Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Confident Naturalness Explanation (CNE): A Framework to Explain and Assess Patterns Forming Naturalness

Published 15 Nov 2023 in cs.LG and cs.CV | (2311.08936v4)

Abstract: Protected natural areas are regions that have been minimally affected by human activities such as urbanization, agriculture, and other human interventions. To better understand and map the naturalness of these areas, machine learning models can be used to analyze satellite imagery. Specifically, explainable machine learning methods show promise in uncovering patterns that contribute to the concept of naturalness within these protected environments. Additionally, addressing the uncertainty inherent in machine learning models is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of this concept. However, existing approaches have limitations. They either fail to provide explanations that are both valid and objective or struggle to offer a quantitative metric that accurately measures the contribution of specific patterns to naturalness, along with the associated confidence. In this paper, we propose a novel framework called the Confident Naturalness Explanation (CNE) framework. This framework combines explainable machine learning and uncertainty quantification to assess and explain naturalness. We introduce a new quantitative metric that describes the confident contribution of patterns to the concept of naturalness. Furthermore, we generate an uncertainty-aware segmentation mask for each input sample, highlighting areas where the model lacks knowledge. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework, we apply it to a study site in Fennoscandia using two open-source satellite datasets.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (20)
  1. J. S. Sze, L. R. Carrasco, D. Childs, and D. P. Edwards, “Reduced deforestation and degradation in Indigenous Lands pan-tropically,” Nature Sustainability, vol. 5, pp. 123–130, Feb. 2022. Number: 2 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  2. R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, T. M. Brooks, J. D. Pilgrim, W. R. Konstant, G. A. B. da Fonseca, and C. Kormos, “Wilderness and biodiversity conservation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 100, pp. 10309–10313, Sept. 2003. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  3. R. J. Smith and A. N. Gray, “Strategic monitoring informs wilderness management and socioecological benefits,” Conservation Science and Practice, vol. 3, no. 9, p. e482, 2021. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/csp2.482.
  4. E. W. Sanderson, M. Jaiteh, M. A. Levy, K. H. Redford, A. V. Wannebo, and G. Woolmer, “The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild: The human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not,” BioScience, vol. 52, pp. 891–904, Oct. 2002.
  5. B. Ekim, Z. Dong, D. Rashkovetsky, and M. Schmitt, “The naturalness index for the identification of natural areas on regional scale,” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, vol. 105, p. 102622, Dec. 2021.
  6. T. T. Stomberg, T. Stone, J. Leonhardt, I. Weber, and R. Roscher, “Exploring Wilderness Characteristics Using Explainable Machine Learning in Satellite Imagery,” July 2022. arXiv:2203.00379 [cs].
  7. A. Emam, T. T. Stomberg, and R. Roscher, “Leveraging activation maximization and generative adversarial training to recognize and explain patterns in natural areas in satellite imagery,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 21, pp. 1–5, 2024.
  8. European Environment Agency, “CORINE Land Cover 2018, Europe, 6-yearly - version 2020_20u1, May 2020,” 2019.
  9. A. Bennetot, G. Franchi, J. Del Ser, R. Chatila, and N. Diaz-Rodriguez, “Greybox XAI: a Neural-Symbolic learning framework to produce interpretable predictions for image classification,” Sept. 2022. arXiv:2209.14974 [cs].
  10. L. Chen, G. Papandreou, F. Schroff, and H. Adam, “Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation,” CoRR, vol. abs/1706.05587, 2017.
  11. L.-C. Chen, G. Papandreou, F. Schroff, and H. Adam, “Rethinking Atrous Convolution for Semantic Image Segmentation,” Dec. 2017. arXiv:1706.05587 [cs].
  12. Y. Gal and Z. Ghahramani, “Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,” ArXiv, vol. abs/1506.02142, 2015.
  13. E. Hüllermeier and W. Waegeman, “Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: an introduction to concepts and methods,” Machine Learning, vol. 110, pp. 457 – 506, 2019.
  14. H. Wang and D.-Y. Yeung, “A survey on bayesian deep learning,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 53, sep 2020.
  15. Springer New York, NY, 1 ed., Dec. 2005.
  16. H. Papadopoulos, K. Proedrou, V. Vovk, and A. Gammerman, “Inductive confidence machines for regression,” in Machine Learning: ECML 2002 (T. Elomaa, H. Mannila, and H. Toivonen, eds.), (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 345–356, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002.
  17. J. Lei and L. Wasserman, “Distribution-free prediction bands for non-parametric regression,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology), vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 71–96, 2014.
  18. L. Hoffmann and C. Elster, “Deep ensembles from a bayesian perspective,” CoRR, vol. abs/2105.13283, 2021.
  19. K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,” Dec. 2015. arXiv:1512.03385 [cs].
  20. C. Guo, G. Pleiss, Y. Sun, and K. Q. Weinberger, “On calibration of modern neural networks,” CoRR, vol. abs/1706.04599, 2017.
Citations (1)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.