. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Sep 1.

Published in final edited form as: Mach Vis Appl. 2012 Sep 1;23(5):1047–1058. doi: 10.1007/s00138-011-0349-5

Table 7.

Same comparisons as Table 6 using the SVM classifier, illustrating that the effect of EPP on classification is not classifier-dependent.

Set	ℒ ₂	SBP(ℒ₂)	SP(ℒ₂)	ITF1(ℒ₂)	ITF2(ℒ₂)	ITF3(ℒ₂)
Pollen	85.5	92.8	94.5	95.3	88.1	94.1
CHO	88.2	93.1	44.8	97.0	96.0	97.5
HeLa	77.5	82.8	83.7	89.5	80.1	90.4
C.elegans, BWM	31.3	37.0	32.6	37.3	36.6	40.6
C.elegans, TB	37.9	41.5	44.1	47.3	41.6	48.6
ATT	91.8	96.0	98.7	98.2	94.7	98.8
Yale	75.1	74.3	78.3	80.5	77.5	81.2
Yale B	92.7	95.3	99.5	97.6	91.4	97.2
Brodatz	89.9	87.6	91.0	94.5	93.0	95.5
Average	74.4	77.8	74.1	82.0	77.7	82.7