Decomposition into low-rank plus additive matrices for background/foreground separation: A review for a comparative evaluation with a large-scale dataset

Thierry Bouwmans, Andrews Sobral, Sajid Javed, Soon Ki Jung, El-Hadi Zahzah
2017 Computer Science Review  
Recent research on problem formulations based on decomposition into low-rank plus sparse matrices shows a suitable framework to separate moving objects from the background. The most representative problem formulation is the Robust Principal Component Analysis (RPCA) solved via Principal Component Pursuit (PCP) which decomposes a data matrix in a low-rank matrix and a sparse matrix. However, similar robust implicit or explicit decompositions can be made in the following problem formulations:
more » ... st Non-negative Matrix Factorization (RNMF), Robust Matrix Completion (RMC), Robust Subspace Recovery (RSR), Robust Subspace Tracking (RST) and Robust Low-Rank Minimization (RLRM). The main goal of these similar problem formulations is to obtain explicitly or implicitly a decomposition into low-rank matrix plus additive matrices. In this context, this work aims to initiate a rigorous and comprehensive review of the similar problem formulations in robust subspace learning and tracking based on decomposition into low-rank plus additive matrices for testing and ranking existing algorithms for background/foreground separation. For this, we first provide a preliminary review of the recent developments in the different problem formulations which allows us to define a unified view that we called Decomposition into Low-rank plus Additive Matrices (DLAM). Then, we examine carefully each method in each robust subspace learning/tracking frameworks with their decomposition, their loss functions, their optimization problem and their solvers. Furthermore, we investigate if incremental algorithms and real-time implementations can be achieved for background/foreground separation. Finally, experimental results on a large-scale dataset called Background Models Challenge (BMC 2012) show the comparative performance of 32 different robust subspace learning/tracking methods.
doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2016.11.001 fatcat:vdh7ic4n6zfkjlccnyiq74z5wu