. 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 8.

Same comparisons as Table 6 using the RBF 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	77.6	81.4	77.6	86.7	81.4	88.3
CHO	77.0	89.5	84.7	94.7	87.5	95.5
HeLa	59.4	70.4	72.7	81.6	72.8	81.2
C.elegans, BWM	31.0	44.4	32.8	42.0	40.1	41.2
C.elegans, TB	31.1	29.3	27.2	41.7	32.2	41.0
ATT	74.4	91.3	92.4	94.8	84.7	95.2
Yale	18.8	66.1	67.9	74.6	74.1	83.7
Yale B	58.5	74.7	94.0	96.7	89.7	96.4
Brodatz	36.4	59.2	73.7	79.8	78.6	86.6
Average	51.6	67.4	69.2	77.0	71.2	78.8