“…With regard to the first approach, because spectral unmixing analysis is the most widely applied method to hyperspectral images (e.g., [ 32 , 33 , 34 ]), some authors proposed methods to solve the unmixing problem (e.g., pixel purity index [ 35 ], N-FINDR [ 36 ], interactive error analysis [ 37 ]), or to estimate the endmember fractional abundances (e.g., [ 38 ]), whereas other authors developed methods based on spatial analysis (e.g., Spectral Angle Mapping—SAM [ 39 ] and Spectral Information Divergence—SID [ 40 ]). With regard to the second approach, the results obtained from hyperspectral data were compared with those obtained from other hyperspectral data (e.g., Hyperion images were compared with CHRIS [ 41 ], Hyperspectral Satellite TianGong-1 [ 42 ], and PRISMA [ 43 ] hyperspectral data), from multispectral data (e.g., CASI and MIVIS hyperspectral images were compared with ATM multispectral data [ 44 ], and PRISMA hyperspectral images were compared with Sentinel-2A multispectral data [ 45 ]), and from other data (e.g., AHSI hyperspectral data were compared with the GlobalLand30 land cover data set [ 46 ]; MIVIS hyperspectral image was merged with DEM [ 47 ]). However, there are many sources of error as the capability evaluated from real image is due to both the characteristics of the sensor and each step of image pre-processing and processing (i.e., calibration [ 7 , 48 ]; atmospheric [ 49 , 50 ] and geometric [ 51 ] corrections; dimension reduction [ 30 ]; selected method [ 52 ]; etc.).…”