Land cover map validation is a complex task. If you read French, you can check this post by Vincent Thierion which shows how the 2016 LC map of France produced by CESBIO stands with respect to data sources independent from those used for its production. But this is only one aspect of the validation. A land cover map is a map, and therefore, there are other issues than checking if individual points belong to the correct class. By the way, being sure that the correct class is known, is not so easy neither. In this epoch of machine learning hype 1, it is easy to fall in the trap of thinking that optimising a single metric accounts for all issues in map validation. Typical approaches used in machine learning contests are far from enough for this complex task. Let’s have a look at how we proceed at CESBIO when we assess the quality of a LC map produced by classification.
Supervised classification, training, testing, etc.
Beyond point-wise validation
iota2, we perform eco-climatic stratification, which can introduce artifacts around strata boundaries. We also perform temporal gapfilling followed by a temporal resampling of all data so that all the pixels have the same number of features regardless of the number of available clear acquisitions. After that, sometimes we compute contextual features which take into account the neighbourhood of the pixels, in Convolutional Neural Networks, a patch size is defined, etc. All these pre-processing steps have an influence on the final result, but most of the time, their effect can’t be observed on the global statistics computed from the confusion matrix. For instance, contextual features may produce a smeared out image, but since most of the validation pixels are inside polygons and not on their edges, the affected pixels will not be used for the validation. In our case, the reference data polygons are eroded in order to compensate for possible misregistrations between the reference data and the images. Therefore, we have no pixels on the boundaries of the objects. In our paper describing the iota2 methodology, we presented some analysis of the spatial artifacts caused by image tiling and stratification, but we lack a metric for that. The same happens when using contextual features or CNNs. The global point-wise metrics increase when the size of the neighbourhoods increase, but the maps produced are not acceptable from the user point of view. The 2 images below (produced by D. Derksen, a CESBIO PhD candidate) illustrate this kind of issues. The image on the right has higher values for the classical point wise metrics (OA, κ, etc), but the lack of spatial accuracy is unacceptable for most users.
Even if we had an exhaustive reference data set (labels for all the pixels), the number of pixels affected by the over-smoothing are a small percentage of the whole image and they would just weight a little in the global metrics. We are working on the development of quantitative tools to measure this effects, but we don’t have a satisfactory solution yet.
How good is your reference data?
The reasons for having label noise in the reference data can be many, but the 2 main we face are: the MMU and the changes occurred since the collection of the reference data. For our 2016 map, we used Corine Land Cover 2012, and therefore, we may assume that more than 5% of the samples are wrong because of the changes. Therefore, when validating with this data, if for some classes we have accuracies higher than 95%, we must be doing something wrong. If we add the MMU issue to that, for the classes for which we don’t perform the cleansing procedure illustrated above, accuracies higher than 90% should trigger an alarm. Our ML friends like to play with data sets to improve their algorithms. Making available domain specific data is a very good idea, since ML folks have something to compete (this is why the work for free for Kaggle!) and they provide us with state of the art approaches for us to choose from. This is the idea of D. Ienco and R. Gaetano with the TiSeLaC contest: they used
iota2 to produce gapfilled Landsat image time series and reference data as the ones we use at CESBIO to produce our maps (a mix of Corine Land Cover and the French Land Parcel Information System, RPG) and provided something for the ML community to easily use: CSV files with labelled pixels for training and validation. The test site is the Reunion Island, which is more difficult to deal with than metropolitan France mainly due to the cloud cover. Even with the impressive (ahem …) temporal gapfilling from CESBIO that they used, the task is difficult. Add to that the quality of the reference data set which is based on CLC 2012 for a 2014 image time series, and the result is a daunting task. Even with all these difficulties, several teams achieved FScores higher than 94% and 2 of them were above 99%. It seems that Deep Learning can generalise better than other approaches, and I guess that the winners use these kind of techniques, so I will assume that these algorithms achieve perfect learning and generalisation. In this case, the map they produce, is perfect. The issue is that the data used for validation is not perfect, which means that an algorithm which achieves nearly 100% accuracy, not only has the same amount of error than the validation data, but also that the errors are exactly on the same samples! I don’t have the full details on how the data was generated and, from the contest web site, I can’t know how the different algorithms work 2, but I can speculate on how an algorithm can achieve 99% accuracy in this case. One reason is over-fitting3, of course. If the validation and training sets are too similar, the validation does not measure generalisation capabilities, but it rather gives the same results as the training set. Several years ago, when we were still working on small areas, we had this kind of behaviour due to a correlation between the spatial distribution of the samples and local cloud patterns: although training and test pixels came from different polygons, for some classes, they were close to each other and were cloudy on the same dates and the classifier was learning the gapfilling artifacts rather than the class behaviour. We made this mistake because we were not looking at the maps, but only optimising the accuracy metrics. Once we looked at the classified images, we understood the issue.
Please correct me if my assumptions are wrong!
Deep neural networks are able to fit random labels by memorising the complete data set.