1

Hyperspectral Unmixing: Ground Truth Labeling,
Datasets, Benchmark Performances and Survey

arXiv:1708.05125v2 [] 11 Oct 2017

Feiyun Zhu

Abstract—Hyperspectral unmixing (HU) is a very useful and
increasingly popular preprocessing step for a wide range of
hyperspectral applications. However, the HU research has been
constrained a lot by three factors: (a) the number of hyperspectral images (especially the ones with ground truths) are very
limited; (b) the ground truths of most hyperspectral images are
not shared on the web, which may cause lots of unnecessary
troubles for researchers to evaluate their algorithms; (c) the codes
of most state-of-the-art methods are not shared, which may also
delay the testing of new methods.
Accordingly, this paper deals with the above issues from the
following three perspectives: (1) as a profound contribution, we
provide a general labeling method for the HU. With it, we labeled
up to 15 hyperspectral images, providing 18 versions of ground
truths. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper
to summarize and share up to 15 hyperspectral images and
their 18 versions of ground truths for the HU. Observing that
the hyperspectral classification (HyC) has much more standard
datasets (whose ground truths are generally publicly shared)
than the HU, we propose an interesting method to transform
the HyC datasets for the HU research. (2) To further facilitate
the evaluation of HU methods under different conditions, we
reviewed and implemented the algorithm to generate a complex
synthetic hyperspectral image. By tuning the hyper-parameters in
the code, we may verify the HU methods from four perspectives.
The code would also be shared on the web. (3) To provide a
standard comparison, we reviewed up to 10 state-of-the-art HU
algorithms, then selected the 5 most benchmark HU algorithms,
and compared them on the 15 real hyperspectral datasets. The
experiment results are surely reproducible; the implemented
codes would be shared on the web.
Index Terms—Hyperspectral Unmixing (HU), Datasets, labeling, Ground Truth, Hyperspectral Classificatin (HyC).

I. I NTRODUCTION
YPERSPECTRAL remote sensing has been widely used
in lots of applications1 since it can capture a 3D image
cube at hundreds of contiguous bands across the electromagnetic spectrum, providing substantial information of the scene
[1]. However, due to the microscopic material mixing, multiple
scattering and low spatial resolution of hyperspectral sensors,
the pixel spectra are inevitably mixed with various substances
[1, 2], resulting in lots of mixed pixels. Accordingly, hyperspectral unmixing (HU) is an essential processing step for various hyperspectral image applications, such as high-resolution
hyperspectral imaging [3–8], hyperspectral enhancement [9],
sub-pixel mapping [10], hyperspectral compression and reconstruction [11], detection and identification substances in the
scene [9, 12], hyperspectral visualization [13, 14], etc.

H

1 such as mining & oil industries, agriculture, food safety, pharmaceutical
process monitoring and quality control, biomedical & biometric, surveillance,
military, environment monitoring and forensic applications etc.

The HU aims to decompose each (mixed) pixel into a set of
“pure” pixels (called endmembers such as the spectra of grass,
water etc.), weighted by the corresponding proportions, called
abundances [14–16]. Formally, given a hyperspectral image
with L channels and N pixels, each pixel y ∈ RL
+ is assumed
K
to be a composite of K endmembers {mk }k=1 ∈ RL
+ . The
linear combinatorial model is the most commonly used one
x=

K
X
k=1

mk ak ,

s.t. ak ≥ 0 and

K
X

ak = 1,

(1)

k=1

where ak is the composite abundance of the k th endmember.
K
In the unsupervised setting, both endmembers {mk }k=1 and
K
abundances {ak }k=1 are unknown, which makes the HU a
challenging problem [17–26].
The HU is a very hot research topic—tens or even hundreds
HU papers have been published each year. However, the HU
research has been constrained a lot since the commonly used
datasets (especially their ground truths), are generally not
shared on the web. Such case will surely hinder the development of new methods; the researchers, who are interested
in the HU, will have to make great efforts to do the preparation
works—they have to find the hyperspectral datasets and their
ground truths, which generally ends up with failures. Instead,
they have to label the hyperspectral images, which is very
challenging and needs lots of techniques.
In order to promote the HU research, we write this paper
from the following five perspectrives:
1). This is the first paper to introduce a general method to
label hyperspectral images for the HU research. We provide
the method to label the endmembers & abundances (in Sections IV-A, IV-B), as well as the method to evaluate the labeling results (in Section IV-C). The hyperspectral classification
(HyC) is similar to the HU task; it has much more standard
datasets with publicly available ground truths. We propose an
interesting method to transform the benchmark HyC datasets
for the HU research. Please refer to Section IV.
2). Moreover, we are the first to summarize the information
of 15 most commonly used hypserpectral images as well as
their 18 versions of ground truths for the HU. All of them will
be shared on the web as a standard dataset for the evaluation
of new HU methods (cf. Section V, Table I and Fig. 1).
3). We reviewed and implemented the method to generate a
complex synthetic hyperspectral image for the HU research in
Section VI. This synthetic image is widely used in the papers
[2, 12, 27–32]. The code will be also shared on the web.
4). We reviewed 10 state-of-the-art methods, summarized
their main ideas and algorithms as well as pointed out their

2

Fig. 1. The illustration of 7 popular hyperspectral images where we select 15 subimages (i.e., ROIs) and provide 18 versions of ground truths for the HU
study. They are [a] Samson (3 ROIs), [b] Jasper Ridge (3 ROIs), [c] Urban (the full image and 2 ROIs), [d] Cuprite (1 ROI), [e] Moffett Field (2 ROIs), [f]
San Diego Airport (1 ROI), and [g] Washington DC Mall (2 ROIs). In Section V and Table I, we provide very detailed information about the 15 ROIs.
TABLE I
T HE 15 REAL HYPERSPECTRAL ( SUB -) IMAGES AND THEIR INFORMATION , INCLUDING THE IMAGE SIZE , THE NUMBERS OF ALL SPECTRAL BANDS AND
THE SELECTED BANDS , THE endmembers NUMBERS , THE ILLUSTRATION OF SCENES AND THEIR 18 VERSIONS OF GROUND TRUTHS ETC .
Real Datasets
1. Samson#1
2. Samson#2
3. Samson#3
4. Jasper Ridge#1
5. Jasper Ridge#2
6. Jasper Ridge#3
7, 8, 9. Urban
10. Urban#1
11. Urban#2
12. Cuprite
13. Moffett Field#1
14. Moffett Field#2
15, 16. San Deigo Airport
17. Washington DC Mall#1
18. Washington DC Mall#2

Image sizes
# row # column
95
95
95
95
95
95
115
115
100
100
122
104
307
307
160
168
160
168
250
190
60
60
60
60
160
140
150
150
180
160

Number of bands
# all bands # selected bands
156

156

224

198

221

162

224

188

224

196

224

189

224?

191

internal relations. Besides, we provide the codes of 5 successful state-of-the-art HU methods. Please refer to Section III.
5). The 5 most popular methods are implemented and
compared on the 15 real hyperspectral images. We provide
their results as the benchmark HU performance in Section VII.
II. T HE THREE CATEGORIES OF HU METHODS
In general, existing HU methods can be classified into three
categories: supervised methods [9, 11], weakly supervised
methods [33, 34] and unsupervised methods [12, 15, 28, 35–
37]2 . The endmember is given beforehand in the supervised
setting; only the abundance is required to estimate. Although,
the HU task is simplified in this setting, it is usually intractable
to obtain feasible endmembers, thus, hampering the acquisition
of good HU estimations.
2 Here supervise, weakly supervise and supervise are totally different from
the those terms in the general machine learning.

# Endmember
3
3
3
5
4
4
4, 5, 6
6
6
12
3
3
4, 5
6
6

Ground truth
shown in
Fig. 2a
Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 3a
Fig. 3b
Fig. 3c
Figs. 4a, 4b, 4c
Fig. 5a
Fig. 5b
Fig. 6
Fig. 7a
Fig. 7b
Figs. 8a, 8b
Fig. 9a
Fig. 9b

The top-left pixel in
original image
(252, 332)
(232, 93)
(634, 455)
(1, 272)
(105, 269)
(1, 246)
(1, 1)
(1, 1)
(40, 1)
(86, 425)
(54, 172)
(62, 146)
(241, 261)
(549, 160)
(945, 90)

Subimages
shown in
Fig. 1a

Fig. 1b

Fig. 1c
Fig. 1d
Fig. 1e
Fig. 1f
Fig. 1g

Accordingly, the weakly supervised methods [33, 34] were
proposed. A large library of material spectra had been collected by a field spectrometer beforehand3 . Then, the HU
task becomes the problem of finding an optimal subset of
material spectra in the library that can best represent all
the pixels in the hyperspectral image [33] as well as their
abundance maps. Unfortunately, the library is far from optimal
because the spectra in it are not standardly unified. First,
for different hyperspectral sensors, the spectral signatures of
the same material can be very inconsistent. Second, for the
hyperspectral images recorded by different sensors, both the
number of spectral bands and the electromagnetic range of
recorded spectra can be largely different as well—for example,
some images (like Samson) have 156 channels covering the
spectra from 401 nm to 889 nm, while other images (like
Cuprite and Jasper Ridge) have 224 channels covering the
spectra from 370 nm to 2, 480 nm. Finally, the recording
3 e.g.,

the United States Geological Survey (USGS) digital spectral library.

3

conditions are very different—some hyperspectral images are
captured far from the outer space, while some hyperspectral
images are obtained from the airplane or even in the lab.
Due to the atmospheric effects etc., the different recording
conditions would result in different spectral appearances. In
short, the weakness of the spectral library brings side effects
into this kind of methods.
More commonly, the endmembers are learned from the hyperspectral image itself to ensure the spectral coherence [9]—
the unsupervised HU methods are preferred, where both the
endmember and abundances are learned from the hyperspectral image. Specifically, unsupervised HUs can be categorized
into two types: geometric methods [38–43] and statistical
ones [44–48]. The geometric methods usually exploit the
simplex to model the distribution of pixel spectra. The NFINDR [49] and Vertex Component Analysis (VCA) [39] are
the most benchmark geometric methods. For the N-FINDR,
the endmembers are extracted by inflating a simplex inside the
hyperspectral pixel space and treating the vertices of a simplex
with the largest volume as endmembers [49]. The VCA [39]
projects all the residual pixel onto a direction orthogonal to
the simplex spanned by the chosen endmembers; the new
endmember is identified as the extreme of the projection.
Although these methods are simple and fast, they suffer from
the requirement of pure pixels, which is usually unreliable in
practice [12, 28, 50].
Accordingly, many statistical methods have been proposed
for or applied to the HU problem, among which the Nonnegative Matrix Factorization (NMF) [51] and its extensions are
the most popular. In (the following) Section III, we will review
the NMF and its extensions in detail.
III. R EVIEW OF THE STATE - OF - THE - ART HU METHODS
Notations. For clear modeling, the boldface uppercase letter
(e.g. X) and lowercase letter (x) are used to represent matrices
and vectors respectively. Given a matrix X , {Xln } ∈ RL×N ,
xl ∈ R1×N is the lth row vector and xn ∈ RL denotes the nth
column vector. Xln is the (l, n)-th element in the matrix. X ≥
0 or X ∈ RL×N
represent a nonnegative matrix. The `2,1 +
PL PN 2 1/2
norm of matrices is defined as kXk2,1 = l
.
n Xln
Formalization. In the HU modeling, the hyperspectral
image with L channles (or bands) and N pixels, is represented
by a nonnegative matrix X , [x1 , x2 , · · · , xN ] ∈ RL×N
.
+
From the perspective of the linear mixture assumption, the goal
of HU is to find two nonnegative matrices to well approximate
X with their product:
n
o
e + λΨ (A) + αΦ (M) ,
min loss X, X
(2)
M,A

e = MA, M ≥ 0, A ≥ 0,
s.t. X
e is the approximation of the original hyperspectral imwhere X
age; M , [m1 , · · · , mK ] ∈ RL×K
is the endmember matrix
+
that consists of K pure pixel spectra and K  min {L, N };
A , [a1 , · · · , aN ] ∈ RK×N
is the abundance matrix—the nth
+
column vector an contains all the K abundances at pixel xn ;
loss {·, ·} is a loss function measuring the difference between

two terms; Ψ (A) is some kind of constraints on the abundance
maps; Φ (M) is the constraint on the endmembers.
A. Nonnegative Matrix Factorization (i.e., NMF) [51, 52]
When the loss {·, ·} is the Euclidean loss, the objective (2)
becomes the standard NMF problem [14, 51, 52], which is
commonly used in a wide range of applications including the
HU [12, 14, 27, 28, 37, 53]. Since (2) is non-convex w.r.t. the
two variables (i.e., M and A) together [51, 52], it is unrealistic
to find global minima. Alternatively, Lee and Seung [51, 52]
have proposed the multiplicative update rules as follows:


Akn M> X kn
Mlk XA> lk
, Akn ←
, (3)
Mlk ←
(MAA> )lk
(M> MA)kn
which have been proved to be non-increasing. Apart from (3),
there are other optimization algorithms to solve the problem
(2), such as the active-set [54], the alternation nonnegative
least least squares [55] and the projected gradient descent [56].
Although NMF is well adapted to face analyses [57, 58]
and documents clustering [59, 60], the objective function (2) is
non-convex, naturally resulting in a large solution space [52].
Many extension methods have been proposed by employing
suitable priors to restrict the solution space. For the HU task,
the priors are imposed either on abundances [12, 53, 61] (cf.
Section III-B) or on endmembers [27, 37] (cf. Section III-C).
B. The NMF extensions with constraints on the abundances
This section reviews the NMF extensions that impose constraints only on the abundance. That is, Ψ (A) is effective
and Φ (M) = 0; the updating rule for the endmember is given
in (3) by default. Specifically, the sparse constraints [12, 14–
16, 62, 63] and the spatial (like, manifold, graph) constraint
[15, 61, 63, 64] are the most popular ones.
1) W-NMF [61] (or G-NMF [64]): The local neighborhood
weight regularized NMF (W-NMF) [61] assumes that hyperspectral pixels are distributed on a manifold; the authors exploit appropriate weights in the local neighborhood to enhance
the spectral unmixing. Specifically, W-NMF employs both the
spectral and spatial information to construct the weight matrix
N ×N
W ∈ R+
[65], where Wij is the similarity between the
pixel i and j. While, G-NMF [64] is a general NMF extension,
which only employs the pixel feature to form the graph.
In W-NMF (or G-NMF), the constraint on the abundance
is Ψ (A) = Tr (ALA| ), where L = D − W is the graph
Laplacian learned from the hyperspectral image, and D is the
degree matrix whose diagonal elements are column sums of
W. The updating rule of abundances for the W-NMF is

Akn M> Y + λAW kn
,
(4)
Akn ←
(M> MA + λAD)kn
where λ is a balancing parameter for the Graph constraint.
2) Typical Sparsity constrained NMF (e.g., `1 -NMF [62]
and `1/2 -NMF [12]): The sparsity constrained NMFs [2, 12,
14–16, 62] are the most successful methods for the HU task.
Those methods assume that most hyperspectral pixels are
mixed with parts of (not all) endmembers, and exploits all
kinds of sparse constraints on the abundance. The `1 -norm is

4

one of the most benchmark sparsity constraint. Considering
it gives the
P `1 -NMF [62], where the constraint is Ψ (A) =
kAk1 = k,n |Akn |. The updating rule for the abundance is

Akn M> Y kn
Akn ←
.
(5)
(M> MA + λ)kn
Although the `1 -NMF makes sense, the lasso constraint [66,
67] could not enforce further sparse when the full additivity
constraint is used, limiting the effectiveness [12]. Accordingly,
Dr. Qian proposed the state-of-the-art `1/2 -norm constrained
P
1/2
NMF, where Ψ (A) = kAk1/2 ≈ k,n |Akn + ξ| , ξ is a
small positive value to ensure the numerical condition. The
updating rule for the abundance is given as

Akn M> Y lk
 .
(6)
Akn ← 
−1/2
M> MA + 0.5λ (A + ξ)
lk

where λ in Eqs. (5) and (6) are the balancing parameter for
the sparsity constraints [12, 62].
3) DgS-NMF [14] and RRLbS [16]: To reduce the solution
space, the state-of-the-art HU methods exploit various constraints on the abundances and on the endmembers. However,
they generally employ an identical strength of constraints on
all the factors, which may not meet the practical situation.
Instead, Dr. Zhu [14] observed that the mixed level of each
pixel varies over image grids. Based on this prior, he proposed
a novel method to learn a data-guided map (DgMap, i.e.,
h ∈ RN
+ ), which aims to describe the mixed level of each
pixel. Through this DgMap, the `p (0 < p < 1) constraint is
applied in an adaptive manner. For each pixel, the choice of
p is tightly related to the corresponding value in the DgMap.
In DgS-NMF,
the sparsity constraint on the abundance is
P
1−Hkn
Ψ (A) = k,n (Akn +ξ)
, where H = 1K h| ∈ RK×N
,
+
N
h ∈ R+ is the DgMap, and ξ is a small positive value to ensure
numerical conditions. The updating rule for the abundance is

Akn M> Y kn
 ,
Akn ← 
(7)
−H
M> MA + λ (1 − H) ◦ (A + ξ)
kn

where ◦ is the Hadamard product between matrices. Note that
the `1 -NMF and `1/2 -NMF are special cases of the DgS-NMF.
Given a constant DgMap with all elements equal to zero, the
DgS-NMF turns into the `1 -NMF. Whereas if each element
in the DgMap is equal to 1/2, the DgMap guided sparsity
constraint turns into the `1/2 norm based sparse regularization.
DgS-NMF [14] is an interesting method. However, a heuristic algorithm is proposed in [14] to learn the DgMap, which
is ineffective for the vast smooth areas in the image. It is
expected that the more accurate DgMap constraint would bias
the solution to the more satisfactory local minima. Besides,
the state-of-the-art method generally ignores the badly degraded (i.e., outlier) channels in the hyperspectral image. To
address the above two problems, a robust representation and
learning-based sparsity (RRLbS) method is proposed in [16]
by emphasizing both robust representation and learning-based
sparsity. Specifically, the loss {·, ·} in (2) is set as the `2,1 norm based loss. The new loss is better at preventing the
outlier channels from dominating the objective. The constraint

P
1−Hkn
in RRLbS is Ψ (A) = k,n (Akn + ξ)
, which is similar
to the DgS-NMF. However, due to the robust loss function and
the simultaneous learning process for DgMaps, the updating
rule in RRLbS is quite different from that of DgS-NMF:

Mlk UXA> lk
,
(8)
Mlk ←
(UMAA> )lk

Akn M> UX kn
 , (9)
Akn ← 
−H
M> UMA + λ (1 − H) ◦ (A + ξ)
kn

where U ∈ RL×L
is a nonnegative diagonal matrix4 . The most
+
direct clue to estimate DgMap h ∈ RN
+ is its crucial dependence upon abundances. Once getting the stable abundance
N
A, h = {hn }n=1 could be efficiently estimated as follows:
H = 1K h> , hn = S (an ) , ∀n ∈ {1, 2, · · · , N }

(10)

where S (an ) is the Gini index [16, 68] that measures the
sparsity of column vectors in A. The above updating process
for {M, A} and h is iterated, which is expected to generate
a sequence of ever improved estimates until convergences.
4) Structure (or Graph) and Sparsity constrained NMF (SSNMF [15] and GL-NMF [63]): There are two methods [15,
63] considering both the spatial (like graph) constraint and the
sparsity constraint. In the Stucutred sparsed
NMF (SS-NMF),

the constraint is Ψ (A) = Tr ALA> + αλ kAk1 , where the
graph Laplacian L is learned via a novel method that considers
both the spectral and spatial information in the hyperspectral
image. The updating rule for the abundance is as follows:

Akn M> X + λAW kn
Akn ←
.
(11)
(M> MA + λAD + α)kn
In GL-NMFE
[63], the constraint is Ψ (A)
=

Tr ALA> + αλ kAk1/2 , where the authors ignore the
spatial information inherent in the hyperspectral image and
only employ the spectral information to construct the graph
Laplacian L. The updating rule for the abundance is:

Akn M> X + λAW kn
 .
Akn ←
(12)
M> MA + λAD + 1/2αA−1/2 kn
5) Correntropy based NMF (CE-NMF) [2]: It is well
known that the Euclidean loss is prone to outliers [69, 70].
Accordingly, Dr. Wang employed the correntropy metric to
measure the reconstruction error; the `1 norm based sparse
constraint is considered, resulting in the new robust objective


2 
l
l
L
x
−(MA)
X

2 
min
 +2λ kAk1 . (13)
− exp−
M≥0,A≥0
σ2
l=1

A half-quadratic optimization technique is proposed to convert
the complex optimization problem (13) into an iteratively
reweighted NMF problem. As a result, the optimization can
4 The lth

 q
(MA − X)l
diagonal entry Ull is set as Ull = 1/ 2

where  is typically set 10−8 to avoid singular failures.

2
2


+ ,

5

adaptively assign small weights to noisy channels and emphasize on noise-free channels. The updating rule is




b |
c|X
b
clk XA
M
Akn M
clk ← 
 lk , Akn ← 
kn , (14)
M
|
|
c
c
c
MAA
M MA + λ
lk

kn

b = U1/2 X, M
c = U1/2 M and U ∈ RL×L is a diagonal
where X
 + l

2
kx −(MA)l k2
matrix with the lth element as Ull = exp −
.
σ2
C. The NMF extensions with constraints on the endmembers
We review the NMF extensions that impose constraints only
on the endmember. That is, Φ (M) is effective and Ψ (A) = 0
1) Minimum Volume Constrained NMF (MVC-NMF) [27]:
The MVC-NMF combines the property of both the geometric methods and statistical methods. It aims to find the
endmembers, which compose the minimum volume simplex
that circumscribes the hyperspectral data scatters. Given the
endmembers, the simplex volume is defined as
Φ (M) =

1
|det ([m2 −m1 , · · · , mK −m1 ])| . (15)
(K − 1)!

The standard Euclidean is used to measure the representation
error. For the sake of easy optimization, the objective function
is finalized as minM,A f (M, A) where
h
i>
1
λ
2
c>
f (M, A) = kX − MAkF +
det2 1K , M
2
2 (K − 1)!
c is a low dimensional transform of M, i.e., M
c =
where M
|
|
L×(K−1)
P (M − µ1K ); P ∈ R
is formed by the K − 1
most significant principle components of hyperspectral data
X and µ is the mean of data X. The updating rule is based
on the projected gradient algorithm, which is given as follows:
n

o
M(t+1) = max 0, M(t) − α(t) ∇M f M(t) , A(t)
(16)
n

o
A(t+1) = max 0, A(t) − β (t) ∇A f M(t+1) , A(t)
(17)
where α(t) and β (t) are the learning rates. They can be fixed
at small values or determined by the Armijo rule [27, 71].
2) Endmember Dissimilarity Constrained NMF (EDCNMF) [37]: Inspired by the MVC-NMF [27], Dr. Wan proposed the Endmember Dissimilarity Constrained NMF (EDCNMF). The core assumption is that due to the high spectral
resolution of hyperspectral sensors, the endmember spectra
should be smooth itself and different as much as possible from
each other. The EDC constraint on the endmember is
Φ (M) =

K−1
X

K
X

2

k∇mi − ∇mj k2 ,

(18)

i=1 j=i+1

where ∇mi =[m2,i − m1,i , · · · , mL,i − mL−1,i ] is the gradient along the spectral dimension.
The multiplicative update rule is used to optimize the objective function, resulting in the algorithms for the abundances
in (3) and for the endmembers as follows

Mlk XA> − 0.5λ∇M Φ (M) lk
,
(19)
Mlk ←
(MAA> )lk

where ∇M Φ (M) = 2HH> MT; T is a specially designed
matrix, i.e., T = KIK − 1K×K , IK is a K × K identical
matrix and 1K×K  is a matrix whose
all elements are 1;

H = −p> ; IL−1 + −IL−1 ; q> , IL−1 is a (L − 1) ×
>
(L − 1) identical matrix, p = [1, 0, · · · 0] ∈ RL−1 and
>
L−1
q = [0, · · · , 0, 1] ∈ R
.
The derivative over endmembers, i.e., ∇M Φ (M), introduces negative values to the updating rule (19). To make up
this problem, the negative elements in the endmember matrix
are required to project to a given nonnegative value after
each iteration. Consequently, the regularization parameter λ
couldn’t be chosen freely, limiting the efficacy of EDC-NMF.
IV. H OW TO L ABEL G ROUND T RUTHS IN THE HU?
In the HU, the ground truth labeling consists of two parts:
(1) the endmember labeling, and (2) the abundance labeling.
Both parts are challenging. There is only one paper [36] briefly
introducing the ground truth labeling on the HYDICE urban
image. As a result, this is the first paper to provide a general
method to label the hyperspectral images for the HU task.
A. The Endmember labeling
The endmember is the “pure” material in the image [1].
What is the “pure” material? From the Chemistry perspective, the “pure” material (i.e. endmember) can be the pure
substance. However, this ideal assumption makes the HU impossible to solve—there can be thousands of “pure” substance
in the image scene. Such case leads to much more unknown
variables than the observation itself in the hyperspectral image,
which is obviously a severely underconstrained problem [72].
Alternatively, it is widely accepted that the notion of “pure
material” is subjective and problem dependent [1], which is
similar with the determination of classes in the hyperspectral
classificiation task. Such setting requires lots of professional
analyses and understandings of the image scene [73]. Taking
the Cuprite image for example, it may take Earth scientists
several weeks to analyze all the endmembers in the scene.
The good news is that three factors make it easy to determine
endmembers: (1) there are many HU papers publishing the
endmember information of the common hyperspectral images,
such as the HYDICE urban [12, 28, 36], Cuprite [12, 39, 63],
Washington DC Mall [37], Moffett Field [45, 74, 75] etc; (2)
for the images whose scenes are simple, it is easy to determine
the endmembers, e.g., the Samson [15], Japser Ridge [14, 16]
and San Deigo Airport [76] etc. (3) the existing methods, like
virtual dimensionality (VD) [77], is also helpful to determine
the number of endmembers in the hyperspectral image.
After the determination of endmembers, we need their
spectral signatures, which could be obtained as below:
1). They can be manually chosen from the hyperspectral
image. In some images, the “pure” pixels have been explicitly
marked in the published papers. For example, the endmembers
for the Washington DC Mall image are explicitly marked in
Fig. 13 in [37]. In the HYDICE urban, the location of the
endmember pixel for “asphalt” is provided in the paper [36],
which is then compared with the asphalt spectrum in the
standard spectral library. In other hyperpsectral images, like

6

the Jasper Ridge, Samson, etc., we may have to select the
endmembers from the image based on our understandings.
2). The endmember signature can be found in the USGS
mineral spectral library. The Cuprite hyperspectral image is
one of the typical hyperspectral image [37] in this type.
B. The Abundance labeling
The abundance provides the composite percentage of all
endmembers at each pixel (cf. Section III). Since the abundance is continuous between 0 and 1, it is impossible to
manually label the abundances—Human can not tell the
difference between 30% and 40% of an endmember at a pixel;
besides, it is too tedious and labor intensive to label all pixels.
Instead, we propose a learning method to label the abundance.
Given the determined K endmembers, the abundance labeling becomes a least square problem with the nonnegative
and full additivity constraints, which is indeed the supervised
unmixing problem as reviewd in Section II. Such algorithm
is far more easier than the unsupervised unmixing methods.
The general quadratic programming algorithm with constraints
(like the quadprog in Matlab) is helpful to estimate the
abundances. Moreover, we may make use of the state-of-theart unmxing methods reviewed in Section III-A and III-B by
treating the endmembers as a fixed input rather than unknown
variables and by only updating the abundances. The state-ofthe-art unmxing methods are promising to achieve very good
ground truths because of the different priors on the abundance.
C. How to verify our labeling ground truth for the HU study?
What is a good ground truth for the given hyperspectral
image? To verify it, we come up with two evaluation methods:
1). compare our labeling result with the ground truth posted
on the published papers. It is necessary to ensure the high
similarity between them. Note that, only the illustration of
ground truths (not the ground truth itself) is posted in the
paper. Accordingly, we can only compare them visually, not
quantitatively. For example, we may compare the shape of the
endmember signatures and the illustration of abundances.
2). check the labeling result based on our understanding
of the hyperspectral image—the labeling result should be
consistent with our understanding of the image.
3). it is reasonable to assume that similar pixels have similar
abundances [15, 63]. Based on this assumption, we will click
many pixels to evaluate their signature’s similarities, and then
to check their abundance’s similarity. Those two kinds of
similarities should be consistent as well.
4). for the hyperspectral images, like Cuprite, the ground
truth endmembers are selected from the standard spectral
library [12, 14, 37, 39, 63]. We don’t have to verify it.
We may have to try the different settings on the candidate
endmembers, on the supervised unmixing algorithms for the
abundance labeling, and on the hyper parameters etc (as shown
in Algorithm 1), to make a better ground truth.
D. How to transform the benchmark hyperspectral classification (HyC) datasets for the HU research?
Compared with the HU datasets, the datasets for the hypserpectral classification (HyC) task have three obvious advan-

Algorithm 1 to label the ground truth for the HU study
L×N
Input a hyperspectral image X ∈ R+
, with N pixels.
1: set the endmembers and the endmember number K.
2: repeat
3:
endmember labeling via the method in Section IV-A.
4:
abundance labeling via the method in Section IV-B.
5:
verify the ground truth labeling.
6: until meeting the criteria in Section IV-C
L×K
Output the ground truth M ∈ R+
and A ∈ RK×N
.
+

tages. (1) It is well known that the HyC task has much more
benchmark datasets than the HU task. (2) Different from the
HU datasets whose ground truths are mostly unavailable on
the web, the HyC datasets and their ground truths are mostly
available on the web. (3) the labeling process as well as the
label itself for the HyC image are much easier to understand.
Thus, it would be promising to transform the benchmark HyC
datasets for the HU study. However, there is a big gap between
the HyC task and the HU task, which makes the transformation
process challenging. In this paper, we are the first to propose
a promising method to accomplish this transformation task.
Our method consists of three process steps listed as below:
1). The number of classes should be consistent with the
number of endmembers. Due to the supervised information
involved in the training process, the HyC algorithms are
generally able to handle more classes than the number of
endmembers in the HU. Accordingly, we have to combine the
similar classes to reduce the number of endmembers.
2). Candidate endmember labeling. We need the endmember
signatures. Given the training labels for the HyC image, we
may select a set of high quality pixels from the pixel set of
each class. The endmember signature can be set as the mean
or median signature of all the selected pixels in that class.
3). Abundance labeling. Suppose we are given a hyperspectral image X ∈ RL×N , with L channels and N samples. The
label of all pixels, i.e., Y ∈ RK×N , could be predicted via
the state-of-the-art classification algorithms [20, 78], where
each column yn ∈ RK , ∀n ∈ {1, · · · , N } is the 0-1 binary
label vector. That is, if pixel n is in the k th class, we define
>
the label vector yn = [0, · · · , 0, 1, 0, · · · , 0] ∈ RK with
only the k th element equal to 1, all the others equal to 0
[79]. There are two ways to treat the candidate endmember
obtained in the 2nd step. We may treat them as the final
endmembers. Accordingly, the abundance labeling becomes
the supervised unmixing problem with a special anchoring
constraint as follows:
n
o
e + λΥ (A) , s.t. X
e = MA, M ≥ 0, A ≥ 0,
min loss X, X
A

2

where Υ (A) = Ψ (A) + αλ kA − YkF is the constraint on
the abundance; Ψ (A) is the state-of-the-art sparse/spatial (or
2
both) constraints reviewed in Section III-B; kA − YkF is the
anchoring constraint; its aim is to keeps the abundance around
the high accuracy classification results.
We may also treat the candidate endmember, obtained in
the 2nd step, as a good initialization of M, and update both

7

#1 Soil

0.9

0.9

#2 Tree

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.1
0

20

40

60 80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0.9

#3 Water
Ref ectance

Ref ectance

0.9

20

40

60 80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

40

0.9

#3 Soil

0.9

#4 Road

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1
0

20

0.9

0.5

0.3
0.1

0

#2 Water

0.7

0.5

0.1
0

0.9

#1 Tree

0.7

50

100
# Bands

150

200

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

200

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

200

#5 Other

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

200

0

50

100
# Bands

150

200

60 80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

Jasper
Ridge #1

Samson Endmembers
#1
Abundances

Endmembers
Abundances

(a) Jasper Ridge#1 and its five endmembers “#1 Road”, “#2 Soil”, “#3 Water”,
“#4 Tree” and “#5 Other” respectively.

(a) Samson#1 and its 3 endmembers: #1 Soil, #2 Tree and #3 Water.

Ref ectance

#1 Soil

0.9

#2 Tree

0.9

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

Ref ectance

0.9

0.9

#3 Water

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

0

20

40

60 80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0

20

40

60 80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

20

40

Samson Endmembers
#2
Abundances

(b) Samson#2 and its 3 endmembers: #1 Soil, #2 Tree and #3 Water.

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.9

#2 Tree

0.9

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.1
20

40

60 80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

20

40

60 80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

150

200

0.9

#3 Water

20

40

50

100
# Bands

150

200

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

200

0

0.9

#1 Tree

60 80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

Samson Endmembers
#3
Abundances

0.9

50

100
# Bands

0.9

#3 Soil

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1
0

Jasper
Ridge #3

#2 Water

0.7

0.1
0

0.3

0.1
0

150

200

(b) Jasper Ridge#2 and its four endmembers “#1 Road”, “#2 Soil”, “#3 Water”
and “#4 Tree” respectively.

0.1
0

100
# Bands

Abundances

0.3

0.1
0

0.3

0.1
50

#4 Road

Endmembers

Ref ectance

Ref ectance

#1 Soil

0.7

0.9

#3 Soil

0.7

60 80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

Jasper
Ridge #2

0.9

0.9

0.5

0.1

0

#2 Water

0.7

0.5

0
0.3

0.9

#1 Tree

0.7

50

100
# Bands

150

200

0.3

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

200

#4 Road

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

200

0

50

100
# Bands

150

200

Endmembers
Abundances

(c) Samson#3 and its 3 endmembers: #1 Soil, #2 Tree and #3 Water.
Fig. 2. The three subimages selected from the Samson hyperspectral image.
They are Samson#1, Samson#2 and Samson#3 respectively, as shown in
Figs 2a, 2b and 2c. Besides, we provide the illustration of the ground truth
endmembers and abundance maps for each subimage.

the endmember M and abundance A. The general model is
n
o
e + λΥ (A) , s.t. X
e = MA, M ≥ 0, A ≥ 0,
min loss X, X
M,A

where Υ (A) is the abundance constraint reviewed right above.

V. S UMMARIZATION OF THE 15 R EAL H YPERSPECTRAL
I MAGES AND THEIR 18 G ROUND T RUTHS
A. Samson’s three subimages
The Samson5 image is illustrated in Fig. 1a, where there
are 952 × 952 pixels [14–16, 80]. Each pixel is observed at
156 bands covering the electromagnetic spectra from 401 nm
to 889 nm. As a result, the spectral resolution is highly up
to 3.13 nm. This data is in good condition and not degraded
by the blank channels or badly noised channels. The original
image is very large, which could be computationally expensive
for the HU study. Accordingly, three subimages are selected
due to that they contain large transitional areas which consist
of lots of mixed pixels. We name the three ROIs as Samson#1,
Samson#2 and Samson#3 respectively for convenience. Please
refer to the Fig. 1a and Table I for their information, e.g., their
locations, sizes, scenes, number of bands etc.
5 downloaded

on http://opticks.org/confluence/display/opticks/Sample+Data.

(c) Jasper Ridge#3 and its four endmembers “#1 Road”, “#2 Soil”, “#3 Water”
and “#4 Tree” respectively.
Fig. 3. The three subimages selected from the Jasper Ridge hyperspectral
image. They are Jasper Ridge#1, Jasper Ridge#2 and Jasper Ridge#3 respectively as shown in Figs 3a, 3b and 3c. Besides, we provide the illustration of
the endmembers and the abundance maps for each subimage.

All of three ROIs have 95 × 95 pixels. The first ROI (i.e.,
Samson#1) starts from the (252, 332)-th pixel in the original
image, cf., Figs. 1a and 2a. The top-left pixel in Samson#2
corresponds to the (232, 93)-th pixel in the original image,
cf., Figs. 1a and 2b. Samson#3’s first pixel is the (643, 455)th pixel in the Samson image, cf., Figs. 1a and 2c. Specifically,
there are three endmembers in this image, i.e., "#1 Soil", "#2
Tree" and "#3 Water" respectively, as shown in Fig. 2.
B. Jasper Ridge’s three subimages
Jasper Ridge is a popular hyperspectral image [81, 82],
as shown in Fig. 1b. It was captured via the AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer) sensor by the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The ground sample distance
(GSD) is 20 m [82]. There are 512 × 614 pixels in it. Each
pixel is recorded at 224 electromagnetic bands ranging from
380 nm to 2, 500 nm. The spectral resolution is highly up
to 9.46 nm. Due to the dense water vapor and atmospheric
effects, we remove the spectral bands 1–3, 108–112, 154–166
and 220–224, remaining 198 bands. This is a common preprocessing step if the HU methods do not focus on the robust
learning [2, 16, 20, 78, 83, 84].
Since the full hyperspectral image, as shown in Fig. 1b,
is too complex to get the ground truth, we consider three

8

#1 Asphalt

0.7

#2 Grass

0.7

#3 Tree

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

#4 Roof

0.7

0.1

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

Ref ectance

Ref ectance

0.7

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

(a)

Urban

4 endmembers:
*. #1 Asphalt
*. #2 Grass
*. #3 Tree
*. #4 Roof

Endmembers
Abundances

Ref ectance

0.7

#1 Asphalt

0.7

#2 Grass

0.7

#3 Tree

0.7

#4 Roof

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

#5 Soil

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

Ref ectance

#1 Asphalt

0.7

#2 Grass

0.7

#3 Tree

0.7

#4 Roof1

0.7

#5 Roof2/shadow

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

0.7

#3 Tree

0.7

#4 Roof1

0.7

#5 Roof2/shadow

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1
0

Urban#2

#2 Grass

0.5

0.3

0.1
20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

#6 Soil

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

Endmembers
Abundances

(a) Urban#1 and its six endmembers “#1 Asphalt”, “#2 Grass”, “#3 Tree”, “#4
Roof1 ”, “#5 Roof2/shado” and “6 Soil” respectively.
(b)
0.7

Ref ectance

5 endmembers:
*. #1 Asphalt
*. #2 Grass
*. #3 Tree
*. #4 Roof
*. #5 Soil
0.7

0.7

#1 Asphalt

0.5

0.7

#1 Asphalt

#2 Grass

0.7

#3 Tree

0.7

#4 Roof1

0.7

#5 Roof2/shadow

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

#6 Soil

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

#6 Soil

(c)
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
# Bands

6 endmembers:
*. #1 Asphalt
*. #2 Grass
*. #3 Tree
*. #4 Roof1
*. #5 Roof2
/Shadow
*. #6 Soil

Urban#1

Endmembers
Abundances

(b) Urban#2 and its six endmembers “#1 Asphalt”, “#2 Grass”, “#3 Tree”, “#4
Roof1 ”, “#5 Roof2/shado” and “6 Soil” respectively.
Fig. 5. The two challenging subimages selected from the Urban hyperspectral
image, i.e., Urban#1 and Urban#2, respectively. Besides, we provide the
illustration of the endmembers and their abundance maps for each subimage.

Fig. 4. The three versions of ground truths for the Urban hyperspectral image.
(a) illustrates the ground truth that has 4 endmembers; (b) shows the ground
truth that has 5 endmembers; (c) the ground truth that has 6 endmembers.

C. HYDICE Urban and its two subimages
HYDICE Urban is one of the most widely used hyperspectral image for the HU research [2, 12, 15, 16, 28, 31, 36, 92–
97]. It was recorded by the HYDICE (Hyperspectral Digital
Image Collection Experiment) sensor in October 1995, whose
scene is an urban area at Copperas Cove, TX, U.S. There are
307 × 307 pixels in this image; each pixel corresponds to a
2 × 2 m2 region in the scene. The image has 210 spectral
bands ranging from 400 nm to 2, 500 nm, resulting in a very
high spectral resolution of 10 nm. After removing the badly
degraded bands 1–4, 76, 87, 101–111, 136–153 and 198–210
(due to dense water vapor and atmospheric effects), we remain
162 bands. There are three versions of ground truths for the
HYDICE Urban hyperspectral image:

Reflectance

subimages, named as Jasper Ridge#1, Jasper Ridge#2 and
Jasper Ridge#3 respectively. Please refer to the Fig. 1b and
Table I for their information. The first subimage (i.e., Jasper
Ridge#1) consists of 115 × 115 pixels, whose top-left pixel
is the (1, 272)-th pixel in the original image. There are five
endmembers in Jasper Ridge#1, i.e., “#1 Road”, “#2 Soil”, “#3
Water”, “#4 Tree” and “#5 Other”, as shown in Fig. 3a.
Jasper Ridge#2 contains 100 × 100 pixels. The first pixel is
the (105, 269)-th pixel in the original image. There are four
endmembers latent in this subimage: “#1 Road”, “#2 Soil”,
“#3 Water” and “#4 Tree”, as shown in Fig. 3b. Since we
provided the information of this subimage in the papers [14–
16] and published the data (including the ground truth) on the
homepage [85] in 2015, it has been widely used in more than
10 HU papers [2, 30, 31, 82, 86–91] to verify the state-ofthe-art algorithms. The third subimage (i.e., Jasper Ridge#3)
consists of 122 × 104 pixels. The first (i.e., top-left) pixel is
the (1, 246)-th pixel in the original image. There are four
endmembers latent in the Jasper Ridge#3: “#1 Road”, “#2
Soil”, “#3 Water” and “#4 Tree”, as shown in Fig. 3c.

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5
0.3

#1 Alunite
#2 Andradite
#3 Buddingtonite
#4 Dumortierite

0.3
0.1
0

(a) Cuprite

0.7

0.7

50

100
150
# Bands

0.1
200

0.3

#5 Kaolinite1
#6 Kaolinite2
#7 Muscovite
#8 Montmorillonite

0

50

100
150
# Bands

0.1
200

0

50

#9 Nontronite
#10 Pyrope
#11 Sphene
#12 Chalcedony

100
150
# Bands

200

(b) The ground truth endmember spectrum.

Fig. 6. (a) is the Cuprite hyperspectral image, which is selected in from the
image scene in Fig. 1d, and (b) displays the ground truth endmember spectra.

1). In the early HU papers [2, 12, 15, 16, 28, 31, 36, 94],
it is widely accepted that there are four endmembers in the
HYDICE Urban. They are “#1 Asphalt Road”, “#2 Grass”,
“#3 Tree” and “#4 Roof”, as shown in Fig. 4a.
2). Recently, the analyse on Urban image become more and
more precise. The “#1 Asphalt Road” is divided into “#1 Asphalt” and “#6 Soil” whereas the “#4 Roof” is divided into “#4
Roof1 ” and “#5 Roof2 /shadow”. In other words, the number
of endmembers rises to six [12, 97]; they are “#1 Asphalt”,
“#2 Grass”, “#3 Tree”, “#4 Roof1 ”, “#5 Roof2/shado” and “6
Soil”, as shown in shown in Fig. 4c.
3). Apart from the above two versions of ground truths, we
introduce a new ground truth that consists of 5 endmembers:
“#1 Asphalt”, “#2 Grass”, “#3 Tree”, “#4 Roof” and “5 Soil”,
as shown in Fig. 4b. Compared with the first version, the “#1
Asphalt Road” is divided into “#1 Asphalt” and “#5 Soil”.
Compared with the second version, we merge “#4 Roof1 ” and
“#5 Roof2 /shadow” into “#4 Roof”.
To make it more challenging, we select two subimages from
the Urban image (cf. Fig. 1c). In them, the small objects, like
small houses, vehicles and small grasslands etc., are the main
scene, causing lots of transitional areas. Such case surely leads
to lots of mixed pixels due to the low spatial resolution of
hyperspectral sensors. The first subimage (i.e., Urban#1) has
160 × 168 pixels, whose first pixel is the (1, 1)-th pixel in the
original image. The second subimage (i.e., Urban#2) starts
from the (40, 1)-th pixel in the original image. It also has
160 × 168 pixels. There are six endmembers: "#1 Asphalt",

9

0.9

0.9

0.9

Ref ectance

0.9

#1 Soil

0.9

#2 Tree

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

Ref ectance

#1 Grass

0.9

#3 Water

50

100
# Bands

150

200

0

50

100
# Bands

150

200

50

100
# Bands

150

#4 Ground & Road

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0

#3 Roof

0.7

0.5

0.1
0

0

0.9

#2 Tree

0.7

50

100
# Bands

150

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

0

50

100
# Bands

150

(a)

200

4 endmembers:
*. #1 Grass
*. #2 Tree
*. #3 Roof
*. #4 Ground
& Road

San Diego Endmembers
Airport#1 Abundances

Moffett Endmembers
Field #1 Abundances

0.9

0.9

0.9

Ref ectance

#1 Grass

(a) Moffett Field#1 and its three endmembers.
Ref ectance

#2 Tree

0.9
0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

200

#3 Water

0.9

0.7

50

100
# Bands

150

200

#4 Ground & Road

#5 Other

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

0.1
0

50

100
# Bands

150

0

50

100
# Bands

150

(b)
5 endmembers:
*. #1 Grass
*. #2 Tree
*. #3 Roof
*. #4 Ground
& Road
*. #5 Other

0.1
0

0.9

#3 Roof

0.7

0.5

0.1

#1 Soil

0.9

0.9

#2 Tree

0.7

0

50

100
# Bands

150

200

Moffett Endmembers
Field #2 Abundances

Fig. 8. Two versions of HU ground truths for the San Diego Airport
hyperspectral image: (a) illustrates the ground truth that has 4 endmembers;
(b) shows the ground truth that has 5 endmembers. (best viewed in color)

(b) Moffett Field#2 and its three endmembers.
Fig. 7. The two subimages selected from the Moffett Field hyperspectral
image. They are Moffett Field#1 and Moffett Field#2, respectively, as shown
in Figs 7a and 7b. There are 3 endmembers, i.e., “#1 Soil”, “#2 Tree” and
“#3 Water” in both subimages. Besides, we provide the illustration of the
endmembers and their abundance maps for each subimage.

"#2 Grass", "#3 Tree", “#4 Roof1 ”, "#5 Roof2/shadow", and "6
Soil" in both Urban#1 (cf., Fig. 5a) and Urban#2 (cf., Fig. 5b).
D. Cuprite
Cuprite is the most benchmark and challenging hyperspectral image for the HU research [12, 14, 37, 39, 50, 53, 98–103],
which is captured by the AVIRIS sensor. It covers a Cuprite
area in Las Vegas, NV, U.S. There are 224 spectral bands
in the Cuprite image, ranging from 370 nm to 2, 480 nm.
After removing the noisy bands (i.e., 1–2 and 221–224) and
the water absorption bands (i.e., 104–113 and 148–167), it
remains 188 bands. In this paper, a subimage of 250 × 190
pixels is considered, which is widely used in the state-of-theart HU papers [12, 14, 39, 50]. Please refer to Fig. 1d for the
illustration of its position, image size and scene etc.
In this subimage, there are 14 types of minerals (or endmembers), whose spectra can be obtained from the ENVI software.
There are very minor differences between the variants of the
same type of mineral, for example Kaolinite1 and Kaolinite3
are very similar in signature. The researchers have their own
thoughts, resulting in different versions of ground truths. In
[39], there are 14 endmembers; while there are 10 endmembers
in [12]; then Dr. Lu hold that there are 12 endmembers in the
Cuprite. Here we agree with Dr. Lu’s setting. Please refer to
Fig. 6 for the illustration of the 12 endmembers. Because there
are small differences in the setting of endmembers among the
papers [12, 37, 39, 50, 53], the results of the state-of-the-art
methods in those papers might be different from each other.
E. Moffett Field
The Moffett Field hyperspectral image is illustrated in
Fig. 1e. It was captured via the AVIRIS sensor by the JPL
in 1997 and was used in a number of state-of-the-art papers

[104–109]. There are 512×614 pixels and 224 spectral bands,
ranging the electromagnetic spectra from 400 nm to 2500 nm.
The spectral resolution is up to 9.38 nm. The full image can
be found in [110]. It consists of a large area of water (that
appears in dark pixel at the top of the image) and a coastal
area composed of trees and soil. Due to the water vapor and
atmospheric effects, we remove the noisy spectral bands. After
this process, there remains 196 bands.
The original image is very large in size and too complex to
analyze because the spatial resolution is low and the object is
very small in the scene. In this paper, we select two subimages
for the HU study. Please refer to Fig.1e for their locations,
image sizes and scenes etc. The first subimage (named Moffett
Field#1) consists of 60 × 60 pixels, whose first (top-left) pixel
is the (54, 172)-th pixel in the original image. The second
subimage (named Moffett Field#2) also has 60 × 60 pixels. Its
first pixel is the (62, 146)-th pixel in the full image. A similar
subimage with Moffett Field#1 was used in [109, 111], where
the authors hold that there are three endmembers. In this paper,
we agree with their setting. The three endmembers for both
Moffett Field#1 and Moffett Field#2 are “#1 Soil”, “#2 Tree”
and “#3 Water”, respectively, as shown in Figs. 7a and 7b.
F. San Diego Airport
San Diego Airport is a popular airborne hyperspectral image
collected by the AVIRIS sensor [76, 112–114]. There are
400 × 400 pixels and 224 spectral bands, as illustrated in
Fig. 1f. After removing the noisy bands with the water vapor
and atmospheric effects, including the bands 1–6, 33–35, 97,
107–113, 153–166, and 221–224, there remains 189 spectral
bands. In this paper, we select a subimage for the HU study.
It has 160 × 140 pixels. The top-left pixel is the (241, 261)-th
pixel in the original image, as shown in Fig. 1f. There are two
endmember settings: (1) the first setting has 4 endmembers,
i.e., “#1 Grass”, “#2 Tree”, “#3 Roof” and “#4 Ground &
Road”, as shown in Fig. 8a; (2) the second setting has 5
endmembers, i.e., “#1 Grass”, “#2 Tree”, “#3 Roof”, “#4
Ground & Road” and “#5 Other”, as shown in Fig. 8b.

10

#2 Grass

#1 Roof

Ref ectance

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.1
100
#Bands

150

0.3

0.1
0

50

100
#Bands

150

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

1

0.3

0.1
0

Washington
DC Mall#1

#6 Halloysite NMNH106236
#7 Chlorite HS179
#8 Axinite HS342
#9 Carnallite NMNH98011
#10 Goethite WS220

1

#11 Schwertmannite BZ93
#12 Olivine GDS70
#13 Pyroxene HS119
#14 Adularia GDS57 Orthoclase
#15 Almandine WS477 Garnet

1

0.1
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

Endmembers

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

Abundances
0

(a) WDM#1 and its six endmembers.
0.25

0.25

0.25

Ref ectance

0.25

#2 Grass

#1 Road

0.25

0.25

#4 Water

#3 Trail

#5 Tree

#6 Roof

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.05

0

Washington
DC Mall#2

#1 Carnallite NMNH98011
#2 Actinolite nmnh16485
#3 Andradite ws487
#4 Diaspore HS416
#5 Erionite Merlinoite GDS144

#6 Road
0.5

0.3

0.1
0

#5 Trail
0.5

Reflectance

50

#4 Tree
0.5

0.3

0.1
0

#3 Water
0.5

50

100
#Bands

150

0.05

0

50

100
#Bands

150

0.05

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0.05

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0

100

200
300
# Bands

400

0

0

100

200
300
# Bands

400

0

0

100

200
300
# Bands

400

Fig. 10. The signature of 15 candidate endmembers used for the simulation
of hyperspectral images. Each signature is observed at 480 spectral bands.

0.05

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160
#Bands

Endmembers
Abundances

(b) WDM#2 and its six endmembers.
Fig. 9. Two challenging subimages selected from the Washington DC Mall
image: WDM#1 and WDM#2 as shown in Figs 9a and 9b. For each subimage,
we give the illustration of the ground truth endmembers and abundances.

G. Washington DC Mall (WDM)
The Washington DC Mall (i.e., WDM), an airborne hyperspectral image flightline over the Washington DC Mall (cf.
Fig. 9g), is used to verify a lot of research works [28, 31,
37, 102, 115, 116]. It was collected by the HYDICE sensor.
The full image can be downloaded from the webpage6 . There
are 1208 × 307 pixels and 210 spectral channels, covering
the the electromagnetic spectra from 400 nm to 2400 nm. The
spectral resolution is up to 9.52 nm. After removing the bands
with water vapor and atmospheric effects, including 103–106,
138–148, and 207–210, there remains 191 bands [102].
In this paper, we select two subimages for the HU study, i.e.,
WDM#1 and WDM#2 respectively. Please refer to Fig. 9g and
Table I for their information like locations and scenes etc. The
first subimage (i.e. WDM#1) has 150 × 150 pixels, whose first
pixel starts from the (549, 160)-th pixel in the original image.
WDM#1 has been used in [37], where they provide the rough
locations of the six endmember; however, they did not share
the ground truth on the Internet. The six endmembers are “#1
Roof”, “#2 Grass”, “#3 Water”, “#4 Tree”, “#5 Trail” and “#6
Road” respectively, as shown in Fig. 9a. The second subimage
(i.e. WDM#2) has 180×160 pixels, whose left-top pixel is the
(945, 90)-th pixel in the original image. The six endmembers
are “#1 Road”, “#2 Grass”, “#3 Trail”, “#4 Water”, “#5 Tree”
and “#6 Roof” respectively, as shown in Fig. 9b.
VI. T HE S IMULATED H YPERSPECTRAL I MAGE
This section provides the method to generate a complex
synthetic image [2, 12, 27–32] for the HU research. It consists
of two steps. First, 15 true spectra are chosen from the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) digital spectral library as the
candidate endmembers. Their signature are shown in Fig. 10.
The first K spectra are selected as the true endmember, where
2 ≤ K ≤ 15 is the number of endmembers.
Second, we use the method in [2, 12, 27, 28, 30, 32] to
generate the abundance maps, which has the following steps:
6 https://engineering.purdue.edu/∼biehl/MultiSpec/hyperspectral.html

1). We divide an image of z 2 ×z 2 (z ∈ Z+ ) pixels into z ×z
regions. The default setting is z = 8.
2). Each region is filled up with a type of ground cover,
which means the abundance of that endmember is 1 in the
whole region. Note that, this process is randomly implemented.
3). To generate the mixed pixels, we use the (z + 1) ×
(z + 1) spatial low-pass filter. Such process causes large
transitional areas, where there are lots of mixed pixels.
4). To remove pure pixels and generate sparse abundances,
we replace the pixels whose largest abundance is larger than
0.8 with a mixture of two endmembers with equal abundances.
c and abundances A
b have been
Now both endmembers M
generated. Based on them, a perfect hyperspectral image is
b =M
c A.
b To simulate a more real remote sensing
created as Y
image that contains complex noises, we add the zero-mean
Gaussian (or some other) noise to the generate the image data.
The Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) is defined as follows:
( 
)
E y> y
.
(20)
SNR = 10 log10
E [n> n]
With the above synthetic hyperspectral image, we can verify
the HU algorithmss from the following four perspectives:
• Robustness analysis to the noise corruptions, e.g.,
SNR∈ {∞, 35, · · · , 10 dB} .
• Generalization to the pixel number, which is set by z.
• Robustness to the endmember number {K | 2 ≤ K ≤ 15}.
• Generalization to the number of bands in the image.
We will provide the full codes for this simulated dataset.
VII. E XPERIMENTS R ESULTS OF 5 B ENCHMARK HU
METHODS ON THE 18 H YPERSPECTRAL I MAGES
In this section, we compare 5 benchmarks HU methods on
the 15 hyperspectral images summarized in Section V. The
selected 5 methods are widely compared against the stateof-the-art HU methods. The aim is to provide benchmark HU
results, saving other’s effort to evaluate their new HU methods.
A. Five Benchmark Methods Compared in this Section
1). Vertex Component Analysis [39] (VCA) is a classic
geometric method. The code is available on http://www.lx.it.
pt/bioucas/code.htm.
2). Nonnegative Matrix Factorization [51] (NMF) is a
benchmark statistical method. The code is obtained from
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/phoyer/software.html.

11

Samson #3

Samson #2

Samson #1

TABLE II
T HE PERFORMANCES OF FIVE BENCHMARK HU ALGORITHMS ON THE S AMSON #1, S AMSON #2 AND S AMSON #3 HYPERSPECTRAL IMAGES .
Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
Endmembers
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
#1 Soil
0.1531
0.0861
0.0582
0.0902
0.0529
0.1765
0.1110
0.0930
0.0990
0.0993
#2 Tree
0.0487
0.0556
0.0545
0.0410
0.0576
0.1372
0.0886
0.0798
0.0919
0.0734
#3 Water
0.1296
0.1560
0.1233
0.0410
0.1609
0.1748
0.0757
0.0511
0.0344
0.0750
Avg.
0.1105
0.0992
0.0787
0.0574
0.0905
0.1628
0.0918
0.0746
0.0751
0.0826
Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
Endmembers
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
#1 Soil
0.4239
0.2793
0.1780
0.2074
0.2647
0.1504
0.1633
0.1425
0.1719
0.1583
#2 Tree
0.1118
0.1150
0.0542
0.0559
0.1161
0.1483
0.1710
0.1341
0.1683
0.1663
#3 Water
0.0662
0.0804
0.0778
0.0731
0.0821
0.1055
0.0610
0.0360
0.0395
0.0610
Avg.
0.2006
0.1582
0.1033
0.1121
0.1543
0.1347
0.1318
0.1042
0.1266
0.1285
Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
Endmembers
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
#1 Soil
0.0454
0.0422
0.0315
0.0316
0.0509
0.0801
0.0792
0.0326
0.0498
0.0870
#2 Tree
0.0600
0.0714
0.0425
0.0429
0.0781
0.0771
0.0802
0.0319
0.0427
0.0895
#3 Water
0.1134
0.1155
0.1129
0.1135
0.1158
0.0217
0.0263
0.0072
0.0134
0.0321
Avg.
0.0729
0.0764
0.0623
0.0627
0.0816
0.0596
0.0619
0.0239
0.0353
0.0695
TABLE III
T HE SAD PERFORMANCES OF FIVE BENCHMARK HU ALGORITHMS ON
THE C UPRITE HYPERSPECTRAL IMAGES .
Endmembers
#1 Alunite
#2 Andradite
#3 Buddingtonite
#4 Dumortierite
#5 Kaolinite1
#6 Kaolinite2
#7 Muscovite
#8 Montmorillonite
#9 Nontronite
#10 Pyrope
#11 Sphene
#12 Chalcedony
Avg.

VCA
0.1584
0.0773
0.0999
0.1033
0.0892
0.0682
0.1912
0.0721
0.0784
0.0907
0.0702
0.0870
0.0988

Spectral
NMF
0.1640
0.1166
0.1343
0.1202
0.1042
0.1120
0.2440
0.1165
0.1115
0.0966
0.0952
0.1811
0.1330

Angle Distance (SAD)
`1 -NMF
`1/2 -NMF
0.1618
0.1458
0.1253
0.0783
0.1391
0.1456
0.1212
0.1067
0.0951
0.1004
0.1024
0.0763
0.2490
0.2228
0.0980
0.0769
0.1036
0.0940
0.0935
0.0831
0.0903
0.0788
0.1719
0.1542
0.1293
0.1136

G-NMF
0.1632
0.1279
0.1406
0.1211
0.1001
0.1125
0.2489
0.1209
0.1232
0.1045
0.0923
0.1513
0.1339

3). Nonnegative sparse coding [62] (`1 -NMF) is a classic
sparse regularized NMF method. The code is download from
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/phoyer/software.html.
4). `1/2 sparsity-constrained NMF [12] (`1/2 -NMF) is a
state-of-the-art method that could get sparser results than `1 NMF. Since the code is unavailable, we implement it.
5). Graph regularized NMF [61, 64] (G-NMF) is an interesting algorithm that transfers graph information inherent in
the hyperspectral image into the abundance space.
We will share the code for all the above five algorithms.
B. Experiment Settings and Experiment Results
Generally, there are one or two hyper-parameters in the 5
benchmark methods. We use the coarse to fine grid search
method to find the best hyper-parameters [14–16]. The initialization of the endmembers M and abundances A is very
important to the final HU results [37]. We employ the same
benchmark algorithm, i.e., VCA [39], to initialize M and A
for the five methods on all the 15 datasets. There are two
advantages: (1) it is helpful to generate the reproducible results
by the VCA; (2) VCA is really simple, effective and solid.
Two evaluation metrics are used to obtain the quantitative
comparison results: (1) the Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
[14–16, 53, 63] is used to verify the performance of the
estimated endmembers; (2) the Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE) [12, 14–16, 117] is for the evaluation of the estimated

abundances. To get a valid results, each experiment is repeated
50 times and the mean result is provided in the Tables II, III,
IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX. In short, we summarize the tables
that display the results on all the 15 datasets:
1). Table II summarizes the experiment results of all the five
benchmark algorithms (reviewed in Section VII-A). There are
three tables, displaying the HU results on the three subimages,
i.e., Samson#1, Samson#2 and Samson#3 respectively.
2). In Table III, the HU results on the Cuprite image are
summarized. Note that the ground truth abundance is not
available; only the endmember results are compared.
3). Table IV illustrates the HU results of 5 benchmark
algorithms on the full HYDICE Urban image. There are 3
versions of ground truths for the Urban images. Accordingly,
we summarize 3 versions of HU results in the 3 sub-tables.
4). In Table V, the HU results on the two subimages,
Urban#1 and Urban#2, are summarized. There are six endmembers as shown in the Table V.
5). In Table VI, the experiment results on the 3 subimages
from the JasperRidge is displayed. The 3 subimage are JasperRidge#1, JasperRidge#2 and JasperRidge#3.
6). Table VII illustrates the HU results on the 2 subimags
selected from Moffett Field. They are Moffett Field#1 and
Moffett Field#2 respectively as shown in the Table.
7). Table VIII illustrates the HU results on the 2 subimags
selected from the Washington DC Mall. They are WDM#1
and WDM#2 respectively.
8). Table IX displays the HU results on the two versions of
ground truths on the San Diego Airport dataset.
VIII. C ONCLUSION
Hyperspectral unmixing (HU) is an important preprocessing
step for a great number of hyperpsectral applications. To
promote the HU research, we accomplished this paper by
emphasizing on the generation of standard HU datasets (with
ground truths) and the summarization of benchmark results of
the state-of-the-art HU algorithms. Specifically, this is the first
paper to propose a general labeling method for the HU. Via
it, we summarized and labeled up to 15 hyperpsectral images.
To further enrich the HU datasets, an interesting method has
been proposed to transform the hyperspectral classification

12

V2: 5 endmembers

V1: 4 endmembers

TABLE IV
T HE PERFORMANCES OF FIVE BENCHMARK HU ALGORITHMS ON THE HYDICE U RBAN IMAGE , WHICH HAS THREE VERSIONS OF GROUND TRUTHS .
Endmembers
#1 Asphalt
#2 Grass
#3 Tree
#4 Roof
Avg.
Endmembers
#1 Asphalt
#2 Grass
#3 Tree
#4 Roof
#5 Soil
Avg.

V3: 6 endmembers

Endmembers
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5

Asphalt
Grass
Tree
Roof1
Roof2/
Shadow
#6 Soil
Avg.

VCA
0.2441
0.3058
0.6371
0.2521

Spectral
NMF
0.2114
0.3654
0.1928
0.7370
0.3767
Spectral
NMF
0.3284
0.4575
0.2337
0.4134
1.0478
0.4962
Spectral
NMF
0.3322
0.4059
0.2558
0.3701

0.7451

0.6223

0.5330

0.1870

0.6831

0.2157

0.1603

0.2136

0.1660

0.1441

1.1061
0.5484

0.9978
0.4974

1.0371
0.4684

0.0287
0.1224

0.9859
0.4941

0.2714
0.2639

0.2505
0.2461

0.2594
0.2281

0.3542
0.2601

0.2547
0.2348

VCA
0.2152
0.3547
0.2115
0.7697
0.3877
VCA
0.3009
0.3547
0.4694
0.4066
1.0638
0.5191

Angle Distance (SAD)
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.1548
0.1349
0.2876
0.0990
0.0911
0.0969
0.7335
0.5768
0.3168
0.2269
Angle Distance (SAD)
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.1664
0.1837
0.1826
0.1143
0.1335
0.0658
0.4801
0.0834
1.0948
0.0290
0.4115
0.0952
Angle Distance (SAD)
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.2669
0.3092
0.3294
0.0792
0.2070
0.0623
0.4370
0.0680

G-NMF
0.2086
0.3716
0.1934
0.7377
0.3778

VCA
0.2884
0.3830
0.2856
0.1638
0.2802

G-NMF
0.3502
0.5539
0.2402
0.4340
0.9651
0.5087

VCA
0.2898
0.3634
0.3092
0.2202
0.2791
0.2923

G-NMF
0.3274
0.3787
0.2629
0.3264

VCA
0.2555
0.2696
0.3212
0.2500

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.2041
0.2279
0.3225
0.2065
0.2248
0.3387
0.1870
0.1736
0.2588
0.1395
0.1861
0.1782
0.1843
0.2031
0.2746
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.2941
0.3080
0.3408
0.3417
0.2048
0.3099
0.2513
0.1245
0.2944
0.1548
0.1101
0.1751
0.2755
0.2797
0.3125
0.2635
0.2054
0.2865
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.2826
0.2803
0.3389
0.3536
0.2937
0.2774
0.2633
0.1859
0.2701
0.1662
0.1358
0.1541

G-NMF
0.2056
0.2078
0.1824
0.1389
0.1837
G-NMF
0.2944
0.3823
0.2887
0.1581
0.2796
0.2806
G-NMF
0.2787
0.3184
0.2404
0.1725

TABLE V
T HE PERFORMANCES OF FIVE BENCHMARK HU ALGORITHMS ON THE U RBAN #1 AND U RBANN #2 HYPERSPECTRAL SUB - IMAGES .

Urban #1

Endmembers
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5

Asphalt
Grass
Tree
Roof1
Roof2/
Shadow
#6 Soil
Avg.

Urban #2

Endmembers
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5

Asphalt
Grass
Tree
Roof1
Roof2/
Shadow
#6 Soil
Avg.

VCA
0.2166
1.3196
0.1696
0.2475

Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.3172
0.1843
0.2761
0.5520
1.1585
0.6055
0.1221
0.0708
0.1034
0.3403
0.3632
0.3537

G-NMF
0.3273
0.4975
0.1188
0.3686

VCA
0.2962
0.4199
0.1934
0.3176

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.2544
0.2663
0.2475
0.2727
0.3864
0.2982
0.1648
0.2271
0.1602
0.1871
0.1411
0.1782

G-NMF
0.2488
0.2720
0.1709
0.1695

0.9453

0.6446

0.6075

0.1965

0.1957

0.2020

0.3329
0.5386

0.4560
0.3959

0.2409
0.2774

VCA
0.2112
1.2238
0.1778
0.2012

0.4991
0.2179
0.4191
0.4125
0.3950
0.4010
Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.2693
0.2319
0.4158
0.2990
0.3400
0.2348
0.1263
0.1203
0.1037
0.4419
0.4462
0.4320

G-NMF
0.2874
0.3526
0.1212
0.4304

VCA
0.2724
0.3673
0.1910
0.3693

0.2661
0.2509
0.2843
0.2235
0.2568
0.2294
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.2710
0.2617
0.4366
0.2341
0.2662
0.2809
0.1636
0.1776
0.2120
0.1360
0.1239
0.1341

G-NMF
0.2488
0.2430
0.1732
0.1359

1.0188

0.5260

0.5151

0.3300

0.5371

0.1857

0.2244

0.2249

0.2448

0.2030

0.4134
0.5410

0.5414
0.3673

0.4434
0.3495

0.0786
0.2658

0.5253
0.3757

0.2235
0.2682

0.2619
0.2152

0.2675
0.2203

0.4651
0.2956

0.2535
0.2096

0.3751

0.6482

datasets for the HU research. Besides, we reviewed and
implemented a widely accepted algorithm to generate a very
complex simulated hyperpsectral image for the HU study. Such
synthetic dataset is helpful to verify the HU algorithms under
four different conditions.
To summarize the benchmark HU results, we reviewed up
to 10 state-of-the-art HU algorithms, and selected the five
most benchmark HU algorithms for the comparison. Those
HU algorithms are compared on the 15 hyperpsectral images.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to compare
the benchmark algorithms on so many real hyperpsectral
images. The experient results on this paper may provide a
valid baseline for the evaluation of new HU algorithms.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Bioucas-Dias and A. Plaza, “Hyperspectral unmixing overview: Geometrical,
statistical, and sparse regression-based approaches,” IEEE Journal of Selected
Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 354
–379, april 2012.
[2] Y. Wang, C. Pan, S. Xiang, and F. Zhu, “Robust hyperspectral unmixing with
correntropy-based metric,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 24,
no. 11, pp. 4027–4040, 2015.

0.2693

0.2080

0.2696
0.2222

[3] R. Kawakami, J. Wright, Y.-W. Tai, Y. Matsushita, M. Ben-Ezra, and K. Ikeuchi,
“High-resolution hyperspectral imaging via matrix factorization,” IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 0, pp. 2329–2336, 2011.
[4] C. Lanaras, E. Baltsavias, and K. Schindler, “Hyperspectral super-resolution by
coupled spectral unmixing,” in IEEE International Conference on Computer
Vision, 2015, pp. 3586–3594.
[5] W. Dong, F. Fu, G. Shi, X. Cao, J. Wu, G. Li, and X. Li, “Hyperspectral
image super-resolution via non-negative structured sparse representation,” IEEE
Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 2337–2352, 2016.
[6] C. Ma, X. Cao, X. Tong, Q. Dai, and S. Lin, “Acquisition of high spatial and
spectral resolution video with a hybrid camera system,” International journal of
computer vision, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 141–155, 2014.
[7] N. Akhtar, F. Shafait, and A. Mian, “Sparse spatio-spectral representation for
hyperspectral image super-resolution,” in European Conference on Computer
Vision. Springer, 2014, pp. 63–78.
[8] ——, “Bayesian sparse representation for hyperspectral image super resolution,”
in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2015, pp. 3631–
3640.
[9] Z. Guo, T. Wittman, and S. Osher, “L1 unmixing and its application to hyperspectral image enhancement,” in Defense, Security, and Sensing, ser. Society of
Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, vol. 7334,
no. 1. The International Society for Optical Engineering., Apr. 2009, p. 73341M.
[10] K. C. Mertens, L. P. C. Verbeke, E. I. Ducheyne, and R. R. D. Wulf, “Using genetic
algorithms in sub-pixel mapping,” International Journal of Remote Sensing (IJRS),
vol. 24, no. 21, pp. 4241–4247, 2003.
[11] C. Li, T. Sun, K. Kelly, and Y. Zhang, “A compressive sensing and unmixing
scheme for hyperspectral data processing,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP), vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1200–1210, March 2012.
[12] Y. Qian, S. Jia, J. Zhou, and A. Robles-Kelly, “Hyperspectral unmixing via
sparsity-constrained nonnegative matrix factorization,” IEEE Transactions on

13

Jasper Ridge #3

Jasper Ridge #2

Jasper Ridge #1

TABLE VI
T HE HU RESULTS OF FIVE BENCHMARK HU ALGORITHMS ON THE JASPER R IDGE #1, JASPER R IDGE #2 AND JASPER R IDGE #3 HYPERSPECTRAL IMAGES .
Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
Endmembers
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
#1 Tree
0.3381
0.1325
0.0553
0.0458
0.0743
0.2651
0.1327
0.0928
0.1032
0.0752
#2 Water
0.2573
0.2823
0.0300
0.0303
0.2923
0.2711
0.1384
0.0714
0.0911
0.1366
#3 Soil
0.3062
0.2125
0.1318
0.0534
0.2005
0.2567
0.2221
0.2536
0.2631
0.1837
#4 Road
0.6053
0.4843
0.6352
0.5525
0.5411
0.2361
0.1876
0.2064
0.2389
0.1908
#5 Other
0.7156
0.6463
1.0503
0.8187
0.6742
0.2842
0.1601
0.1357
0.1451
0.1669
Avg.
0.4445
0.3516
0.3805
0.3001
0.3565
0.2626
0.1682
0.1520
0.1683
0.1506
Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
Endmembers
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
#1 Tree
0.2565
0.2130
0.0680
0.0409
0.2781
0.3268
0.1402
0.0636
0.0707
0.1740
#2 Water
0.2474
0.2001
0.3815
0.1682
0.2530
0.3151
0.1106
0.0660
0.1031
0.1375
#3 Soil
0.3584
0.1569
0.0898
0.0506
0.3246
0.2936
0.2557
0.2463
0.2679
0.2840
#4 Road
0.5489
0.3522
0.4118
0.3670
0.2776
0.2829
0.2450
0.2344
0.2737
0.2279
Avg.
0.3528
0.2305
0.2378
0.1567
0.2833
0.3046
0.1879
0.1526
0.1789
0.2058
Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
Endmembers
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
#1 Tree
0.1168
0.0992
0.0969
0.1081
0.1117
0.1522
0.1000
0.1182
0.1017
0.1164
#2 Water
0.2763
0.3124
0.0513
0.0474
0.3369
0.1467
0.1248
0.0418
0.0651
0.1298
#3 Soil
0.5364
0.3748
0.3525
0.2419
0.3414
0.2475
0.2663
0.2536
0.2289
0.2247
#4 Road
0.4235
0.2997
0.3906
0.4098
0.2200
0.2105
0.2163
0.1707
0.1834
0.1688
Avg.
0.3383
0.2715
0.2228
0.2018
0.2525
0.1892
0.1769
0.1461
0.1448
0.1599

Moffett Field#2 Moffett Field#1

TABLE VII
T HE PERFORMANCES OF FIVE BENCHMARK HU ALGORITHMS ON THE M OFFETT F IELD #1 AND M OFFETT F IELD #2 HYPERSPECTRAL IMAGES .
Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
Endmembers
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
#1 Soil
0.0760
0.0475
0.0884
0.0717
0.1006
0.2492
0.0923
0.0912
0.0943
0.1085
#2 Tree
0.0418
0.0432
0.0332
0.0357
0.0477
0.0992
0.0540
0.0595
0.0590
0.0842
#3 Water
0.3946
0.3528
0.3471
0.3432
0.3697
0.2751
0.1006
0.0790
0.0839
0.1219
Avg.
0.1708
0.1478
0.1563
0.1502
0.1727
0.2078
0.0823
0.0766
0.0791
0.1049
Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
Endmembers
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
VCA
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
G-NMF
#1 Soil
0.0509
0.0398
0.0360
0.0258
0.0402
0.1120
0.1685
0.0456
0.0703
0.1701
#2 Tree
0.0406
0.0419
0.0684
0.0592
0.0422
0.0403
0.0600
0.0286
0.0417
0.0595
#3 Water
0.2793
0.3224
0.0555
0.0726
0.3247
0.1072
0.1771
0.0348
0.0501
0.1779
Avg.
0.1236
0.1347
0.0533
0.0525
0.1357
0.0865
0.1352
0.0364
0.0540
0.1359

Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 4282 –4297, nov 2011.
[13] S. Cai, Q. Du, and R. Moorhead, “Hyperspectral imagery visualization using
double layers,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (TGRS),
vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 3028–3036, Oct 2007.
[14] F. Zhu, Y. Wang, B. Fan, S. Xiang, G. Meng, and C. Pan, “Spectral unmixing
via data-guided sparsity,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP), vol. 23,
no. 12, pp. 5412–5427, Dec 2014.
[15] F. Zhu, Y. Wang, S. Xiang, B. Fan, and C. Pan, “Structured sparse method for
hyperspectral unmixing,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,
vol. 88, no. 0, pp. 101–118, 2014.
[16] F. Zhu, Y. Wang, B. Fan, G. Meng, and C. Pan, “Effective spectral unmixing via
robust representation and learning-based sparsity,” CoRR, vol. abs/1409.0685,
2014. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0685
[17] G. Cheng, Y. Wang, Y. Gong, F. Zhu, and C. Pan, “Urban road extraction via
graph cuts based probability propagation,” in Image Processing (ICIP), 2014 IEEE
International Conference on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 5072–5076.
[18] G. Cheng, Y. Wang, F. Zhu, and C. Pan, “Road extraction via adaptive graph
cuts with multiple features,” in Image Processing (ICIP), IEEE International
Conference on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 3962–3966.
[19] G. Cheng, F. Zhu, S. Xiang, Y. Wang, and C. Pan, “Accurate urban road centerline
extraction from vhr imagery via multiscale segmentation and tensor voting,”
Neurocomputing, vol. 205, pp. 407–420, 2016.
[20] ——, “Semisupervised hyperspectral image classification via discriminant analysis and robust regression,” IEEE J. of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 595–608, 2016.
[21] G. Cheng, F. Zhu, S. Xiang, and C. Pan, “Road centerline extraction via
semisupervised segmentation and multidirection nonmaximum suppression,” IEEE
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 545–549, 2016.
[22] J. Yao, X. Zhu, F. Zhu, and J. Huang, “Deep correlational learning for survival
prediction from multi-modality datay,” in International Conference on Medical
Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), 2017.
[23] X. Zhu, J. Yao, F. Zhu, and J. Huang, “Wsisa: Making survival prediction from
whole slide histopathological images,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision
and Pattern Recognition, 2017, pp. 7234 – 7242.
[24] Z. Xu, S. Wang, F. Zhu, and J. Huang, “Seq2seq fingerprint: An unsupervised deep
molecular embedding for drug discovery,” in ACM Conference on Bioinformatics,
Computational Biology, and Health Informatics (ACM-BCB), 2017.

[25] F. Zhu and P. Liao, “Effective warm start for the online actor-critic reinforcement
learning based mhealth intervention,” in The Multi-disciplinary Conference on
Reinforcement Learning and Decision Making, 2017, pp. 6 – 10.
[26] F. Zhu, P. Liao, X. Zhu, Y. Yao, and J. Huang, “Cohesion-based online actor-critic
reinforcement learning for mhealth intervention,” arXiv:1703.10039, 2017.
[27] L. Miao, H. Qi, and H. Qi, “Endmember extraction from highly mixed data
using minimum volume constrained nonnegative matrix factorization,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (TGRS), vol. 45, no. 3, pp.
765–777, 2007.
[28] S. Jia and Y. Qian, “Constrained nonnegative matrix factorization for hyperspectral
unmixing,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 47, no. 1,
pp. 161–173, 2009.
[29] W. Wang and Y. Qian, “Parallel adaptive sparsity-constrained nmf algorithm
for hyperspectral unmixing,” in Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
(IGARSS), 2016 IEEE International. IEEE, 2016, pp. 6137–6140.
[30] L. Tong, J. Zhou, Y. Qian, X. Bai, and Y. Gao, “Nonnegative-matrix-factorizationbased hyperspectral unmixing with partially known endmembers,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 6531–6544, 2016.
[31] L. Tong, J. Zhou, X. Li, Y. Qian, and Y. Gao, “Region-based structure preserving
nonnegative matrix factorization for hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Journal of
Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 10, no. 4,
pp. 1575–1588, 2017.
[32] Y. Qian, F. Xiong, S. Zeng, J. Zhou, and Y. Y. Tang, “Matrix-vector nonnegative
tensor factorization for blind unmixing of hyperspectral imagery,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1776–1792, 2017.
[33] M.-D. Iordache, J. M. Bioucas-Dias, and A. Plaza, “Sparse unmixing of hyperspectral data.” IEEE Transactions Geoscience and Remote Sensing (TGRS),
vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 2014–2039, 2011.
[34] M.-D. Iordache, J. Bioucas-Dias, and A. Plaza, “Total variation spatial regularization for sparse hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing (TGRS), vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 4484–4502, 2012.
[35] J. Bayliss, J. A. Gualtieri, and R. F. Cromp, “Analyzing hyperspectral data with
independent component analysis,” in Proc. SPIE, vol. 3240. SPIE, 1997, pp.
133–143.
[36] S. Jia and Y. Qian, “Spectral and spatial complexity-based hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (TGRS), vol. 45,
no. 12, pp. 3867–3879, 2007.

14

TABLE VIII
T HE HU RESULTS OF FIVE BENCHMARK ALGORITHMS ON THE WDM#1 AND WDM#2 SUBIMAGES . WDM DENOTES WASHINGTON DC M ALL .

WDM #1

Endmembers
#1 Roof
#2 Grass
#3 Water
#4 Tree
#5 Trail
#6 Road
Avg.

WDM #2

Endmembers
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5

Asphalt
Grass
Tree
Roof1
Roof2/
Shadow
#6 Soil
Avg.

VCA
0.72505
1.17554
0.98158
0.15295

Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
NMF
`1 -NMF
`1/2 -NMF
0.23343
0.24818
0.22110
0.16813
0.17883
0.17013
0.17505
0.16717
0.17077
0.15310
0.15853
0.14407
0.26442
0.26116
0.26343
0.35212
0.34244
0.37354
0.22437
0.22605
0.22384
Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
NMF
`1 -NMF
`1/2 -NMF
0.81097
0.70794
0.75846
1.41735
0.07486
1.17832
0.69179
0.11641
0.14168
0.04880
0.03986
0.03278

0.18843

0.09550

1.18046

0.31077

0.08978

0.35982

0.38600

0.26782

0.35865

0.38359

0.22996
0.57558

0.73903
0.63391

0.80175
0.48688

0.93171
0.55895

0.73604
0.63210

0.26711
0.31408

0.18963
0.30186

0.16798
0.26696

0.16017
0.29722

0.18300
0.30035

VCA
0.18175
0.24779
0.18327
0.13241
0.17445
0.42313
0.22380

VCA
0.33940
0.45647
0.21752
0.24413

Root Mean
NMF
0.16432
0.19286
0.20351
0.14405
0.26970
0.29809
0.21209
Root Mean
NMF
0.33944
0.46033
0.18320
0.25255

Square Error (RMSE)
`1 -NMF
`1/2 -NMF
0.16577
0.16744
0.19132
0.19167
0.20051
0.20236
0.14417
0.14449
0.27523
0.27606
0.29570
0.30967
0.21212
0.21528
Square Error (RMSE)
`1 -NMF
`1/2 -NMF
0.33806
0.34125
0.33928
0.44229
0.23490
0.21929
0.25370
0.26166

G-NMF
0.21093
0.17285
0.17099
0.15898
0.27032
0.36481
0.22481

VCA
0.12021
0.18837
0.33159
0.15137
0.30302
0.36034
0.24248

G-NMF
0.83643
1.44942
0.63707
0.04388

G-NMF
0.17293
0.19202
0.19769
0.14406
0.28636
0.29885
0.21532
G-NMF
0.34041
0.46026
0.18256
0.25228

V1: 4 endmembers

Endmembers

V2: 5 endmembers

TABLE IX
T HE PERFORMANCES OF FIVE BENCHMARK HU ALGORITHMS ON THE S AN D IEGO A IPORT IMAGE , WHICH HAS TWO VERSIONS OF GROUND TRUTHS .

Endmembers

#1
#2
#3
#4

Grass
Tree
Roof
Ground
/Road
Avg.

#1
#2
#3
#4

Grass
Tree
Roof
Ground
/Road
#5 Other
Avg.

VCA
1.0476
0.1891
0.3844

Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.7738
0.1811
0.0474
0.1904
0.7613
0.8001
0.5240
0.4924
0.4608

G-NMF
0.7763
0.1709
0.5224

VCA
0.3164
0.2257
0.4508

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.3403
0.2675
0.2692
0.2338
0.2672
0.2851
0.3361
0.3101
0.3491

G-NMF
0.3255
0.2336
0.3348

0.2187

0.2543

0.2487

0.3719

0.2593

0.2562

0.4600

0.4296

0.3412

VCA
0.4806
0.1592
0.6239

0.4356
0.3915
0.3423
Spectral Angle Distance (SAD)
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.3382
0.3560
0.2957
0.1361
0.1439
0.1624
0.6509
0.6293
0.6205

G-NMF
0.2544
0.1430
0.6409

VCA
0.3249
0.2209
0.3299

0.2924
0.2683
0.2999
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
NMF
`1 -NMF `1/2 -NMF
0.2916
0.2964
0.2754
0.2267
0.2212
0.2176
0.2538
0.2626
0.2715

G-NMF
0.2906
0.2207
0.2563

0.2509

0.2276

0.2200

0.2047

0.2501

0.3443

0.2544

0.2622

0.2566

0.2581

0.4856
0.4000

0.5421
0.3790

0.5586
0.3815

0.5861
0.3739

0.6157
0.3808

0.3382
0.3117

0.2665
0.2586

0.2735
0.2632

0.2781
0.2599

0.2696
0.2591

0.1313

0.0609

[37] N. Wang, B. Du, and L. Zhang, “An endmember dissimilarity constrained nonnegative matrix factorization method for hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Journal
of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 6,
no. 2, pp. 554–569, 2013.
[38] J. M. Boardman, F. A. Kruse, and R. O. Green, “Mapping target signatures
via partial unmixing of aviris data,” in Proc. Summ. JPL Airborne Earth Sci.
Workshop, vol. 1, 1995, pp. 23–26.
[39] J. M. P. Nascimento and J. M. B. Dias, “Vertex component analysis: a fast
algorithm to unmix hyperspectral data,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing (TGRS), vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 898–910, 2005.
[40] C.-I. Chang, C.-C. Wu, W. Liu, and Y. C. Ouyang, “A new growing method
for simplex-based endmember extraction algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (TGRS), vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 2804–2819, 2006.
[41] J. Li and J. M. Bioucas-Dias, “Minimum volume simplex analysis: A fast
algorithm to unmix hyperspectral data.” in IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Symposium, vol. 4, 2008, pp. III–250–III–253.
[42] J. Bioucas-Dias, “A variable splitting augmented lagrangian approach to linear
spectral unmixing,” in Workshop on Hyperspectral Image and Signal Processing:
Evolution in Remote Sensing, Aug 2009, pp. 1–4.
[43] G. Martin and A. Plaza, “Spatial-spectral preprocessing prior to endmember
identification and unmixing of remotely sensed hyperspectral data,” IEEE Journal
of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 5,
no. 2, pp. 380–395, 2012.
[44] J. Wang and C.-I. Chang, “Applications of independent component analysis in
endmember extraction and abundance quantification for hyperspectral imagery,”
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (TGRS), vol. 44, no. 9,
pp. 2601–2616, 2006.
[45] N. Dobigeon, S. Moussaoui, M. Coulon, J.-Y. Tourneret, and A. O. Hero, “Joint
bayesian endmember extraction and linear unmixing for hyperspectral imagery,”
IEEE Transactions on Signal Process (TSP), vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 4355–4368, 2009.
[46] J. M. Bioucas-Dias, “A variable splitting augmented lagrangian approach to linear
spectral unmixing,” in Workshop on Hyperspectral Image and Signal Processing:
Evolution in Remote Sensing, 2009, pp. 1–4.
[47] J. M. P. Nascimento and J. M. Bioucas-Dias, “Hyperspectral unmixing based on
mixtures of dirichlet components,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing (TGRS), vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 863–878, 2012.
[48] N. Yokoya, J. Chanussot, and A. Iwasaki, “Nonlinear unmixing of hyperspectral
data using semi-nonnegative matrix factorization,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (TGRS), vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 1430–1437, 2014.

0.2283

0.2964

0.2875

[49] M. E. Winter, “N-findr: an algorithm for fast autonomous spectral end-member
determination in hyperspectral data,” in SPIE Conference Imaging Spectrometry,
1999, pp. 266–275.
[50] X. Lu, H. Wu, Y. Yuan, P. Yan, and X. Li, “Manifold regularized sparse nmf for
hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing
(TGRS), vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 2815–2826, 2013.
[51] D. D. Lee and H. S. Seung, “Learning the parts of objects with nonnegative matrix
factorization,” Nature, vol. 401, no. 6755, pp. 788–791, Oct 1999.
[52] ——, “Algorithms for non-negative matrix factorization,” in Advances in Neural
Information Processing Systems (NIPS). MIT Press, 2000, pp. 556–562.
[53] X. Liu, W. Xia, B. Wang, and L. Zhang, “An approach based on constrained
nonnegative matrix factorization to unmix hyperspectral data,” IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (TGRS), vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 757–772, 2011.
[54] H. Kim and H. Park, “Nonnegative matrix factorization based on alternating
nonnegativity constrained least squares and active set method,” SIAM Journal
on Matrix Analysis and Applications, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 713–730, 2008.
[55] M. W. Berry, M. Browne, A. N. Langville, V. P. Pauca, and R. J. Plemmons,
“Algorithms and applications for approximate nonnegative matrix factorization.”
Computational Statistics Data Analysis, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 155–173, 2007.
[56] C.-J. Lin, “Projected gradient methods for nonnegative matrix factorization,”
Neural Computation, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 2756–2779, 2007.
[57] S. Z. Li, X. Hou, H. Zhang, and Q. Cheng, “Learning spatially localized, partsbased representation,” in IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision
(CVPR), 2001, pp. 207–212.
[58] R. Sandler et al., “Nonnegative matrix factorization with earth mover’s distance
metric for image analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence (PAMI), vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1590–1602, 2011.
[59] W. Xu, X. Liu, and Y. Gong, “Document clustering based on non-negative
matrix factorization,” in International Conference on Research and Development
in Information Retrieval (SIGIR), 2003, pp. 267–273.
[60] F. Shahnaz, M. W. Berry, V. P. Pauca, and R. J. Plemmons, “Document clustering
using nonnegative matrix factorization,” Elsevier Journal Information Processing
& Management, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 373–386, 2006.
[61] J. Liu, J. Zhang, Y. Gao, C. Zhang, and Z. Li, “Enhancing spectral unmixing by
local neighborhood weights,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth
Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 1545–1552, 2012.
[62] P. O. Hoyer, “Non-negative sparse coding,” in IEEE Workshop Neural Networks
for Signal Processing, 2002, pp. 557–565.
[63] X. Lu, H. Wu, Y. Yuan, P. Yan, and X. Li, “Manifold regularized sparse nmf for

15

[64]

[65]

[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]

[70]

[71]
[72]

[73]
[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]
[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]
[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]
[91]

[92]

[93]

hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 2815–2826, 2013.
D. Cai, X. He, J. Han, and T. S. Huang, “Graph regularized nonnegative matrix
factorization for data representation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and
Machine Intelligence (PAMI), vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1548 –1560, aug 2011.
D. Lunga, S. Prasad, M. M. Crawford, and O. K. Ersoy, “Manifold-learning-based
feature extraction for classification of hyperspectral data: A review of advances in
manifold learning,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 55–66, 2014.
R. Tibshirani, “Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,” Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 267–288, 1996.
D. L. Donoho, “Compressed sensing,” IEEE Transactions Information Theory,
vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1289–1306, 1996.
N. Hurley and S. Rickard, “Comparing measures of sparsity,” IEEE Transactions
on Information Theory, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 4723–4741, Oct. 2009.
F. Nie, H. Huang, X. Cai, and C. H. Ding, “Efficient and robust feature selection
via joint `2,1 -norms minimization,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems (NIPS). Curran Associates, Inc., 2010, pp. 1813–1821.
H. Wang, F. Nie, and H. Huang, “Robust distance metric learning via simultaneous
l1-norm minimization and maximization,” in International Conference on Machine
Learning (ICML), T. Jebara and E. P. Xing, Eds.
JMLR Workshop and
Conference Proceedings, 2014, pp. 1836–1844.
D. P. Bertsekas, Constrained optimization and Lagrange multiplier methods.
Academic press, 2014.
A. Levin, D. Lischinski, and Y. Weiss, “A closed-form solution to natural
image matting,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
(PAMI), vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 228–242, 2008.
D. Landgrebe et al., “Multispectral data analysis: A signal theory perspective,”
Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN, 1998.
N. Dobigeon, J.-Y. Tourneret, and C.-I. Chang, “Semi-supervised linear spectral
unmixing using a hierarchical bayesian model for hyperspectral imagery,” IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 2684–2695, 2008.
N. Yokoya, J. Chanussot, and A. Iwasaki, “Nonlinear unmixing of hyperspectral
data using semi-nonnegative matrix factorization,” IEEE T. Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 1430–1437, 2014.
N. Gillis and R. J. Plemmons, “Sparse nonnegative matrix underapproximation
and its application to hyperspectral image analysis,” Linear Algebra and its
Applications, vol. 438, no. 10, pp. 3991–4007, 2013.
C.-I. Chang and Q. Du, “Estimation of number of spectrally distinct signal sources
in hyperspectral imagery,” IEEE Transactions on geoscience and remote sensing,
vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 608–619, 2004.
H. Li, Y. Wang, S. Xiang, J. Duan, F. Zhu, and C. Pan, “A label propagation
method using spatial-spectral consistency for hyperspectral image classification,”
International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 191–211, 2016.
S. Xiang, F. Nie, G. Meng, C. Pan, and C. Zhang, “Discriminative least squares
regression for multiclass classification and feature selection,” IEEE transactions
on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1738–1754, 2012.
F. Zhu, “Unsupervised hyperspectral unmixing methods,” Ph.D. dissertation, 2015.
Envi-Tutorials,
“Envi
classic
vegetation
hyperspectral
analysis.
http://www.exelisvis.com/Learn/WhitepapersDetail/TabId/802/PID/2627/TagID/
129/TagName/hyperspectralimagery/Default.aspx,” 2013.
C. Rodarmel and J. Shan, “Principal component analysis for hyperspectral image
classification,” Surveying and Land Information Science, vol. 62, no. 2, p. 115,
2002.
F. Zhu, B. Fan, X. Zhu, Y. Wang, S. Xiang, and C. Pan, “10,000+ times
accelerated robust subset selection (ARSS),” in Proc. Assoc. Adv. Artif. Intell.
(AAAI), 2015, pp. 3217–3224. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3660
X. Hu, Y. Wang, F. Zhu, and C. Pan, “Learning-based fully 3d face reconstruction
from a single image,” in Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2016
IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1651–1655.
F. Zhu, “Hyperspectral unmixing datasets & ground truths on http://www.escience.
cn/people/feiyunZHU/Dataset_GT.html,” 2014.
H. M. Vargas and H. A. Fuentes, “Colored coded-apertures for spectral image
unmixing,” in SPIE Remote Sensing.
International Society for Optics and
Photonics, 2015, pp. 964 320–964 320.
Z. Shu, J. Zhou, L. Tong, X. Bai, and C. Zhao, “Multilayer manifold and sparsity
constrainted nonnegative matrix factorization for hyperspectral unmixing,” in
Image Processing (ICIP), 2015 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2015,
pp. 2174–2178.
S. Vasuki et al., “Clustering based band selection for endmember extraction
using simplex growing algorithm in hyperspectral images,” Multimedia Tools and
Applications, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 8355–8371, 2017.
V. S. K. Ganesan and S. Vasuki, “Maximin distance based band selection for
endmember extraction in hyperspectral images using simplex growing algorithm,”
Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp. 1–17.
Y. Fu, J. Gao, X. Hong, and D. Tien, “Low rank representation on riemannian
manifold of square root densities,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.04198, 2015.
H. K. Aggarwal and A. Majumdar, “Hyperspectral unmixing in the presence of
mixed noise using joint-sparsity and total variation,” IEEE Journal of Selected
Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 9, no. 9, pp.
4257–4266, 2016.
Q. Yuan, L. Zhang, and H. Shen, “Hyperspectral image denoising employing a
spectral-spatial adaptive total variation model,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
and Remote Sensing (TGRS), vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 3660–3677, Oct 2012.
J. Sigurdsson, M. O. Ulfarsson, J. R. Sveinsson, and J. M. Bioucas-Dias,
“Sparse distributed multitemporal hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2017.

[94] W. He, H. Zhang, and L. Zhang, “Sparsity-regularized robust non-negative matrix
factorization for hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in
Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 4267–4279,
2016.
[95] H. Kim and H. Park, “Sparse non-negative matrix factorizations via alternating
non-negativity-constrained least squares for microarray data analysis,” Bioinformatics, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 1495–1502, Jun. 2007.
[96] W. He, H. Zhang, and L. Zhang, “Total variation regularized reweighted sparse
nonnegative matrix factorization for hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2017.
[97] Z. Wu, S. Ye, J. Liu, L. Sun, and Z. Wei, “Sparse non-negative matrix factorization
on gpus for hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied
Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 3640–3649, 2014.
[98] A. Agathos, J. Li, J. M. Bioucas-Dias, and A. Plaza, “Robust minimum volume
simplex analysis for hyperspectral unmixing,” in Signal Processing Conference
(EUSIPCO), 2014 Proceedings of the 22nd European. IEEE, 2014, pp. 1582–
1586.
[99] Q. Wei, M. Chen, J.-Y. Tourneret, and S. Godsill, “Unsupervised nonlinear
spectral unmixing based on a multilinear mixing model,” IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2017.
[100] S. Bernabé, G. Botella, G. Martín, M. Prieto-Matias, and A. Plaza, “Parallel
implementation of a full hyperspectral unmixing chain using opencl,” IEEE
Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing,
vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 2452–2461, 2017.
[101] X. Wang, Y. Zhong, L. Zhang, and Y. Xu, “Spatial group sparsity regularized
nonnegative matrix factorization for hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2017.
[102] W. Wang, Y. Qian, and Y. Y. Tang, “Hypergraph-regularized sparse nmf for
hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth
Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 681–694, 2016.
[103] E. Martel, R. Guerra, S. López, and R. Sarmiento, “A gpu-based processing chain
for linearly unmixing hyperspectral images,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in
Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 818–834,
2017.
[104] W. Li, G. Wu, and Q. Du, “Transferred deep learning for anomaly detection in
hyperspectral imagery,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 14,
no. 5, pp. 597–601, 2017.
[105] Q. Wang, W. Shi, P. M. Atkinson, and Q. Wei, “Approximate area-to-point
regression kriging for fast hyperspectral image sharpening,” IEEE Journal of
Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 10, no. 1,
pp. 286–295, 2017.
[106] L. Zhang, W. Wei, Y. Zhang, H. Yan, F. Li, and C. Tian, “Locally similar sparsitybased hyperspectral compressive sensing using unmixing,” IEEE Transactions on
Computational Imaging, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 86–100, 2016.
[107] F. W. Chen, “Archiving and distribution of 2-d geophysical data using image
formats with lossless compression,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters,
vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 64–68, 2005.
[108] E. Christophe, D. Léger, and C. Mailhes, “Quality criteria benchmark for
hyperspectral imagery,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 2103–2114, 2005.
[109] N. Dobigeon and J.-Y. Tourneret, “Spectral unmixing of hyperspectral images
using a hierarchical bayesian model,” in Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing,
2007. ICASSP 2007. IEEE International Conference on, vol. 3. IEEE, 2007, pp.
III–1209.
[110] MoffettField, “Aviris free data. jet propulsion lab. (jpl). california inst. technol.,
pasadena, ca. http://aviris.jpl.nasa.gov/html/aviris.freedata.html,” 2006.
[111] O. Eches, N. Dobigeon, and J.-Y. Tourneret, “Enhancing hyperspectral image
unmixing with spatial correlations,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 4239–4247, 2011.
[112] R. Zhao, B. Du, and L. Zhang, “A robust nonlinear hyperspectral anomaly detection approach,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations
and Remote Sensing, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1227–1234, 2014.
[113] C. Zhao, W. Deng, Y. Yan, and X. Yao, “Progressive line processing of kernel rx
anomaly detection algorithm for hyperspectral imagery,” Sensors, vol. 17, no. 8,
p. 1815, 2017.
[114] M. Vafadar and H. Ghassemian, “Hyperspectral anomaly detection using outlier
removal from collaborative representation,” in Pattern Recognition and Image
Analysis (IPRIA), 2017 3rd International Conference on. IEEE, 2017, pp. 13–
19.
[115] X. Xu, X. Tong, A. Plaza, Y. Zhong, H. Xie, and L. Zhang, “Using linear
spectral unmixing for subpixel mapping of hyperspectral imagery: A quantitative
assessment,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and
Remote Sensing, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1589–1600, 2017.
[116] L. David, “Hyperspectral image data analysis as a high dimensional signal
processing problem,” IEEE Signal processing Mag, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 17–28,
2002.
[117] K. Canham, A. Schlamm, A. Ziemann, B. Basener, and D. W. Messinger,
“Spatially adaptive hyperspectral unmixing,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
and Remote Sensing (TGRS), vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 4248–4262, 2011.

