ArticleScientific reports2025
Probabilistic machine learning for noisy labels in Earth observation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Label noise poses a significant challenge in Earth Observation (EO), often degrading the performance and reliability of supervised Machine Learning (ML) models. Yet, given the critical nature of several EO applications, developing robust and trustworthy ML solutions is essential. In this study, we take a step in this direction by leveraging probabilistic ML to model input-dependent label noise and quantify data uncertainty in EO tasks, accounting for the unique noise sources inherent in the domain. We train uncertainty-aware probabilistic models across a broad range of high-impact EO applications-spanning diverse noise sources, input modalities, and ML configurations-and introduce a dedicated pipeline to assess their accuracy and reliability. Our experimental results show that the uncertainty-aware models outperform standard deterministic approaches across most datasets and evaluation metrics. Moreover, through rigorous uncertainty evaluation, we validate the reliability of the predicted uncertainty estimates, enhancing the interpretability of model predictions. Our findings emphasize the importance of modeling label noise and incorporating uncertainty quantification in EO, paving the way for more reliable solutions in the field.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.