IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS, VOL. 5, NO.
4, OCTOBER 2008
Limitations of Principal Components Analysis for
Hyperspectral Target Recognition
Saurabh Prasad, Student Member, IEEE, and Lori Mann Bruce, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Dimensionality reduction is a necessity in most hy-
perspectral imaging applications. Tradeoffs exist between un-
supervised statistical methods, which are typically based on
principal components analysis (PCA), and supervised ones, which
are often based on Fisher’s linear discriminant analysis (LDA),
and proponents for each approach exist in the remote sensing
community. Recently, a combined approach known as subspace
LDA has been proposed, where PCA is employed to recondition
ill-posed LDA formulations. The key idea behind this approach
is to use a PCA transformation as a preprocessor to discard the
null space of rank-deficient scatter matrices, so that LDA can be
applied on this reconditioned space. Thus, in theory, the subspace
LDA technique benefits from the advantages of both methods. In
this letter, we present a theoretical analysis of the effects (often
ill effects) of PCA on the discrimination power of the projected
subspace. The theoretical analysis is presented from a general pat-
tern classification perspective for two possible scenarios: 1) when
PCA is used as a simple dimensionality reduction tool and 2) when
it is used to recondition an ill-posed LDA formulation. We also pro-
vide experimental evidence of the ineffectiveness of both scenarios
for hyperspectral target recognition applications.
Index Terms—Dimensionality reduction, feature extraction,
hyperspectral, image classification, pattern classification.
I. I NTRODUCTION
P RINCIPAL components analysis (PCA) is a popular tool
for dimensionality reduction in various data analysis
schemes [1]–[3]. However, it is not an optimal projection from a
pattern classification perspective. Linear discriminant analysis
(LDA), on the other hand, is a feature reduction tool designed to
maximize between-class separation while minimizing within-
class scatter. Sometimes, PCA is preferred over LDA when
within-class scatter matrices are singular, making conventional
LDA computations intractable. However, PCA is designed such
that the end goal is to minimize mean square error between the
original and reduced spaces; it is not designed to minimize or
maximize any metric related to automated target recognition
(ATR). Thus, any ATR success reported with this approach is
merely coincidental and would not generalize well to a general
classification setup.
Since LDA has the inherent limitation of becoming in-
tractable as the input dimensionality exceeds the training
sample-size dimensionality, a number of adaptations to LDA
Manuscript received February 22, 2008; revised May 18, 2008. Current
version published October 22, 2008.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
and the GeoResources Institute, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State,
MS 39759 USA (e-mail: saurabh.prasad@ieee.org; bruce@gri.msstate.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LGRS.2008.2001282
1545-598X/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ of Puerto Rico Mayaguez - Library. Downloaded on February 10, 2009 at 16:09 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
625
have been proposed. One example is the well-known discrimi-
nant analysis feature extraction, but these approaches tend to be
either computationally expensive and/or suboptimal. Recently,
an approach known as subspace LDA has been proposed,
where a PCA projection discards the null space of the global
covariance matrix to resolve an ill-conditioned LDA problem.
Thus, in theory, the subspace LDA technique benefits from the
advantages of both methods.
Although some authors have previously reported experimen-
tal observations on the detrimental effects of PCA [4], [5],
a theoretical analysis of the discrimination potential of PCA-
projected hyperspectral features has not been studied in detail.
In this letter, we present a theoretical analysis of the discrimi-
nation power in various linearly projected spaces as a means to
demonstrate the weaknesses of PCA in many applications. We
also present a theoretical analysis of class discrimination in a
subspace LDA-projected space. With this analysis, we intend
to cover two important scenarios typically encountered in a
pattern classification problem: 1) when the size of the training
data is sufficiently large relative to the dimensionality of the
feature space and the features do not possess high redundancy
and 2) when the training data size is insufficient to model the
patterns using second-order statistics and/or a subset of features
in the space has high redundancy, resulting in rank-deficient
covariance matrices.
We will mathematically show that, when PCA is used either
as a simple dimensionality reduction tool or as part of the
subspace LDA approach, it is not typically a beneficial trans-
formation for pattern classification applications. We provide
experimental evidence to illustrate these issues on hyperspectral
data. It is hoped that this letter motivates researchers to explore
alternate approaches to PCA for dimensionality reduction and
for solving small-sample-size problems. Approaches such as
those based on divide-and-conquer pattern classification par-
adigms [6], [7] promise a meaningful and practical solution
to the small-sample-size and high-dimensionality problems,
without compromising the discrimination ability of the features.
Researchers working with hyperspectral imagery should ex-
plore such techniques since they often encounter small-sample-
size issues, with the number of training pixels being much less
than the dimensionality of the feature space.
The outline of this letter is given as follows: In Section II, a
review of PCA, LDA, and subspace LDA, as applied to typical
hyperspectral target identification problems, is presented. In
Section III, theoretical evidence of the limitations of PCA and
subspace LDA in a general classification setup is presented.
In Section IV, we describe the experimental data set used.
In Section V, we present experimental results demonstrating
626
the deterioration in discrimination power of a PCA-projected
and a subspace LDA-projected space with hyperspectral data.
In Section VI, we conclude the discussion with a summary
of theoretical and experimental analyses and propose some
alternative directions for possible research to tackle the small-
sample-size problem.
II. F EATURE R EDUCTION A LGORITHMS
A. PCA
PCA seeks to find a linear transformation y = W T x, where
x ∈ m , y ∈ n , and m > n, such that the variance of the data
is maximized in the projected space. Mathematically, PCA is
a transformation that diagonalizes the covariance matrix of the
global data set. It is also an unsupervised transformation in the
sense that it does not require labeled training data for finding
the transformation. While m is the dimensionality of the orig-
inal feature space, n is the desired dimension of the projected
space and is usually determined as the number of significant
eigenvalues in the spectral decomposition of the global covari-
ance matrix. A detailed analysis of PCA can be found in [8].
B. LDA
LDA seeks to find a linear transformation y = W T x, where
x ∈ m , y ∈ n , and n ≤ c − 1 (c is the number of classes),
such that the within-class scatter is minimized and the between-
class scatter is maximized. Transformation W T is determined
by maximizing Fisher’s ratio (see Section III), which can be
solved as a generalized eigenvalue problem. The solution is
given by the eigenvectors of the following eigenvalue problem:
−1
Sw Sb W = ΛW
where Sb is the between-class scatter matrix, and Sw is the
within-class scatter matrix.
Note that ST = Sw + Sb is the total scatter matrix, which is
related to the global covariance matrix by a scaling factor. In-
troductory discussions on PCA and LDA are provided here; the
reader is encouraged to review a standard pattern classification
text such as [8] for more discussion of these techniques.
C. Subspace LDA
Although LDA is designed to find a projection maximizing
the class separation in a lower dimension space, it has one draw-
back. The solution of the eigenvalue problem in Section II-B
requires the inversion of the within-class scatter matrix. Hence,
a singular Sw results in an ill-conditioned LDA formulation.
It is common to encounter rank-deficient within-class scatter
matrices for high-dimensional feature spaces or for feature
spaces that have highly correlated features. One solution that
has recently been explored in some pattern classification tasks
is subspace LDA (or PCA+LDA) [9], [10]. Fig. 1 illustrates the
flow for a subspace LDA transformation. It is a two-step linear
transformation, where the first linear transformation is a PCA
projection, which discards the null space of the overall scatter
matrix (thereby making the within-class scatter matrix full
ranked). The second linear transformation is an LDA projection
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ of Puerto Rico Mayaguez - Library. Downloaded on February 10, 2009 at 16:09 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS, VOL. 5, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2008
Fig. 1. Two-step transformation procedure of subspace LDA.
from the PCA-projected space. Hence, subspace LDA operates
on a reconditioned feature space, whose null space has been
discarded. We will mathematically show in Section III that this
projection is not optimal for a classification task. While this
algorithm has had some success with certain face recognition
tasks, we also present experimental evidence of how such an
approach actually hurts hyperspectral ATR applications.
III. D ISCRIMINATION P OWER IN THE P ROJECTED S PACE
Before discussing the discrimination power in the projected
space, a suitable optimality criterion quantifying class sepa-
ration needs to be defined. For linear transformations of the
feature space, i.e., y = W T x, a common choice for quantifying
class separation is Fisher’s ratio [8], i.e.,
J1 (W ) = |W T Sb W |/|W T Sw W |. (2)
The choice of this ratio as an optimality criterion stems
from the need of feature extraction algorithms for pattern
classification tasks to minimize the within-class scatter while
maximizing the between-class scatter. Lu et al. have suggested
the following modification of the Fisher’s ratio in [11], which
can be proven to be equivalent to the original Fisher’s ratio, in
terms of the maximizing solution:
(1)  
J2 (W ) = |W T Sb W |/ W T (Sw + Sb )W  . (3)
A. Class Separation in a PCA-Projected Space, Case I:
Sw and ST Are Nonsingular
We start the theoretical analysis by considering a situation
where the within-class and total scatter matrices are full ranked.
This is likely to happen when we have enough training data vec-
tors relative to the dimensionality of the feature space, and the
feature space itself does not contain overly redundant features.
(Redundant features typically make the scatter matrices rank
deficient.)
For the purpose of analysis, we can use the total scatter
matrix ST , instead of the total covariance matrix, since both are
related by a normalization constant. Let Sb , Sw , and ST be the
scatter matrices in the original feature space. A PCA projection
will solve the following eigenvalue problem:
(Sw + Sb )W = ΛW. (4)
On the other hand, LDA specifically solves for the maximiza-
tion of the optimality criterion using the generalized eigenvalue
approach [8]. Using the second form of Fisher’s ratio J2 , LDA
solves the following eigenvalue problem:
(Sw + Sb )−1 Sb W = ΛW (5)
PRASAD AND BRUCE: LIMITATIONS OF PCA FOR HYPERSPECTRAL TARGET RECOGNITION
which is known to maximize class separation. It follows that
PCA will maximize the optimality criterion only when the
solution of (4) is the same as the solution of (5). It is obvious
that a common solution will not exist for any arbitrary Sb , Sw ,
and ST .
An intuitive way to picture this is the following. Let the
spectral decomposition of ST be
ST = U ΛU T . (6)
In a PCA projection, we choose eigenvectors corresponding to
large eigenvalues of ST for projection (let us say the first n
are retained), and the projection matrix is given by Ũ T , which
denotes a matrix containing the principal directions for projec-
tion. Let the corresponding diagonal matrix of eigenvalues be
Λ̃. When Ũ T is used as the projection matrix, in the projected
space, the modified Fisher’s ratio J2 becomes
|Ũ T Sb Ũ | |Ũ T Sb Ũ |
J2 (Ũ ) =  =

Ũ T (Sw + Sb )Ũ  |Ũ T ST Ũ |
|Ũ T Sb Ũ | |Ũ T Sb Ũ |
= =  n . (7)
|Λ̃| λi
i=1
Here, n is the number of principal components retained in
the PCA projection. Clearly, the modified Fisher’s ratio is not
guaranteed to increase relative to the original space by this
projection for two reasons.
1) The numerator |Ũ T Sb Ũ | is not guaranteed to increase
since Ũ represents the principal directions of ST and
not Sb .
2) The value of the denominator |Λ̃| is actually greater than
the value of |Λ| in the original space, because small
eigenvalues in Λ (less than 1 and numerically close to 0)
were discarded to create Λ̃.
From these arguments, it is clear that PCA is not an optimal
transformation for feature extraction stages of pattern recogni-
tion systems.
B. Class Separation in a PCA-Projected Space, Case II:
Sw and ST Are Rank Deficient
This case deals with scenarios where PCA is applied as a tool
to discard the null space of ST , as with subspace LDA. Note
that, by definition, Sb has a rank of, at most, c − 1, where c
is the number of classes. On the other hand, Sw (and, hence,
ST ) may be either full ranked or rank deficient, depending
on the amount of training data and redundancy of features.
Zheng et al. pointed out in [12] that, when Sw is rank deficient,
the transformation that maximizes the optimality criterion, in an
ideal sense, would project the data onto a subspace N (ST )⊥ ∩
N (Sw ), where N (ST )⊥ is the orthogonal complement of the
null space of ST and N (Sw ) is the null space of Sw . One way
to visualize this is to realize that an ideal transformation will
shrink the within-class scatter (by projecting to the null space
of Sw ) in the nonnull space of ST .
In the following discussion, scatter matrices in the trans-
formed space are denoted with a tilda, i.e., S̃. It is common
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ of Puerto Rico Mayaguez - Library. Downloaded on February 10, 2009 at 16:09 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
627
practice in PCA transformations to project the data in directions
such that the significant eigenvalues of the overall covariance
matrix (or total scatter matrix) are retained. In situations where
ST is rank deficient, consider a simple PCA projection that
discards the null space of ST . Techniques such as subspace
LDA employ PCA with this goal. Such a transformation ensures
that, after projection, N (S̃T ) = {Φ}, i.e., the null set. If we
restrict S̃b and S̃w to be positive semidefinite
 
N (S̃T ) = N (S̃) ∩ N (S̃w ) . (8)
Hence, after the PCA projection
N (S̃b ) ∩ N (S̃w ) = {Φ}. (9)
Recall that the desired projection space is N (S̃T )⊥ ∩ N (S̃w ).
However, if N (S̃T ) = {Φ} (after a PCA projection), it only
implies that N (ST )⊥ = {Φ}, and the intersection of the null
spaces of S̃b and S̃w is a null set. This does not guarantee
N (S̃w ) = {Φ}, i.e., it does not guarantee retention of the null
space of Sw . Hence, even in a situation where PCA is used as a
preprocessing step (to resolve singularity issues in ST ) before
another feature reduction step (e.g., as in subspace LDA),
discarding the null space of ST is not necessarily the optimal
strategy. At this point, we would also like to point out that other
techniques that discard the null space of Sw to resolve singular-
ity issues, such as pseudoinverse LDA [9], may have a similar
detrimental effect on class separation in the projected space.
IV. E XPERIMENTAL H YPERSPECTRAL D ATA
Hyperspectral data were collected using an Analytical Spec-
tral Devices (ASD) Fieldspec Pro FR handheld spectroradiome-
ter [13] for four classes of vegetation. Signatures collected
from this device have 2151 spectral bands sampled at 1 nm
over the range of 350–2500 nm, with a spectral resolution
ranging from 3 to 10 nm. A 25◦ instantaneous-field-of-view
foreoptic was used; the instrument was set to average ten
signatures to produce each sample signature; and the sensor
was held NADIR at approximately 4 ft above the vegeta-
tion canopy. The signatures were truncated above band 1000
(1350 nm) to remove atmospheric water absorption band ef-
fects and the noisier upper bands, resulting in hyperspectral
signatures with a dimensionality of 1000. Signatures used in
this letter form four classes relevant to precision agriculture
applications: Cotton variety ST-4961, Johnsongrass (Sorghum
halepense), Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), and Sicklepod
(Cassia obtusifolia), which are listed in Table I. These signa-
tures were measured in good weather conditions in Mississippi
during 2000–2004.
V. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULT
To corroborate the claims made in this letter with experimen-
tal evidence, we present two types of experimental analyses
using the data set described in Section IV. In the first set of
experiments, a sliding window of size 25 bands was moved
across the wavelength spectrum, and class separation was mea-
sured in each window after three linear transformations: 1) LDA
628
TABLE I
HYPERSPECTRAL EXPERIMENTAL DATA SET INFORMATION
only; 2) PCA only; and 3) subspace LDA. We used a sliding
window analysis to capture local discrimination effects across
the spectrum, which is quite common in hyperspectral analysis.
Bhattacharya distance [8] was used to quantify class separation,
following each projection of the subspace formed by the analy-
sis window. The choice of a window size of 25 is arbitrary. We
obtained similar results for other window sizes.
Fig. 2 depicts class discrimination after the three projections
using data set DS1. PCA dimension refers to the dimension
of the projected space after a simple PCA projection and an
intermediate PCA transformation employed in subspace LDA.
As expected for vegetation classes, class separation has a peak
near the red edge. For a window size of 25, a PCA dimension of
25 implies a linear transformation that diagonalizes the global
covariance matrix but does not discard low-energy directions.
For a window size of 25 and a PCA dimension of 15, we have
retained only the top 15 principal components for the PCA
projection. The choice of 15 is arbitrary, and similar results
were obtained for other dimensions. Note that, in each case,
LDA transformation projects the data onto a c − 1 dimensional
space (here, c = 2), and the class separation in the LDA-
projected space is the highest for most locations of the analysis
window. For a PCA-only projection with a PCA dimension of
25, we notice that class separation in LDA-only and PCA-only
spaces is very similar. This is expected because, with a PCA
dimension of 25, we are not reducing the dimensionality of the
space. However, with a PCA dimension of 15, class separation
in a PCA-only space is consistently lower than that in an LDA-
only space. Class separation in a subspace LDA space is less
than that in the other two transformations under all situations.
This can be explained by the discussion in Section III on the
importance of the null space of Sw for LDA transformations.
Discarding this space (in the intermediate PCA transformation)
actually worsens the subsequent LDA transformation. Similar
results were obtained with data sets DS2 and DS3.
In the second set of experiments, we set up a challeng-
ing ATR task using the three data sets DS1, DS2, and DS3.
Target/background classification is performed using a recently
proposed multiclassifier decision fusion (DF) system [6], as
well as a conventional single-classifier system (SCL). For DF-
based classification, we partition the hyperspectral space into
contiguous groups and employ a multiclassifier system [6]
to separately test the efficacy of the feature space after each
transformation: 1) PCA only; 2) subspace LDA; and 3) LDA
only. We perform a transformation of the feature space based on
these methods in every group and employ a bank of maximum-
likelihood classifiers to ascertain class labels from each group.
These local decisions are merged into a final class label based
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ of Puerto Rico Mayaguez - Library. Downloaded on February 10, 2009 at 16:09 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS, VOL. 5, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2008
on majority voting [6], [14]. For SCL-based classification,
we employ an SCL (the maximum-likelihood classifier) and
determine the overall recognition accuracy after three transfor-
mations of the original high-dimensional feature space: 1) PCA
only; 2) subspace LDA; and 3) band averaging (BA). Note that
we cannot employ a simple LDA-only transformation on the
original hyperspectral space because of ill conditioning of the
resulting scatter matrices.
For these experiments, we employ a leave-one-out testing
for unbiased results. Furthermore, we corrupted the target test
pixels (for the sake of illustration, we chose class 2 as the
target class) by linearly mixing them with background pixels.
This results in a challenging classification task. Two different
mixing ratios (background : target percentage) are reported in
this letter: 20:80 (light pixel mixing) and 40:60 (severe pixel
mixing).
Table II depicts the overall recognition accuracies for the
various data sets under different mixing conditions. For DF-
based classification, a window size of 25 bands was used in
these experiments (i.e., the hyperspectral space was partitioned
into groups of size 25 each). Once again, in the current con-
text, the choice of window size 25 is arbitrary. An index P1
or P2 is appended to the data set label, indicating a PCA
dimension of 25 and 15, respectively. Thus, P1 corresponds
to a simple decorrelating PCA transformation without dimen-
sionality reduction, whereas, in P2, the features within each
group are projected onto a 15-D subspace during any PCA
transformation. Note that, in partitioning the hyperspectral
space into contiguous smaller groups, we avoid the small-
sample-size problem; hence, these results are free from the
effects of the curse of dimensionality. It is obvious from these
results that both PCA and SLDA consistently perform poorly.
Note that, for SCL-based classification, we only have results
with P2 (because performing no dimensionality reduction,
i.e., P1 in the PCA stage, still renders the high-dimensional
feature space intractable to classification or LDA transforma-
tions). In the SCL-PCA and SCL-SLDA experiments, PCA
was used to reduce the dimensionality of the feature space to
15 before proceeding with classification and then LDA was
used, followed by classification. In SCL-BA experiments, we
partitioned the feature space into windows of size 25 each
and averaged the reflectance values of all bands within each
window. The average reflectance values from all windows were
concatenated to produce lower dimensional feature vectors,
which were classified using an SCL. Once again, all SCL-based
classification schemes performed poorly when compared to the
DF-LDA-based classification scheme. Furthermore, a simple
SCL-BA scheme performed better than SCL-PCA and SCL-
SLDA schemes for two out of the three data sets. What is
surprising is that SLDA often performs worse than a simple
PCA (even in P1). This is likely to be a consequence of the loss
of information occurring at the PCA stage due to poor estimates
of global covariance matrices.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this letter, we presented theoretical evidence of the in-
effectiveness of PCA for feature extraction. We covered two
PRASAD AND BRUCE: LIMITATIONS OF PCA FOR HYPERSPECTRAL TARGET RECOGNITION 629

Fig. 2. Bhattacharya distance measure for a two-class problem, with a sliding analysis window across the range of wavelengths of the hyperspectral signatures,
for Cotton versus Johnsongrass with PCA dimensions of (a) 25 and (b) 15.

TABLE II
OVERALL RECOGNITION ACCURACIES FOR THREE DIFFERENT DATA SETS AT TWO DIFFERENT MIXING RATIOS (AND THE 95% CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL IN PARENTHESIS). ALL ARE REPORTED IN PERCENTAGE (DF: MULTICLASSIFIER DECISION FUSION SYSTEM, SCL:
SINGLE-CLASSIFIER SYSTEM, SLDA: SUBSPACE LDA, BA: BAND AVERAGING)

important scenarios commonly encountered in the analysis. We
also presented experimental evidence corroborating our claims
with various data sets. We showed that class separation may
deteriorate after a PCA transformation. We also provide target
recognition accuracies of various subpixel target recognition
tasks after projecting the feature space using these transforma-
tion techniques separately.
From these theoretical arguments and experimental evidence,
it follows that PCA should not be employed (by itself or
as a preprocessing to solve small-sample-size problems) by
researchers for ATR applications. Instead, alternative methods
should be explored to solve the small-sample-size problem en-
countered with LDA-based transformations. A few techniques
that resolve small-sample-size issues in LDA transformations
include the regularized LDA method [11] and a recently pro-
posed multiclassifier DF framework [6].
R EFERENCES
[1] Z. Sun, D. Huang, Y. Cheung, J. Liu, and G. Huang, “Using FCMC, FVS,
and PCA techniques for feature extraction of multispectral images,” IEEE
Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 108–112, Apr. 2005.
[2] M. D. Farrell and R. M. Mersereau, “On the impact of PCA dimension
reduction for hyperspectral detection of difficult targets,” IEEE Geosci.
Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 192–195, Apr. 2005.
[3] A. M. Martinez and A. C. Kak, “PCA versus LDA,” IEEE Trans. Pattern
Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 228–233, Feb. 2001.
[4] A. Cheriyadat and L. M. Bruce, “Why principal component analysis is not
an appropriate feature extraction method for hyperspectral data,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp., Jul. 2003, vol. 6, pp. 3420–3422.
[5] J. Li, L. M. Bruce, J. Byrd, and J. Barnett, “Automated detection of
Pueraria Montana (kudzu) through Haar analysis of hyperspectral re-
flectance data,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp., Jul. 2001,
vol. 5, pp. 2247–2249.
[6] S. Prasad and L. M. Bruce, “Decision fusion with confidence based weight
assignment for hyperspectral target recognition,” IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 1448–1456, May 2008.
[7] S. Kumar, J. Ghosh, and M. M. Crawford, “Best-bases feature extraction
algorithms for classification of hyperspectral data,” IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1368–1379, Jul. 2001.
[8] R. O. Duda, P. E. Hart, and D. G. Stork, Pattern Classification, 2nd ed.
New York: Wiley, 2000.
[9] J. Ye and Q. Li, “A two-stage linear discriminant analysis via QR-
decomposition,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 27, no. 6,
pp. 929–941, Jun. 2005.
[10] D. L. Swets and J. Went, “Using discriminating eigenfeatures for image
retrieval,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 831–
836, Aug. 1996.
[11] J. Lu, K. N. Plataniotis, and A. N. Venetsanopoulos, “Regularization
studies on LDA for face recognition,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Image Process.,
Oct. 2004, vol. 4, pp. 63–66.
[12] W. Zheng, L. Zhao, and C. Zou, “An efficient algorithm to solve the
small sample size problem for LDA,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 37, no. 5,
pp. 1077–1079, May 2004.
[13] Analytical Spectral Devices FieldspecPro FR specifications. [Online].
Available: http://www.asdi.com/products_specifications-FS3.asp
[14] J. A. Benediktsson and J. R. Sveinsson, “Multisource remote sensing
data classification based on consensus and pruning,” IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 932–936, Apr. 2003.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ of Puerto Rico Mayaguez - Library. Downloaded on February 10, 2009 at 16:09 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.