1

Intrinsic Analysis of the Sample Fréchet Mean and
Sample Mean of Complex Wishart Matrices

arXiv:1711.10646v2 [math.ST] 6 Jan 2018

L. Zhuang & A. T. Walden, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—We consider two types of averaging of complex
covariance matrices, a sample mean (average) and the sample
Fréchet mean. We analyse the performance of these quantities as
estimators for the true covariance matrix via ‘intrinsic’ versions
of bias and mean square error, a methodology which takes
account of geometric structure. We derive simple expressions
for the intrinsic bias in both cases, and the simple average
is seen to be preferable. The same is true for the asymptotic
Riemannian risk, and for the Riemannian risk itself in the scalar
case. Combined with a similar preference for the simple average
using non-intrinsic analysis, we conclude that the simple average
is preferred overall to the sample Fréchet mean in this context.
Index Terms—complex Wishart matrix, Fréchet mean, intrinsic
analysis, Riemannian manifold

I. I NTRODUCTION
In this letter we give a performance analysis of the average
of complex-valued covariance matrices found by the simple
sample mean or via the sample Fréchet mean. Classical
measures such as bias and mean square error (MSE) do not
take into account the geometrical structure.
Covariance matrix averaging methods for EEG signal classification was of interest in [16], and robust averaging was
proposed in [7] for the case of inhomogeneous samples due
to outliers. Our motivation to study this topic came from the
desire to build improved graphical models from neuroscience
data, used in schizophrenia studies [12]; see also [11]. This
requires good spectral matrix estimates for different groups of
individuals and we want to know whether it is best to average
estimated spectral matrices over individuals in each group, or
find instead their sample Fréchet mean.
Positive definite and Hermitian complex covariance matrices
form a manifold in the space of complex-valued matrices. If
such a manifold is equipped with a Riemannian metric, it
becomes a Riemannian manifold. In evaluating performance
criteria for the different forms of averaging of covariance
matrices, the manifold should be taken into account. This leads
to considering ‘intrinsic’ versions of bias and MSE [9], [13],
[15]. Indeed this was the approach adopted for performance
analysis by [7].
In a recent work [17] the averaging of a set S 1 , . . . , S N
of positive definite complex covariance matrix estimators was
Copyright (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be obtained
from the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org. Linjie
Zhuang and Andrew Walden are both at the Department of Mathematics,
Imperial College London, 180 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK. (e-mail:
l.zhuang13@imperial.ac.uk and a.walden@imperial.ac.uk).

studied. The matrices are considered homogeneous in the sense
that they are estimating the same true covariance matrix Σ,
and statistically, they are independent and identically complexWishart distributed. Ordinary bias and MSE were used to
compare the performance of the ordinary average of the
estimated covariance matrices, and of their sample Fréchet
mean, (also called the Riemannian mean in this setting). In
this letter we derive the intrinsic versions of bias and MSE to
enable a ‘geometry-aware’ performance appraisal. In contrast
to the classical measures, intrinsic evaluation of an estimator
is invariant under reparametrization, and it is dependent on the
model only [9].
The main contribution of this letter is to prove the simple
average of N Wishart matrices outperforms their Fréchet mean
in terms of intrinsic bias for N ≥ 2. We also show that the
same is true for the asymptotic Riemannian risk, and for the
Riemannian risk itself in the scalar case for N ≥ 2. These
results are enabled by the derivation of simple expressions for
the intrinsic bias for both types of average.
II. P RELIMINARIES
A. Complex Wishart matrices
Let X 0 , . . . , X K−1 be K independent p-dimensional
complex-Gaussian random vectors with zero means and
covariance matrix Σ. Then the maximum likelihood estimatorPfor Σ is the covariance matrix estimator S =
K−1
H
(1/K) k=0 X k X H
denotes Hermitian transpose
k , where
and KS has the complex Wishart distribution [10] with K
complex degrees of freedom and mean KΣ, denoted by
d

KS = WpC (K, Σ).

(1)

Such matrices arise frequently, e.g., [5], [12]. We assume K ≥
p, since then S has full rank p, and S is positive definite, with
probability one.
B. Positive Definite Hermitian matrices
Let H+ (p) denote the set of p×p positive definite Hermitian
matrices, a differentiable manifold. Denote the set of all p × p
invertible matrices by GL(p). The group action of GL(p) on
H+ (p) is the transformation φ : GL(p) × H+ (p) → H+ (p)
given by φL (P ) = LP LH .
C. Riemannian manifold
A manifold equipped with a Riemannian metric g is a
Riemannian manifold. H+ (p) can be turned into a Riemannian
manifold by defining at every point in H+ (p) an inner product

2

for elements in the tangent space that varies differentiably
along the manifold. The minimum length curve connecting
two points on the manifold is called the geodesic and the
Riemannian distance dg between the points is given by the
length of this curve. We use a scaled version of the Frobenius
inner product that is invariant under the group action of
GL(p). For any A, B ∈ TP H+ (p), where TP H+ (p) denotes
the tangent space at the point P ∈ H+ (p), the ‘scaled
Frobenius inner product’ takes the form (e.g., [8, p. 1729])
hA, BiP = tr(P −1 AP −1 B),

(2)

and the corresponding norm is
1/2

kAkP = hA, AiP = ||P −1/2 AP −1/2 ||Fr .

(3)

III. I NTRINSIC V ERSIONS OF B IAS AND MSE
Before proceeding we need to state some definitions.
Definition 1: [9, p. 128] For a fixed sample size N, and an
estimator S of Σ, the estimator vector field is LmapΣ (S).
Definition 2: [15, p. 1615] The expectation of the estimator
S on the manifold, with respect to Σ, denoted here EΣ {S} ∈
M, is defined as EΣ {S} = EmapΣ (E{LmapΣ (S)}).
Remark 1: An estimator S is an intrinsically unbiased
estimator of Σ if and only if E{LmapΣ (S)} = 0, since then
EΣ {S} = Σ1/2 exp(0)Σ1/2 = Σ. In fact E{LmapΣ (S)} is
called the bias vector field, e.g., [15, p. 1615].

Definition 3: [9, p. 129], [13, p. 1568] The intrinsic (or
invariant) bias of an estimator S of Σ is a scalar defined as
def

ibias(S) = kE{LmapΣ (S)}k2Σ .

D. Riemannian distance
For P 0 ∈ GL(p) the matrix logarithm is any p × p
matrix Q such that exp(Q) = P 0 , where exp(·) is the usual
power series expansion. For P 1 ∈ H+ (p) having spectral
decomposition P 1 = U ΛU H , the matrix logarithm function
is [1, p. 429]
log P 1

=

U diag(log λ1 (P 1 ), . . . , log λp (P 1 ))U H , (4)

where λj (P 1 ) > 0 is the jth eigenvalue of P 1 . From (4)
(log P 1 )H = log P 1 , so log P 1 is Hermitian. For any invertible matrix A and matrix B having real positive eigenvalues,
log(A−1 BA) = A−1 log(B)A.

(5)

Hence, calculating the intrinsic bias of an estimator involves
(i) mapping the estimator to a vector on the tangent space
specified by the true parameter; (ii) finding the squared norm
of the expectation of the vector.
Definition 4: [9, p. 129], [13, p. 1568] The Riemannian risk
of S is a scalar defined as
E{kLmapΣ (S)k2Σ }.

−1/2

−1/2

=

tr(log2 (P 1

=

−1/2
−1/2
k log(P 1 P 2 P 1 )k2Fr .

P 2P 1

))

IV. I NTRINSIC B IAS OF THE E STIMATORS
(6)

A. Intrinsic Bias of the Sample Fréchet Mean

(7)

Theorem 1: Let R1 , R2 , . . . , RN , be independent
and identically distributed (IID) random matrices with
d
KR = WpC (K, I), and let P̂ I be their sample Fréchet mean.
Then
ibias(P̂ I ) = p log2 (a),
(11)

We will denote the Riemannian manifold by M.
E. Fréchet Mean
Let S 1 , . . . , S N be independent random matrices with common distribution F on M. Let F̂ be the empirical distribution.
The sample Fréchet mean of F̂ is the minimizer of [2]
(1/N )

N
X

d2g (P̂ , S j ),

P̂ ∈ H+ (p).

(10)

Remark 2: The Frobenius inner product is a Riemannian
metric in the Euclidean domain and makes M a Riemannian
manifold, then the Riemannian risk is exactly the MSE. 

The Riemannian distance dg (P 1 , P 2 ) is defined by [8]
d2g (P 1 , P 2 )

(9)

where

a=

(8)


p
X

1 
exp

K
j=1

1/p

ψ(K − p + j)  ,


(12)

j=1

The Riemannian metric space has negative sectional curvature
so the sample Fréchet mean is unique, [6, p. 6].
F. Mappings for Riemannian Manifolds
The exponential map Emap : TP M −→ M is a function
mapping a vector U (starting from P ∈ M) in the tangent
space, to a point S on the Riemannian manifold:
S = EmapP (U ) = P 1/2 exp(P −1/2 U P −1/2 )P 1/2 .
The (inverse) logarithmic map is:
U = LmapP (S) = P 1/2 log(P −1/2 SP −1/2 )P 1/2 ,
and takes S on the Riemannian manifold to U in the tangent
space, M −→ TP M ; the nonpositive curvature of the
manifold guarantees the unique inverse mapping.

and ψ(·) denotes the digamma function.
Proof: From (9), when Σ = I, the intrinsic bias is given
by
def
ibias(P̂ I ) = kE{LmapI (P̂ I )}k2I ,
(13)
where
LmapI (P̂ I ) = I 1/2 log(I −1/2 P̂ I I −1/2 )I 1/2 = log(P̂ I ).
(14)
From (8) P̂ I is positive definite and Hermitian matrix. From
(4), log(P̂ I ) is Hermitian. Hence, E{log(P̂ I )} is Hermitian.
Let


d1 b12 · · · b1p
 ∗
d2 · · · b2p 
def b12

E{log(P̂ I )} =  .
(15)
..
..  ,
..
 ..
.
.
. 
b∗1p

b∗2p

···

dp

3

where b∗ij is the complex conjugate of bij . For fixed
1 ≤ i < j ≤ p, we define the elementary matrix C (ij) as the matrix formed from I by exchanging
row i with row j. Then, C (ij) C H
= I and thus
(ij)
d

H
C
C
KC (ij) R C H
(ij) =Wp (K, C (ij) IC (ij) ) = Wp (K, I). So
d

C (ij) R C H
(ij) =R. Since C (ij) ∈ GL(p) we know from
the equivariant property that the sample Fréchet mean of
H
C (ij) Rk C H
(ij) , k = 1, . . . , N, is C (ij) P̂ I C (ij) . So,
d

C (ij) P̂ I C H
(ij) = P̂ I .

(16)

The expression on the left of (16) is clearly Hermitian, and it is
congruent to P̂ I and C (ij) has full-rank, so C (ij) P̂ I C H
(ij) ∈
H+ (p). Therefore its logarithm exists as defined in (4). Using
(16) we have
E{log(P̂ I )}

= E{log(C (ij) P̂ I C H
(ij) )}

(17)

= E{C (ij) log(P̂ I )C H
(ij) }

(18)

=

C (ij) E{log(P̂ I )}C H
(ij) .

To make the step from (17) to (18) we
Now
used
(5)
with
A
equated
to
CH
(ij) .
diag(E{log(P̂ I )}) = (d1 . . . , di , . . . , dj , . . . , dp ), and
diag(C (ij) E{log(P̂ I )}C H
(ij) ) = (d1 . . . , dj , . . . , di , . . . , dp ),
so we conclude that di = dj . Since this is true for all
1 ≤ i < j ≤ p, we must have di = a0 , i = 1, . . . , p, for some
factor a0 .
With reference to (15), we now demonstrate that bij =
b∗ij = 0, 1 ≤ i < j ≤ p. For a fixed i, we define the
elementary matrix, C (i) , which is identical to I except the
ith row of I is multiplied by −1. Note that C (i) is both
Hermitian and full-rank, just like C (ij) . So, applying the same
reasoning as above, C (i) E{log(P̂ I )}C H
(i) = E{log(P̂ I )}.
But the first i − 1 elements of the ith column of E{log(P̂ I )}
are [b1i , . . . , bi−1,i ]T , while the first i − 1 elements of the
T
ith column of C (i) E{log(P̂ I )}C H
(i) are [−b1i , . . . , −bi−1,i ] ,
T
so that [b1i , . . . , bi−1,i ] = 0. Since this holds for all i =
2, . . . , p, we have that bij = 0, 1 ≤ i < j ≤ p, and their
conjugates are likewise zero. We thus conclude that
E{log(P̂ I )} = a0 I p .

(19)

In [17, p. 4560] it was proved that E{log(|P̂ I |) = p log(a),
So, denoting the eigenvalues of log(P̂ I ) by λ1 , . . . , λp ,

simple simulations using p = 3, N = 3, K = 20, with 10 000
replications. The vector of averaged diagonal entries obtained
was [−0.0795, −0.0792, −0.0767] while a0 = log(a) =
−0.0788. Repeating with the same parameters, except N =
10, we obtained instead [−0.0794, −0.0783, −0.0796]. Offdiagonal terms were almost zero in both cases.

We now turn to the more general case. Let S 1 , . . . , S N
d
be IID samples with KS = WpC (K, Σ), and consider their
sample Fréchet mean P̂ Σ . Then ibias(P̂ Σ ) is given by
kE{LmapΣ (P̂ Σ )}k2Σ
= kE{Σ1/2 log(Σ−1/2 P̂ Σ Σ−1/2 )Σ1/2 }k2Σ
= kΣ1/2 E{log(Σ−1/2 Σ1/2 P̂ I Σ1/2 Σ−1/2 )}Σ1/2 k2Σ
1

1

= kΣ 2 E{log(P̂ I )}Σ 2 k2Σ
= ka0 Σk2Σ = tr(Σ−1 a0 ΣΣ−1 a0 Σ) = pa20 (K).

(21)

So the intrinsic bias of the sample Fréchet mean of the
complex Wishart matrices with a general true covariance
matrix Σ does not depend on the parameter Σ, nor on N,
but just on p and K. We particularly note that
E{LmapΣ (P̂ Σ )} = a0 Σ.

(22)

1) Single Covariance Matrix: As a special case, by taking
N = 1 in (22), we see that
E{LmapΣ (S)} = a0 Σ.

(23)

Using the result ψ(z + 1) = ψ(z) + (1/z) it can be shown
after some manipulation that the form of (23) matches that in
[15, eqns. (100), (102)].
2) Scalar Case: Consider the scalar case, (p = 1), where
d
KS = W1C (K, 1), i.e., the single entry of the covariance
matrix is unity. From (21) we have that ibias(S) = a20 so
that, using (12),
2

ibias(S) = log2 (a) = [ψ(K) − log(K)] .

(24)

d

1
It is straightforward to show that S = 2K
χ22K , (scaled
chi-square with 2K degrees of freedom), so that (24)
gives the intrinsic bias in this case. Now suppose
d
d
Y1 , . . . , YK = Exp(1) = 21 χ22 . Then Y , the mean, has distrid 1
χ22K , and so ibias(Y ) is given by (24); this
bution Y = 2K
result agrees with [13, p. 1569].

pa0 = tr(E{log(P̂ I )}) = Etr{log(P̂ I )}
= E{log λ1 + . . . + log λp }

B. Intrinsic Bias of the Sample Mean

= E{log(|P̂ I |)} = p log(a).

Let S 1 , . . . , S N be IID samples with KS = WpC (K, Σ),
and consider their ordinary sample mean S̄. We know that

d

Hence, a0 = log(a), which depends on K and p, and
ibias(P̂ I ) = ka0 Ik2I = tr{a0 Ia0 I} = pa20 = p log2 (a).
Remark 3: From (13), (14) and (3) we see that we can write
ibias(P̂ I ) = kE{log(P̂ I )}k2Fr = tr(E 2 {log(P̂ I )}).

(20)

Remark 4: Note that ibias(P̂ I ) does not depend on the
sample size N . To demonstrate result (19) we carried out some

d

KN S̄ = WpC (KN, Σ).

(25)

The intrinsic bias of the sample mean can be inherited from
that of the Fréchet mean by taking the sample size of the
Fréchet mean to be N = 1, and then replacing the degrees of
freedom K by KN in (21):
ibias(S̄) = kE{LmapΣ (S̄)}k2Σ = p a20 (KN ),

(26)

4

V. I NTRINSIC R ISK OF THE E STIMATORS
A. Intrinsic Risk of the Sample Fréchet Mean
The Riemannian or intrinsic risk was defined in (10). We
now examine this for the sample Fréchet mean.
E{kLmapΣ (P̂ Σ )k2Σ }
= E{kΣ1/2 log(Σ−1/2 P̂ Σ Σ−1/2 )Σ1/2 k2Σ }
= E{kΣ1/2 log(Σ−1/2 Σ1/2 P̂ I Σ1/2 Σ−1/2 )Σ1/2 k2Σ }
= E{kΣ1/2 log(P̂ I )Σ1/2 k2Σ }
= E{tr(log2 (P̂ I ))},
where for the last step we have used (2) and the cyclic nature
of trace. From (6) and (7) we alternatively can write
E{kLmapΣ (P̂ Σ )k2Σ } = E{d2g (I, P̂ I )} = Ek log(P̂ I )k2Fr .
Hence the Riemannian risk is independent of the underlying
true covariance matrix. The Riemannian risk can be decomposed into two parts, (i) the intrinsic bias which does not
depend on the sample size, and (ii) the sum of the variances
of every entry of LmapI (P̂ I ). Let Lij = (log(P̂ I ))ij , the
(i, j)th entry of the Hermitian matrix log(P̂ I ). Then
E{kLmapΣ (P̂ Σ )k2Σ }

=

=

=

=

Ek log(P̂ I )k2Fr
p
X
i,j=1
p
X

=

var{Lij } +

p
X

2

E{|Lij | }

|E{Lij }|2

kE{log(P̂ I )}k2Fr

i,j=1
p
X

var{(log(P̂ I ))ij } + ibias(P̂ I ),

where we have used (20) for the last line.
B. Intrinsic Risk of the Sample Mean
If we set N = 1, and replace the degrees of freedom K by
KN, we can replace P̂ Σ by S̄ and P̂ I by S̄ I to give
=

p
X

ibias(S) = a20 (K) > a20 (KN ) = ibias(S̄),

(28)

2

Since ibias(S̄) = [ψ(KN ) − log(KN )] , (see (24)), and
ψ(z) → log z as z → ∞, we see that limN →∞ ibias(S̄) = 0.
B. Riemannian Risk
We know that the sample Fréchet mean P̂ I converges
almost surely to the population Fréchet mean P I [17, p. 4555].
So we can conclude that
lim E{kLmapΣ (P̂ Σ )k2Σ } = ibias(P̂ I ) = pa20 (K).

N →∞

For the sample mean we know S̄ I converges almost surely to
the population mean I. So we have
N →∞

i,j=1

E{kLmapΣ (S̄)k2Σ }

ibias(P̂ Σ ) = ibias(P̂ I ) = pa20 (K) > pa20 (KN ) = ibias(S̄),
(27)
i.e., the simple average is preferable in terms of intrinsic bias
for N ≥ 2.
1) Scalar case: Set p = 1 to obtain for N ≥ 2,

lim E{kLmapΣ (S̄)k2Σ } = lim ibias(S̄ I )

i,j=1
p
X
i,j=1

var{Lij } +

Pp h 1 i
> (1/K) and (1/K) −
Clearly (1/p) j=1 K+1−j

1
log 1 + K
> 0 for K ≥ 1 [4, p. 159], so a0 (K + 1) >
a0 (K), and since a0 (K) is negative, it is monotonically
increasing and bounded above by zero, and a20 (K) decreases
in magnitude with increasing K. So, for N ≥ 2,

N →∞

= lim pa20 (KN ).
N →∞

From (27) we thus see that, asymptotically, the Riemannian
risk will be smaller for the simple average.
1) Scalar case: For p = 1 and finite N , the Rieman2
nian risk
PNis var{log(P̂1 )} + E {log(P̂1 )}, with log(P̂1 ) =
(1/N ) j=1 log(Sj ). Then (e.g., [14, p. 275]), E{log(Sj )} =
ψ(K) − log(K) and var{log(Sj )} = ψ 0 (K), where ψ 0 (·) is
the trigamma function. So the Riemannian risk of P̂1 , Rr(P̂1 ),
say, is given by
1
2
(29)
Rr(P̂1 ) = ψ 0 (K) + [ψ(K) − log(K)] .
N
2
When N = 1, (29) gives Rr(S) = ψ 0 (K)+[ψ(K) − log(K)]
so, replacing K by KN,
2

var{(log(S̄ I ))ij } + ibias(S̄ I ).

Rr(S̄) = ψ 0 (KN ) + [ψ(KN ) − log(KN )] .

(30)

Plotting the difference Rr(P̂1 ) − Rr(S̄) as a function of N
and K, we find that the risk is always higher for Rr(P̂1 ).

i,j=1

VI. C OMPARISONS
A. Intrinsic Bias
We firstly examine
Pp a0 (K) for K ≥ p. From (12) we have
a0 (K) = (1/p) j=1 ψ(K +1−j)−log K. We know ψ(K)−
log K < 0 and ψ(K) increases with positive K, so ψ(K −
1) − log K < 0,P
. . . , ψ(K + 1 − p) − log K < 0. Therefore,
p
a0 (K) = (1/p)[ j=1 ψ(K + 1 − j) − p log K] < 0. Using
ψ(z + 1) = ψ(z) + (1/z) we have
p

a0 (K + 1) =

1 Xh
ψ(K + 1 − j) +
p j=1

1
K+1−j

i

− log(K + 1)

p

= a0 (K) +

1 Xh 1 i
− log 1 +
p j=1 K+1−j

1
K



.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Linjie Zhuang was supported by an Imperial College PhD
Scholarship.
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
We have proved that the simple average of N Wishart
matrices is preferred over the Fréchet mean (i) in terms of
intrinsic bias for N ≥ 2, and (ii) likewise for the asymptotic
Riemannian risk, and for the Riemannian risk itself in the
scalar case. Simple expressions were given for the intrinsic
bias for both types of average. Non-intrinsic performance
measures in [17] also favoured the simple average. There is
thus strong evidence to prefer the sample mean in this context.

5

R EFERENCES
[1] D. S. Bernstein, Matrix Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
[2] R. Bhattacharya and V. Patrangenaru, “Large sample theory of intrinsic
and extrinsic sample means on manifolds. I,” The Annals of Statistics,
vol. 31, pp. 1–29, 2003.
[3] D. R. Brillinger, Time Series: Data Analysis and Theory (Expanded
Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1981.
[4] P. S. Bullen, A Dictionary of Inequalities, Essex, U.K.: Longman, 1998.
[5] K. Conradsen, A. A. Nielsen, J. Schou & H. Skriver, “A test statistic in
the complex Wishart distribution and its application to change detection
in polarimetric SAR data,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 41,
pp. 4–19, 2003.
[6] I. L. Dryden, A. Koloydenko and D. Zhou, “Non-Euclidean statistics
for covariance matrices, with applications to diffusion tensor imaging,”
The Annals of Applied Statistics, vol. 3, pp. 1102–1123, 2009.
[7] I. Ilea, L. Bombrun, R. Terebes, M. Borda and C. Germain, “An Mestimator for robust centroid estimation on the manifold of covariance
matrices,” IEEE Signal Proc. Lett., vol. 23, pp. 1255–1259.
[8] X. Jiang, L. Ning and T. T. Georgiou, “Distances and Riemannian
metrics for multivariate spectral densities,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
vol. 57, pp. 1723–1735, 2012.
[9] G. Garcia and J. M. Oller, “What does intrinsic mean in statistical
estimation,” Statist. Oper. Res. Trans. (SORT), vol. 30, pp. 125-70, 2006.
[10] N. R. Goodman, “Statistical analysis based on a certain multivariate
complex Gaussian distribution (an introduction),” Ann. Math. Statist.,
vol. 34, pp. 152–77, 1963.
[11] T. Medkour, A. T. Walden and A. Burgess, “Graphical modelling for
brain connectivity via partial coherence,” J. Neurosci. Meth. vol. 180,
pp. 374–383, 2009.
[12] T. Medkour, A. T. Walden, A. P. Burgess & V. B. Strelets, “Brain connectivity in positive and negative syndrome schizophrenia,” Neuroscience,
vol. 169, pp. 1779–88, 2010.
[13] J. M. Oller and J. M.Corcuera, “Intrinsic analysis of statistical estimation,” The Annals of Statistics, vol. 23, pp. 1562–81, 1995.
[14] D. B. Percival and A. T. Walden, Wavelet Methods for Time Series
Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[15] S. T. Smith, “Covariance, subspace, and intrinsic Cramér-Rao bounds,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Proc., vol. 53, pp. 1610–1630, 2005.
[16] F. Yger, F. Lotte & M. Sugiyama, “Averaging covariance matrices for
EEG signal classification based on the CSP: an empirical study.” 23rd
European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), pp. 2721–2725,
2015.
[17] L. Zhuang and A. T. Walden, “Sample mean versus sample Fréchet mean
for complex Wishart matrices: a statistical study,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Proc., vol. 65, pp. 4551–4561, 2017.

