Endmember-Finding Algorithms: Comparative Studies and Analyses



Design and development of Endmember Extraction Algorithms (EEAs) was treated in great detail in Chaps. 7–11 of Chang (2013) where EEAs are grouped into four different categories—SiMultaneous EEAs (SM EEAs) in Chap.  7, SeQuential EEAs (SQ EEAs) in Chap.  8, Initialization Driven EEAs (ID-EEAs) in Chap.  9, and Random EEAs (REEAs) in Chap.  10—according to how endmembers are extracted. The premise of EEA is to assume the existence of endmembers in the data. As described in Chap.  3, Sects. and  5.3.2, if the data to be processed does not contain data sample vectors with pure signatures as endmembers, extracting something which does not exist is meaningless. Unfortunately, in reality this is generally true, that is, there is no guarantee for the presence of endmembers in the data. Therefore, using the term endmember extraction seems inappropriate. To address this issue, this book particularly uses the term of “Endmember Finding” to reflect real situations to deal with this dilemma where endmembers do not necessarily exist in the data. Under such circumstances, this book looks into a more practical manner to categorize algorithms in terms of how an algorithm is implemented and further partitions algorithms into two categories—Sequential EFAs in Chaps.  6 9 and Progressive EFAs in Chaps.  10 12—where the former produces all endmembers simultaneously in a sequential manner, while the latter produces endmembers one after another and one at a time in a progressive manner. For each category, four design rationales are considered as optimal criteria for finding endmembers, which are fully geometric-constrained-based approaches such as Simplex Volume Analysis (SVA) in Chap.  6 and Growing Simplex Volume Analysis (GSVA) in Chap.  10, partially geometric-constrained Convex Cone Volume (CCV)-based approaches, Convex Cone Volume Analysis (CCVA) in Chap.  7 and Growing Convex Cone Volume Analysis (GCCVA) in Chap.  11, geometric-unconstrained orthogonal projection-based approaches such as Causal Iterative Pixel Purity Index (C-IPPI) in Chap.  8 and Progressive Iterative Pixel Purity Index (P-IPPI) in Chap.  12 plus Fully Abundance Constrained Least Squares Error (LSE)-based Linear Spectral Mixture Analysis (LSMA) approaches in Chap.  9. Because each of these chapters is devoted to and focused on a specific subject, their chapter–chapter interconnections and interrelationships are not explored. This chapter is specifically included for this purpose to conduct comparative studies and analyses among various EFAs developed in previous chapters.


Dimensionality Reduction Independent Component Analysis Target Pixel Pixel Purity Index Endmember Extraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Boardman, J.W. 1994. Geometric mixture analysis of imaging spectrometry data. International Geoscience Remote Sensing Symposium 4: 2369–2371Google Scholar
  2. Chan, T.H., W.-K. Ma, C.-Y. Chi et al. 2009a. Hyperspectral unmixing from a convex analysis and optimization perspective. In: First Workshop on Hyperspectral Image and Signal Processing: Evolution in Remote Sensing, WHISPERS ‘09.Google Scholar
  3. Chan, T.-H., C.-Y. Chi, Y.-M. Huang, and W.-K. Ma. 2009b. A convex analysis-based minimum-volume enclosing simplex algorithm for hyperspectral unmxing. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 57(11): 4418–4432.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang, C.-I 1999. Least squares error theory for linear mixing problems with mixed pixel classification for hyperspectral imagery. In Recent Research Developments in Optical Engineering, vol. 2, ed. S.G. Pandalai, 241–268. Trivandrum: Research Signpost.Google Scholar
  5. Chang, C.-I 2003. Hyperspectral imaging: Techniques for spectral detection and classification. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, C.-I 2013. Hyperspectral data processing: algorithm design and analysis. New Jersey: Wiley. 2013.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, C.-I, and D. Heinz. 2000. Constrained subpixel detection for remotely sensed images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 38(3): 1144–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, C.-I, W. Xiong, and C.H. Wen. 2014. A theory of high order statistics-based virtual dimensionality for hyperspectrak imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 52(1): 188–208.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, C.-I, C.C. Wu, W. Liu, and Y.C. Ouyang. 2006. A growing method for simplex-based endmember extraction algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 44(10): 2804–2819.Google Scholar
  10. Chang, C.-I, S. Chakravarty, and C.-S. Lo. 2010a. Spectral feature probabilistic coding for hyperspectral signatures. IEEE Sensors Journal 10(3): 395–409.Google Scholar
  11. Chang, C.-I, X. Jiao, and Y. Du, and Chang, M.L. 2010b. A review of unsupervised hyperspectral target analysis. EURASIP Journal on Advanced in Signal Processing 2010: 26. doi: 10.1155/2010/503752. (Article ID 503752).Google Scholar
  12. Chang, C.-I, C.-C. Wu, and C.T. Tsai. 2011a. Random N-finder algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 20(3): 641–656.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang, C.-I, X. Jiao, Y. Du, and H.M. Chen. 2011b. Component-based unsupervised linear spectral mixture analysis for hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 49(11): 4123–4137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang, C.-I, C.H. Wen, and C.C. Wu. 2013. Relationship exploration among PPI, ATGP and VCA via theoretical analysis. International Journal of Computational Science and Engineering 8(4): 361–367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, S.-Y. 2014. Algorithm design and analysis for hyperspectral endmember finding. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltinore, MD, May 2014.Google Scholar
  16. Chen, S.-Y., Y. Wang, C.C. Wu, C. Liu, and C.-I Chang. 2014a. Real time causal processing of anomaly detection in hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronics Systems 50(2): 1511–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen, S.Y., D. Paylor, and C.-I Chang. 2014b. Anomaly discrimination in hyperspectral imagery. In Satellite Data Compression, Communication and Processing X (ST146), SPIE International Symposium on SPIE Sensing Technology + Applications, Baltimore, MD (May 5–9, 2014).Google Scholar
  18. Chen, S.Y., Y.C. Ouyang, and C.-I Chang. 2014c. Recursive unsupervised fully constrained least squares methods. In 2014 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Quebec Canada (July 13–18, 2014).Google Scholar
  19. Craig, M.D. 1994. Minimum-volume transforms for remotely sensed data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 32(3): 542–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Du, Q., N. Raksuntorn, and N.H. Younan. 2008a. Variants of N-FINDR algorithm for endmember extraction. In Proceedings of SPIE (vol. 7109, 71090G-7–1090G-8, September 15–18, 2008).Google Scholar
  21. Du, Q., N. Raksuntorn, N.H. Younan, and R.L. King. 2008b. Endmember extraction algorithms for hyperspectral image analysis. Applied Optics 47(28): F77–F84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heinz, D., and C.-I Chang. 2001. Fully constrained least squares linear mixture analysis for material quantification in hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 39(3): 529–545.Google Scholar
  23. Honeine, P. and C. Richard. 2012. Geometric unmixing of large hyperspectral images: a barycentric coordinate approach. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 50(4): 2185–2195.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, D.D., and N.S. Seung. 1999. Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization. Science 401(21): 788–791.Google Scholar
  25. Miao, L., and H. Qi. 2007. Endmember extraction from highly mixed data using minimum volume constrained nonnegative matrix factorization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 45(3): 765–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nascimento, J.M.P., and J.M. Bioucas-Dias. 2005. Vertex component analysis: a fast algorithm to unmix hyperspectral data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 43(4): 898–910.Google Scholar
  27. Neville, R.A., K. Staenz, T. Szeredi, J. Lefebvre, and P. Hauff. 1999. Automatic endmember extraction from hyperspectral data for mineral exploration. In: Proceedings of 4th International Airborne Remote Sensing Conference and Exhibition/21st Canadian Symposium on remote Sensing, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (June 1999, 21–24).Google Scholar
  28. Pauca, V.P., J. Piper, and R.J. Plemmons. 2006. Nonnegative matrix factorization for spectral data analysis. Linear Algebra and Its Application 416(1): 29–47.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Plaza, A., and C.-I Chang. 2006. Impact of initialization on design of endmember extraction algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 44(11): 3397–3407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ren, H., and C.-I Chang. 2003. Automatic spectral target recognition in hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 39(4): 1232–1249.Google Scholar
  31. Wang, J., and C.-I Chang. 2006a. Independent component analysis-based dimensionality reduction with applications in hyperspectral image analysis. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 44(6): 1586–1600.Google Scholar
  32. Wang, J., and C.-I Chang. 2006b. Applications of independent component analysis in endmember extraction and abundance quantification for hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 44(9): 2601–2616.Google Scholar
  33. Winter, M.E. 1999a. Fast autonomous spectral endmember determination in hyperspectral data. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Applied Geologic Remote Sensing, Vancouver, B.C., Canada (vol. II, 337–344).Google Scholar
  34. Winter, M.E. 1999b. N-finder: an algorithm for fast autonomous spectral endmember determination in hyperspectral data. In: Image Spectrometry V, Proceedings of SPIE 3753 (266–277).Google Scholar
  35. Wu, C.C., G.S. Huang, K.H. Liu, and C.-I Chang. 2013. Real-time progressive band processing of modified fully abundance-constrained spectral unmixing. In IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Melbourne, Australia (July 21–26, 2013).Google Scholar
  36. Xiong, W., C.T. Tsai., C.W. Yang, and C.-I Chang. 2010. Convex cone-based endmember extraction for hyperspectral imagery. SPIE, vol. 7812, San Diego, CA, August 2–5, 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations