2784 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 8, NO.
6, JUNE 2015
Band Selection Using Improved Sparse Subspace
Clustering for Hyperspectral Imagery Classification
Weiwei Sun, Liangpei Zhang, Senior Member, IEEE, Bo Du, Senior Member, IEEE, Weiyue Li,
and Yenming Mark Lai
AbstractAn improved sparse subspace clustering (ISSC)
method is proposed to select an appropriate band subset for hyper-
spectral imagery (HSI) classification. The ISSC assumes that band
vectors are sampled from a union of low-dimensional orthogonal
subspaces and each band can be sparsely represented as a linear
or affine combination of other bands within its subspace. First, the
ISSC represents band vectors with sparse coefficient vectors by
solving the L2-norm optimization problem using the least square
regression (LSR) algorithm. The sparse and block diagonal struc-
ture of the coefficient matrix from LSR leads to correct segmenta-
tion of band vectors. Second, the angular similarity measurement
is presented and utilized to construct the similarity matrix. Third,
the distribution compactness (DC) plot algorithm is used to esti-
mate an appropriate size of the band subset. Finally, spectral
clustering is implemented to segment the similarity matrix and the
desired ISSC band subset is found. Four groups of experiments on
three widely used HSI datasets are performed to test the perfor-
mance of ISSC for selecting bands in classification. In addition, the
following six state-of-the-art band selection methods are used to
make comparisons: linear constrained minimum variance-based
band correlation constraint (LCMV-BCC), affinity propagation
(AP), spectral information divergence (SID), maximum-variance
principal component analysis (MVPCA), sparse representation-
based band selection (SpaBS), and sparse nonnegative matrix
factorization (SNMF). Experimental results show that the ISSC
has the second shortest computational time and also outperforms
the other six methods in classification accuracy when using an
appropriate band number obtained by the DC plot algorithm.
Manuscript received October 17, 2014; revised January 25, 2015; accepted
March 13, 2015. Date of publication April 13, 2015; date of current version
July 30, 2015. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science
Foundation under Grant 41401389, Grant 41431175, and Grant 61471274,
in part by the Research Project of Zhejiang Educational Committee under
Grant Y201430436, in part by Ningbo Natural Science Foundation under
Grant 2014A610173, in part by the Discipline Construction Project of Ningbo
University under Grant ZX2014000400, Normal project of Shanghai Normal
University under Grant SK201525, in part by the Key Laboratory of Mining
Spatial Information Technology of NASMG under Grant KLM201309, and in
part by the K. C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University.
W. Sun is with the State Key Laboratory for Information Engineering in
Surveying, Mapping, and Remote Sensing (LIESMARS), Wuhan University,
Wuhan 430039, China, and also with the College of Architectural Engineering,
Civil Engineering and Environment, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China
(e-mail: nbsww@outlook.com).
L. Zhang is with the State Key Laboratory for Information Engineering in
Surveying, Mapping, and Remote Sensing (LIESMARS), Wuhan University,
Wuhan 430039, China (e-mail: zlp62@whu.edu.cn).
B. Du is with the School of Computer, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430039,
China (e-mail: gunspace@163.com).
W. Li is with the Institute of Urban Studies, Shanghai Normal University,
Shanghai 200234, China (e-mail: lwy_326@126.com).
Y. M. Lai is with the Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences
(ICES), University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 USA (e-mail:
yenming.mark.lai@gmail.com).
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/JSTARS.2015.2417156
1939-1404 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Index TermsBand selection, classification, hyperspectral
imagery (HSI), improved sparse subspace clustering (ISSC).
I. I NTRODUCTION
O WNING to advantages in collecting tens to hundreds
of continuous bands of spectrum responses from visible
to near-infrared wavelength, hyperspectral imagery (HSI) has
powerful performance in recognizing different ground objects
with subtle spectrum divergences through the classification
implementation [1]. The classification results of HSI dataset are
now widely used in many realistic applications, such as ocean
monitoring [2], land cover mapping [3], [4], precision farming
[5], [6], and mine exploitation [7], [8]. Unfortunately, numer-
ous bands as well as strong intra-band correlations also bring
about big problems to the classification implementation [9],
[10]. Especially, the curse of dimensionality renders that the
HSI dataset requires extremely more training samples if accu-
rate classification result is wanted, whereas collecting so many
training samples is expensive and time-consuming [11], [12].
Therefore, making dimensionality reduction is an alternative
way to conquer these problems.
Dimensionality reduction of HSI datasets can typically be
divided into two categories: band selection (i.e., feature selec-
tion) and feature extraction [13]. Band selection selects an
appropriate band subset from the original band set of the HSI
dataset while feature extraction preserves important spectral
features through mathematical transformations. In this paper,
we focus on the band selection category of dimensionality
reduction, since the selected band combination could perfectly
solve the problem of curse of dimensionality and inherit the
original spectral meanings from the original HSI dataset.
Previous work in the dimensionality reduction of band selec-
tion can also be roughly divided into two classes: 1) the maxi-
mum information or minimum correlation (MIMC) scheme and
2) the maximum inter-class separability (MIS) scheme. MIMC
selects an appropriate band subset in which each single-band
image has the maximum information or minimum correlation
with other bands. The MIMC scheme typically uses the three
main criteria of entropy criterion, the intra-band correlation cri-
terion, and the cluster criterion. The entropy criterion algorithm
collects an appropriate band subset by maximizing the overall
amount of information using entropy-like measurements [14],
[15]. The intra-band correlation criterion algorithms select the
appropriate band subset having minimum intra-band correla-
tions. Examples include the mutual information-based algo-
rithm [16] and the constrained band selection algorithm based
SUN et al.: BAND SELECTION USING ISSC FOR HSI CLASSIFICATION
on constrained energy minimization (CBS-CEM) [17]. The
cluster criterion algorithm also considers intra-band corrections
and selects a representative band from each band cluster using
certain clustering algorithms. Examples include the hierarchical
clustering algorithm using the mutual information measure-
ment [18] and the affinity propagation (AP) algorithm with
noise-removal bands using wavelet shrinkage [19].
In contrast, the MIS scheme selects an appropriate band
subset that maximizes the separability of different ground
objects in the image scene. The MIS scheme is typically imple-
mented using one of the following algorithms: the distance
measurement criterion algorithm, the feature transformation
criterion algorithm, and the realistic application criterion algo-
rithm. The distance measurement criterion algorithm maxi-
mizes the inter-class differences using a distance-like measure-
ment such as the spectral information divergence (SID), the
transformed divergence (TD), or Mahalanobis distance [20].
The feature transformation criterion algorithm selects an appro-
priate band subset by analyzing the inter-class separability
of ground objects in a low-dimensional feature space found
through feature transformations. Examples include linear pre-
diction algorithm [21] and the complex network algorithm
[22]. The realistic application criterion algorithm selects an
appropriate band subset through maximizing or minimizing the
defined objective function suitable for realistic applications of
HSI dataset, and the typical examples are the band selection
algorithm using high-order movements [23] and the super-
vised band selection algorithm using the known class spectral
signatures [24].
In recent years, the study of sparsity in HSI datasets has
attracted much interest in the remote sensing community. The
sparsity theory states that each band vector or spectrum vec-
tor can be sparsely represented using only a few nonzero
coefficients in a suitable basis or dictionary [25]. Sparse rep-
resentations of a band vector can then reveal certain under-
lying structures such as the clustering structure within the
HSI dataset and also drastically reduce the computational bur-
den in processing HSI datasets [26]. Accordingly, researchers
began to study the band selection problem using sparsity-
based (SB) schemes and have proposed algorithms such as
the sparse representation-based band selection (SpaBS) algo-
rithm [27], the sparse nonnegative matrix factorization (SNMF)
algorithm [28], the collaborative sparse model (CSM) algo-
rithm [29], and the sparse support vector machine (SSVM)
algorithm [30].
In this paper, we address the band selection problem using
an idea inspired by sparse space clustering (SSC). We present
a band selection method using an improved version of SSC
which we call improved sparse space clustering (ISSC). In
particular, our motivation is to ameliorate the SSC techniques
by ISSC and implement the ISSC into HSI dataset in order
to solve the band selection problem. Our contributions are
as follows: First, we are the first to explore band selection
from the SSC perspective. The ISSC method assumes that
all bands (i.e., band vectors) of the HSI dataset are drawn
from a union of low-dimensional orthogonal subspaces rather
than a single uniform subspace, and that each band can be
2785
sparsely represented as a linear or affine combination of
other bands [31]. The two above assumptions differ from the
assumptions of current SB algorithms and clustering algo-
rithms. Second, our proposed ISSC method improves the SSC
method with three following modifications: The ISSC uses the
l2 -norm to avoid the too sparse coefficient vector solution
when using the l1 -norm and to ensure the coefficient matrix
is sparse and block diagonal. Our proposed angular similar-
ity measurement replaces the l1 -directed graph construction
(DGC) measurement in SSC and better represents the total
similarity between two sparse coefficient band vectors than
the isolated coefficient values. The distribution compactness
(DC) plot algorithm intelligently estimates the size of band
subset and eliminates errors from artificial estimation in SSC.
The above improvements in SSC technique by the proposed
method ensure good performance in selecting an appropriate
band subset.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II reviews the
classical sparse subspace clustering. Section III presents the
band selection method using the proposed ISSC. Section IV
analyzes the performance of ISSC in band selection for clas-
sification on three widely used HSI datasets. Section V states
conclusion and outlines our future work.
II. A R EVIEW OF S PARSE S UBSPACE C LUSTERING
In this section, we review the classical SSC method. We
choose to use a noise-free dataset rather than noisy dataset
to illustrate principles more clearly. SSC proposed by Ehsan
Elhamifar regards that each data point lies in a union of sub-
spaces corresponding to several classes or clusters to which
the dataset belongs; therefore, each point can be sparsely rep-
resented by other points of a union of subspaces. The SSC
then uses sparse representations of data points to cluster the
points into separate subspaces [31]. SSC has been used in a
wide variety of applications such as motion segmentation and
face clustering [32]. It typically consists of three stages: 1) find-
ing sparse representations of each data point through convex
optimization; 2) learning a similarity matrix (i.e., a weight
matrix); and 3) clustering the similarity matrix using spectral
clustering [33].
Assume a high-dimensional dataset without noises Y =
N
{yi }i=1 RDN are actually lying in a union of linear sub-
k k
spaces {Cl }l=1 with dimensions {dl }l=1 , where D is the
dimension of high-dimensional space and k is the number of
subspaces or clusters. Specifically, for a band dataset in hyper-
spectral field, all band vectors constitute the high-dimensional
dataset, the number of bands N corresponds to the size of data
points, and the number of pixels D determines the dimension-
ality of high-dimensional space. We assume each point yi
RD1 lies in exactly one of the k linear spaces Cl . Hence, each
linear subspace Cl contains a cluster of unique Nl data points
and the number of points within subspace Cl , Nl is greater than
the subspace dimension size dl , i.e., for each subspace Cl , we
 Nl
have the cluster of data points Yl = yjl j=1 RDNl with
Nl > dl . This placement of N points into the k subspaces also
2786 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 8, NO. 6, JUNE 2015


k minimized using convex programming algorithms such as the
implies Nl = N . Accordingly, each data point yi RD1 interior point method [35], the basis pursuit algorithm [36], and
l=1
belonging to Cl can be represented as the alternating directions algorithm [37].
Sparse matrix Z is then utilized to construct the similarity
yi = y1l 1l + y2l 2l + yjl jl + yN
l
l
l Nl
matrix W for inferring the segmentation of all data points into
l different subspaces. The matrix W can be regarded as an undi-
1
2l rected weighted graph, where each entry Wij represents the
weight of the edges between pairwise points yi and yj . The SSC
..
 l l 
= y1 y2 yjl yN l . method utilizes the l1 -directed graph construction (DGC) mea-
l l
j surement to guarantee the symmetrization of weights between
. pairwise points yi and yj . The DGC measurement is performed
..
l as follows:
N l
|Zij | + |Zji |
= Yl l , jl = 0 if yi = yjl (1) Wij = (5)
2
where l RNl 1 and Y l are the coefficient vector and dic- After
where |Zij | is the absolute value of the entry Zij in Z.
tionary of yi , respectively. The constraint jl = 0 if yi = yjl constructing the similarity matrix W, the SSC uses spectral
in (1) is to avoid the trivial solution of reconstructing point yi clustering [33] to cluster all data points into their underlying
as a linear combination
 k of itself. If we combine all the cluster subspaces.
dictionaries Yl l=1 , the point yi can be represented using

yi = Y 1 1 + Y 2 2 + + Y k k
1 III. BAND S ELECTION OF HSI DATASET U SING ISSC

 1 2  2 In this section, the band selection method using ISSC

= Y Y Yk . = Ai (2) is described. Section III-A presents sparse representa-
..
tions of each band vector through solving the l2 -norm.
k
Section III-B describes the construction of the similarity
  matrix using our proposed angular similarity measurement.
where = Y1 Y2 Yk RDN is the arrangement of
Section III-C explains the appropriate estimation of band clus-
k cluster dictionaries and Ai RN 1 is the coefficient vector
ters using the DC plot algorithm and shows how to select
from all data points. Assume that Y = , T = T = I,
an appropriate band subset using spectral clustering. Finally,
where is the permutation matrix of all cluster dictionaries,
Section III-D summarizes our band selection method using
when combining all N data points into a matrix format by
ISSC.
placing points in individual columns, (2) can be transformed
into

Y = YZ, diag (Z) = 0
where Z = T [A1 A2 AN ] RN N is the coefficient
matrix of all data points and diag(Z) is the vector of diago-
nal entries in Z. The constraint diag(Z) = 0 is to eliminate the
trivial solution that each data points is simply a linear combi-
nation of itself. The ideal solution of (3) finds a set data points
from a single subspace where the number of nonzero entries
of yi coincides with the dimensionality of this subspace. The
ideal solution guarantees that the coefficient matrix Z is sparse
or block diagonal and could benefit the correct segmentation of
all data points into separate subspaces.
The solution Z of (3) can be regarded as the optimization
problem of minimizing the following objection function:
= arg minZ ,
Z q subject to Y = YZ and diag(Z) = 0
(4)
where Zq represents the lq -norm of Z defined as Zq  =
 1
N N q q
i=1 j=1 |Z ij | . The l0 -norm minimization counts the
number of nonzero entries in Z and can be solved using the
smoothed L0 algorithm [34]. The l1 -norm can be efficiently
(3) A. Sparse Representations of Band Vectors Using L2-Norm
N
Consider a collection of HSI band vectors Y = {yi }i=1
DN
R that are drawn from a union of orthogonal subspaces
k
{Cl }l=1 , where D is the dimension of high-dimensional space
and is equal to the number of pixels in the image scene, N is the
number of bands with N << D, and k is the number of band
clusters (i.e., the number of underlying subspaces). Each band
vector yi is contaminated with Gaussian noise and is sparsely
represented by other band vectors as follows:
yi = YZi + e, Zii = 0 (6)
where Zi = [Zi,1 Zi,2 Zi,N ]T is the coefficient vector of
band vector yi , and e is the error term with a bounded norm. The
error in (6) results from noises in band vectors and the approx-
imation errors in sparse representation by other band vectors.
We combine all the band vectors by placing them column by
column to achieve the following matrix format:
Y = YZ + E, diag(Z) = 0 (7)
where Z = [Z1 Z2 ZN ] and E = [e1 e2 eN ] are the
sparse coefficient matrix and error matrix of all band vectors,
SUN et al.: BAND SELECTION USING ISSC FOR HSI CLASSIFICATION 2787

respectively. Like (4), (7) can be solved by optimizing the where [Z] i = (YT Y + I)1 YT yi is the ith column
i i i
following problem: of desired optimal solution Z and i = y T yi +
i
= arg minZ ,
Z subject to Y YZ yiT Yi (YiT Yi + I)1 YiT yi . We then substitute the
q  1
equation T (YT Y + I)1 = T (YT Y + I) into
and diag(Z) = 0 (8)
(11) resulting from the property of matrix , and the
where is the norm bound of the error. When choosing q = 1, optimal solution is achieved as Z = (YT Y + I)1
T 1 1 = 0.
the optimization problem (9) can be transformed into the well- (diag((Y Y + I) )) , where diag(Z)
known lasso problem [38]
= arg min Y YZ2 + Z , subject to diag(Z) = 0
Z B. Angular Similarity Measurement Between Sparse
2 1
(9) Coefficient Band Vectors
where Z1 denotes the l1 -norm of the matrix Z, Z1 = After solving problem (10), the ISSC constructs the similar-
N  N ity matrix W using the sparse coefficient matrix Z of all band
i=1 j=1 |Zij | and > 0 is a scalar regularization param-
eter that balances the weight of the error terms and the sparsity vectors. The similarity matrix can be regarded as an undirected
of the coefficient matrix. The assumption of underlying sub- weighted graph G = (V, W), where Vij V represents the
spaces in all band vectors guarantees that the l1 -norm achieves edge between pairwise bands yi and yj , and the weight Wij
a sparse and block diagonal coefficient matrix for further seg- W measures the similarity between sparse representations of
mentation. However, the extremely high intra-band correlations pairwise band vectors yi and yj . The DGC similarity mea-
may cause the sparse representations of band vectors to select surement in SSC assumes that the nonzero entries of sparse
coefficient vector Z i reflect the closeness or similarity with
only one band at random [39], which would bring about the
too sparse solution of problem (9) by segmenting the within- other bands from the same subspace, since the ideal similar-
cluster bands into different subspaces. Therefore, we relax (7) ity matrix has only edges between pairwise band vectors from
by optimizing the following l2 - norm problem: the same subspace [33]. Some authors have proposed relevant
measurements to improve the performance of the DGC similar-
= arg min YYZ2 + Z2 ,
Z subject to diag(Z) = 0 ity measurement, such as the sparsity induced similarity [43]
2 2
(10) and the nonnegative sparsity induced similarity [44]. The above
measurements utilize individual sparse coefficients to compute
where Z2 represents the l2 -norm (the Frobenius norm) of the weights of two bands. However, the local similarity repre-
 1
N N 2 2 sented by sparse coefficients cannot describe the true similarity
matrix Z, Z2 = i=1 j=1 Zij . It has been proved that
between two bands because sparse coefficients from real-world
both the orthogonal subspace assumption of band vectors and
HSI dataset are sensitive to noise and outliers [45].
the l2 -norm of matrix Z can guarantee the optimal solution in
We present an angular similarity (AS) measurement using
problem (10) is both sparse and block diagonal even if the band
the angular information between two sparse coefficient band
numbers N is smaller than the dimension of high-dimensional
vectors. The AS measurement assumes that sparse represen-
space D (i.e., insufficient data sampling with N << D) [40].
tations of two similar bands from the same subspace should
Moreover, the optimal solution in problem (10) is proven to
have a small angle between the two of them since both of them
have a grouping effect with intra-band correlation dependent
are sparsely represented in a similar combination using other
band vectors, and this grouping effect can segment highly cor-
bands. For each pairwise sparse coefficient vectors Zi and Zj
related band vectors [41]. Therefore, the optimal solution of
that represent coefficient vectors of yi and yj , respectively, the
problem (10) can minimize the intra-cluster affinities of band
AS similarity measurement is defined as follows:
vectors and capture the correlation structure of band vectors
from the same orthogonal subspace for correct clustering. 2
In this paper, we utilize the least squares regression (LSR)
Zi Zj
WASij =  2  2 (12)
[41] algorithm to solve the optimization problem (10). Let    
Yi = Y\yi = [y1 y2 yi1 yi+1 yN ] be the remaining Z i  Z j 
column set of Y after removing the column yi , and let Ei = 2
(YiT Yi + I)1 and Y = [Yi yi ], where is the per- where denotes the inner product of two band vectors and 
mutation  matrix with T = T = I. The LSR factorizes is the norm of the vector. The use of the squaring operation
T T 1 in (12) is to guarantee a positive value for each WASij and to
matrix (Y Y + I) to achieve the optimal solution
using the Woodbury formula [42]
Z, increase the separability of sparse band vectors from different
 T 1 subspaces. By computing all combinations of columns indexes
 T T 1 Yi Yi + I YiT yi and row indexes using (12), the similarity matrix W is found
(Y Y + I) =
yiT Yi yiT yi + for further clustering.
 T 
(Yi Yi + I)1 0
=
0 0 C. Band Clustering With an Appropriate Cluster Number
 T

[Z] [Z]
i [Z] i
+ i i (11) When constructing the similarity matrix, the spectral clus-
T
[Z] 1
i tering algorithm is utilized to segment the weighted graph into
2788 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 8, NO. 6, JUNE 2015

k clusters. However, a difficult problem is how to estimate an

appropriate number k of band clusters, because the k signifi-
cantly affects the clustering result of band vectors. In general,
the cluster number k is arbitrarily determined with estima-
tion. However, a too small k would divide highly correlated
bands into other different subspaces and render an error-prone
band subset. In contrast, a too large k would bring about too
much computational burden for further classification of HSI
dataset. To address these problems, a variety of methods have
been proposed to help estimate an appropriate k and can be
classified into two main classes, the posterior method and the
prior method. The posterior method tests all possible num-
ber of clusters and then selects an appropriate cluster number
using defined criteria such as the over information-theoretic
criterion [46], the gap statistic criterion [47], and the mini-
mum description length criterion [48]. The posterior method is
computationally expensive, and all candidate numbers of clus-
ters have to be tested explicitly. In contrast, the prior method
estimates the cluster number before implementing spectral clus-
tering. Prior methods include the Eigen-gap heuristic algorithm
[49] and the edge based-algorithm [50].
Since the similarity matrix W is ideally sparse and block
diagonal, we introduce a DC plot algorithm [51] to estimate the Fig. 1. Band selection using ISSC.
appropriate number k of band clusters. The algorithm uses a
nonparametric estimate of the probability density function of
the band dataset and determines the appropriate number k of corresponding band vectors are segmented into their underly-
band clusters through analyzing the DC of sparse representa- ing subspaces. 4) The band whose corresponding row vectors
tions of band vectors in the kernel space constructed by the in Uk is closest to the mean vector (i.e., the vector of the cen-
k
AS measurement. The DC measurement of all clusters uses an troid) of its cluster {Cl }l=1 in terms of Euclidean distance is
eigenvalue decomposition of the similarity matrix as follows: chosen as an element of the band subset for HSI dataset and
hence the appropriate band subset from ISSC is achieved.
 N
  2
DC = p(Z) 1T W1N =
dZ i 1TN ui (13)
N

Z i=1
D. Summary of Band Selection Using ISSC
In the above three sections, we provided three improvements
where 1N is a N 1 dimensional vector that contains all ones, of the classical SSC when implementing band selection on a
W is the similarity matrix, and i and ui are the ith eigenvalues HSI dataset. 1) We set the lq -norm problem in (5) to the l2 -norm
and eigenvectors of W, respectively. The appropriate

 cluster problem to achieve sparse representations of each band vector
2  using the LSR algorithm. The l2 -norm guarantees the coeffi-
number is obtained by analyzing the plot of log i 1TN ui
cient matrix is both sparse and block diagonal and can also
against i. The logarithm value rather than the direct value of
 2 minimize the between-cluster similarity for correct segmenta-
i 1TN ui is used to better explain large shifts of the plot at tion of band vectors. 2) The AS measurement improves the
i = 1 and also to smooth the DC data. The logarithm plot is performance of the similarity matrix constructed with the DGC
additionally smoothed using the average filter of size 3 since measurement. The AS measurement considers the overall sim-
the log-likelihood function is sensitive to variance in the data. ilarity between two sparse coefficient band vectors rather than
The number corresponding to the elbow of the logarithm plot only the similarity between isolated sparse coefficients. 3) We
is then selected as the appropriate number k. use the DC plot algorithm to estimate an appropriate number k
Given the appropriate cluster size k of band vectors, spec- of band clusters to avoid errors caused from variance in data.
tral clustering then implements band selection in the following The process of band selection using the ISSC is shown in Fig. 1
four stages: 1) The symmetric normalized Laplacian matrix and is implemented in the following five steps.
Lsym is built from the similarity matrix W using Lsym = 1) The HSI imagery is transformed from a data cube into
D1/2 WD1/2 , where D is a diagonal matrix constructed two-dimensional (2-D) band dataset Y RDN , where
with the diagonal entries of W. 2) The first k eigenvectors D and N are the dimension of band vectors (i.e., the
Uk = [u1 u2 uk ] RN k are found through a singular number of pixels) and the number of bands, respectively.
value decomposition of the Laplacian matrix Lsym and each 2) Sparse representations of band vectors are constructed
row vector Hi of Uk is normalized to norm 1 using Hij = using the LSR algorithm by solving the optimization
 2 1/2
uij / . 3) Row vectors in normalized Uk are clus- problem (10) and sparse coefficient matrix Z of band
k uik
tered into k clusters using the K-means algorithm, and the vectors is found.
SUN et al.: BAND SELECTION USING ISSC FOR HSI CLASSIFICATION
TABLE I
C ONTRAST IN C OMPUTATIONAL C OMPLEXITY B ETWEEN ISSC AND S IX
OTHER BAND S ELECTION M ETHODS
3) The similarity matrix W is found with the AS mea-
surement in (12), where each entry of W represents
the similarity between pairwise sparse coefficient band
vectors.
4) The appropriate number k of band clusters is estimated
using the DC plot algorithm in (13). Spectral clustering is
then used to segment the similarity matrix into separate
clusters.
5) The bands nearest to the centroid of their cluster are then
the desired band subset using ISSC.
In ISSC, the computational complexity of sparse representa-
tions of all band vectors using LSR is O(N 2 D), the computa-
tional complexity in constructing the angular similarity matrix
is O(N 2 ), and the computational complexity of clustering
bands with the appropriate number is O(kN t), where D and N
are the dimension of the band vectors and the number of bands,
respectively, and k and t represent the number of band clus-
ters and iterations, respectively. Therefore, the total complexity
of ISSC roughly equals O(N 2 D + N 2 + kN t). Considering
the fact that O(N 2 D) dominates O(N 2 ) and O(kN t), the
complexity of ISSC is approximately O(N 2 D). We com-
pare the complexity of ISSC with six other state-of-the-art
band selection methods. We test two MIMC approaches, linear
constrained minimum variance-based band correlation con-
straint (LCMV-BCC) [17] and AP [52], two MIS approaches,
SID [20] and maximum-variance principal component analy-
sis (MVPCA) [53], and two SB approaches, SpaBS [27] and
SNMF [30]. The comparison in computational complexity of all
seven methods is listed in Table I, where K denotes the sparsity
level of SpaBS. Since N 2 < D, N 2 D < D2 << D2 N , and
K < k << N << D, we deduce that the computational com-
plexity of ISSC is lower than that of AP, MVPCA, SpaBS, and
LCMV-BCC but higher than that of SID. Moreover, the SpaBS
has the highest computational complexity among all the meth-
ods, whereas LCMV-BCC has the second highest computa-
tional complexity. In addition, the computational complexity of
AP is higher than that of the other four methods SID, MVPCA,
SNMF, and ISSC. In summary, ISSC has a lower computational
complexity among all seven band selection methods.
IV. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS AND A NALYSIS
In this section, four groups of experiments on three famous
HSI datasets are implemented in order to testify our pro-
posed ISSC method when selecting an appropriate band subset.
Section IV-A describes the relevant information of the three
2789
Fig. 2. Image of Indian Pines dataset.
HSI datasets Indian Pines, Pavia University (PaviaU), and
Urban datasets. Section IV-B lists the detailed results from the
four groups of experiments, and Section IV-C analyzes and
discusses the experimental results from Section IV-B.
A. Descriptions of Three HSI Datasets
The first dataset is Indian Pines from the Multispectral
Image Data Analysis System Group at Purdue University
(https://engineering.purdue.edu/~biehl/MultiSpec/aviris_docum
entation.html). The dataset was acquired by NASA on June
12, 1992 using the AVIRIS sensor from JPL. The dataset
has 20 m spatial resolutions and 10 nm spectral resolutions
covering a spectrum range of 2002400 nm. A subset of the
image scene of size 145 145 pixels depicted in Fig. 2 is
used in our experiment and covers an area of 6 miles west of
West Lafayette, Indiana. The dataset was preprocessed with
radiometric corrections and bad band removal, and afterward
200 bands remained with calibrated data values proportional
to radiances. Sixteen classes of ground objects exist in the
image scene, and the ground truth for both training and testing
samples for each class is listed in Table II.
The second is Pavia University (PaviaU) dataset taken from
the Computational Intelligence Group in the Basque University
(http://www.ehu.es/ccwintco/index.php/Hyperspectral_Remote
_Sensing_Scenes). The dataset was achieved from ROSIS sen-
sor with 1.3 m spatial resolutions and 115 bands. After
removing low signal to noise ratio (SNR) bands, 103 bands
were left for further analysis. The small subset of the larger
dataset shown in Fig. 3 is used in our experiments. The test
dataset contains 350 340 pixels and covers the area of Pavia
University. The image scene has nine classes of ground objects
including shadows, and the ground truth information of training
and testing samples in each class is listed in Table III.
The third dataset is the Urban dataset acquired from the U.S.
Army Geospatial Center (www.tec.army.mil/hypercube). The
dataset was collected by a HYDICE sensor with 10 nm spec-
tral resolution and 2 m spatial resolutions. The low SNR band
sets [14, 76, 87, 101111, 136153, 198210] were eliminated
from the initial 210 bands, leaving the final 162 bands. Fig. 4
shows a small image subset of size 307 307 pixels selected
from the larger image. The small dataset covers an area at
Copperas Cove near Fort Hood, TX, USA, and has 22 classes of
ground objects in the image scene. Table IV shows the ground
truth information for training and testing samples in each class.
2790 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 8, NO. 6, JUNE 2015
TABLE II
G ROUND T RUTH OF T RAINING AND T ESTING S AMPLES IN E ACH C LASS FOR I NDIAN P INES DATASET
Fig. 3. Image of PaviaU dataset.
B. Experimental Results
We conduct four groups of experiments using three HSI
datasets above to test the performance of our ISSC method
in selecting an appropriate band subset for classification. Six
state-of-the-art methods in band selection are used to make
holistic comparisons with our methods, including two MIMC
approaches LCMV-BCC and AP, two MIS approaches SID and
MVPCA, and two SB approaches SpaBS and SNMF. First, we
quantify the band selection performance of ISSC and compare
the results with those of the other six methods. The experi-
ment assesses the performance of the ISSC in band selection
before classification. Second, we compare the computational
time of ISSC against six other band selection methods when
varying the size of band subset k. The experiment investigates
the computational performance of ISSC. Third, we compare
the classification accuracies of ISSC against that of the six
other methods. Two widely used classifiers are used in the
experiment, K-nearest neighbor (KNN) [54] and support vector
machine (SVM) [55] classifiers. The overall classification accu-
racy (OCA) and average classification accuracy (ACA) is used
to measure the classification performance of all seven meth-
ods in the experiment. The KNN classifier uses the Euclidean
distance, and the SVM classifier uses the radial basis func-
tion (RBF) kernel function with the variance parameter and
the penalization factor obtained via cross-validation. For each
dataset, we repeatedly subsample the training samples and test-
ing samples ten times. Finally, we investigate the relationships
between the scalar parameter in ISSC and the classifica-
tion accuracies. The experiment helps to determine a proper
when using ISSC in real-world applications of HSI classifica-
tion. The following experimental results without specific nota-
tions are the average results of ten different and independent
experiments.
1) Quantitative Evaluation of the ISSC Band Subset: The
experiment evaluates the band selection results obtained before
classification from ISSC and other six methods using three
quantitative measures. We use the average information entropy
(AIE) to measure the information amount and to evaluate the
richness of spectrum information in the band subset. We com-
pute the average correlation coefficient (ACC) to estimate the
intra-band correlations in the band subset. The average relative
entropy (ARE) (also called average KullbackLeibler diver-
gence, AKLD) is used to measure the inter-separabilities of
selected bands and assess the distinguishability within the band
subset for classification. We use the three above quantitative
measures because they measure the three desired performance
characteristic of selecting an appropriate band subset having
high information amount, low intra-band correlations, and high
inter-separabilities in the band subset. In the experiment, the
appropriate size of band subset k (i.e., the number of bands in
the subset) is estimated using the DC plot algorithm and is then
set as the dimension of band subset for all the methods. The k in
Indian Pines dataset is 12, the k in PaviaU dataset is 10, and the
k in Urban dataset is 20. In the SNMF method, the parameter
that controls the entry size of dictionary matrix and the param-
eter that determines the sparseness of coefficient matrix are
determined using cross-validation and the optimal and hav-
ing the best result are selected. For the Indian Pines dataset,
the and of SNMF are chosen as 3.0 and 0.05, respec-
tively, and the scalar parameter in ISSC chosen to be 0.1
after cross-validation. In the PaviaU dataset, the and are
4.0 and 0.001, respectively, and the is 0.001. The , , and
in Urban dataset are 3.5, 0.01, and 0.05, respectively. The iter-
ation time t for the learning dictionary in SpaBS is manually
set as 5 for all three datasets. Table V lists detailed information
about the parameters of the above seven methods on the three
HSI datasets.
Table VI illustrates the quantitative evaluation results of all
the methods on the three HSI datasets. For the Indian Pines
dataset, the ISSC has the highest AIE and ARE, whereas SNMF
has the second lowest ACC since the ACC of SNMF. The
SUN et al.: BAND SELECTION USING ISSC FOR HSI CLASSIFICATION
TABLE III
G ROUND T RUTH OF T RAINING AND T ESTING S AMPLES IN E ACH C LASS FOR PAVIAU DATASET
Fig. 4. Image of Urban dataset.
SID and MVPCA behave worse due to their higher ACC and
lower AIE and ARE. For the PaviaU dataset, the ISSC performs
best among all the methods for all three quantitative measures.
When comparing four other methods with ISSC excluded, the
SID and MVPCA show higher ACC and lower AIE and ARE;
therefore, the band subset of the two methods have poorer
performance than that of the two other methods. The ISSC per-
formance in the Urban dataset has the highest AIE and lowest
ACC, and ARE of the ISSC is the second only to that of SNMF.
The SID performance on the Urban dataset was similar to its
performance on the Pavia U dataset. It again performed worse
than the other methods in the three quantitative measures.
2) Computational Performance of ISSC: The experiment
tests the computational speed performance of ISSC and the
other six methods when varying the sizes of band subset k. For
the Indian pines dataset, k is set between 6 and 24 with a step
interval of 6; k in PaviaU dataset is set between 5 and 25 with
a step interval of 5; and k in Urban dataset is set between 10
and 40 with a step interval of 10. Other parameters in all the
seven methods are the same as their counterparts in the previ-
ous experiment. Table V details parameter configurations of all
the methods.
We run the experiment on a Windows 7 computer with Inter
i7-4700 Quad Core Processor and 16 GB of RAM. Both the
ISSC and the other six methods algorithms are implemented in
MATLAB 2014a. Table VII shows the comparisons in the com-
putations times of the seven methods on the three HSI datasets.
For each HSI dataset, the computational times of all the meth-
ods gradually increase with increasing k. The SpaBS takes
the longest computational times among all the methods. The
LCMV-BCC has a shorter computational time than SpaBS but
is still slower than the other five methods. The computational
time of AP is longer than those of MVPCA, SID, SNMF, and
2791
ISSC, and the computational time of SNMF is longer than those
of MVPCA, ISSC, and SID. The MVPCA has longer computa-
tional time than SID and ISSC. The computational time of SID
is shorter than that of ISSC and has the shortest computational
time among all the methods. We found that these computational
times coincide with the analysis of computational complexity
of all the methods in Section III-D. The computational times in
increasing order of all the seven methods are as follows: SID,
ISSC, MVPCA, SNMF, AP, LCMV-BCC, and SpaBS.
3) Classification Performance of ISSC: This experiment
measures the classification performance of the ISSC method.
Our aim is to make holistic evaluations in classification perfor-
mance by varying the size of band subset k rather than using a
certain predefined band number. As we did in the above exper-
iments, we compare classification accuracies using the OCA
and ACA. For each dataset, we repeatedly subsample the train-
ing samples and testing samples ten times to achieve accurate
classification accuracies. In the experiment, the size of band
subset k in Indian Pines dataset varies from 2 to 45 with a step
interval of 2, and the size of band subset k in PaviaU dataset
and Urban datasets vary between 2 and 50 with a step interval
of 2. The neighbor size k1 in the KNN classifier is set as 3, and
the threshold of total distortion in the SVM classifier is set as
0.01. Using cross-validation, the and in SNMF of PaviaU
dataset are chosen as 3.0 and 0.1, respectively, the and in
Urban dataset are chosen as 4.0 and 1.5, respectively; and the
and in Urban dataset are chosen as 3.5 and 0.05, respectively.
Other parameters are the same as their counterparts in the above
experiments. Table V details parameter configurations of all the
methods.
Fig. 5 illustrates the OCA results of all seven methods using
the SVM and KNN classifiers on the three datasets. We did not
list the ACA results because of the similarity between the ACA
curve and the OCA curve. For each dataset and each classifier,
the OCA is small for band number k less than 5 and the OCA
rises with increasing k. The OCA changes slowly after a cer-
tain threshold of the band number k and most curves become
almost flat with slight fluctuations. The SID with each classi-
fier and each HSI dataset always has the lowest value among all
the methods. For each dataset using KNN and SVM classifiers,
ISSC outperforms the other six methods after a certain thresh-
old k. The OCA results of ISSC are the best among all the seven
methods.
Moreover, we found that the threshold k for the ISSC curves
of each dataset is located around the appropriate band num-
ber estimated by the DC plot algorithm. Therefore, using the
appropriate band number k from the DC plot algorithm, we
2792 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 8, NO. 6, JUNE 2015

TABLE IV
G ROUND T RUTH OF T RAINING AND T ESTING S AMPLES IN E ACH C LASS FOR U RBAN DATASET

TABLE V
L ISTS OF PARAMETERS IN A LL THE E XPERIMENTS ON THE T HREE HSI DATASETS

TABLE VI
C ONTRAST IN Q UANTITATIVE E VALUATION OF BAND S UBSETS FROM A LL S EVEN M ETHODS ON THE T HREE DATASETS
SUN et al.: BAND SELECTION USING ISSC FOR HSI CLASSIFICATION 2793

TABLE VII
C OMPUTATIONAL T IMES OF S EVEN BAND S ELECTION M ETHODS U SING D IFFERENT C HOICES OF K ON THREE HSI DATASETS

Fig. 5. OCA results of all the seven methods on the three HSI datasets. (a), (c), and (e): SVM; (b), (d), (f): KNN.

make detailed comparisons in the OCA and ACA results of
all the methods on the three datasets. As in experiment 1), the
appropriate band number k in Indian Pines dataset is 12, the
k in PaviaU dataset is 10, and the k in Urban dataset is 20.
Table VIII shows that the ISSC has the best classification accu-
racies for all three datasets using different classifiers, that the
AP behaves better than SID and MVPCA in classification, and
that the SID has the worst performance of all the method. The
above observations further support the results in Fig. 5.
4) Effect From the Scalar Parameter on the Sensitivity of
Classification Accuracy: The experiment explores the effect
from the scalar parameter in ISSC on the OCA and ACA
results of three HSI datasets when varying from smaller to
larger values. Since the spectral values have similar magnitudes
2794 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 8, NO. 6, JUNE 2015

TABLE VIII
C LASSIFICATION ACCURACIES OF A LL THE M ETHODS U SING AN A PPROPRIATE S IZE OF BAND S UBSET ON T HREE DATASETS

TABLE IX
E FFECT F ROM S CALAR PARAMETER IN ISSC ON C LASSIFICATION ACCURACIES OF THE T HREE DATA HSI DATASETS

in all three datasets, we vary the scalar parameter in all three
datasets from 0.001 and 100, and choose the test candidates
from the set [0.0001, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 50, 100].
We did not investigate the effect of in classification with
a certain step interval value because the scale of the param-
eter is too large to make detailed analysis. As in experiment
3), the sizes of the ISSC band subset on the three datasets are
estimated using the DC plot algorithm. The band number k in
Indian Pines dataset is 12, the k in PaviaU dataset is 10, and
the k in Urban dataset is 20. Other parameter configurations
in the experiment are the same as their counterparts in exper-
iment 3) and the detailed parameter settings in the experiment
are listed in Table V.
Table IX shows the OCA and ACA results of ISSC using
different classifiers and different HSI datasets. For all three
datasets, we observe that when increasing the scalar parame-
ter , the classification accuracies of ISSC gradually decrease
with small fluctuations. Moreover, the OCA and ACA decrease
quickly for between 0.0001 and 1, whereas the decline in
OCA and ACA is much slower when is from 1 to 100.
This implies the scalar parameter has a great effect on
classification accuracy of the ISSC band subset for HSI dataset.
C. Analysis and Discussion
The above four groups of experiments on the three
HSI datasets test the performance of our ISSC method in
classification. ISSC is compared against the six popular band
selection methods LCMV-BCC, AP, SID, MVPCA, SpaBS, and
SNMF. The three quantitative measures of AIE, ACC, and ARE
show that the ISSC has the best performance among all seven
methods. The ISSC assumes that all bands lie in a union of
subspaces and that each band can be sparsely represented with
other bands from its subspace. The sparse and block diagonal
coefficient matrix found by solving the l2 -norm optimization
problem with LSR shows a grouping effect. Furthermore, the
optimization solution can guarantee subspace segmentation of
band vectors. The ISSC band subset has high intra-band sepa-
rabilities and low intra-band correlations and each band image
has high information amount. The ISSC satisfies the demands
of band subset selection and hence is an appropriate method for
selecting an appropriate band subset for classification. In con-
trast, the SID and MVPCA perform worse in the quantitative
evaluations and are poor choices for band selection.
The experiment in computational performance shows that the
ISSC has shorter computational times than those of LCMV-
BCC, AP, MVPCA, SpaBS, and SNMF. The SID has the
shortest computational times of all. The speed advantage of
SID is because SID only computes the diagonal entries of
the similarity matrix. The AP has longer computational times
than SID because it computes the entire similarity matrix of
band vectors rather than only computing the diagonal elements
of the similarity matrix. The longer computational times of
MVPCA are due to the computation in principal component
SUN et al.: BAND SELECTION USING ISSC FOR HSI CLASSIFICATION
analysis (PCA) transformation of HSI dataset. The lowest
computational speeds in SpaBS results from the huge com-
putational complexity of dictionary learning using the K-SVD
algorithm [56].
The experiment in classification performance compares clas-
sification accuracies of ISSC against those of six other methods
(LCMV-BCC, AP, SID, MVPCA, SpaBS, and SNMF). The
results show that SID has the worst performance in classi-
fication although its computational times are shortest. That
coincides with the conclusions in quantitative evaluations of
SID. Fortunately, when comparing the ACA and OCA of ISSC
against those of other methods, ISSC performs better than the
other six methods when using a cluster size obtained from the
DC plot algorithm. This implies the DC plot algorithm finds an
appropriate band number for selecting an appropriate band sub-
set and guarantee good performance of ISSC in HSI dataset
classification. Finally, the experiment on the effect from the
scalar parameter on the classification sensitivity of ISSC
shows that the ACA and OCA of ISSC decrease with increas-
ing . Therefore, a smaller scalar parameter is appropriate
for the ISSC when selecting an appropriate band subset, since
smaller parameter produce higher classification accuracies
and shorter computational times.
V. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
This paper proposes the ISSC method to select an appropriate
band subset from the HSI dataset. The ISSC assumes that each
band is drawn from a union of low-dimensional subspaces and
each band can be sparsely represented by other bands in its sub-
space. Our algorithm constructs a similarity matrix with sparse
coefficient band vectors. The appropriate band subset is then
selected from band clusters using the similarity matrix with
an appropriate band number found by the DC plot algorithm.
Four groups of experiments are designed and implemented to
completely investigate the performance of ISSC. First, the band
subset chosen by ISSC is quantitatively evaluated using the
AIE, ACC, and ARE measures. Its performance is compared
against the performance of the six popular methods LCMV-
BCC, AP, MVPCA, SID, SpaBS, and SNMF. The results show
that the ISSC band subset contains higher information amount,
lower intra-band correlations, and higher intra-band separabil-
ities. Second, the experiment in computational performance
illustrates that the ISSC has a shorter computational time than
do the other five methods (LCMV-BCC, AP, MVPCA, SpaBS,
and SNMF). Third, the experiment in classification perfor-
mance shows that classification accuracy of ISSC measured by
ACA and OCA is better than the six other methods when using
an appropriate number found by the DC plot algorithm. In short,
the ISSC achieves the best classification performance with the
second shortest computational time. In contrast, the SID proves
to be worse both in quantitative evaluation results and in classi-
fication accuracy. Finally, the experiment on the effect from the
scalar parameter on the sensitivity of classification accuracy
of HSI dataset shows that a choice of a small scalar parameter
leads to accurate classification. In the future, we will test our
ISSC method against more HSI datasets to further understand
its performance in real-world applications. Moreover, we will
2795
try the l0 -norm for the ISSC hoping to further ameliorate and
improve its classification performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the editor and referees for
their suggestions which improved this paper.
R EFERENCES
[1] B. Du and L. Zhang, A discriminative metric learning based anomaly
detection method, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 52, no. 11,
pp. 68446857, Nov. 2014.
[2] R. A. Garcia, P. R. Fearns, and L. I. McKinna, Detecting trend and
seasonal changes in bathymetry derived from HICO imagery: A case
study of Shark Bay, Western Australia, Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 147,
pp. 186205, 2014.
[3] L. Demarchi et al., Assessing the performance of two unsupervised
dimensionality reduction techniques on hyperspectral APEX data for high
resolution urban land-cover mapping, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote
Sens., vol. 87, pp. 166179, 2014.
[4] M. Alonzo, B. Bookhagen, and D. A. Roberts, Urban tree species map-
ping using hyperspectral and lidar data fusion, Remote Sens. Environ.,
vol. 148, pp. 7083, 2014.
[5] W. D. Hively et al., Use of airborne hyperspectral imagery to map soil
properties in tilled agricultural fields, Appl. Environ. Soil Sci., vol. 2011,
pp. 113, 2011.
[6] I. Herrmann et al., Ground-level hyperspectral imagery for detecting
weeds in wheat fields, Precis. Agric., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 637659, 2013.
[7] R. J. Murphy and S. T. Monteiro, Mapping the distribution of ferric iron
minerals on a vertical mine face using derivative analysis of hyperspectral
imagery (430970 nm), ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., vol. 75,
pp. 2939, 2013.
[8] N. Zabcic et al., Using airborne hyperspectral data to characterize the
surface pH and mineralogy of pyrite mine tailings, Int. J. Appl. Earth
Observ. Geoinf., vol. 32, pp. 152162, 2014.
[9] D. Scott, The curse of dimensionality and dimension reduction, in
Multivariate Density Estimation: Theory, Practice, and Visualization.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 1992, pp. 195217.
[10] A. Plaza et al., Dimensionality reduction and classification of hyperspec-
tral image data using sequences of extended morphological transforma-
tions, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 466479,
Mar. 2005.
[11] P. H. Hsu, Feature extraction of hyperspectral images using wavelet and
matching pursuit, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., vol. 62, no. 2,
pp. 7892, 2007.
[12] M. Pal and G. M. Foody, Feature selection for classification of hyper-
spectral data by SVM, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 48, no. 5,
pp. 22972307, May 2010.
[13] W. Sun et al., Nonlinear dimensionality reduction via the ENH-LTSA
method for hyperspectral image classification, IEEE J. Sel. Topics Appl.
Earth Observ. Remote Sens., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 375388, Feb. 2014.
[14] E. Arzuaga-Cruz, L. O. Jimenez-Rodriguez, and M. Velez-Reyes,
Unsupervised feature extraction and band subset selection techniques
based on relative entropy criteria for hyperspectral data analysis,
AeroSense, vol. 2003, pp. 462473, 2003.
[15] P. Bajcsy and P. Groves, Methodology for hyperspectral band selection,
Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 793802, 2004.
[16] B. Guo et al., Band selection for hyperspectral image classification using
mutual information, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 3, no. 4,
pp. 522526, Oct. 2006.
[17] C.-I. Chang and S. Wang, Constrained band selection for hyperspectral
imagery, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1575
1585, Jun. 2006.
[18] A. Martnez-Us et al., Clustering-based hyperspectral band selection
using information measures, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 45,
no. 12, pp. 41584171, Dec. 2007.
[19] S. Jia et al., Unsupervised band selection for hyperspectral imagery clas-
sification without manual band removal, IEEE J. Sel. Topics Appl. Earth
Observ. Remote Sens., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 531543, Apr. 2012.
[20] P. Mausel, W. Kramber, and J. Lee, Optimum band selection for super-
vised classification of multispectral data, Photogramm. Eng. Remote
Sens., vol. 56, pp. 5560, 1990.
2796 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 8, NO. 6, JUNE 2015
[21] Q. Du and H. Yang, Similarity-based unsupervised band selection for
hyperspectral image analysis, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 5,
no. 4, pp. 564568, Oct. 2008.
[22] W. Xia, B. Wang, and L. Zhang, Band selection for hyperspectral
imagery: A new approach based on complex networks, IEEE Geosci.
Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 12291233, Sep. 2013.
[23] Q. Du, Band selection and its impact on target detection and classifica-
tion in hyperspectral image analysis, in Proc. IEEE Workshop Adv. Tech.
Anal. Remotely Sens. Data, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Oct. 2728, 2003,
pp. 374377.
[24] H. Yang et al., An efficient method for supervised hyperspectral band
selection, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 138142,
Jan. 2011.
[25] Y. Zhang, B. Du, and L. Zhang, A sparse representation-based binary
hypothesis model for target detection in hyperspectral images, IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 13461354, Mar. 2015.
[26] Y. Chen, N. M. Nasrabadi, and T. D. Tran, Hyperspectral image classifi-
cation using dictionary-based sparse representation, IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 39733985, Oct. 2011.
[27] Y. Chen, N. M. Nasrabadi, and T. D. Tran, Sparse representation for
target detection in hyperspectral imagery, IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal
Process., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 629640, Jun. 2011.
[28] S. Li and H. Qi, Sparse representation based band selection for hyper-
spectral images, in Proc. 18th IEEE Int. Conf. Image Process. (ICIP),
Brussels, Belgium, Sep. 1114, 2011, pp. 26932696.
[29] J. M. Li and Y. T. Qian, Clustering-based hyperspectral band selection
using sparse nonnegative matrix factorization, J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. C,
vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 542549, 2011.
[30] Q. Du, J. M. Bioucas-Dias, and A. Plaza, Hyperspectral band selection
using a collaborative sparse model, in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote
Sens. Symp. (IGARSS), Munich, Germany, Jul. 2227, 2012, pp. 3054
3057.
[31] S. Chepushtanova, C. Gittins, and M. Kirby, Band selection in hyper-
spectral imagery using sparse support vector machines, in Proc. SPIE
DSS Conf., 2014, p. 90881F.
[32] E. Elhamifar and R. Vidal, Sparse subspace clustering, in Proc. IEEE
Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. (CVPR09), Miami, FL, USA, Jun.
2026, 2009, pp. 27902797.
[33] E. Elhamifar and R. Vidal, Sparse subspace clustering: Algorithm, the-
ory, and applications, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 35,
no. 11, pp. 27652781, Nov. 2013.
[34] U. Von Luxburg, A tutorial on spectral clustering, Statist. Comput.,
vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 395416, 2007.
[35] G. H. Mohimani, M. Babaie-Zadeh, and C. Jutten, Fast sparse rep-
resentation based on smoothed L0 norm, in Independent Component
Analysis and Signal Separation. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2007,
pp. 389396.
[36] K. Koh, S.-J. Kim, and S. P. Boyd, An interior-point method for large-
scale L1-regularized logistic regression, J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 8,
no. 8, pp. 15191555, 2007.
[37] S. S. Chen, D. L. Donoho, and M. A. Saunders, Atomic decomposition
by basis pursuit, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 3361, 1999.
[38] J. Yang and Y. Zhang, Alternating direction algorithms for L1-problems
in compressive sensing, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 250
278, 2011.
[39] R. Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso, J. Roy.
Stat. Soc. B, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 267288, 1996.
[40] H. Zou and T. Hastie, Regularization and variable selection via the
elastic net, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 301320, 2005.
[41] S. Wang et al., Efficient subspace segmentation via quadratic program-
ming, in Proc. 25th AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., San Francisco, CA, USA,
Aug. 711, 2011, pp. 519524.
[42] C.-Y. Lu et al., Robust and efficient subspace segmentation via least
squares regression, in Proc. 12th Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. Part VII,
Florence, Italy, Oct. 713, 2012, pp. 347360.
[43] G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations. Baltimore,
Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012.
[44] S. Yan and H. Wang, Semi-supervised learning by sparse representa-
tion, in Proc. SIAM Int. Conf. Data Min. (SDM09), Sparks, NV, USA,
Apr. 30/May 2, 2009, pp. 792801.
[45] Y. Gao, A. Choudhary, and G. Hua, A nonnegative sparsity induced sim-
ilarity measure with application to cluster analysis of spam images, in
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP), Dallas,
TX, USA, Mar. 1419, 2010, pp. 55945597.
[46] S. Wu, X. Feng, and W. Zhou, Spectral clustering of high-dimensional
data exploiting sparse representation vectors, Neurocomputing, vol. 135,
pp. 229239, 2014.
[47] S. Still and W. Bialek, How many clusters? An information-theoretic
perspective, Neural Comput., vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 24832506, 2004.
[48] R. Tibshirani, G. Walther, and T. Hastie, Estimating the number of clus-
ters in a data set via the gap statistic, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B, vol. 63, no. 2,
pp. 411423, 2001.
[49] M. Honarkhah and J. Caers, Classifying existing and generating new
training image patterns in kernel space, in Proc. 21st Stanford Center
Reservoir Forecast. Aliate Meeting (SCRF), Stanford University, CA,
USA, 2008, pp. 138.
[50] N. Bassiou, V. Moschou, and C. Kotropoulos, Speaker diarization
exploiting the eigengap criterion and cluster ensembles, IEEE Trans.
Audio Speech Lang. Process., vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 21342144, Nov. 2010.
[51] R. Patil and K. Jondhale, Edge based technique to estimate number of
clusters in k-means color image segmentation, in Proc. 3rd IEEE Int.
Conf. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. (ICCSIT), Beijing, China, Jul. 911,
2010, pp. 117121.
[52] M. Honarkhah and J. Caers, Stochastic simulation of patterns using
distance-based pattern modeling, Math. Geosci., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 487
517, 2010.
[53] Y. Qian, F. Yao, and S. Jia, Band selection for hyperspectral imagery
using affinity propagation, IET Comput. Vis., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 213222,
Dec. 2009.
[54] C.-I. Chang et al., A joint band prioritization and band-decorrelation
approach to band selection for hyperspectral image classification, IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 26312641, Nov. 1999.
[55] T. Cover and P. Hart, Nearest neighbor pattern classification, IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 2127, Jan. 1967.
[56] I. Steinwart and A. Christmann, Support Vector Machines. Berlin,
Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2008.
[57] R. Rubinstein, M. Zibulevsky, and M. Elad, Efficient implementation
of the K-SVD algorithm using batch orthogonal matching pursuit, CS
Technion, vol. 40, pp. 115, 2008.
Weiwei Sun received the B.S. degree in survey-
ing and mapping and the Ph.D. degree in cartog-
raphy and geographic information engineering from
Tongji University, Shanghai, China, in 2007 and
2013, respectively.
From 2011 to 2012, he was with the Department
of Applied Mathematics, University of Maryland
College Park, College Park, MD, USA, working
as a Visiting Scholar. He is currently an Assistant
Professor with Ningbo University, Ningbo, China,
and is also working as a Postdoc with the State Key
Laboratory for Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping, and Remote
Sensing (LIESMARS), Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. He has authored
more than 20 journal papers. His research interests include hyperspectral image
processing with manifold learning, anomaly detection, and target recognition
of remote sensing imagery using compressive sensing.
Liangpei Zhang (M06SM08) received the B.S.
degree in physics from Hunan Normal University,
Changsha, China, in 1982, the M.S. degree in optics
from the Xian Institute of Optics and Precision
Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xian,
China, in 1988, and the Ph.D. degree in photogram-
metry and remote sensing from Wuhan University,
Wuhan, China, in 1998.
He is currently the Head of the Remote Sensing
Division, State Key Laboratory of Information
Engineering in Surveying, Mapping, and Remote
Sensing, Wuhan University. He is also a Chang-Jiang Scholar Chair
Professor appointed by the Ministry of Education of China. He is currently a
Principal Scientist for the China State Key Basic Research Project (20112016)
appointed by the Ministry of National Science and Technology of China to lead
the remote sensing program in China. He has authored more than 310 research
papers. He is the holder of five patents. His research interests include hyper-
spectral remote sensing, high-resolution remote sensing, image processing, and
artificial intelligence.
SUN et al.: BAND SELECTION USING ISSC FOR HSI CLASSIFICATION
Dr. Zhang is an Executive Member (Board of Governor) of the China
National Committee of International GeosphereBiosphere Programme,
Executive Member of the China Society of Image and Graphics, etc. He reg-
ularly serves as a Co-Chair of the series SPIE Conferences on Multispectral
Image Processing and Pattern Recognition, Conference on Asia Remote
Sensing, and many other conferences. He edits several conference proceedings,
issues, and geoinformatics symposiums. He also serves as an Associate Editor
of the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON G EOSCIENCE AND R EMOTE S ENSING,
International Journal of Ambient Computing and Intelligence, International
Journal of Image and Graphics, International Journal of Digital Multimedia
Broadcasting, Journal of Geo-spatial Information Science, and Journal of
Remote Sensing.
Bo Du (M11SM15) received the B.S. degree in
engineering from Wuhan University, Wuhan, China,
in 2005, and the Ph.D. degree in photogrammetry
and remote sensing from the State Key Laboratory of
Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping, and
Remote sensing, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China, in
2010.
He is currently an Associate Professor with the
School of Computer, Wuhan University. His research
interests include pattern recognition, hyperspectral
image processing, and signal processing.
2797
Weiyue Li received the B.S. degree in geography
science from Shandong Normal University, Jinan,
China, in 2006, the M.S. degree in photogramme-
try and remote sensing from Liaoning Technical
University, Huludao, China, in 2010, and the Ph.D.
degree in cartography and geography information
engineering from Tongji University, Shanghai, China,
in 2014.
He is working as an Assistant Researcher with
the Institute of Urban Studies, Shanghai Normal
University, Shanghai, China. His research interests
include feature extraction of hyperspectral imagery and LiDAR data, and the
hazard analysis of landslide.
Yenming Mark Lai received the Ph.D. degree in
applied mathematics from the University of Maryland
College Park, College Park, MD, USA, in 2014.
He is working as a Postdoc with the Institute
for Computational Engineering and Sciences (ICES),
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
His research interests include manifold learning of
hyperspectral imagery and compressive sensing.