Feature Selection for Object Detection:
The Best Group vs. the Group of Best
Luka Fürst∗ and Aleš Leonardis∗†
∗ University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Computer and Information Science, Tržaška cesta 25, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
† Intelligent
Robotics Laboratory, Centre for Computational Neuroscience and Cognitive Robotics,
School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
Email: {luka.fuerst,ales.leonardis}@fri.uni-lj.si
Abstract—The problem of visual object detection, the goal of
which is to predict the locations and sizes of all objects of a
given visual category (e.g., cars) in a given set of images, is
often based on a possibly large set of local features, only a
few of which might actually be useful for the given detection
setup. Feature selection is concerned with finding a ‘useful’
subset of features. In this paper, we compare two approaches
to feature selection in a visual object detection setup. One of
them selects features based on their individual utility scores
alone, regardless of possible interdependence with other features.
The other approach employs the AdaBoost framework and
hence implicitly deals with interdependence. Using two feature
extraction methods and several image datasets, we experimentally
confirm the significance of feature interdependence: features that
perform well individually do not necessarily perform well as a
group.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Many object detection methods begin with extracting a
potentially large set of local features from a given set of
training images. The extracted features may be immediately
used as building blocks in the detection model of the given
visual category [1]. However, it is often beneficial to reduce the
number of features before constructing the detection model.
Besides the computational reasons, a properly selected set of
features might lead to a better detection performance than the
original set, since the selection process may be able to remove
the ‘useless’ or ‘harmful’ features.
A viable feature selection method has to assess the utility
of individual features for the given object detection problem.
A feature is ‘useful’ if it is both distinctive (it often occurs in
images depicting objects of the given category and rarely in
other images) and predictive (it consistently occurs at similar
relative locations within images of objects). For the ‘Cars’
category, for instance, an example of a ‘useful’ feature is one
that captures a tire, since tires tend to be visually distinctive
for cars and to occur at similar relative positions in a majority
of car images.
The primary contribution of this paper is the comparison of
two methods for selecting a favorable (in terms of detection
performance) subset of T features out of the initial set of
N features. Both methods use the same measure for the
utility of individual features. However, while one approach
simply selects the T best features according to the individual
utility scores, the other embeds the scoring mechanism into an
AdaBoost framework [2], thereby considering interdependence
of features [3] in addition to their individual scores. Informally,
AdaBoost seeks features that work well as a group rather
than just individually. We experimentally show that feature
interdependence has to be considered in a feature selection
process. As the secondary contribution, this paper compares
two feature extraction and representation methods, namely
that of Fidler et al. [4] and that of Ferrari et al. [5]. Both
comparisons are evaluated on five real-world image datasets.
In this paper, we use the feature selection approach due
to Fürst et al. [6]. Viola and Jones [7] proposed a highly
successful AdaBoost-based method for selecting features for
face detection. Both approaches formulate detection as a
classification problem. However, while Viola and Jones use
a similar classification approach in both the learning and
the test stage, Fuerst et al. use classification only to select
features in the learning stage. Many other AdaBoost-based
object detection approaches have been proposed [8], [9], [10].
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: In Sect. II, we
present both feature selection approaches. Section III describes
the detection algorithm used for both feature selection and
experimental validation. Section IV gives a brief overview
of both feature extraction methods. Section V presents and
discusses the results of experimental validation. Section VI
concludes the paper.
II. F EATURE S ELECTION
In this section, we present both feature selection approaches.
For the sake of clarity, we first present the AdaBoost-based
approach, since the approach that searches for the individually
best features is actually its simplification.
A. AdaBoost-based Approach
The AdaBoost-based feature selection approach proposed
by Fürst et al. [6] takes into account both the properties
of individual features (distinctiveness and predictiveness) and
their interdependence. Originally, AdaBoost [2] is an approach
for constructing classifiers in binary classification problems.
Given a set of ‘weak’, threshold-based classifiers, a set of
training samples, and a set of weights assigned to individual
samples, each iteration of AdaBoost selects the classifier
that yields the highest classification accuracy on the sample
set with respect to the current values of the weights. After
selecting the current classifier, the weights of the samples
misclassified by that classifier are enlarged so that the next
iteration will be likely to select a classifier complementary to
the one just selected. In this way, AdaBoost will implicitly
deal with interdependence in the set of weak classifiers.
We shall now present how to adapt the AdaBoost framework
to the problem of selecting features for object detection. Let
us assume the existence of an object detection algorithm that
accepts an image I and a set of features G and returns a
set of detection hypotheses predicting the locations and sizes
of individual objects in the image I, with the additional
restriction that I can be represented only by the features from
G. Each returned hypothesis H is assumed to be equipped with
a positive number s(H) designating its strength. An example
of such a detection algorithm is described in Sect. III, but the
presented selection approach would work with any algorithm
fulfilling the stated requirements.
The AdaBoost-based feature selection process due to Fürst
et al. requires a set of images that depict various objects of
the given visual category on a uniform background (positive
training images, I+ ) and a set of images depicting anything but
objects of the given category (negative training images, I− ).
Let I = I+ ∪ I− denote the entire set of training images,
and let w = (wI )I∈I denoteP a vector of weights assigned to
individual images such that I∈I wI = 1. At the beginning
[1]
of the AdaBoost algorithm, we have w = w[1] , where wI =
[1]
1/(2|I+ |) for all I ∈ I+ and wI = 1/(2|I− |) for all I ∈ I− .
During the algorithm, the weights are iteratively updated.
To apply the classification-oriented AdaBoost framework to
our detection-oriented feature selection setup, the problem of
detecting objects in the training images is transformed into that
of classifying training images themselves, and a threshold-
based classifier is constructed for every feature. Let us first
define a function S : F × I → R as

∗ ∗
s(H (I | F )) if I ∈ I+ and H (I) is correct;

S(F, I) = s(H ∗ (I | F )) if I ∈ I− ;


0 otherwise,
(1)
where H ∗ (I | F ) denotes the strongest detection hypothesis
on the image I provided that I is represented solely by the
feature F . For a feature F and a threshold θ ∈ R, let us define
a classifier dF,θ : I → {0, 1} that classifies a given training
image as positive (output 1) or negative (output 0) according
to the following rule:
( of objects of the given category.
1 if S(F, I) ≥ θ;
dF,θ (I) = (2)
0 if S(F, I) < θ.
If yI denotes the actual class of the image I (yI = 1 for all
I ∈ I+ and yI = 0 for all I ∈ I− ), the classifier’s error on
the entire training set can be computed as
X respect to the object centroid. The test stage begins with the
(F, θ; w) = wI |dF,θ (I) − yI |. (3)
I∈I
∗
Let θ (F ; w) be a threshold at which the classifier’s error is
minimal:
θ∗ (F ; w) = arg min (F, θ; w) (4)
θ
The classifier d∗F = dF,θ∗ (F ;w) attains the smallest classifica-
tion error and will thus be called the optimal classifier. The
utility of a feature F is defined as
u(F ; w) = 1 − (F, θ∗ (F ; w); w) (5)
For a feature F that is both distinctive and predictive,
S(F, I) is large for many positive training images and small
for many negative ones. Under the initial weight vector, the
optimal classifier for such a feature F attains a low classifica-
tion error, since a threshold θ∗ can be found such that most of
the values {S(F, I)}I∈I+ are above θ∗ and most of the values
{S(F, I)}I∈I− are below θ∗ . The feature F has therefore a
high utility. Conversely, if a feature F is non-distinctive, the
values of S(F, I) tend to be random, whereas if F is non-
predictive, S(F, I) is zero for many positive images. In both
cases, even the optimal classifier produces a high classification
error, and so F has a low utility.
The AdaBoost-based feature selection method is shown
as Algorithm 1. In each iteration, the algorithm selects the
feature having the highest utility with respect to the current
weight vector and decreases the weights of the training images
correctly classified by the optimal classifier for the selected
feature. In the next iteration, the misclassified images have
higher relative weights, which encourages the selection of a
feature complementary to the feature selected in the previous
iteration.
B. Static Approach
In the static approach, features are selected by decreasing
values of u(F ; w[1] ). Features are thus selected by individual
utility, but their interdependence is not considered.
III. O BJECT D ETECTION
We employed an object detection approach due to Leibe
et al. [1]. For now, let us assume that all objects are approx-
imately the same size; an extension to arbitrary sizes will be
briefly described later. In the training stage, the method of
Leibe et al. learns the so-called Implicit Shape Model (ISM)
from a set of training images depicting different objects of
the given visual category on a uniform background. In the test
stage, the learned model is used to form detection hypotheses
for a given real-world image depicting an unknown number
To learn the ISM for a given category, every training image
is first represented by the given set of features. For a feature
F located at the coordinates y in an image I, the learning
algorithm stores a pair (F, x−y), where x denotes the location
of the object’s centroid in I. Informally, the ISM is thus a
collection of the relative locations of individual features with
representation of a given test image by the feature set. Each
feature then ‘votes’ for all locations of the object centroid
based on its ISM entries. Specifically, if a feature F is located
Algorithm 1 The AdaBoost-based feature selection method. been experimentally shown to significantly improve detection
Require: performance.
(a) A set of training images I with class membership The described training and detection process can also be
labels yI (1: positive; 0: negative) adapted to multiscale detection. At least two approaches exist:
(b) A set of features, F. (1) single-scale learning, multiscale detection; (2) multiscale
(c) The number of iterations, T . learning, single-scale detection. In the first approach, the train-
Ensure: A sequence of selected features hF [1] , . . . , F [T ] i. ing stage is the same as in the single-scale case, but the test-
Process: stage voting algorithm is applied to several rescaled versions
1: F 0 := F; // F 0 : the set of not-yet selected features of the test image. The second approach only works with scale-
[1]
2: wI := 1/(2|I+ |) for all I ∈ I+ covariant features (such a feature can be detected at multiple
[1] scales, and each of its occurrences provides information about
3: wI := 1/(2|I− |) for all I ∈ I−
4: for t := 1 to T do the scale of the corresponding local structure). The learned
5: Normalize the weights such that their sum becomes 1: ISM contains both the offset and the scale of each feature,
relative to the position and the size of the object. In the test
[t] [t]
X [t]
wI := wI / wJ for all I ∈ I. (6) stage, the features cast votes in a 3-dimensional space. Each
J∈I feature votes not only for candidate object centroid locations
6: Select the feature with the highest score u(F ; w) with but also for candidate object sizes. The detection algorithm
respect to the current weights: thus produces hypotheses about both the centroids and the
sizes of individual objects.
F [t] = arg max0 u(F ; w). (7)
F ∈F
IV. F EATURE E XTRACTION AND R EPRESENTATION
7: Let θ[t] = θ∗ (F [t] ; w[t] ), d[t] = dF [t] ,θ[t] , and [t] = We tested two feature extraction and representation meth-
(F [t] , θ[t] ; w[t] ) = 1 − u(F [t] ; w[t] ). ods: that of Fidler et al. [4] and that of Ferrari et al. [5].
8: F 0 := F 0 \ {F [t] }. Features of Fidler et al. are arranged into layers according
9: Update the weights: to the ‘parts composed of parts’ paradigm. The first layer
contains only a single feature; this is the kernel of the Gabor
( [t]
 [t]
[t+1] [t] wI , if d[t] (I) = yI ;
wI = 1− [t] (8) filter in the orientation 0◦ . Each feature of a layer n > 1 is
wI otherwise. a composition of rotated copies of features of layer n − 1.
10: end for In particular, a layer-n feature Fin can be represented as
{(Fjn−1
1
, α1 , µ1 , Σ1 ), . . . , (Fjn−1
s
, αs , µs , Σs )}, where for
each k ∈ {1, . . . , s}, αk is the discretized orientation of the k-
th component of feature Fin (relative to the orientation of the
at the coordinates q in the test image and if the ISM entries first component), whereas µk and Σk denote the mean and the
for F are (F, r1 ), . . . , (F, rk ), then F votes for the coordinates covariance matrix of the Gaussian distribution that models the
q + r1 , . . . , q + rk . The votes are weighted: the method variability of the position of the k-th component (relative to the
of Leibe et al. considers both the possibility that a given position of the first component). To represent an image with
local structure is represented by several features, each with a set of features, the features are matched against the Gabor-
a certain probability, and the possibility that a given feature filter representation of the image in a layer-by-layer fashion.
votes for several object centroid candidates, each with a certain The result of the representation is a set of triples (Fin , (x, y),
probability. β), where Fin is a layer-n feature, (x, y) is the position of
The output of the voting algorithm is a probability map an occurrence of Fin in the image, and β is the discretized
that, for each pixel of the test image, specifies the probability orientation in which the feature occurs at that position.
that the object centroid is located at the coordinates of that Features of Ferrari et al. [5] are obtained by a multi-step
pixel. To obtain a small set of robust detection hypotheses, the procedure. First, an edge detector is used to obtain edge ele-
probability map is smoothed by a Gaussian filter. The locations ments, i.e., image points at directed intensity transitions. After
of the maxima in the smoothed map are taken as individual that, each group of edge elements that form an approximately
detection hypotheses. The strength of a hypothesis H, s(H), straight line is taken as a separate ‘segment’. In the next
is defined to be the value of the corresponding maximum. step, the extraction procedure builds groups of k segments
A single feature may cast votes for many different object that touch or almost touch each other. If k = 2, for example,
centroids, often giving rise to strong secondary hypotheses. such groups include segment pairs in the shape of the letters
Such hypotheses may be suppressed by a greedy MDL-based L and T. Groups of k adjacent segments are then clustered
algorithm [11]. In each iteration, this algorithm selects the by their visual similarity. Finally, each cluster is taken as a
currently strongest hypothesis and greedily assigns to it all Ferrari et al. feature. Features are described in a rotation- and
of its support, i.e., all probabilistic votes that it gathered in scale-invariant manner. To represent a given image by a given
the voting process. The competing hypotheses thereby lose set of features, the image is first processed so as to obtain a set
part of their support and hence strength. This scheme has of groups of k adjacent segments. After that, the features are
matched against the groups in the image, giving a set of triples TABLE I: T EST IMAGE DATASETS .
(r(G), t(G), R(G)), where G is a k-adjacent-segments group, Dataset Num. of images Total num. of depicted objects
r(G) and t(G) are its location and size, and R(G) = {(F ,
Apple logos [5]a 40 44
r(F, G)), . . .} is a set of features that can be matched against Bottles [5]a 48 55
the group G, equipped with an estimate of the reliability of Cars [12]b 108 139
the match. Horses [5]c 170 180
Mugs [5]a 48 66
V. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
a http://www.vision.ee.ethz.ch/datasets/index.en.html
Before presenting the results, let us describe how individ- b http://cogcomp.cs.illinois.edu/Data/Car/
ual experiments were evaluated. The output of the detection c http://pascal.inrialpes.fr/data/horses/
algorithm for a given image is a set of detection hypotheses to-
gether with their strengths. A hypothesis is a prediction of the
TABLE II: T HE NUMBER OF EXTRACTED FEATURES .
bounding box of an object in the image. Let (xH , yH , wH , hH )
denote the image coordinates of the centroid (xH and yH ) and Dataset Fidler et al. Ferrari et al.
the width and the height (wH and hH ) of the bounding box Apple logos 592 168
predicted by a hypothesis H, and let (xO , yO , wO , hO ) define Bottles 896 422
the true bounding box of a depicted object. The hypothesis H Cars 920 386
Horses 896 398
is proclaimed to be correct if the following three conditions Mugs 912 314
are met [1]:
p
1) (2(xH − xO )/wO )2 + (2(yH − yO )/hO )2 ≤ 0.5.
2) The predicted bounding box covers at least 50% of the
The AdaBoost-based approach significantly outperforms
area of the true bounding box.
the static feature selection approach. The reason for such
3) The true bounding box covers at least 50% of the area
a behavior is the redundancy of the extracted feature set.
of the predicted bounding box.
Many extracted features react to similar local structures and
If the above conditions are fulfilled by multiple hypotheses for
hence attain similar utility scores. Consequently, a feature set
the same object, only one of those hypotheses is considered
selected solely by the utility of individual features is likely to
correct; all others are regarded as false positives.
contain many similar features. By contrast, AdaBoost favors
The detection performance on a given image set is estimated
features that correctly classify the images misclassified by
by the following measure:
the already selected features. Tables III and IV list the first
2 × recall(τ ) × precision(τ ) 10 selected features for the categories ‘Cars’ and ‘Mugs’.
Fmax = max . (9)
τ recall(τ ) + precision(τ ) The feature sets selected by the static approach are clearly
The Fmax measure ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 being the worst redundant. As shown in Fig. 1, a much greater number of
and 1 being the best possible detection performance. The recall features selected by the static approach is required to attain
and precision at a given threshold τ are computed as follows: a detection performance comparable to AdaBoost-selected
features.
recall(τ ) = TP(τ )/OBJ; (10) For each of the first 10 AdaBoost-selected Fidler et al.
precision(τ ) = TP(τ )/(TP(τ ) + FP(τ )). (11) features for the ‘Mugs’ category, Table V shows its rank in the
decreasing sequence of u(F ; w[1] ) values. The third selected
Here, OBJ denotes the number of all depictions of objects
feature, for instance, appears at a rank as low as 156 out of
of the given visual category in the image set, TP(τ ) (‘true
912, but it represents the best complement to the first two
positives’) is the number of correct hypotheses H with s(H) ≥
selected features, at least with respect to the employed training
τ , and FP(τ ) (‘false positives’) is the number of incorrect
image set.
hypotheses H with s(H) ≥ τ .
The features obtained by the method of Fidler et al. led
Each combination of feature extraction and feature selec-
to substantially more favorable detection results than those of
tion method was tested on five test image datasets, some
information about which is provided in Table I. To extract
and select features and to learn the detection model for TABLE III: T HE FIRST 10 SELECTIONS FOR ‘C ARS ’.
individual categories, we used category-specific training image
sets obtained from various sources. All training sets were Extraction Selection The first 10 selected features
completely disjoint from the corresponding test sets.
Fidler et al. AdaBoost
For each combination of feature extraction method, feature
selection method, and image dataset, we extracted all features Fidler et al. static
(their number is given in Table II), selected the first T features Ferrari et al. AdaBoost
(where T varied from 1 to 50), and learned and tested the
detection model using the T selected features. Fig. 1 shows Ferrari et al. static
the Fmax values for all experiments.
 Apple logos Bottles
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
Fmax

Fmax
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 Fidler et al. & AdaBoost 0.2 Fidler et al. & AdaBoost
Fidler et al. & static Fidler et al. & static
0.1 Ferrari et al. & AdaBoost 0.1 Ferrari et al. & AdaBoost
Ferrari et al. & static Ferrari et al. & static
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
The number of selected features The number of selected features

Cars Horses
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
Fmax

Fmax

0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 Fidler et al. & AdaBoost 0.2 Fidler et al. & AdaBoost
Fidler et al. & static Fidler et al. & static
0.1 Ferrari et al. & AdaBoost 0.1 Ferrari et al. & AdaBoost
Ferrari et al. & static Ferrari et al. & static
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
The number of selected features The number of selected features

Mugs
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Fmax

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 Fidler et al. & AdaBoost
Fidler et al. & static
0.1 Ferrari et al. & AdaBoost
Ferrari et al. & static
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
The number of selected features

Fig. 1: Detection performance w.r.t. the number of selected features.

 TABLE IV: T HE FIRST 10 SELECTIONS FOR ‘M UGS ’.
Extraction Selection The first 10 selected features
Fidler et al. AdaBoost
Fidler et al. static
Ferrari et al. AdaBoost
Ferrari et al. static
TABLE V: T HE RANKINGS OF THE FIRST 10 A DA B OOST-
SELECTED FEATURES FOR ‘M UGS ’ IN THE SEQUENCE OF
THE FEATURES SELECTED BY THE STATIC APPROACH .
AdaBoost 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Static 1 7 156 3 28 109 30 4 142
Ferrari et al.. For instance, the most distinctive and predictive
features for the ‘Cars’ category are those that capture tires,
a few examples of which are shown in Table III. While the
method of Fidler et al. is able to extract such features, this
is not the case with the method of Ferrari et al., which
builds features from straight segments. These features are
therefore unable to capture small circular or semi-circular
structures. In addition, although Fidler et al. features tend to
be fairly indistinctive (with the possible exception of wheel-
like features), they occur on equivalent local structures much
more consistently than Ferrari et al. ones. Fig. 2 shows the
first AdaBoost-selected Fidler et al. features for the categories
‘Cars’ and ‘Mugs’, their respective ISM probability maps
(the probability of the object centroid location relative to the
location of the feature), and a few occurrences in test images.
VI. C ONCLUSION
We have compared an AdaBoost-based feature selection
approach with a simplified, ‘static’ approach that does not
pay regard to feature interdependence. Using two feature
extraction methods and five real-world image datasets, we
showed that for a fixed target number of selected features, the
AdaBoost-based method considerably outperforms the simpli-
fied selection method. The main reason is that many extracted
features tend to be visually similar and hence attain similar
utility scores. The resulting feature sets therefore contain much
redundancy. AdaBoost, by contrast, selects features so that
they complement each other and thus tends to achieve a
comparable detection performance using much fewer features
than the static approach.
We assumed that the number of selected features is fixed
and known in advance. A natural extension of the presented
selection approaches is therefore the automatic determination
of the most appropriate number of features with respect to
both detection performance and computational burden. An-
other interesting research direction is feature selection for the
multiclass detection setting, where the goal is to find all objects
of several categories simultaneously [10].
(a) cars
9 10
49
(b) mugs
Fig. 2: The first AdaBoost-selected Fidler et al. feature, its
ISM probability map, and a few occurrences in test images.
R EFERENCES
[1] B. Leibe, A. Leonardis, and B. Schiele, “Combined object categorization
and segmentation with an implicit shape model,” in ECCV’04 Workshop
on Statistical Learning in Computer Vision, 2004, pp. 17–32.
[2] Y. Freund and R. Schapire, “A decision-theoretic generalization of online
learning,” Computer and System Sciences, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 119–139,
1997.
[3] T. Cover, “The best two independent measurements are not the two best,”
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.
116–117, 1974.
[4] S. Fidler and A. Leonardis, “Towards scalable representations of object
categories: Learning a hierarchy of parts,” in IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2007.
[5] V. Ferrari, L. Fevrier, F. Jurie, and C. Schmid, “Groups of adjacent
contour segments for object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 36–51, 2008.
[6] L. Fürst, S. Fidler, and A. Leonardis, “Selecting features for object
detection using an adaboost-compatible evaluation function,” Pattern
Recognition Letters, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1603–1612, 2008.
[7] P. Viola and M. Jones, “Robust real-time face detection,” International
Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 137–154, 2004.
[8] H. Grabner, P. Roth, and H. Bischof, “Eigenboosting: Combining
discriminative and generative information,” in IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2007.
[9] J. Shotton, A. Blake, and R. Cipolla, “Contour-based learning for object
detection,” in International Conference on Computer Vision, 2005, pp.
503–510.
[10] A. Torralba, K. Murphy, and W. Freeman, “Sharing features: efficient
boosting procedures for multiclass object detection,” in IEEE Conference
on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2004, pp. 762–769.
[11] A. Leonardis, H. Bischof, and J. Maver, “Multiple eigenspaces,” Pattern
Recognition, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 2613–2627, 2002.
[12] S. Agarwal, A. Awan, and D. Roth, “Learning to detect objects in images
via a sparse, part-based representation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1475–1490, 2004.