AUGMENTED ROBUST PCA FOR FOREGROUND-BACKGROUND SEPARATION
ON NOISY, MOVING CAMERA VIDEO
Chen Gao, Brian E. Moore, and Raj Rao Nadakuditi

arXiv:1709.09328v1 [stat.ML] 27 Sep 2017

Department of EECS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109
ABSTRACT
This work presents a novel approach for robust PCA with total variation regularization for foreground-background separation and denoising on noisy, moving camera video. Our proposed algorithm
registers the raw (possibly corrupted) frames of a video and then
jointly processes the registered frames to produce a decomposition
of the scene into a low-rank background component that captures
the static components of the scene, a smooth foreground component
that captures the dynamic components of the scene, and a sparse
component that isolates corruptions. Unlike existing methods, our
proposed algorithm produces a panoramic low-rank component that
spans the entire field of view, automatically stitching together corrupted data from partially overlapping scenes. The low-rank portion
of our robust PCA model is based on a recently discovered optimal
low-rank matrix estimator (OptShrink) that requires no parameter
tuning. We demonstrate the performance of our algorithm on both
static and moving camera videos corrupted by noise and outliers.
Index Terms— Robust PCA, foreground-background separation, total variation, denoising, random matrix theory.
1. INTRODUCTION
Video processing methods are an important class of algorithms
in computer vision because video data is a rich source of semantic information. In this work, we focus on the problem of robust
foreground-background separation, where one seeks to decompose
a scene into a static background and dynamic foreground in the
presence of noise or other corruptions. Decompositions of this
form are useful because the constituent components play important
roles in various computer vision problems, such as motion detection [1], object recognition [2], moving object detection [3], [4] and
video coding [5], especially when there are active, moving objects
of interest and a relatively static background [6]. For example, in
background subtraction [7], one discriminates moving objects from
their static background by subtracting a reference background model
from the current frame.
There has been much recent work on the foreground-background
separation problem. A prominent method is robust principal component analysis (RPCA) [8, 9, 10], which uses a low-rank subspace
model to estimate the background and a spatially sparse model to estimate the foreground. Recent work has extended this model to the
case of robust tensor decompositions [11]. Alternatively, supervised
approaches like GMM [12] learn a model of the background from
labeled training data. Recently, a TVRPCA [13] method was proposed to separate dynamic background from moving objects using
This work was supported in part by the following grants: ONR grant
N00014-15-1-2141, DARPA Young Faculty Award D14AP00086, and ARO
MURI grants W911NF-11-1-0391 and 2015-05174-05.

total variation (TV)-based regularization to model the spatial continuity of the foreground. In the non-static background case, an
RPCA-based model was proposed in [14] that iteratively estimates
the decomposition along with the parameters of an affine transformation model that describes the motion of the frames; however, the approach considers only the intersection (common view) of the video.
Another approach is DECOLOR [15], which employs `0 -regularized
RPCA and a Markov random field (MRF) model to iteratively decompose the scene into foreground and background.
In this paper, we propose a robust foreground-background separation and denoising algorithm that can decompose a noisy, moving
camera video into a panoramic low-rank background component that
spans the entire field of view and a smooth foreground component.
Our algorithm proceeds by registering the frames of the raw video
to a common reference perspective and then minimizing a modified
robust PCA cost that accounts for the partially overlapping views
of registered frames and includes TV regularization to decouple the
foreground from noise and sparse corruptions.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe our
video registration strategy. Section 3 formulates our augmented robust PCA algorithm, and Section 4 provides experimental results that
demonstrate the performance of our algorithm on corrupted static
and moving camera data.
2. VIDEO REGISTRATION
The vast majority of video data gathered today is captured by moving
(e.g., handheld) cameras. As such, it is necessary to register the raw
video—i.e., convert it into a common coordinate system—before the
frames of the video can be jointly processed. In this work, we adopt
the standard perspective projection model [16], in which we relate
different views of the same scene via homographic transformations.
2.1. Registering two frames
Consider a point (x, y) in a frame that is known to correspond to a
point (e
x, ye) in another frame. Under a planar surface model, one can
relate the points via a projective transformation of the form
κe
p = H T p,
T

(1)

T

where pe = [e
x, ye, 1] , p = [x, y, 1] , κ 6= 0 is an arbitrary scaling
constant, and H ∈ R3×3 with H33 = 1 is the transformation matrix that we would like to estimate. Given d > 3 correspondences
{(xi , yi ) 7→ (e
xi , yei )}di=1 , one can estimate H in a least squares
sense by minimizing [16]
min kAhk2 subject to h9 = 1,
h


where h = vec(H), AT = AT1 , . . . , ATd , and


0 pTi
−e
yi pTi
2×9
Ai = T
.
T ∈ R
pi
0 −e
xi pi

(2)

(3)

Frame 14

Frame 22

Frame 31

Registered

Raw Video

Frame 5

Fig. 1: The video registration process. The top row depicts raw video frames Fk with SURF features annotated. The bottom row depicts the
corresponding registered frames Fek computed via (4). The k-th column of the mask matrix M ∈ {0, 1}mn×p encodes the support of Fek
within the aggregate view; i.e., Mik = 0 for unobserved pixels, which are represented by white space in the registered frames above.
The solution to (2) is the (scaled) smallest right singular vector of A.
Of course, to estimate H in practice one must also solve the
correspondence problem of identifying pairs of candidate correspondences (xi , yi ) 7→ (e
xi , yei ) between the video frames. In this work,
we adopt the standard procedure [16] of computing Speeded-Up Robust Features (SURF) [17] for each frame and then using the Random Sample Consensus (RANSAC) [18] algorithm to find a robust
subset of correspondences from among the candidate features that
produce a solution Ĥ to (2) with small cost.
2.2. Registering a video
One can readily extend the two-frame registration procedure from
Section 2.1 to a video by iteratively constructing homographies
Hk := Hk7→k+1 between frames k and k + 1 of the video and
then chaining the homographies together to map all p frames to a
common reference perspective (e.g., the middle frame, e
k = bp/2c).
Since consecutive frames of a video are highly correlated, the homographies Hk can be computed with high accuracy.
Indeed, let F1 , . . . , Fp ∈ Ra×b denote the frames of a moving
camera video, and denote by Hk := Hk7→k+1 the linear transformation that applies the projective transformation (1) defined by Hk to
each pixel of Fk . One can register the frames of the video against an
anchor frame e
k by computing for each k = 1, . . . , p,


◦ Hk−2
◦ · · · ◦ Hk )(Fk )
k<e
k,
e
e
(Hk−1
Fk
k=e
k,
(4)
Fek =

(H−1 ◦ H−1 ◦ · · · ◦ H−1 )(F ) k > e
k.
k
k−1
e
e
k
k+1
The above procedure yields Fe1 , . . . , Fep ∈ Rm×n , a collection of
registered frames in a common perspective, where m and n are the
height and width of the region defined by the union of the registered
frame extents. See Figure 1 for a graphical depiction.
3. AUGMENTED ROBUST PCA ALGORITHM
In this section, we describe our augmented robust PCA algorithm
for noisy, moving camera video. Given the registered frames
Fe1 , . . . , Fep ∈ Rm×n of a moving camera video, we construct
the matrix Y ∈ Rmn×p


Y = vec(Fe1 ) . . . vec(Fep ) ,
(5)
whose columns are the vectorized registered frames. Associated
with Y , we also define the mask matrix M ∈ {0, 1}mn×p whose
columns encode the support of the registered frames in the aggregate (common) view extent (see Figure 1).

The representation (5) is useful because each row of Y corresponds to a fixed point in space, so we can readily apply standard
static-camera models for foreground-background separation. In particular, in this work, we model the observed data Y using the following (approximate) structured low-rank plus sparse model
PM (Y ) ≈ PM (L + S1 + S2 ),

(6)

where PM denotes the orthogonal projection onto M , defined as
(
Xij Mij = 1
(7)
[PM (X)]ij =
0
Mij = 0.
In (6), the L component represents the (static) background, which
we model as low-rank; S1 represents sparse corruptions, which we
model as a sparse matrix; S2 is the foreground, which we model as a
smoothly-varying matrix; and we use ≈ to allow for additional dense
corruptions. To learn a decomposition of the form (6), we propose
to solve the augmented robust PCA problem
min

L,S1,S2

1
kPM (Y − L − S1 − S2 )k2F +
2
λL kLk? + λS1 kS1 k1 + λS2 TV(S2 ).

(8)

Here, k.k∗ denotes the nuclear norm (sum of singular values), k.k1
denotes the element-wise `1 norm, and TV(.) denotes the total variation (TV) regularizer, a popular approach for reconstructing an image from noisy observations [19]. In particular, in this work, given a
matrix X ∈ Rmn×p whose columns contain the vectorized m × n
spatial frames, we use the weighted anisotropic TV of X:
X x
y
TV(X) :=
wijk |xi+1jk − xijk | + wijk
|xij+1k − xijk | +
ijk

z
wijk
|xijk+1 − xijk | ,
(9)
where x = vec(X) and, with slight abuse of notation, we use xijk
to denote the pixel (i, j) from frame k—i.e., the (i + m(j − 1), k)
entry of X. Here, wijk ∈ {0, 1} are (fixed) indicator variables that
omit first differences involving unobserved pixels, i.e., those that lie
outside the extent of the registered frames. The wijk can be readily
computed from mask M (see Figure 1).
3.1. Minimization strategy
One can solve (8) iteratively using the proximal gradient method
[20], for which the L updates would involve applications of singular
value thresholding (SVT) [21]. However, motivated by recent work
[22], we consider a modified L update based on an improved lowrank matrix estimator (OptShrink) [23], which has been shown to

produce superior low-rank components in practice. Our proposed
(modified) proximal gradient scheme thus becomes
U k+1 := PM (Lk+1 + S1k+1 + S2k+1 − Y )


Lk+1 := OptShrinkr Lk − τ k U k+1


S1k+1 := softτ k λS S1k − τ k U k+1
1


S2k+1 := TVDNτ k λS S2k − τ k U k+1 ,

(10)

2

Algorithm 1 Proposed Algorithm
1: Input: Video frames F1 , . . . , Fp
e1 . . . Fep via (4)
2: Compute registered frames F
3: Construct Y and M matrices via (5)
4: Initialization: L0 = U 0 = Y , S10 = S20 = 0, and k = 0
5: while not converged do
6:
Update Lk , S1k , S2k , and U k via (10)
7:
k =k+1
8: Output: Decomposition {L, S1 , S2 }

k

where τ denotes the step size at the k-th iteration. In (10),
OptShrink(.) is the low-rank matrix estimator, defined for a
given r > 0 as1

r 
X
Dµ (σi )
ui viH ,
(11)
OptShrinkr (Z) =
−2 0 Z
D
(σ
)
i
µ
Z
i=1
where Z = U ΣV H is the SVD of Z. The OptShrink estimator
computes the rank r truncated SVD of its input and then applies a
particular data-driven shrinkage to the leading singular values. See
[23] for more details. Note that, since our data Y is registered, we
can readily model the video background as static, in which case the
low-rank component L would be a rank-1 matrix whose columns are
repeated (up to scaling) vectorized copies of the static background
image. Thus, the universal parameter r = 1 is a natural choice, and
we have essentially eliminated a tuning parameter from our model
compared to the SVT approach. Also, soft(.) is the element-wise
soft thresholding operator
softλ (z) = sign(z)(|z| − λ)+ ,

(12)

where (z)+ = max(z, 0). Finally,
1
kZ − Xk2F + λ TV(X)
(13)
2
is the solution to the (weighted) total variation denoising problem
with data Z (i.e., the proximal operator of TV(.)). Problem (13)
does not have a closed-form solution, so one must employ an iterative algorithm. To that end, we can equivalently express (13) as
TVDNλ (Z) := arg min
X

min
x

1
kz − xk22 + λkW Cxk1 ,
2

(14)

where z = vec(Z), W is a diagonal matrix with 0/1 entries encoding the indicator variables wijk , and C is a sparse matrix that
computes the first differences along each dimension of the (vectorized) video x. We solve (14) via the alternating direction method of
multipliers [24], which prescribes the updates
1
ρ
kz − xk2 + kW Cx − v k + uk k22
2
2
ρ
= arg min λkvk1 + kW Cxk+1 − v + uk k22
v
2

xk+1 = arg min
x

v k+1

(15)

uk+1 = uk + W Cxk+1 − v k+1 ,
for some ρ > 0. In the static camera case—when wijk ≡ 1 in
(9)—and circulant boundary conditions are assumed, one can efficiently compute the solution to the x update in (15) using fast Fourier
transform operations. In the general case, the x update is quadratic
and can be computed via many off-the-shelf algorithms (e.g., conjugate gradient). The v-update is a simple soft thresholding operation,
v k+1 = softλ/ρ (W Cxk+1 + uk ). Algorithm 1 summarizes the
proposed algorithm.
1 See equation (14) of [22] and Algorithm 1 of [23] and the surrounding
text for the full description and intuition behind OptShrink.

4. RESULTS
To demonstrate the performance of our proposed algorithm, we first
compare to the recent RPCA [8], TVRPCA [13], and DECOLOR
[15] algorithms on corrupted static camera videos. We then demonstrate the ability of our algorithm to process corrupted moving camera videos, a scenario that the other methods cannot handle.
4.1. Static camera
We work with the I2R dataset2 of static camera sequences. Each
sequence has between 523 and 3584 frames, each with a subset of
20 frames with labeled foreground masks. We select a subset of
several hundred (contiguous) frames from each sequence containing
10 labeled frames.
To evaluate the denoising capabilities of each algorithm, we
measure the peak signal-to-noise ratio of the foreground (f-PSNR)
and background (b-PSNR) pixels, respectively, in decibels (dB) of
the frames with labeled masks. We also measure the ability of each
algorithm to isolate the foreground by applying a simple thresholding strategy to the foreground component of each algorithm (S2 for
our proposed method, S for RPCA, and F for TVRPCA) and then
computing the F-measure of these estimated masks with respect
to the labeled masks.3 Here, F-measure is defined in terms of the
precision and recall of the estimated mask as
Fmeasure = 2 ×

Precision × Recall
,
Precision + Recall

(16)

where Fmeasure = 1 corresponds to perfect accuracy. We tune the parameters of each algorithm for each metric and dataset individually.
Tables 1 and 2 compare the performance of the algorithms on
I2R sequences corrupted by 20% outliers (salt and pepper) and Gaussian noise with 30dB SNR, respectively. Tables 3 and 4 show the
performance of each algorithm on the Hall sequence as a function
of outlier probability and SNR, respectively. Our proposed method
performs better than the other methods in most cases.
The performance of RPCA and DECOLOR degrades dramatically when outliers are added because they lack the ability to separate outliers and other non-idealities from the dynamic foreground
component. While TVRPCA performs better than these methods in
the presence of outliers, our proposed method consistently achieves
higher foreground PSNR and F-measure, which suggests that our
algorithm can better decompose the scene into foreground and background components.
4.2. Moving camera
Next, we demonstrate the performance of our proposed method on
a moving camera sequence from a recent benchmark dataset [25].
2 See
3 For

http://perception.i2r.a-star.edu.sg/bk model/bk index.html.
DECOLOR, we use the foreground mask returned by the algorithm.

L

S1

S2

L + S2

Frame 32 Frame 17

Y

Fig. 2: Proposed algorithm applied to the Tennis dataset corrupted by 30% outliers. Y : registered corrupted frames; L: reconstructed
(panoramic) background; S1 : decoupled sparse corruptions; S2 : dynamic foreground; L + S2 : reconstructed scene.
Sequence
Hall
Fountain
Escalator
Water Surface
Shopping Mall
Average

f-PSNR
38.94
39.73
33.15
42.14
40.26
38.84

Proposed
b-PSNR F-measure
37.98
0.60
35.48
0.74
31.56
0.72
36.96
0.94
39.83
0.74
36.36
0.75

f-PSNR
27.12
26.99
23.45
22.92
25.06
25.11

RPCA
b-PSNR
32.63
32.06
26.27
31.45
34.62
31.41

F-measure
0.19
0.21
0.35
0.40
0.31
0.29

f-PSNR
36.50
36.87
30.91
40.14
37.43
36.37

TVRPCA
b-PSNR F-measure
37.42
0.60
35.48
0.72
30.96
0.69
36.81
0.82
40.88
0.73
36.31
0.71

f-PSNR
27.02
26.89
23.27
22.12
25.01
24.86

DECOLOR
b-PSNR F-measure
31.63
0.17
30.69
0.15
22.17
0.25
20.66
0.26
31.42
0.26
27.31
0.22

Table 1: Performance metrics for each algorithm on sequences from the I2R dataset corrupted by 20% outliers (salt and pepper).
Sequence
Hall
Fountain
Escalator
Water Surface
Shopping Mall
Average

f-PSNR
36.66
38.14
32.83
38.46
37.31
36.68

Proposed
b-PSNR F-measure
32.72
0.58
30.05
0.74
26.60
0.72
31.08
0.94
35.29
0.71
31.15
0.74

f-PSNR
31.80
34.57
29.87
30.19
32.34
31.75

RPCA
b-PSNR
30.14
29.35
25.07
28.71
31.54
28.96

F-measure
0.30
0.35
0.49
0.57
0.34
0.41

f-PSNR
34.64
36.45
31.15
33.83
35.13
34.24

TVRPCA
b-PSNR F-measure
21.83
0.59
24.22
0.70
22.35
0.68
23.88
0.81
24.31
0.71
23.32
0.70

f-PSNR
31.65
36.51
25.67
29.35
32.39
31.11

DECOLOR
b-PSNR F-measure
25.14
0.56
25.54
0.71
23.54
0.72
20.88
0.84
30.93
0.71
25.21
0.71

Table 2: Performance metrics for each algorithm on sequences from the I2R dataset corrupted by 30dB Gaussian noise.
p
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

f-PSNR
41.48
38.94
37.69
36.49
35.84
34.93

Proposed
b-PSNR F-measure
39.37
0.60
37.98
0.60
36.21
0.59
34.73
0.58
33.73
0.57
32.38
0.56

f-PSNR
30.35
27.12
25.40
24.26
23.57
22.87

RPCA
b-PSNR
32.67
32.63
32.39
32.03
31.49
31.36

F-measure
0.27
0.19
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.10

f-PSNR
38.38
36.50
34.94
32.51
29.85
27.98

TVRPCA
b-PSNR F-measure
38.98
0.60
37.42
0.60
36.08
0.58
24.13
0.57
18.11
0.49
14.65
0.35

f-PSNR
30.28
27.02
30.27
24.13
23.47
22.79

DECOLOR
b-PSNR F-measure
31.54
0.29
31.63
0.17
31.54
0.29
18.50
0.07
14.61
0.07
14.13
0.07

Table 3: Performance metrics for each algorithm on the I2R Hall sequence as a function of (salt and pepper) outlier probability, p.
SNR
5dB
10dB
20dB
30dB
40dB
50dB

f-PSNR
31.78
32.78
34.73
36.66
39.64
42.89

Proposed
b-PSNR F-measure
26.15
0.52
27.87
0.54
30.73
0.56
32.72
0.58
33.90
0.60
36.14
0.60

f-PSNR
20.85
23.04
27.42
31.80
36.20
40.59

RPCA
b-PSNR
18.55
23.31
28.73
30.14
31.27
32.00

F-measure
0.07
0.08
0.14
0.30
0.46
0.54

f-PSNR
25.20
26.85
30.20
34.64
37.96
41.47

TVRPCA
b-PSNR F-measure
11.29
0.08
13.33
0.14
16.89
0.34
21.83
0.59
25.70
0.58
29.77
0.59

f-PSNR
27.98
28.54
30.13
31.65
36.27
37.87

DECOLOR
b-PSNR F-measure
14.30
0.07
14.30
0.07
14.30
0.07
25.14
0.56
31.51
0.59
32.73
0.61

Table 4: Performance metrics for each algorithm on the I2R Hall sequence as a function of SNR (Gaussian noise).
The Tennis sequence consists of 35 frames, each with resolution
480 × 854, of a camera panning across a tennis court with a player
swinging a racket in the foreground.
Figure 2 shows the outputs of Algorithm 1 on the Tennis sequence corrupted by 30% outliers (salt and pepper). The parameters
used were τ = 0.33, r = 1, λS1 = 0.001, and λS2 = 0.001. Our
proposed method gracefully aggregates the background information
from the corrupted frames to produce a clean panoramic estimate (L)
of the full field of view. Also, the TV-regularized component (S2 )
is able to estimate the dynamic foreground (person) and decouple it
from the sparse corruptions (S1 ). None of the methods considered
in Section 4.1 can produce comparable results.

5. CONCLUSION
We proposed an augmented robust PCA algorithm for jointly estimating the foreground and background of a scene from noisy,
moving camera video. Our proposed approach relies on a recentlydeveloped low-rank matrix estimator (OptShrink) and weighted total
variation regularization to recover the respective components of the
scene. Our experimental results indicate that our algorithm is robust
to both dense and sparse corruptions of the raw video and yields
superior foreground-background separations compared to existing
methods. In future work, we hope to investigate the usefulness of
the foreground components produced by our algorithm for computer
vision tasks like object tracking and activity detection.

6. REFERENCES
[1] S.-C. Huang, “An advanced motion detection algorithm with
video quality analysis for video surveillance systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology,
vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2011.
[2] Y. Tsaig and A. Averbuch, “Automatic segmentation of moving
objects in video sequences: a region labeling approach,” IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology,
vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 597–612, 2002.
[3] T. Bouwmans and E. H. Zahzah, “Robust pca via principal
component pursuit: A review for a comparative evaluation in
video surveillance,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, vol. 122, pp. 22–34, 2014.
[4] A. Sobral and A. Vacavant, “A comprehensive review of background subtraction algorithms evaluated with synthetic and
real videos,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, vol.
122, pp. 4–21, 2014.
[5] X. Ye, J. Yang, X. Sun, K. Li, C. Hou, and Y. Wang,
“Foreground–background separation from video clips via
motion-assisted matrix restoration,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 25, no. 11, pp.
1721–1734, 2015.
[6] J. He, L. Balzano, and A. Szlam, “Incremental gradient on
the grassmannian for online foreground and background separation in subsampled video,” in IEEE Conference on Computer
Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2012, pp. 1568–1575.
[7] A. Elgammal, D. Harwood, and L. Davis, “Non-parametric
model for background subtraction,” in European Conference
on Computer Vision, 2000, pp. 751–767.
[8] E. J. Candès, X. Li, Y. Ma, and J. Wright, “Robust principal
component analysis?,” Journal of the ACM, vol. 58, no. 3, pp.
11, 2011.
[9] C. Guyon, T. Bouwmans, and E.-H. Zahzah, “Foreground
detection via robust low rank matrix decomposition including
spatio-temporal constraint,” in Asian Conference on Computer
Vision, 2012, pp. 315–320.
[10] T. Zhou and D. Tao, “Shifted subspaces tracking on sparse outlier for motion segmentation.,” in Artificial Intelligence Journal, 2013.
[11] Z. Zhang, G. Ely, S. Aeron, N. Hao, and M. Kilmer, “Novel
methods for multilinear data completion and de-noising based
on tensor-svd,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition, 2014, pp. 3842–3849.
[12] C. Stauffer and W. E. L. Grimson, “Adaptive background mixture models for real-time tracking,” in IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1999, vol. 2, pp.
246–252.
[13] X. Cao, L. Yang, and X. Guo, “Total variation regularized rpca
for irregularly moving object detection under dynamic background,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 46, no. 4, pp.
1014–1027, 2016.
[14] S. E. Ebadi, V. G. Ones, and E. Izquierdo, “Approximated robust principal component analysis for improved general scene
background subtraction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.05875,
2016.

[15] X. Zhou, C. Yang, and W. Yu, “Moving object detection by
detecting contiguous outliers in the low-rank representation,”
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 597–610, 2013.
[16] D. A. Forsyth and J. Ponce, Computer Vision: A Modern Approach, Prentice-Hall, 2002.
[17] H. Bay, T. Tuytelaars, and L. Van Gool, “SURF: Speeded up
robust features,” in European Conference on Computer Vision,
2006, pp. 404–417.
[18] M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: a
paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis
and automated cartography,” Communications of the ACM, vol.
24, no. 6, pp. 381–395, 1981.
[19] S. H. Chan, R. Khoshabeh, K. B. Gibson, P. E. Gill, and T. Q.
Nguyen, “An augmented lagrangian method for total variation
video restoration,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing,
vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 3097–3111, 2011.
[20] N. Parikh, S. Boyd, et al., “Proximal algorithms,” Foundations
and Trends in Optimization, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 127–239, 2014.
[21] J.-F. Cai, E. J. Candès, and Z. Shen, “A singular value thresholding algorithm for matrix completion,” SIAM Journal on
Optimization, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1956–1982, 2010.
[22] B. E. Moore, R. R. Nadakuditi, and J. A. Fessler, “Improved robust pca using low-rank denoising with optimal singular value
shrinkage,” in IEEE Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing, 2014, pp. 13–16.
[23] R. R. Nadakuditi, “Optshrink: An algorithm for improved lowrank signal matrix denoising by optimal, data-driven singular
value shrinkage,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 3002–3018, 2014.
[24] S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein, “Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating
direction method of multipliers,” Foundations and Trends R in
Machine Learning, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–122, 2011.
[25] F. Perazzi, J. Pont-Tuset, B. McWilliams, L. Van Gool,
M. Gross, and A. Sorkine-Hornung, “A benchmark dataset
and evaluation methodology for video object segmentation,”
in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016.

