Cited by 69Remote-Sensing Image ClassificationSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Uncertainty Assessment of Hyperspectral Image Classification: Deep Learning vs. Random Forest

Open access
Shadman Roodposhti, Majid, Aryal, Jagannath, Lucieer, Arko, Bryan, Brett A.·2019·Entropy

Abstract

Uncertainty assessment techniques have been extensively applied as an estimate of accuracy to compensate for weaknesses with traditional approaches. Traditional approaches to mapping accuracy assessment have been based on a confusion matrix, and hence are not only dependent on the availability of test data but also incapable of capturing the spatial variation in classification error. Here, we apply and compare two uncertainty assessment techniques that do not rely on test data availability and enable the spatial characterisation of classification accuracy before the validation phase, promoting the assessment of error propagation within the classified imagery products. We compared the performance of emerging deep neural network (DNN) with the popular random forest (RF) technique. Uncertainty assessment was implemented by calculating the Shannon entropy of class probabilities predicted by DNN and RF for every pixel. The classification uncertainties of DNN and RF were quantified for two different hyperspectral image datasets—Salinas and Indian Pines. We then compared the uncertainty against the classification accuracy of the techniques represented by a modified root mean square error (RMSE). The results indicate that considering modified RMSE values for various sample sizes of both datasets, the derived entropy based on the DNN algorithm is a better estimate of classification accuracy and hence provides a superior uncertainty estimate at the pixel level.

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 · 10.3390/e21010078

Cites

67 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • DL-based methods have accurate detection and classification only if the training and test datasets are from the same or similar environment.

    “DL-based methods have the advantage of accurate detection and classification, but only if the training and test datasets are from the same or similar environment [42] such that they are not affected by contextual and spatial uncertainties [43].”

    From Real-Time Vehicle Classification and Tracking Using a Transfer Learning-Improved Deep Learning Network (2022) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Methods (§2.1) say training and test samples were randomly drawn from each dataset, and the Results (§3.2) report that the deep neural network classified more accurately than random forest on Indian Pines. The paper does not compare performance across different training and test environments, so it does not establish that accurate classification occurs only when those environments are similar. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [42]Acquarelli J. Marchiori E. Buydens L. Tran T. van Laarhoven T. Convolutional neural networks and data augmentation for spectral-spatial classification of hyperspectral images arXiv 2017 1711.05512
  2. [64]Guo C. Pleiss G. Sun Y. Weinberger K.Q. On calibration of modern neural networks arXiv 2017 1706.04599
  3. [65]Zhu D. Yao H. Jiang B. Yu P. Negative log likelihood ratio loss for deep neural network classification arXiv 2018 1804.10690

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shadman Roodposhti, M., Aryal, J., Lucieer, A., & Bryan, B. A.
Affiliations
  • Discipline of Geography and Spatial Sciences, School of Technology, Environments and Design, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7018, Australia
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
Venue
Entropy
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-01-16
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
78
ISSN
1099-4300 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2910306855
Cited by
65
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4
FWCI
7.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Entropy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTAS Research Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (RT109121)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Remote-Sensing Image Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Spectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
uncertainty analysis, hyperspectral image classification, Shannon entropy, deep neural network, random forest, classification accuracy, error propagation, Salinas dataset, Indian Pines dataset

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