Report

Matrix Factorization with Unknown Noise Deyu Meng 参考文献： ①Deyu Meng, Fernando De la Torre. Robust Matrix Factorization with Unknown Noise. International Conference of Computer Vision (ICCV), 2013. ②Qian Zhao, Deyu Meng, Zongben Xu, Wangmeng Zuo, Lei Zhang. Robust principal component analysis with complex noise, International Conference of Machine Learning (ICML), 2014. Low-rank matrix factorization are widely used in computer vision. Structure from Motion (E.g.,Eriksson and Hengel ,2010) Face Modeling (E.g., Candes et al.,2012) Photometric Stereo (E.g., Zheng et al.,2012) Background Subtraction (E.g. Candes et al.,2012) Complete, clean data (or with Gaussian noise) SVD: Global solution Complete, clean data (or with Gaussian noise) SVD: Global solution There are always missing data There are always heavy and complex noise L2 norm model ⊙ ( − ) Young diagram (CVPR, 2008) L2 Wiberg (IJCV, 2007) LM_S/LM_M (IJCV, 2008) SALS (CVIU, 2010) LRSDP (NIPS, 2010) Damped Wiberg (ICCV, 2011) Weighted SVD (Technometrics, 1979) WLRA (ICML, 2003) Damped Newton (CVPR, 2005) CWM (AAAI, 2013) Reg-ALM-L1 (CVPR, 2013) Pros: smooth model, faster algorithm, have global optimum for nonmissing data Cons: not robust to heavy outliers L2 norm model ⊙ ( − ) Young diagram (CVPR, 2008) L2 Wiberg (IJCV, 2007) LM_S/LM_M (IJCV, 2008) SALS (CVIU, 2010) LRSDP (NIPS, 2010) Damped Wiberg (ICCV, 2011) Weighted SVD (Technometrics, 1979) WLRA (ICML, 2003) Damped Newton (CVPR, 2005) CWM (AAAI, 2013) Reg-ALM-L1 (CVPR, 2013) Pros: smooth model, faster algorithm, have global optimum for nonmissing data Cons: not robust to heavy outliers L1 norm model ⊙ ( − ) Torre&Black (ICCV, 2001) R1PCA (ICML, 2006) PCAL1 (PAMI, 2008) ALP/AQP (CVPR, 2005) L1Wiberg (CVPR, 2010, best paper award) RegL1ALM (CVPR, 2012) Pros: robust to extreme outliers Cons: non-smooth model, slow algorithm, perform badly in Gaussian noise data L2 model is optimal to Gaussian noise L1 model is optimal to Laplacian noise But real noise is generally neither Gaussian nor Laplacian Yale B faces: … Saturation and shadow noise Camera noise We propose Mixture of Gaussian (MoG) Universal approximation property of MoG Any continuous distributions MoG (Maz’ya and Schmidt, 1996) E.g., a Laplace distribution can be equivalently expressed as a scaled MoG (Andrews and Mallows, 1974) MLE Model Use EM algorithm to solve it! E Step: M Step: ⊙ ( − ) Synthetic experiments Three noise cases Gaussian noise Sparse noise Mixture noise Six error measurements What L2 and L1 methods optimize Good measures to estimate groundtruth subspace Our method L2 methods L1 methods Gaussian noise experiments MoG performs similar with L2 methods, better than L1 methods. Sparse noise experiments MoG performs as good as the best L1 method, better than L2 methods. Mixture noise experiments MoG performs better than all L2 and L1 competing methods Why MoG is robust to outliers? L1 methods perform well in outlier or heavy noise cases since it is a heavy-tail distribution. Through fitting the noise as two Gaussians, the obtained MoG distribution is also heavy tailed. Face modeling experiments Explanation Saturation and shadow noise Camera noise Background Subtraction Background Subtraction Summary We propose a LRMF model with a Mixture of Gaussians (MoG) noise The new method can well handle outliers like L1norm methods but using a more efficient way. The extracted noises are with certain physical meanings Thanks!