# Assessing the Potential of PlanetScope Imagery for Iron Oxide Detection in Antimony Exploration
## 4 Results
### Relative Comparison (Ratio Between BRs)  
A comparison between the PS results and those of the other satellites was performed (Figure 7). The results were normalized concerning PS, focusing on values of 1, indicating perfect agreement, and 0, indicating no agreement. The analysis includes only the pixels identified as iron oxides, which fall between classes 12 and 16, previously selected in earlier steps. Table 4 shows the relative comparison across sensors for the full scene, while Table 5 presents results limited to selected regions of interest (ROIs).  
The ratio map between BR-PS and BR-Sentinel-2 (Figure 7a,b) demonstrated the highest agreement, with 34.98% of pixels having a value of 1 and 31.49% having a value of 0, indicating the lowest disagreement. Positive values comprised 68.48% of the data, with 21.15% greater than 1 and 12.35% less than 1, suggesting that PS identified more iron oxides in pixels as higher values compared to Sentinel-2.  
For BR-PS and BR-ASTER (Figure 7c,d), 0% of the pixels had a value of 1, while 69.89% had a value of 0, indicating significant non-correspondence. Positive values accounted for 30.09% of the pixels, with 12.92% greater than 1 and 17.17% between 0.5 and 1, suggesting ASTER identified more iron oxide pixels with more confidence than PS.  
The ratio map between BR-PS and BR-Landsat 9 (Figure 7e,f) revealed similar results as BR-PS and BR-ASTER, with 0% of pixels having a value of 1 and 61.62% having a value of 0, indicating high non-correspondence. Positive values comprised 38.35%, with 21.96% greater than 1 and 16.39% between 0.5 and 1, indicating that PS identified more iron oxide pixels as having higher values than Landsat 9.  
Notably, despite the high non-correspondence between PS and both ASTER and Landsat 9, no ratio map exhibited anomalous values greater than 2 or between 0 and 0.5.  
When focusing on the areas of interest (Figure 8), the lowest non-correspondence was between PS and Sentinel-2 at 3.15%, followed by ASTER at 13.19% and Landsat 9 at 20.53%.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Metric** & **PS vs. Sentinel-2** & **PS vs. ASTER** & **PS vs. Landsat 9** \\ \hline Value = 1 (perfect match) & 34.98\% & 0\% & 0\% \\ Value = 0 (no match) & 31.49\% & 69.89\% & 61.62\% \\ Positive values (0.5 \(<\) x \(<\) 2.0) & 68.48\% & 30.09\% & 38.35\% \\ \textgreater{}1 (PS \textgreater{} other sensor) & 21.15\% & 12.92\% & 21.96\% \\ \textless{}1 (PS \textless{} other sensor) & 12.35\% & 17.17\% & 16.39\% \\ Anomalous values (\textgreater{}2 or \textless{}0.5) & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Relative comparison metrics between PS and other satellite sensors, considering the entire image.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Metric** & **PS vs. Sentinel-2** & **PS vs. ASTER** & **PS vs. Landsat 9** \\ \hline Value = 1 (perfect match) & 32.22\% & 0\% & 0\% \\ Value = 0 (no match) & 3.15\% & 13.19\% & 20.53\% \\ Positive values (0.5 \(<\) x \(<\) 2.0) & 96.81\% & 86.78\% & 79.44\% \\ \textgreater{}1 (PS \textgreater{} other sensor) & 51.34\% & 36.65\% & 25.29\% \\ \textless{}1 (PS \textless{} other sensor) & 13.25\% & 50.13\% & 54.15\% \\ Anomalous values (\textgreater{}2 or \textless{}0.5) & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Relative comparison metrics between PS and other satellite sensors in selected regions of interest (ROIs).