
It is explained in previous section that the least squares solutions are not 
congruent to the wrapped input phase, so a post-processing step was done on 
two results. The RMS errors after the post-processing step are 0.13 and 0.24 
for wavelet and multigrid, respectively.


\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig3a}   \label{fig3a}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig3b}   \label{fig3b}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig3c}   \label{fig3c}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig3d}   \label{fig3d}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig3e}   \label{fig3e}}
\end{center}
\caption{ \ref{fig3a} Simulated phase pattern with fractal, 
\ref{fig3b} wrapped phase, \ref{fig3c} weights in x direction, 
\ref{fig3d} weights in y direction, \ref{fig3e} unwrapped phase 
with weighted wavelet phase unwrapping.}
 \label{fig3} 
\end{figure}

\subsection{Real data}

In the second part of the experimental results, the proposed method was tested 
on some real data. In the first part,   two single look complex SAR images 
of ENVISAT ASAR data are used to generate Digital Elevation Model (DEM). 
In the second part three single look complex SAR images of ENVISAT ASAR data 
are used to create differential interferogram to study earthquake.

\subsection{Digital elevation model}

SAR Interferometry is based on the measurement of phase differences caused by 
a path difference, in the slant range direction, of the radar signal. 
A path difference, and consequently an interferometric pattern, can be caused 
by a slight change in the angle under which the same terrain is seen in the 
two images (Figure \ref{fig.4}). By considering images taken from the sensor 
at two slightly different positions we can deduce the height of the terrain. 
This approach of InSAR is used to produce Digital Elevation Models (or DEM's) 
of the surface. The phase fringes, obtained in this way after phase unwarpping 
stage, are directly related to the terrain height.
\begin{figure} [ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{fig4}
\end{center}
\caption{SAR interferometry for DEM generation.}\label{fig.4}
\end{figure}

In this experiment, two single look complex SAR images of ENVISAT ASAR 
data were used for creating DEM.  After co-registration of two images and 
creating interferogram, the filtered interferograms were unwrapped using 
the weighted wavelet algorithm. The coherence map of the area is used for 
weight function. Coherence map is created based on the correlation between 
two images. For both x and y directions, the same weight function is applied. 
After the phase unwrapping step by weighted wavelet algorithm, the post-processing 
step is also performed to achieve congruence between the unwrapped phase and the
wrapped phase.  In order to construct the DEM, the unwrapped phases were 
converted to height and then geocoded. To evaluate the results, the DEM generated 
as the result of InSAR processing was compared with a DEM generated from a 
1/25000 scale map. The evaluation was performed in two regions of the Kerman 
province, Fahraj and Nosratabad, due to reference DEM availability in these 
two regions. The average amount of height difference between the DEM produced 
by SAR Interferometry and the reference DEM was 3.05 and 2.60 meter for Fahraj 
and Nosratabbad, respectively. Our results are in good agreement with the 
reported accuracy for InSAR method which is between 3 to 20  meters. 
The reason for better accuracy in Nosrataabad is due to higher coherency in 
that region.


\subsection{SAR differential interferometry}

To detect the land deformation caused by earthquake, volcano or landslide, 
it is necessary to compare two images of the same area which are taken 
exactly from the same position in two different times. In practice, however 
it is highly improbable that the sensor will return exactly to the same position 
twice and the baseline will always be different from zero. This causes the
presence of a topographic component in the measured interferometric phase, 
which adds up to the deformation information. The topographic contribution can 
be separated and subtracted from the deformation by using the so-called 
differential technique. A second interferogram is generated with two images 
taken over a time interval during which no significant deformation had occurred. 
This interferogram, which will thus contain only topographic information, 
is re-scaled and subtracted from the one of interest, leaving in this latter 
only the deformation signal.

In this experiment three single look complex SAR images of ENVISAT ASAR data
 were used. Two images were taken before earthquake and one image after earthquake. 
Figure \ref{fig.5} shows the differential interferogram.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{fig5}
\end{center}
\caption{Differential interferogram obtained from three SAR images.}
\label{fig.5}
\end{figure}

The magnitude of the earthquake calculated using the differential SAR 
interferometry was 6.4 which is in very good agreement with ground-based 
measurements showing the magnitude of 6.5.

\subsection*{Conclusion}
An effective method to solve the phase unwrapping partial differential 
equation based on the wavelet approach has been discussed. The Wavelet approach 
overcomes the low convergence rate of Gauss-Seidel relaxation method by 
transforming low-frequency components of error into high frequency components. 
By decomposing an image into one low-frequency component (approximation) and 
three high-frequency components (details) and solving the low-frequency portion 
of the new system, it speeds up the overall system convergence rate. 
The proposed algorithm was tested on both simulated and real data; and they 
shows better result than Gauss-Seidel relaxation and the multigrid methods. 
Since the new transformed system is mathematically equivalent to the original 
matrix both for the weighted and unweighted least squares phase unwrapping, 
its solution is exact to the original equation.


\begin{thebibliography}{10}
 
 \bibitem{flynn97} T.~J. Flynn;
\emph{Two-dimensional phase unwrapping with minimum weighted
  discontinuity}, JOSA A, 14 (1997), pp.~2692--2701.
 
 \bibitem{fried77} D.~L. Fried; 
\emph{Least-square fitting a wave-front distortion estimate
  to an array of phase-difference measurements}, JOSA, 67 (1977), pp.~370--375.
 
 \bibitem{ghig89}  D.~C. Ghiglia, L.~A. Romero; 
\emph{Direct phase estimation from phase
  differences using fast elliptic partial differential equation solvers},
 Optics letters, 14 (1989), pp.~1107--1109.
 
 \bibitem{ghig94} D.~C. Ghiglia, L.~A. Romero; 
\emph{Robust two-dimensional weighted and unweighted phase unwrapping that uses fast
  transforms and iterative methods}, JOSA A, 11 (1994), pp.~107--117.
 
 \bibitem{gold88} R.~M. Goldstein, H.~A. Zebker,  C.~L. Werner; 
\emph{Satellite radar interferometry: Two-dimensional phase unwrapping}, 
Radio Science, 23 (1988),  pp.~713--720.
 
\bibitem{gurov06} I.~Gurov and M.~Volkov; 
\emph{Fringe evaluation and phase unwrapping of complicated fringe patterns 
by the data-dependent fringe processing method},
 Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions on, 55 (2006),
 pp.~1634--1640.
 
 \bibitem{hudgin77}  R.~H. Hudgin; 
\emph{Wave-front reconstruction for compensated imaging},
 JOSA, 67 (1977), pp.~375--378.
 
 \bibitem{kim2005} S.~B. Kim, Y.~S. Kim; 
\emph{Least squares phase unwrapping in wavelet domain}, 
IEE Proceedings-Vision, Image and Signal Processing, 152 (2005),
 pp.~261--267.
 
 \bibitem{meyer95} Y.~Meyer; 
\emph{Wavelets and operators}, vol.~1, Cambridge university press, 1995.
 
 \bibitem{pritt96}  M.~D. Pritt; 
\emph{Phase unwrapping by means of multigrid techniques for
  interferometric sar}, Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions on, 34
 (1996), pp.~728--738.
 
 \bibitem{pritt94}  M.~D. Pritt, J.~S. Shipman; 
\emph{Least-squares two-dimensional phase unwrapping using fft's}, 
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions on,  32 (1994), pp.~706--708.
 
 \bibitem{rahnemoonfar13} M.~Rahnemoonfar, B.~Plale; 
\emph{Dem generation with sar interferometry based on weighted wavelet phase 
unwrapping}, in Computing for Geospatial
 Research and Application (COM. Geo), 2013 Fourth International Conference on,
 IEEE, 2013, pp.~87--91.
 
\end{thebibliography}


\end{document} 
