2013
DOI: 10.1109/jstars.2013.2256882
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Evaluation System for Building Footprint Extraction From Remotely Sensed Data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
37
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
1
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are 1,075,210 reference water pixels for the Bow River site. The resulting accuracy for each input band combination is compared in terms of their user's accuracy, producer's accuracy [23], and Quality [35], as shown in Table 2.  User's accuracy (UA) = overlapped area/detected water area  Producer's accuracy (PA) = overlapped area/reference water area  Quality (Q) = overlapped area/(detected water area + reference water area − overlapped area) From Table 2, the accuracy (Q) of unsupervised classifications is 20% higher than direct thresholding MNDWI, which suggests that unsupervised classification outperforms direct thresholding for water body detection.…”
Section: Unsupervised Classification Accuracymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are 1,075,210 reference water pixels for the Bow River site. The resulting accuracy for each input band combination is compared in terms of their user's accuracy, producer's accuracy [23], and Quality [35], as shown in Table 2.  User's accuracy (UA) = overlapped area/detected water area  Producer's accuracy (PA) = overlapped area/reference water area  Quality (Q) = overlapped area/(detected water area + reference water area − overlapped area) From Table 2, the accuracy (Q) of unsupervised classifications is 20% higher than direct thresholding MNDWI, which suggests that unsupervised classification outperforms direct thresholding for water body detection.…”
Section: Unsupervised Classification Accuracymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These can be distinguished by the number and types of different quality parameters used: a good survey is provided by Foody [36] in the general context of land cover classification. In the specific context of this paper, a very good overview of existing quality evaluation methods is given by Zeng et al [37] who observe that a common approach that they describe as matched rates employs parameters originally derived from image classification (Foody [36]), i.e., completeness, correctness and quality. These are determined based on reference models (e.g., Rutzinger et al [38]; Truon-Hong and Laefer [39]).…”
Section: Quality Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These parameters can also be applied to extracted roof planes. The second approach considered by Zeng et al [37] is shape similarity which describes a more complicated category of metrics which may be subjective and poorly defined especially for complex shapes. For this, metrics like area and perimeter difference (Song and Haithcoat [40]), tangent function or moment-derived parameters can be used.…”
Section: Quality Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations