EVT571 NEW (Lec 9 2) Accuracy Assessment
EVT571 NEW (Lec 9 2) Accuracy Assessment
EVT571 NEW (Lec 9 2) Accuracy Assessment
(EVT571)
Lecture 9-2:
Classification Accuracy
Assessment
Dr. Arnis Asmat
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Introduction
Land-use/land-cover maps derived from remotely sensed
data are of little use if classification accuracy is not assessed.
Classification Accuracy
4
How many pixels of KNOWN class X are incorrectly classified as anything other
than X (errors of omission)?
So-called Type 2 error, or false negative
Divide correctly classified pixels in each class of truth data by COLUMN
totals (Producers Accuracy)
How many pixels are incorrectly classified as class X when they should be some
other known class (errors of commission)?
So-called Type 1 error, or false positive
Divide correctly classified pixels in each class by ROW totals (Users
Accuracy)
Classification Accuracy
5
Errors of
comission for
class U
Errors of
omission for
class U
Accuracy
Accuracy assessment
assessment
Comparison of a classification with ground-truth data to evaluate
how well the classification represents the real world.
Overall map The total number of correctly classified pixels that were
accuracy
sampled from image divided the total number of image
pixels sampled from the accuracy assessment procedure.
Users
accuracy
Producers
accuracy
Individual
class
accuracy
Cont
Convert pixel to ha
Cont
Rule of thumb:
Cont
It is often appropriate to:
reduce the number of samples
needed in some classes (e.g.
water) and
increase the number in other,
more variable classes.
The goal is to balance the statistical need to
get a representative sample with:
time
cost
practical limitations
associated with the project
Cont
1. Most accuracy assessment statistics assume random
sampling.
Cont
5. After classification, the computer selects sites (geographic
x,y location) within each land cover class at random.
Spectral signatures
should:
be representative
of the entire
spectral space
have minimal
overlap with other
signatures
Spectral Separability
Spectral separability can be analysed using JeffriesMatusita Distance (J-M Distance)
Measured values were between 0 and 2, where:
0 indicated a complete
overlap between the
signatures of two classes
2 indicated a
complete separation
Separability Measure
Jeffries-Matusita Distance
Signature Segments
38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45
Signature Channels
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7
Average Separability
1.93
Minimum Separability
1.41
Maximum Separability
2.00
Signature Pair with Minimum Separability: (Mixed crops, Grasslands)
___________________________________________________________________________
Table B. Separability matrix for land use/cover classes
Category
Water Forest
Oil palm
Mixed
crops
Forest
2.00
Oil palm
2.00
1.68
Mixed crops
2.00
1.98
1.58
Grasslands
2.00
2.00
1.93
1.41
Rubber
2.00
1.88
1.89
1.85
Cleared
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
areas
Urban
1.95
2.00
2.00
2.00
Grasslands
Rubber
1.88
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Cleared
areas
1.93
a. 1989
b. 1993
c. 1999
a. 1989
a. 1989
4 Kilometres
b. 1993
c. 1999
Water bodies
Forest
Oil palm
Mixed crops
Grasslands
Rubber
Cleared areas
Urban
b. 1993
4 Kilometres
simple descriptive
statistics
and/or
multivariate
analytical statistics.
total correct
total number of pixels in the error matrix
where r = the number of rows in the error matrix; xii = the number of
observations in row i and column i, xi+ and x+i are marginal totals for row
i and column i, and N is the total number of observations.
1.
2.
3.