## 4 Results
### Cross-Comparison between Predicted Land Cover Maps and the CDL
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l r r r r r r r r} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Land Cover**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Info.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**CDL**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**ARD**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**HLS**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & & **CxQ** & **HPLM** & **SPL** & **CMB** & **CxQ** & **HPLM** & **SPL** & **CMB** \\ \hline Corn & Area & 662 & 674 & 636 & 613 & 641 & 701 & 699 & 615 & 644 \\ \cline{2-10}  & UA & 83.8 & 89.0 & 93.3 & 93.0 & 76.9 & 78.6 & 88.3 & 88.2 \\  & PA & 85.4 & 85.5 & 86.5 & 90.1 & 81.6 & 83.1 & 82.0 & 85.8 \\ Wheat & Area & 103 & 86 & 93 & 135 & 121 & 81 & 92 & 132 & 107 \\ \cline{2-10}  & UA & 81.9 & 80.0 & 48.9 & 69.1 & 79.6 & 75.0 & 45.4 & 71.9 \\  & PA & 68.7 & 72.5 & 64.2 & 81.2 & 62.6 & 67.6 & 58.3 & 74.7 \\ Alfalfa & Area & 45 & 29 & 36 & 33 & 31 & 28 & 37 & 34 & 33 \\ \cline{2-10}  & UA & 73.5 & 67.2 & 66.8 & 74.3 & 67.2 & 61.4 & 59.2 & 65.9 \\  & PA & 47.5 & 54.5 & 48.3 & 51.9 & 41.7 & 49.9 & 45.0 & 47.9 \\ Soybean & Area & 746 & 693 & 687 & 780 & 731 & 663 & 646 & 769 & 729 \\ \cline{2-10}  & UA & 87.2 & 91.1 & 85.0 & 90.7 & 83.3 & 87.0 & 81.2 & 86.2 \\  & PA & 81.0 & 83.9 & 88.8 & 88.9 & 74.1 & 75.3 & 83.7 & 84.2 \\ Other Crops & Area & 13 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\  & UA & 0.0 & 61.2 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 60.8 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\  & PA & 0.0 & 4.3 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 6.9 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\ Water & Area & 154 & 122 & 120 & 126 & 121 & 124 & 125 & 131 & 126 \\ \cline{2-10}  & UA & 92.8 & 94.8 & 97.0 & 97.5 & 89.8 & 90.6 & 93.4 & 94.5 \\  & PA & 73.2 & 74.1 & 79.5 & 76.9 & 72.5 & 73.6 & 79.6 & 77.4 \\ Barren/Dev. & Area & 131 & 69 & 66 & 59 & 60 & 81 & 56 & 53 & 56 \\ \cline{2-10}  & UA & 25.5 & 29.2 & 52.9 & 50.6 & 19.9 & 23.4 & 43.5 & 39.8 \\  & PA & 13.5 & 14.6 & 23.9 & 23.1 & 12.4 & 10.0 & 17.5 & 17.1 \\ Forest & Area & 64 & 49 & 65 & 70 & 68 & 41 & 66 & 74 & 68 \\ \cline{2-10}  & UA & 57.2 & 56.4 & 64.8 & 65.6 & 58.7 & 54.3 & 56.4 & 60.2 \\  & PA & 43.2 & 57.3 & 70.7 & 69.6 & 36.9 & 55.5 & 65.1 & 63.2 \\ Grassland & Area & 761 & 872 & 903 & 886 & 916 & 899 & 931 & 917 & 940 \\ \cline{2-10}  & UA & 74.5 & 73.8 & 75.7 & 74.5 & 72.3 & 70.5 & 72.0 & 72.0 \\  & PA & 85.5 & 87.6 & 88.2 & 89.7 & 85.5 & 86.4 & 86.7 & 88.9 \\ Wetland & Area & 262 & 347 & 333 & 239 & 251 & 322 & 286 & 216 & 239 \\ \cline{2-10}  & UA & 35.9 & 35.3 & 56.1 & 53.1 & 40.9 & 36.9 & 58.1 & 54.5 \\  & PA & 47.5 & 44.8 & 51.1 & 50.8 & 50.2 & 40.2 & 47.9 & 49.7 \\ \hline
**OA** & & 74.6 & 76.4 & 79.1 & 80.8 & 71.7 & 72.4 & 75.5 & 77.7 \\
**k\_L** & & 0.748 & 0.775 & 0.806 & 0.821 & 0.718 & 0.726 & 0.763 & 0.782 \\
**k\_Q** & & 0.857 & 0.850 & 0.862 & 0.875 & 0.837 & 0.837 & 0.849 & 0.870 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Pixel-wise comparisons between 2016 predicted land cover maps and CDL, summarized by input variables. Land cover area is in km\({}^{2}\). The overall accuracies of ARD maps were greater than those of HLS maps by 1% to 3% (Table 11, Table 12). A possible reason for the lower agreement between HLS and CDL is the difference in projection of the two datasets. While HLS data was produced in the UTM projection for zone 14N using Sentinel's pixel geometry, both the CDL and ARD data were produced in the AEA projection using Landsat's pixel geometry. Although CDL and ARD pixels were not perfectly aligned (due to re-projections while creating those products), offsets were only about 3 m in both the latitude and longitude directions. On the other hand, offsets between HLS and CDL data were 15 m in each direction. Re-projection and pixel co-registration to allow pixel-based comparison would negatively affect cross-comparison between the CDL and HLS-based maps more than cross-comparison between the CDL and ARD-based maps. The large offset between HLS and CDL pixels was observed in the kappa indices for location and quantity. Compared to ARD-based maps, HLS-based maps had similar k_Q but lower k_L values, especially in the more accurate maps, i.e., C1S, P25, and CMB (cf.