The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment
Open accessAbstract
The family of Kappa indices of agreement claim to compare a map's observed classification accuracy relative to the expected accuracy of baseline maps that can have two types of randomness: (1) random distribution of the quantity of each category and (2) random spatial allocation of the categories. Use of the Kappa indices has become part of the culture in remote sensing and other fields. This article examines five different Kappa indices, some of which were derived by the first author in 2000. We expose the indices' properties mathematically and illustrate their limitations graphically, with emphasis on Kappa's use of randomness as a baseline, and the often-ignored conversion from an observed sample matrix to the estimated population matrix. This article concludes that these Kappa indices are useless, misleading and/or flawed for the practical applications in remote sensing that we have seen. After more than a decade of working with these indices, we recommend that the profession abandon the use of Kappa indices for purposes of accuracy assessment and map comparison, and instead summarize the cross-tabulation matrix with two much simpler summary parameters: quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement. This article shows how to compute these two parameters using examples taken from peer-reviewed literature.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Cited by
Characterising performance of environmental models
Bennett, N. D., Croke, B. F. W., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J. H. A., Hamilton, S. H., Jakeman, A. J., Marsili-Libelli, S., Newham, L. T. H., Norton, J. P., Perrin, C., et al. (2013) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.011 · Cited by 1,536
Joint deep learning for land cover and land use classification
Zhang, C., Sargent, I., Pan, X., Li, H., Gardiner, A., Hare, J., & Atkinson, P. M. (2019) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.014 · Cited by 451
McDonald, R. I., Biswas, T., Sachar, C., Housman, I., Boucher, T. M., Balk, D., Nowak, D., Spotswood, E., Stanley, C. K., & Leyk, S. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249715 · Cited by 159
Proximate causes of deforestation in the Bolivian lowlands: an analysis of spatial dynamics
Müller, R., Müller, D., Schierhorn, F., Gerold, G., & Pacheco, P. (2012) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-011-0259-0 · Cited by 114
Ibrahim Mahmoud, M., Duker, A., Conrad, C., Thiel, M., & Shaba Ahmad, H. (2016) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs8030220 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Pontius, R. G., & Millones, M.
- Venue
- International Journal of Remote Sensing
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-08-10
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 4407-4429
- ISSN
- 0143-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5901
- OpenAlex
- W2104896032
- Cited by
- 2,046
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 174.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01431161.2011.552923
- The paper
- Pontius, R. G., & Millones, M. (2011). Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2011.552923
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.