JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015

1

Deep Sparse Subspace Clustering
Xi Peng, Jiashi Feng, Shijie Xiao, Jiwen Lu Senior Member, IEEE, Zhang Yi Fellow, IEEE,
Shuicheng Yan Fellow, IEEE,

arXiv:1709.08374v1 [cs.CV] 25 Sep 2017

Abstract—In this paper, we present a deep extension of Sparse Subspace Clustering, termed Deep Sparse Subspace Clustering
(DSSC). Regularized by the unit sphere distribution assumption for the learned deep features, DSSC can infer a new data affinity
matrix by simultaneously satisfying the sparsity principle of SSC and the nonlinearity given by neural networks. One of the appealing
advantages brought by DSSC is: when original real-world data do not meet the class-specific linear subspace distribution assumption,
DSSC can employ neural networks to make the assumption valid with its hierarchical nonlinear transformations. To the best of our
knowledge, this is among the first deep learning based subspace clustering methods. Extensive experiments are conducted on four
real-world datasets to show the proposed DSSC is significantly superior to 12 existing methods for subspace clustering.
Index Terms—Subspace clustering, low rank representation, spectral clustering, neural networks

F

1

I NTRODUCTION

S

UBSPACE clustering aims at simultaneously implicitly
finding out an underlying subspace to fit each group
of data points and performing clustering based on the
learned subspaces, which has attracted a lot of interest from
the computer vision and image processing community [1].
Most existing subspace clustering methods can be roughly
divided into following categories: algebraic methods [1], [2],
iterative methods [3], [4], statistical methods [5], [6], and
spectral clustering based methods [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].
Recently, a large number of spectral clustering based
methods have been proposed [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17],
[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28],
[29], [30], [31], which first form an affinity matrix using the
linear reconstruction coefficients of the whole data set and
then obtain clustering results by applying spectral clustering
on the affinity matrix. Those methods differ from each
other mainly in their adopted priors on the coefficients.
For example, `1 -norm based sparse subspace clustering
(SSC) [12], [14] and its `0 -norm based variant [31], low
rank representation (LRR) [19], [20], and thresholding ridge
regression (TRR) [32], [33] build the affinity matrix using
the linear representation coefficients under the constraint
of `1 -, nuclear-, and `2 -norm, respectively. Formally, SSC,
LRR, TRR, as well as many of their variants learn the
representation coefficients to build the affinity matrix via:

min L(X − XC) + R(C),
C

•
•
•
•
•

(1)

X. Peng and Z. Yi are with College of Computer Science, Sichuan
University, Chengdu, 610065, China.
E-mail: pengx.gm@gmail.com; zhangyi@scu.edu.cn
J. Feng is with Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at
National University of Singapore.
Shijie Xiao is with OmniVision Technologies Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore.
J. Lu is with Department of Automation, Tsinghua University, Beijing
100084, China.
S. Yan is with Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at
National University of Singapore and 360 Artificial Intelligence Institute,
China.

Clustering

Data

Neural Network Deeply Sparse Coding

Results

Fig. 1. The flowchart of the proposed DSSC method. For a given
data set X = [x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ], we project them into the feature space
(M )
(M )
(M )
as H(M ) = [h1 , h2 , · · · , hn ] by using a set of hierarchical
nonlinear transformations and learn the self sparse representation of
input at the top layer of the neural network, where M denotes the
top layer of the neural network. Once the neural network converges,
we apply spectral clustering on the affinity matrix built by the obtained
representation like SSC. Noted that the proposed neural network is
based on a novel structure which simultaneously enjoys the sparsity of
SSC and the nonlinearity of neural networks.

where C ∈ Rn×n denotes the linear representation of
the input X ∈ Rd×n . Here, d denotes the dimension of
data and n is the number of data points. R(C) denotes
certain imposed structure prior over C, and the choice of
representation error function L(·) is usually dependent on
the distribution assumption of X, e.g. a typical loss function
is L(X − XC) = kX − XCkF .
Although those methods have achieved impressive performance for subspace clustering, they generally suffer from
the following limitations. First of all, those methods assume
that each sample can be linearly reconstructed by the whole
sample collection. However, in real-world cases, the data
may not be linearly represented by each other in the input
space. Therefore, performance of those methods usually
drop in practice. To address this problem, several recent
works [34], [35], [36], [37] have developed kernel-based approaches which have shown their effectiveness in subspace
clustering. However, kernel-based approaches are similar
to template-based approaches, whose performance heavily
depends on the choice of kernel functions. Moreover, the

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015

approaches cannot give explicit nonlinear transformations,
causing difficulties in handling large-scale data sets.
Inspired by the remarkable success of deep learning in
various applications [38], [39], in this work, we propose a
new subspace clustering framework based on neural networks, termed deep sparse subspace clustering (DSSC). The
basic idea of DSSC (see Figure 1) is simple but effective. It
uses a neural network to project data into another space in
which SSC is valid to the nonlinear subspace case. Unlike
most existing subspace clustering methods, our method
simultaneously learns a set of hierarchical transformations
parametrized by a neural network and the reconstruction
coefficients to represent each mapped sample as a combination of others. Compared with kernel based approaches,
DSSC is a deep instead of shallow model which can explicitly
map samples from the input space into a latent space, with
parameters in the transformations learned in a data-driven
way. To the best of our knowledge, DSSC is the first deep
extension of SSC, which satisfies the sparsity principle of
SSC and meanwhile makes SSC valid to nonlinear subspace
case.
The contribution of this work is twofold. From the view
of subspace clustering, we show how to make it benefit from
the success of deep neural networks so that the nonlinear
subspace clustering could be achieved. From the view of
neural networks, we show that it is feasible to integrate
the advantages of existing subspace clustering methods
and deep learning to develop new unsupervised learning
algorithms.
Notations: throughout the paper, lower-case bold letters
represent column vectors and UPPER-CASE BOLD ONES
denote matrices. AT denotes the transpose of the matrix A
and I denotes an identity matrix.

2

R ELATED W ORKS

Subspace Clustering: The past decade saw an upsurge of
subspace clustering methods with various applications in
computer vision, e.g. motion segmentation [6], [14], [16],
[19], [21], [40], face clustering [12], [17], [18], [20], [22],
image processing [15], [31], [41], multi-view analysis [24],
and video analysis [36]. Particularly, among these works,
spectral clustering based methods have achieved state-ofthe-art results. The key of these methods is to learn a
satisfactory affinity matrix A in which Aij denotes the
similarity between the i-th and the j -th sample. Ideally,
Aij 6= 0 only if the corresponding data points xi and xj
are drawn from the same subspace. To this end, some recent
works (e.g. SSC [12], [14]) assume that any given sample
can be linearly reconstructed by other samples in the input
space. Based on the self-representation, an affinity matrix
(or called similarity graph) can be constructed and fed to
spectral clustering algorithms to obtain the final clustering
results. In practice, however, high-dimensional data (such
as face images) usually resides on the nonlinear manifold.
Unfortunately, linear reconstruction assumption may not be
satisfied in the original space and in this case the methods
may fail to capture the intrinsic nonlinearity of manifold.
To address this limitation, the kernel approach is used to
first project samples into a high-dimensional feature space

2

in which the representation of the whole data set is computed [34], [35], [36], [37]. After that, the clustering result
is achieved by performing traditional subspace clustering
methods in the kernel space. However, the kernel-based
methods behave like template-based approaches which usually require the prior knowledge on the data distribution
to choose a desirable kernel function. Clearly, such a prior
is hard to obtain in practice. Moreover, they cannot learn
an explicit nonlinear mapping functions from data set, thus
suffering from the scalability issue and the out-of-sample
problem [42], [43].
Unlike these classical subspace clustering approaches,
our method learns a set of explicit nonlinear mapping functions
from data set to map the input into another space, and
calculates the affinity matrix using the representation of the
samples in the new space.
Deep Learning: Aimed at learning high-level features
from inputs, deep learning has shown promising results
in numerous computer vision tasks in the scenario of
supervised learning, such as image classification [39]. In
contrast, less attention [44], [45], [46] has been paid to the
applications with unsupervised learning scheme. Recently,
some works [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] have devoted
to combining deep learning and unsupervised clustering
and shown impressive results over the traditional clustering
approaches. These methods share the same basic idea, i.e.,
using deep learning to learn a good representation and then
achieving clustering with existing clustering methods like
k-means. The major differences among them reside on the
neural network structure and the objective function.
Different from these works, our framework is based
on a new neural network instead of an existing network.
Moreover, our method focuses on subspace clustering rather
than clustering, which simultaneously learns the high-level
features from inputs and the self-representation in a joint
way, whereas these existing methods do not enjoy the
effectiveness of the self-expressive subspace clustering. We
believe that such a general framework is complementary
to existing shallow subspace clustering methods, since it
can adopt the loss functions and regularizations in these
methods. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the
first several deep subspace clustering methods. It should be
pointed out that, our model is also significantly different
from [49] as below: 1) [49] performs like manifold learning,
which requires the data could be linearly reconstructed in
the input space and embeds the obtained sparse representation from input space into latent space. In contrast, our
model aims to solve the problem of nonlinear subspace
clustering, i.e. the data cannot linearly represented in the
input space. 2) In [49], sparse representation is used as a type
of priori, which keeps unchanged. In contrast, this work
dynamically seeks an good sparse representation to jointly
optimize our neural network. 3) The proposed method can
be regarded as a deep nonlinear extension of the wellknown SSC, which makes SSC handling nonlinear subspace
clustering possible.

3

D EEP S PARSE S UBSPACE C LUSTERING

In this section, we first briefly review SSC, and then present
the details of our deep subspace clustering method.

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015

3.1

3

Sparse Subspace Clustering
d×n

For a given data set X = [x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ] ∈ R
, SSC
seeks to linearly reconstruct the i-th sample xi using a
few of other samples. In other words, the representation
coefficients are expected to be sparse. To achieve this end,
the problem is formulated as below,

1
kxi − Xci k2F + γkci k1
s.t. cii = 0
(2)
2
where k·k1 denotes `1 -norm (i.e., the sum of absolute values
of all elements in a vector) that acts as a relaxation of `0 norm, and cii denotes the i-th element in ci . Specifically,
penalizing kci k1 encourages ci to be sparse, and enforcing
the constraint cii = 0 to avoid trivial solutions. To deal with
the optimization problem in (2), the alternating direction
method of multipliers (ADMM) [54], [55] is often used.
Once the sparse representation of the whole data set
is obtained by solving (2), an affinity matrix in SSC is
calculated as A = |C| + |C|T , based on which spectral
clustering is applied to give clustering results.
min
ci

3.2

Deep Subspace Clustering

In most existing subspace clustering methods including
SSC, each sample is encoded as a linear combination of
the whole data set. However, when dealing with highdimensional data which usually lie on nonlinear manifolds,
such methods may fail to capture the nonlinear structure,
thus leading to inferior results. To address this issue, we
propose a deep learning based method which maps given
samples using explicit hierarchical transformations in a neural
network, and simultaneously learns the reconstruction coefficients to represent each mapped sample as a combination of
others.
As shown in Figure 1, the neural network in our proposed framework consists of M + 1 stacked layers with M
nonlinear transformations, which takes a given sample x as
the input to the first layer. For ease presentation, we make
several definitions below. For the first layer of our neural
network, we define its input as h(0) = x ∈ Rd . Moreover,
for the subsequent layers, let
(m)

h(m) = g(W(m) h(m−1) + b(m) ) ∈ Rd

(3)

be the output of the m-th layer (in which m = 1, 2, · · · , M
indexes the layer), where g(·) is a nonlinear activation function, d(m) is the dimension of the output of the m-th layer,
(m)
(m−1)
(m)
W(m) ∈ Rd ×d
and b(m) ∈ Rd
denote the weights
and bias associated with the m-th layer, respectively. In
particular, given x as the input of the first layer, the output
at the top layer of our neural network is

h(M ) = g(W(M ) h(M −1) + b(M ) ).

(4)

In fact, if denoting the expression above as f (x), we can
(m)
observe that f (·) : Rd → Rd
is a nonlinear function
determined by the weights and biases of our neural network
(i.e., {W(m) , b(m) }M
m=1 ) as well as the choice of activation
function g(·). Furthermore, for n samples, we define H(M )
as the collection of the corresponding outputs given by our
neural network, i.e.
(M )

H(M ) = [h1

(M )

, h2

)
, · · · , h(M
n ].

(5)

With the above definitions, we present the objective
function of our method in the following form:

min

{W(m) ,b(m) }M
m=1 ,C

J = J1 + λJ2 .

(6)

where λ is a positive trade-off parameter, and {Ji }2i=1 are
defined below. Intuitively, the first term J1 is designed
to minimize the discrepancy between H(M ) and its selfexpressed representation. Moreover, it meanwhile regularizes C for some desired properties. To be specific, J1 can be
expressed in the form of

J1 = L(H(M ) − H(M ) C) + R(C) + F(C),

(7)

where F(C) takes the value of +∞ if C is not in some
feasible domains, and 0 otherwise. Note that, the form of
L(·), R(·), and F(·) may be adopted from many existing
subspace clustering works. In this paper, we aim to develop
a deep extension of SSC and thus take L(·) = k · k2F , R(·) =
k·k1 , F(C) = +∞ if diag(C) = 0 is violated, and F(C) = 0
otherwise.
The second part J2 is designed to remove an arbitrary
scaling factor in the latent space. In this work, we set
n

J2 =

1X
(M )
(M )
k(hi )T hi − 1k22 ,
4 i=1

(8)

Noticed that, without the above term, our neural network
may collapse in the trivial solutions like H(M ) = 0.
With {Ji }2i=1 detailed above, the optimization problem
of our proposed DSSC can be expressed as follows:

1
min kH(M ) − H(M ) Ck2F + γkCk1
Θ,C 2
n
λX
(M )
(M )
+
k(hi )T hi − 1k22
4 i=1
s.t. diag(C) = 0,

(9)

where Θ denotes the parametric neural network, i.e., Θ =
{W(m) , b(m) }M
m=1 .
3.3

Optimization

For ease of presentation, we first rewrite (9) as follows:

min
Θ,ci

n 
X
1
i=1

2

(M )

khi

(M )

− Hi
+

ci k2F + γkci k1


λ
(M )
(M )
k(hi )T hi − 1k22 ,
4

(10)

(M )

where Hi
is a variant of H(M ) , which is obtained by
(M )
simply replacing hi
in H(M ) with 0.
Given n data points, DSSC simultaneously learns M
nonlinear mapping functions {W(m) , b(m) }M
m=1 and n
sparse codes {ci }n
by
solving
(10).
As
(10)
is
a multiplei=1
variable optimization problem, we employ an alternating
minimization algorithm by alternatively updating one of
variables while fixing the others.
(m)
Step 1: Fix ci and Hi , update Θ, (10) can be rewritten
as

1 (M )
λ
(M )
(M )
(M )
min khi −Hi ci k22 +αi + k(hi )T hi −1k22 , (11)
Θ 2
4

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015
(M )
(M )
(M )
(M )
−Hj cj k22 +λk(hi )T hi −1k22
j6=i khj

P

where αi =
is a constant.
To solve (11), we adopt the stochastic sub-gradient descent (SGD) algorithm to obtain the parameters {W(m) ,
b(m) }M
m=1 . Moreover, we also enforce `2 -norm on the parameters to avoid overfitting [39], [56], where the regularization parameter is fixed as ϕ = 10−3 in all experiments.
Noticed that, (11) could also be solved with mini-batch SGD,
especially, when the data size is large. However, the minibatch SGD may give two issues. First, it introduces a new
hyper parameter (i.e., batch size), which increases human
effort for model selection. Second, the efficiency may be at
the cost of performance degradation [57].
(M )
Step 2: Fix {hi }n
i=1 and update ci by

1 (M )
(M )
min khi − Hi ci k2F + γkci k1 + βi ,
(12)
ci 2


P
(M )
(M )
where βi = j6=i 21 khj − Hj ci k22 + γkcj k1 is a constant. Note that, (12) is a standard `1 -minimization problem
faced in SSC, which can be solved by using many existing
`1 -solvers [58].
Step 1 and Step 2 are repeated until convergence.
After obtaining C, we construct a similarity graph via
A = |C| + |C|T and obtain the clustering results based on
A. The optimization procedure of DSSC is summarized in
Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 Deep Sparse Subspace Clustering
Input: A given data set X and the tradeoff parameters λ.
// Initialization:
(0) = X.
Initialize {W(m) , b(m) }M
m=1 , and H
for m = 1, 2 · · · , M do
Do forward propagation to get {H(m) }M
m=1 and C via solving (3)
and (12), respectively.
end
// Optimization
while not converge do
for i = 1, 2, · · · , n do
Randomly select a data point xi and let h0i = xi ,
for m = 1, 2 · · · , M do
(m)
Compute hi
via (3).
end
(m)
Compute ci using hi
via (3).
for m = M, M − 1 · · · , 1 do
Calculate the gradient using the SGD algorithm.
end
for m = 1, 2, · · · , M do
Update W(m) and b(m) with the gradient.
end
end
end
Output: {W(m) , b(m) }M
m=1 and C.

3.4

Discussions

Our approach DSSC can provide satisfactory subspace clustering performance befitting from following factors. First,
different from SSC, DSSC performs sparse coding in a deep
latent space instead of the original one and the latent space
is automatically learned in a data-driven manner. After
mapping input data into the latent space via the learned
transformation matrices, the transformed samples are more
favorable for linear reconstruction. Second, DSSC can also
be deemed as a deep kernel method which automatically

4

learns transformations in a data-driven way. Considering
the demonstrated effectiveness of kernel-based subspace
clustering approaches such as [35], [36], DSSC is wellexpected to show even better performance for subspace
clustering thanks to the representative capacity of deep
neural network.
It should be pointed out that the proposed DSSC adopts
similar neural network structure with deep metric learning
networks (DMLNs) [59], [60], [61], [62], i.e., a set of fully
connected layers to perform nonlinear transformation and
then perform specific task on the output of neural network.
The major differences among them are: 1) the objective
functions are different. Our method aims to segment different sample into different subspaces, whereas these metric learning networks aim to learn similarity function that
measures how similar or related two data points are; 2)
our DSSC is unsupervised, whereas DMLNs are supervised
approaches which require the label information to train
neural networks.
3.5

Implementation Details

In this section, we introduce the implementation details
of the used activation functions and the initialization of
{W(m) , bm }.
The activation functions can be chosen from various
forms. In our experiments, we use the tanh function which
is defined as follows:

g(z) = tanh(z) =

1 − e−2z
,
1 + e−2z

(13)

and the corresponding derivative is calculated as

g 0 (z) = tanh0 (z) = 1 − tanh2 (z).

(14)

Regarding the initializations of {W(m) , bm }, we initialize W(m) as a rectangular matrix with ones at the main
diagonal and zeros as other elements. Moreover, b(m) is
initialized as 0. Note that, the used networks could also be
initialized with an auto-encoder.

4

E XPERIMENTS

In this section, we compare our method with 12 popular
subspace clustering methods on four different real-world
data sets in terms of four clustering performance metrics.
4.1

Datasets and Experimental Settings

Data sets: Four different data sets are used in our experiments, i.e. COIL20 object images [63], the MNIST handwritten digital database [64], AR facial images [65], and the
BF0502 video face data set [66].
The COIL20 database contains 1,440 samples distributed
over 20 objects, where each image is with the size of 32 ×
32. The MNIST data set includes 60,000 handwritten digit
images of which the first 2,000 training images and the first
2,000 testing images are used in our experiments, where the
size of each image is 28 × 28.
The AR database is one of the most popular facial image
data sets for subspace clustering. In our experiments, we use
a widely-used subset of the AR database [67] which consists

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015

of 1,400 undisguised faces evenly distributed over 50 males
and 50 females, where the size of each image is 165 × 120.
The BF0502 data set contains facial images detected from
the TV series “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”. Following [36], a
subset of BF0502 is used, which includes 17,337 faces in 229
tracks from 6 main casts. Each facial image is represented
as a 1,937-dimensional vectors extracted from 13 facial landmark points (e.g., the left and right corners of each eye). In
our experiments, we use the first 200 samples from each
category, thus resulting in 1,200 images in total.
For the purpose of nonlinear subspace clustering, we
use the following four types of features instead of raw data
from the COIL20, MNIST, and AR data sets in experiments,
i.e. dense scale-invariant feature transform (DSIFT) [68], the
histogram of oriented gradients (HOG) [69], local binary
pattern (LBP) [70], and local phase quantization (LPQ) [71].
The details of extracting these features are introduced as
follows:
•

•

•

•

DSIFT: We divide each image into multiple nonoverlapping patches and then densely sample SIFT
descriptors from each patch. The patch sizes of AR,
COIL20, and MNIST are set as 15×15, 8×8, and 4×4,
respectively. By concatenating these SIFT descriptors
extracted from each image, we obtain a feature vector
with the dimension of 11,264 (AR), 2,048 (COIL20),
and 6,272 (MNIST).
HOG: We first divide each image into multiple blocks
with two scales, i.e. 8 × 8 and 4 × 4 for AR, and 4 × 4
and 2 × 2 for MNIST and COIL20. Then, we extract
a 9-dimensional HOG feature from each block. By
concatenating these features for each image, the dimension of the feature vector are 13,770 (AR), 2,205
(MNIST), and 2,880 (COIL20) , respectively.
LBP: Like DSIFT, we divide each image into multiple
non-overlapping patches and then extract LBP features using 8 sampling points on a circle of radius 1.
Thus, we obtain a 59-dimensional LBP feature vector
from each patch. By concatenating the descriptors
of each image, we obtain a feature vector with the
dimension of 7,788 (COIL20) and 2,891 (MNIST).
LPQ: The patch size is set as 8 × 8 for COIL20 and
MNIST. For all the tested data sets, we set the size
of LPQ window as 3, 5, and 7. By concatenating the
features of all patches of each image, the dimension
of each feature is 12,288 for COIL20 and 6,912 for
MNIST.

For computational efficiency, we perform PCA to reduce the
feature dimension of all data sets to 300, by following the
setting in [14], [59]
Baseline Methods: We compare DSSC with 12 stateof-the-art subspace clustering methods, i.e. SSC [12], [14],
Kernel SSC (KSSC) [35], LRR [19], [20], low rank subspace clustering (LRSC) [16], Kernel LRR [36], least square
regression (LSR) [21], smooth representation (SMR) [17].
LSR has two variants which are denoted by LSR1 and
LSR2, respectively. KSSC and KLRR have also two variants
which are based on the RBF function (KSSC1 / KLRR1)
and the polynomial function (KSSC2 / KLRR2), respectively. Moreover, we have also used the deep autoencoder
(DAE) with SSC as a baseline to show the efficacy of our

5

method. More specifically, we adopt the pre-training and
fine-tuning strategy [72] to train a DAE that consists of
five layers with 300, 200, 150, 200, and 300 neurons. In the
experiments, we investigate the performance of DAE with
two popular nonlinear activation functions, i.e. the sigmoid
function (DAEg) and the saturating linear transfer function
(DAEs). After the DAE converging, we perform SSC on the
output of the third layer to obtain the clustering results.
For fair comparisons, we use the same `1 -solver (i.e. the
Homotopy method [58], [73]) to solve the `1 -minimization
problem in DSSC, SSC, and DAE. Noted that, our method
could also be compatible to other neural networks such as
convolutional neural networks (CNN). In experiments, we
adopt the fully connected network (FCN) instead of CNN
because the former has offered a desirable performance
in our experiments. Moreover, FCN is with fewer hyperparameters than CNN, which remarkably reduces the effort
to seek optimal value for hyper-parameters.
Experimental Settings: In our experiments, we adopt
cross-validation for selecting the optimal parameters for
all the tested methods [56]1 . More specifically, we equally
split each data set into two partitions and tune parameters
using one partition. With the tuned parameters, we repeat
each algorithm 10 times on the other partition and report
the achieved mean and standard deviation of the used
clustering performance metrics. In all the experiments, we
train a DSSC consisting of three layers, with 300, 200, and
150 neurons respectively. Moreover, we set λ = 10−3 /n and
the convergence threshold as 10−3 for DSSC and adopt early
stopping technique (w.r.t. the parameter τ ) to avoid overfitting by following [56], where n is the data size. Once the
network converges, we experimentally found that removing
the nonlinear functions could be helpful for following clustering step in inference phrase. Note that, we directly use
the tuned parameters γ (sparsity) and δ (tolerance) of SSC
for DSSC. If these two parameters are tuned specifically, the
performance of DSSC could be further improved.
Evaluation Criteria: Like [24], we adopt four popular
metrics to evaluate the clustering performance of our algorithm, i.e. accuracy (ACC) or called purity, normalized
mutual information (NMI), adjusted rand index (ARI), and
Fscore. Higher value of these metrics indicates better performance.
4.2

Comparison with state-of-the-art methods

In this section, we compare DSSC with 12 recently-proposed
subspace clustering methods on the COIL20 and the MNIST
data sets, where each data set is with four different features.
On COIL20: We first investigate the performance of
DSSC using the COIL20 data set. Tables 1–2 report the
results from which we can see that:
•

DSSC consistently outperforms other tested methods
in terms of all of the used performance metrics.
Regarding the four types of features, DSSC achieves
at least 1.86%, 2.09%, 0.96% and 3.52% relative improvement over the ACC of the best baseline, respectively.

1. The following parameters are tuned with the cross validation
technique: DSSC (µ, τ ), SSC (γ , δ ), KSSC (γ , δ ), DAE (γ , δ ), LRR (λ),
KLRR (λ), LRSC (λ), LSR (λ), and SMR (α, k).

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015

6

TABLE 1
Clustering results on the COIL20 data set. Results in boldface are significantly better than the others, according to the t-test with a significance
level at 0.05.
Features
Methods
DSSC
SSC
KSSC1
KSSC2
DAEg
DAEs
LRR
KLRR1
KLRR2
LRSC
LSR1
LSR2
SMR

ACC

NMI

DSIFT
ARI

Fscore

Para.

ACC

NMI

HOG
ARI

Fscore

Para.

80.82±2.88
78.96±3.12
71.00±2.13
72.01±2.68
55.83±2.80
55.81±2.60
71.03±1.47
70.46±1.55
70.85±1.37
71.82±0.28
63.93±2.15
68.11±1.14
76.97±0.96

90.52±0.94
89.06±1.03
78.72±0.98
83.84±0.89
70.42±1.43
70.71±1.68
80.52±1.05
79.61±1.01
80.09±1.15
77.65±0.23
73.18±1.12
75.33±0.62
85.30±0.58

77.63±2.09
76.46±2.31
63.33±1.85
64.22±3.47
47.06±2.74
48.49±3.31
63.83±2.09
61.25±1.94
62.75±1.54
62.72±0.52
53.29±2.26
56.29±1.56
71.56±1.02

78.88±1.96
77.59±2.17
65.18±1.75
66.22±3.16
50.00±2.52
51.46±3.05
65.70±1.97
63.35±1.81
64.73±1.46
64.62±0.49
55.75±2.14
58.61±1.41
73.02±0.96

2−12 , 20
0.5, 0.2
10−3 , 18
10−3 , 18
0.5, 0.2
0.5, 0.2
5e-2
500
100
0.08
0.6
0.9
2−16 ,10−3

87.10±2.82
85.01±0.85
75.29±0.97
69.53±1.30
69.60±1.00
64.75±1.31
76.89±1.46
76.74±0.27
72.33±2.65
57.11±1.24
54.81±1.80
53.81±1.51
80.15±0.87

91.67±1.07
89.99±0.38
82.75±0.49
81.27±0.69
78.52±0.47
77.48±0.60
86.52±0.78
82.00±0.14
80.98±1.21
69.91±0.73
64.44±0.94
63.00±1.22
85.93±0.6

82.56±1.26
81.13±1.08
66.46±1.43
61.16±1.83
59.38±0.79
56.81±1.12
70.79±1.73
69.43±0.48
63.11±2.88
46.27±1.57
42.28±1.55
42.07±1.5
73.51±1.06

83.51±2.12
82.08±1.02
68.20±1.33
63.32±1.69
61.63±0.74
59.13±1.06
72.39±1.62
70.96±0.45
65.07±2.68
49.20±1.48
45.35±1.44
45.19±1.42
74.87±1.01

2−12 , 30
0.5, 0.1
10−2 , 18
10−2 , 18
0.5, 0.1
0.5, 0.1
5e-3
10
5
0.01
0.5
0.3
2−16 ,10−3

TABLE 2
Clustering results on the COIL20 data set. Results in boldface are significantly better than the others, according to the t-test with a significance
level at 0.05.
Features
Methods
DSSC
SSC
KSSC1
KSSC2
DAEg
DAEs
LRR
KLRR1
KLRR2
LRSC
LSR1
LSR2
SMR

ACC

NMI

LBP
ARI

Fscore

Para.

ACC

NMI

LPQ
ARI

Fscore

Para.

72.89±1.41
70.17±0.65
69.33±1.97
70.42±1.13
40.96±2.18
40.68±1.13
71.60±4.02
65.83±0.31
70.10±1.27
62.96±0.61
70.24±2.90
70.54±3.26
71.93±1.35

84.32±0.79
82.66±0.19
80.65±0.86
83.67±0.69
53.54±0.89
52.12±0.92
84.45±1.78
77.34±0.30
79.58±0.13
73.38±0.79
82.40±1.41
81.63±1.16
81.17±0.39

67.31±1.96
64.19±0.60
61.15±1.91
65.28±1.23
26.27±1.33
23.67±1.30
65.47±5.68
56.41±0.50
62.91±0.51
53.31±1.06
64.54±2.85
63.71±2.58
63.54±1.41

69.01±1.85
66.07±0.58
63.18±1.79
68.03±1.16
30.57±1.22
28.26±1.10
66.29±5.21
58.60±0.47
64.82±0.47
55.67±1.01
67.33±2.69
66.59±2.41
66.39±1.32

2−13 , 40
10−3 , 10−2
1, 16
1, 16
10−3 , 10−2
10−3 , 10−2
0.5
30
1000
0.04
1
0.6
2−16 , 10−3

78.12±2.09
74.60±0.81
68.49±2.38
69.24±2.33
62.19±0.90
59.64±2.46
69.00±1.09
69.43±1.46
65.33±2.48
66.38±0.50
66.97±1.68
65.25±1.55
70.56±0.57

85.38±0.77
84.21±0.49
79.28±1.27
79.52±0.93
72.04±0.54
67.44±1.06
80.31±0.88
77.34±0.53
76.41±1.13
78.73±0.58
74.42±0.62
73.81±1.29
80.68±0.41

71.35±1.34
67.69±0.83
59.06±2.37
61.07±1.72
51.51±0.75
44.90±1.81
60.12±1.51
57.01±1.02
54.22±2.11
58.81±0.97
55.48±1.52
54.34±1.65
61.68±0.49

72.87±1.25
69.35±0.79
61.23±2.21
63.17±1.62
54.15±0.72
47.98±1.65
62.29±1.41
59.24±0.96
56.69±1.94
60.99±0.91
57.74±1.43
56.66±1.56
63.68±0.45

2−12 , 60
10−3 , 0.1
0.1, 12
0.1, 12
10−3 , 0.1
10−3 , 0.1
0.1
500
100
0.08
0.2
0.3
2−16 , 10−3

TABLE 3
Clustering results on the MNIST data set. Results in boldface are significantly better than the others, according to the t-test with a significance
level at 0.05.
Features
Methods
DSSC
SSC
KSSC1
KSSC2
DAEg
DAEs
LRR
KLRR1
KLRR2
LRSC
LSR1
LSR2
SMR

•

ACC

NMI

DSIFT
ARI

Fscore

Para.

ACC

NMI

HOG
ARI

Fscore

Para.

72.65±0.00
62.45±0.00
50.90±0.00
60.80±0.00
52.55±0.00
42.28±1.19
63.20±0.00
57.05±0.00
22.63±0.89
59.30±0.00
63.50±0.00
63.55±0.00
69.15±0.00

70.42±0.00
65.75±0.00
49.75±0.00
63.96±0.00
58.36±0.00
48.70±0.56
68.34±0.00
57.97±0.00
12.55±1.37
58.84±0.00
60.39±0.00
60.53±0.00
68.90±0.00

61.80±0.00
53.75±0.00
35.28±0.00
50.81±0.00
40.98±0.00
31.70±0.31
54.11±0.00
44.63±0.00
9.02±0.46
46.90±0.00
49.02±0.00
49.14±0.00
59.17±0.00

65.79±0.00
58.81±0.00
41.80±0.00
56.26±0.00
47.48±0.00
39.85±0.22
59.48±0.00
50.70±0.00
22.98±0.14
52.37±0.00
54.29±0.00
54.39±0.00
63.40±0.00

2−13 , 20
1, 10−2
10−3 , 10
10−3 , 10
1, 10−2
1, 10−2
0.05
3000
1000
0.1
0.1
0.4
2−16 , 10−3

78.10±0.00
77.35±0.00
66.90±0.00
68.00±0.00
23.36±0.66
23.07±1.14
73.30±0.00
72.15±0.00
73.55±0.00
61.20±0.00
58.42±0.09
60.40±0.02
77.22±0.05

77.51±0.00
75.70±0.00
70.20±0.00
70.74±0.00
11.56±0.78
10.48±0.52
74.49±0.00
70.95±0.00
73.30±0.00
59.65±0.00
56.41±0.07
57.78±0.00
77.25±0.00

68.72±0.00
66.90±0.00
56.79±0.00
57.69±0.00
5.83±0.28
4.91±0.31
63.20±0.00
61.38±0.00
63.69±0.00
47.05±0.00
44.85±0.12
46.45±0.00
66.85±0.00

72.03±0.00
70.23±0.00
61.35±0.00
62.12±0.00
15.89±0.32
15.02±0.29
67.12±0.00
65.42±0.00
67.50±0.00
52.59±0.00
50.79±0.11
51.98±0.00
71.11±0.00

2−17 , 30
10, 10−2
10−2 , 12
10−2 , 12
10, 10−2
10, 10−2
0.01
30
3
0.01
0.2
0.1
2−16 , 10−3

SSC usually outperforms DAEs and DAEg, whereas
our DSSC method consistently outperforms SSC in
all the settings. This shows that it is hard to achieve
a desirable performance by simply introducing deep
learning into subspace clustering since unsupervised
deep learning is an open challenging issue [44].

On MNIST: We also investigate the performance of
DSSC by using the MNIST data set.
Tables 6–4 show the result, from which we obverse
that the ACC of DSSC with the DSIFT feature is 72.65%
which improves SSC by 10.20% and the best baseline al-

gorithm by 3.50%. With respect to the other three features,
the improvement of DSSC comparing with all the baseline
approaches is also significant, which is 1.82%, 1.02%, and
1.71% in terms of ARI. It should be pointed out that, all the
tested methods perform very stable on this data set, whose
standard deviations on these four performance metrics are
close to 0.
4.3

Deep Model vs. Shallow Models

In this section, we investigate the influence of the depth of
DSSC using the AR data set with DSIFT and HOG features.

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015

7

TABLE 4
Clustering results on the MNIST data set. Results in boldface are significantly better than the others, according to the t-test with a significance
level at 0.05.
Features
Methods
DSSC
SSC
KSSC1
KSSC2
DAEg
DAEs
LRR
KLRR1
KLRR2
LRSC
LSR1
LSR2
SMR

ACC

NMI

LBP
ARI

Fscore

Para.

ACC

NMI

LPQ
ARI

Fscore

Para.

61.70±0.00
59.75±0.00
58.50±0.00
57.70±0.00
36.20±0.00
32.20±0.00
55.70±0.00
54.12±0.06
53.75±0.00
42.45±0.00
53.12±0.05
52.93±0.04
49.90±0.00

54.23±0.00
53.83±0.00
53.96±0.00
54.27±0.00
27.81±0.00
24.85±0.00
45.70±0.00
50.98±0.01
50.70±0.00
35.60±0.00
45.81±0.05
45.65±0.03
44.29±0.00

44.54±0.00
43.52±0.00
41.58±0.00
41.95±0.00
16.68±0.00
14.75±0.00
37.77±0.00
37.84±0.07
37.05±0.00
23.42±0.00
35.27±0.01
34.98±0.05
32.16±0.00

50.25±0.00
49.02±0.00
47.67±0.00
47.96±0.00
25.42±0.00
23.39±0.00
44.58±0.00
44.25±0.06
43.55±0.00
31.43±0.00
41.87±0.01
41.61±0.05
39.18±0.00

2−15 , 40
0.1, 0.01
0.1, 10
0.1, 10
0.1, 0.01
0.1, 0.01
0.5
1000
300
0.03
0.1
0.1
2−14 , 10−3

65.04±0.02
62.35±0.00
44.00±0.00
54.99±0.03
30.61±0.51
34.10±0.00
52.15±0.00
55.60±0.00
56.75±0.00
53.20±0.00
52.60±0.00
53.25±0.05
48.90±0.00

54.85±0.01
53.86±0.00
34.97±0.00
51.07±0.01
22.05±0.32
22.71±0.02
50.63±0.00
51.66±0.00
51.69±0.00
42.49±0.00
46.93±0.00
47.57±0.11
43.43±0.00

46.38±0.00
44.67±0.00
23.49±0.00
36.62±0.01
12.19±0.05
12.41±0.01
37.86±0.00
38.42±0.00
38.87±0.00
32.03±0.00
34.93±0.00
35.54±0.06
30.18±0.00

52.04±0.00
50.42±0.00
31.26±0.00
43.21±0.01
22.07±0.05
22.43±0.01
44.63±0.00
44.77±0.00
45.16±0.00
39.04±0.00
41.71±0.00
42.28±0.06
37.62±0.00

2−16 , 70
1, 0.01
10−3 , 16
10−3 , 16
10, 0.01
10, 0.01
0.5
3000
1000
0.05
1
1
2−14 , 10−3

TABLE 5
Deep vs. Shallow Models on the AR data set. Results in boldface are significantly better than the others, according to the t-test with a significance
level at 0.05.
Features
Methods

ACC

NMI

DSIFT
ARI

Fscore

Para.

ACC

NMI

HOG
ARI

Fscore

Para.

DSSC(M=2)
DSSC (M=1)
SSC
KSSC1
KSSC2
DAEg
DAEs
LRR
KLRR1
KLRR2
LRSC
LSR1
LSR2
SMR

85.38±1.08
83.81±1.72
74.83±1.27
70.27±1.66
78.28±1.78
74.37±1.20
72.65±0.91
82.67±1.00
79.92±1.52
23.08±0.36
83.55±1.20
82.43±1.31
82.45±1.58
71.07±1.91

95.17±0.17
94.57±0.45
89.91±0.38
87.29±0.53
91.55±0.39
89.53±0.43
88.54±0.52
93.48±0.33
91.56±0.51
52.01±0.62
92.84±0.37
92.69±0.49
92.64±0.42
87.01±0.52

82.15±0.63
81.23±1.94
66.43±1.44
58.61±1.78
71.13±1.44
65.42±1.56
62.23±1.81
77.33±1.37
71.08±2.13
5.31±0.24
78.33±1.39
74.94±1.87
74.49±1.80
60.82±2.22

82.35±0.62
81.42±1.92
66.81±1.42
59.08±1.76
71.44±1.43
65.81±1.54
62.67±1.78
77.60±1.35
71.42±2.10
6.73±0.24
78.57±1.38
75.22±1.85
74.77±1.78
61.26±2.19

2−11 , 50
2−11 , 30
10−2 , 10−3
1, 18
1, 18
10−2 , 10−3
10−2 , 10−3
0.1
300
100
0.06
0.3
0.7
2−16 , 10−2

85.05±1.53
81.90±0.96
81.65±1.18
83.12±0.90
83.22±1.34
74.67±1.25
73.32±1.31
83.00±1.36
83.92±1.26
76.07±1.69
83.42±1.43
83.32±1.70
83.65±1.07
81.38±0.73

94.36±0.43
91.93±0.35
92.48±0.41
93.07±0.34
92.71±0.32
89.07±0.49
88.17±0.43
93.27±0.46
93.00±0.45
88.78±0.74
92.67±0.48
92.45±0.49
92.45±0.45
91.75±0.27

78.98±1.58
71.87±1.97
74.23±1.76
75.68±1.37
74.56±1.06
63.77±1.52
61.12±1.42
77.34±3.21
77.49±1.49
63.93±2.67
73.86±1.73
73.11±2.24
73.24±1.77
72.51±0.85

79.21±1.56
72.17±1.95
74.52±1.74
75.94±1.36
74.84±1.05
64.17±1.50
61.56±1.40
77.61±3.16
77.73±1.47
64.34±2.63
74.15±1.71
73.40±2.21
73.54±1.75
72.81±0.84

2−12 , 30
2−12 , 20
0.5, 10−3
10−2 , 20
10−2 , 20
0.5, 10−3
0.5, 10−3
0.01
100
5
0.02
0.8
1
2−15 , 10−2

More specifically, we report the performance of DSSC with
two hidden layers (M = 2) and one hidden layer (M = 1),
respectively. In the case of M = 1, the number of hidden
neurons is also set as 150. Note that, KSSC1 and KSSC2
can be regarded as two shallow models of SSC with one
nonlinear hidden layer.
Table 5 shows the clustering results of the methods, as
well as the tuned parameters. We observe that our DSSC
(M = 2) consistently outperform the shallow models in
terms of all of these evaluation metrics. The results also
verify our claim and motivation, i.e. our deep model DSSC
significantly benefit from deep learning.
4.4

Influence of Different Activation Functions

In this section, we investigate the influence of different
nonlinear activation functions in DSSC. The investigated
functions are sigmoid, non-saturating sigmoid (nssigmoid), and
the rectified linear unit (relu) [74]. We carry out experiment
on the BF0502 data set which contains facial images detected
from the TV series “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”. Following [36], a subset of BF0502 is used, which includes 17,337
faces in 229 tracks from 6 main casts. Each facial image is
represented as a 1,937-dimensional vectors extracted from
13 facial landmark points (e.g., the left and right corners of
each eye). In our experiments, we use the first 200 samples
from each category, thus resulting in 1,200 images in total.

TABLE 6
The influence of different activation functions of DSSC on the BF0502
database. DSSC (t), DSSC (s), DSSC (n), and DSSC (r) denote DSSC
with the tanh, sigmoid, nssigmoid, and relu function, respectively.

Methods
DSSC (t)
DSSC (s)
DSSC (n)
DSSC (r)
SSC
KSSC1
KSSC2
DAEg
DAEs
LRR
KLRR1
KLRR2
LRSC
LSR1
LSR2
SMR

Accuracy
79.50
82.67
75.08
80.08
79.50
74.50
77.83
55.50
21.67
78.17
75.33
75.00
69.17
67.50
77.00
76.00

NMI
71.02
79.01
67.72
75.60
74.83
71.99
69.89
38.16
6.07
74.89
66.60
69.32
60.60
57.53
59.91
74.69

ARI
65.11
71.69
59.17
65.67
62.37
61.95
70.65
30.69
0.85
70.57
56.83
68.35
53.28
51.36
56.27
58.09

Fscore
71.09
66.55
72.11
72.11
69.15
68.85
70.55
43.15
28.65
70.58
64.07
74.16
61.71
60.19
63.60
71.87

Para.
−13

2
,90
2−17 ,60
2−17 ,10
2−17 ,10
1,0.2
0.1,12
0.1,12
0.01
3
3
0.01
1.00
0.50
2−16 ,1e-02

From Table 6, we can observe that DSSC with different
activation functions outperforms SSC by a considerable
performance margin. With the sigmoid function, DSSC is
about 3.17%, 4.18%, 9.32%, and 2.96% higher than SSC in

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015

8

11000

450

9900

400

[5]

8800

300

Loss

6600
250
5500
200
4400
150

3300

Time Cost (Second)

350

7700

50

1100

[7]

50

100

150

[8]

0
200

Epoch

Fig. 2. Convergence curve and time cost of DSSC. The left y-axis
indicates the loss at each epoch and the right one is the total time cost
taken by our method.

terms of Accuracy, NMI, ARI, and Fscore, respectively. It is
worth noting that although tanh is not the best activation
function, it is more stable than the other three activation
functions in our experiments. Thus, we use the tanh function
as the activation function for comparisons as shown in the
above sections.
4.5

[6]

100

2200

0
0

[4]

Convergence Analysis and Time Cost

In this section, we examine the convergence speed and time
cost of our DSSC on the BF0502 data set. From Figure 2, we
can see that the loss of DSSC generally keeps unchanged
after 90–100 epochs. For each epoch, DSSC takes about 2.2
seconds to obtain results on a macbook with a 2.6GHz Intel
Core i5 CPU and 8GB memory. Like other deep learning
based methods, the computational cost of DSSC can be
remarkably reduced by GPU.

[9]
[10]
[11]

[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]

[16]

[17]
[18]

5

C ONCLUSION

In this paper, we proposed a new deep learning based
framework for simultaneous data representation learning
and subspace clustering. Based on such deep subspace
clustering framework, we further devised a new method,
i.e. DSSC. Experimental results on the facial, object, and
handwritten digit image databases data sets show the
efficacy of DSSC in terms of four performance evaluation metrics. In the future, we plan to investigate the
performance of our proposed framework when adopting
other loss/regularization functions, and extend our proposed framework for other applications such as weaklysupervised learning.

R EFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]

R. Vidal, Y. Ma, and S. Sastry, “Generalized principal component
analysis (GPCA),” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 27,
no. 12, pp. 1945–1959, 2005. 1
J. P. Costeira and T. Kanade, “A multibody factorization method
for independently moving objects,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 29,
no. 3, pp. 159–179, 1998. 1
P. S. Bradley and O. L. Mangasarian, “k-plane clustering,” J. Global
Optim., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 23–32, 2000. 1

[19]
[20]
[21]

[22]
[23]
[24]

[25]
[26]
[27]

L. Lu and R. Vidal, “Combined central and subspace clustering for
computer vision applications,” in Proc. of 23th Int. Conf. Machine
Learn., Pittsburgh, USA, Jun. 2006, pp. 593–600. 1
Y. Ma, H. Derksen, W. Hong, and J. Wright, “Segmentation of
multivariate mixed data via lossy data coding and compression,”
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1546–1562,
2007. 1
S. Rao, R. Tron, R. Vidal, and Y. Ma, “Motion segmentation via robust subspace separation in the presence of outlying, incomplete,
or corrupted trajectories,” in Proc. of 21th IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis.
and Pattern Recognit., Anchorage, AL, Jun. 2008, pp. 1–8. 1, 2
A. Y. Ng, M. I. Jordan, and Y. Weiss, “On spectral clustering:
Analysis and an algorithm,” in Proc. of 14th Adv. in Neural Inf.
Process. Syst., Vancouver, Canada, Dec. 2001, pp. 849–856. 1
J. B. Shi and J. Malik, “Normalized cuts and image segmentation,”
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 888–905,
2000. 1
A. Y. Yang, J. Wright, Y. Ma, and S. S. Sastry, “Unsupervised segmentation of natural images via lossy data compression,” Comput.
Vis. Image Underst., vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 212–225, May 2008. 1
G. L. Chen and G. Lerman, “Spectral curvature clustering (scc),”
Int. J. of Comput. Vision, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 317–330, 2009. 1
F. Nie, Z. Zeng, T. I. W., D. Xu, and C. Zhang, “Spectral embedded
clustering: A framework for in-sample and out-of-sample spectral
clustering,” IEEE Trans. Neural. Netw., vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1796–
1808, 2011. 1
E. Elhamifar and R. Vidal, “Sparse subspace clustering,” in Proc. of
22th IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. and Pattern Recognit., Miami, FL, Jun.
2009, pp. 2790–2797. 1, 2, 5
——, “Sparse manifold clustering and embedding,” in Proc. of 24th
Adv. in Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Granada, Spain, Dec. 2011, pp. 55–
63. 1
——, “Sparse subspace clustering: Algorithm, theory, and applications,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 35, no. 11, pp.
2765–2781, 2013. 1, 2, 5
J. Feng, Z. Lin, H. Xu, and S. Yan, “Robust subspace segmentation
with block-diagonal prior,” in Proc. of 27th IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis.
and Pattern Recognit., Columbus, OH, Jun. 2014, pp. 3818–3825. 1,
2
P. Favaro, R. Vidal, and A. Ravichandran, “A closed form solution
to robust subspace estimation and clustering,” in Proc. of 24th IEEE
Conf. Comput. Vis. and Pattern Recognit., Colorado Springs, CO, Jun.
2011, pp. 1801–1807. 1, 2, 5
H. Hu, Z. Lin, J. Feng, and J. Zhou, “Smooth representation
clustering,” in Proc. of 27th IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. and Pattern
Recognit., Columbus, OH, Jun. 2014, pp. 3834–3841. 1, 2, 5
P. Ji, M. Salzmann, and H. Li, “Shape interaction matrix revisited
and robustified: Efficient subspace clustering with corrupted and
incomplete data,” in Proc. of 15th IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis., Santiago,
Chile, Dec. 2015. 1, 2
G. Liu, Z. Lin, S. Yan, J. Sun, Y. Yu, and Y. Ma, “Robust recovery
of subspace structures by low-rank representation,” IEEE Trans.
Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 171–184, 2013. 1, 2, 5
G. Liu, Z. Lin, and Y. Yu, “Robust subspace segmentation by lowrank representation,” in Proc. of 27th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., Haifa,
Israel, Jun. 2010, pp. 663–670. 1, 2, 5
C. Lu, H. Min, Z. Zhao, L. Zhu, D. Huang, and S. Yan, “Robust
and efficient subspace segmentation via least squares regression,”
in Proc. of 12th Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis., Florence, Italy, Oct. 2012,
pp. 347–360. 1, 2, 5
R. Vidal and P. Favaro, “Low rank subspace clustering (LRSC),”
Pattern Recognit. Lett., vol. 43, pp. 47 – 61, 2014. 1, 2
M. Soltanolkotabi, E. Elhamifar, and E. J. Candes, “Robust subspace clustering,” Ann. Stat., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 669–699, 2014. 1
C. Zhang, H. Fu, S. Liu, G. Liu, and X. Cao, “Low-Rank Tensor
Constrained Multiview Subspace Clustering,” in Proc. of 21th Int.
Conf. Comput. Vis. Santiago: IEEE, Dec. 2015, pp. 1582–1590. 1, 2,
5
R. He, Y. Zhang, Z. Sun, and Q. Yin, “Robust subspace clustering
with complex noise,” IEEE Trans. on Image Process., vol. 24, no. 11,
pp. 4001–4013, Nov. 2015. 1
L. Zhang, W. Zuo, and D. Zhang, “LSDT: Latent Sparse Domain
Transfer Learning for Visual Adaptation,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1177–1191, 2016. 1
C.-M. Lee and L.-F. Cheong, “Minimal basis subspace representation: A unified framework for rigid and non-rigid motion
segmentation,” Int. J. of Comput. Vision, pp. 1–25, 2016. 1

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015

[28] R. Liu, Z. Lin, F. D. la Torre, and Z. Su, “Fixed-rank representation
for unsupervised visual learning,” in Proc. of 25th IEEE Conf.
Comput. Vis. and Pattern Recognit., Providence, RI, Jun. 2012, pp.
598–605. 1
[29] B. Cheng, J. Yang, S. Yan, Y. Fu, and T. Huang, “Learning with
`1 -graph for image analysis,” IEEE Trans. on Image Process., vol. 19,
no. 4, pp. 858–866, 2010. 1
[30] C. You, D. P. Robinson, and R. Vidal, “Scalable sparse subspace
clustering by orthogonal matching pursuit,” in Proc. of 29th IEEE
Conf. Comput. Vis. and Pattern Recognit., Las Vegas, NV, Jun. 2016,
pp. 3918–3927. 1
[31] Y. Yang, J. Feng, N. Jojic, J. Yang, and T. S. Huang, “L0-sparse
subspace clustering,” in Proc. of 14th Euro. Conf. Comput. Vis.,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, Oct. 2016, pp. 731–747. 1, 2
[32] X. Peng, Z. Yi, and H. Tang, “Robust subspace clustering via
thresholding ridge regression,” in Proc. of 29th AAAI Conference on
Artificial Intelligence, Austin Texas, USA, Jan. 2015, pp. 3827–3833.
1
[33] X. Peng, Z. Yu, Z. Yi, and H. Tang, “Constructing the l2-graph for
robust subspace learning and subspace clustering,” IEEE Trans.
Cybern., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1053–1066, Apr. 2017. 1
[34] V. Patel, H. V. Nguyen, and R. Vidal, “Latent space sparse subspace
clustering,” in Proc. of 14th IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis., Sydney, VIC,
Dec. 2013, pp. 225–232. 1, 2
[35] V. Patel and R. Vidal, “Kernel sparse subspace clustering,” in Proc.
of IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Process., Paris, Oct. 2014, pp. 2849–2853.
1, 2, 4, 5
[36] S. Xiao, M. Tan, D. Xu, and Z. Dong, “Robust kernel low-rank
representation,” IEEE Trans. Neural. Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. PP,
no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2015. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7
[37] M. Yin, Y. Guo, J. Gao, Z. He, and S. Xie, “Kernel sparse subspace
clustering on symmetric positive definite manifolds,” in Proc. of
29th IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. and Pattern Recognit., Jun. 2016, pp.
5157–5164. 1, 2
[38] G. Hinton, L. Deng, D. Yu, G. E. Dahl, A.-r. Mohamed, N. Jaitly,
A. Senior, V. Vanhoucke, P. Nguyen, T. N. Sainath et al., “Deep
neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: The
shared views of four research groups,” Signal Processing Magazine,
IEEE, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 82–97, 2012. 2
[39] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” in Proc. of 25th
Adv. in Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Lake Tahoe, CA, Dec. 2012, pp.
1097–1105. 2, 4
[40] B. Poling and G. Lerman, “A new approach to two-view motion
segmentation using global dimension minimization,” Int. J. of
Comput. Vision, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 165–185, 2014. 2
[41] C. Ding, X. He, H. Zha, M. Gu, and H. Simon, “A min-max cut
algorithm for graph partitioning and data clustering,” in Proc. of
1st IEEE Int. Conf. on Data Mining, San Jose, CA, Nov. 2001, pp.
107–114. 2
[42] X. Peng, L. Zhang, and Z. Yi, “Scalable sparse subspace clustering,” in Proc. of 26th IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. and Pattern Recognit.,
Portland, OR, Jun. 2013, pp. 430–437. 2
[43] X. Peng, H. Tang, L. Zhang, Z. Yi, and S. Xiao, “A unified
framework for representation-based subspace clustering of out-ofsample and large-scale data,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks
and Learning Systems, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–14, 2015. 2
[44] Y. Bengio, A. Courville, and P. Vincent, “Representation learning:
A review and new perspectives,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach.
Intell., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1798–1828, Aug. 2013. 2, 5
[45] H. Lee, R. Grosse, R. Ranganath, and A. Y. Ng, “Unsupervised
learning of hierarchical representations with convolutional deep
belief networks,” Commun. ACM, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 95–103, Oct.
2011. 2
[46] Z. Y. Wang, Q. Ling, and T. S. Huang, “Learning deep l0 encoders,”
in Proc. of 30th AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., Feb. 2016, pp. 2194–2200. 2
[47] P. Huang, Y. Huang, W. Wang, and L. Wang, “Deep embedding
network for clustering,” in Proc. of 22nd Int. Conf. Pattern Recognit.,
Stockholm, Sweden, Aug. 2014, pp. 1532–1537. 2
[48] J. Xie, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “Unsupervised deep embedding for clustering analysis,” in Proc. of 33th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn.,
New York, Jun. 2016. 2
[49] X. Peng, S. Xiao, J. Feng, W. Yau, and Z. Yi, “Deep subspace
clustering with sparsity prior,” in Proc. of 25th Int. Joint Conf. Artif.
Intell., New York, NY, USA, Jul. 2016, pp. 1925–1931. 2
[50] Z. Wang, S. Chang, J. Zhou, M. Wang, and T. S. Huang, “Learning
a task-specific deep architecture for clustering,” in Proc. of SIAM

9

[51]

[52]
[53]
[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]
[66]

[67]

[68]
[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

Int. Conf. on Data Mining, Miami, Florida, May 2015, pp. 369–377.
2
J. Yang, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Joint unsupervised learning of
deep representations and image clusters,” in Proc. of 29th IEEE
Conf. Comput. Vis. and Pattern Recognit., 2016. 2
Y. Chen, L. Zhang, and Z. Yi, “Subspace clustering using a lowrank constrained autoencoder,” Information Sciences, 2017. 2
P. Ji, T. Zhang, H. Li, M. Salzmann, and I. Reid, “Deep subspace
clustering networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.02508, 2017. 2
S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein, “Distributed
optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction
method of multipliers,” Found. Trends Mach. Learn., vol. 3, no. 1,
pp. 1–122, Jan. 2011. 3
Z. Lin, R. Liu, and Z. Su, “Linearized alternating direction method
with adaptive penalty for low-rank representation,” in Proc. of 24th
Adv. in Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Grendada, Spain, Dec. 2011, pp.
612–620. 3
G. Montavon, G. B. Orr, and K.-R. Müller, Eds., Neural Networks:
Tricks of the Trade, Reloaded, 2nd ed., ser. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science (LNCS). Springer, 2012, vol. 7700. 4, 5
P. Goyal, P. Dollár, R. Girshick, P. Noordhuis, L. Wesolowski,
A. Kyrola, A. Tulloch, Y. Jia, and K. He, “Accurate, Large Minibatch SGD: Training ImageNet in 1 Hour,” ArXiv e-prints, Jun.
2017. 4
A. Yang, A. Ganesh, S. Sastry, and Y. Ma, “Fast l1-minimization algorithms and an application in robust face recognition: A review,”
EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, Tech. Rep.
UCB/EECS-2010-13, Feb. 2010. 4, 5
J. Hu, J. Lu, and Y.-P. Tan, “Discriminative deep metric learning for
face verification in the wild,” in Proc. of 27th IEEE Conf. Comput.
Vis. and Pattern Recognit., Columbus, OH, Jun. 2014, pp. 1875–1882.
4, 5
F. Schroff, D. Kalenichenko, and J. Philbin, “Facenet: A unified
embedding for face recognition and clustering,” in Proc. of 28th
IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. and Pattern Recognit., Boston, MA, Jun.
2015, pp. 815–823. 4
J. Wang, Y. Song, T. Leung, C. Rosenberg, J. Wang, J. Philbin,
B. Chen, and Y. Wu, “Learning fine-grained image similarity with
deep ranking,” in Proc. of 27th IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. and Pattern
Recognit., Washington, DC, USA, 2014, pp. 1386–1393. 4
D. Yi, Z. Lei, S. Liao, and S. Z. Li, “Deep metric learning for
person re-identification,” in Proc. of 22nd Int Conf. Pattern Recognit.,
Stockholm, Sweden, Aug. 2014, pp. 34–39. 4
S. A. Nene, S. K. Nayar, H. Murase et al., “Columbia object image
library (coil-20),” Technical Report CUCS-005-96, Tech. Rep., 1996.
4
Y. Lecun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based
learning applied to document recognition,” Proc. of IEEE, vol. 86,
no. 11, pp. 2278–2324, Nov. 1998. 4
A. Martinez, “The AR face database,” CVC Technical Report, vol. 24,
1998. 4
J. Sivic, M. Everingham, and A. Zisserman, “Who are you? learning person specific classifiers from video,” in Proc. of 22th
IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. and Pattern Recognit., Miami, FL, Jun. 2009,
pp. 1145–1152. 4
L. Zhang, M. Yang, and X. Feng, “Sparse representation or collaborative representation: Which helps face recognition?” in Proc. of
13th IEEE Int. Conf. on Comput. Vis., Barcelona, Spain, Nov. 2011,
pp. 471–478. 4
D. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 91–110, 2004. 5
N. Dalal and B. Triggs, “Histograms of oriented gradients for
human detection,” in Proc. of 18th IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. and
Pattern Recognit., vol. 1, San Diego, CA, Jun. 2005, pp. 886–893
vol. 1. 5
T. Ahonen, A. Hadid, and M. Pietikainen, “Face description with
local binary patterns: Application to face recognition,” IEEE Trans.
Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 2037–2041, Dec. 2006.
5
V. Ojansivu and J. Heikkilä, “Blur insensitive texture classification using local phase quantization,” in Image and signal process.
Springer, 2008, pp. 236–243. 5
G. E. Hinton and R. R. Salakhutdinov, “Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks,” Science, vol. 313, no. 5786, pp.
504–507, 2006. 5

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015

[73] M. R. Osborne, B. Presnell, and B. A. Turlach, “A new approach
to variable selection in least squares problems,” SIAM J. Numer.
Anal., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 389–403, 2000. 5
[74] V. Nair and G. E. Hinton, “Rectified linear units improve restricted
boltzmann machines,” in Proc. of 27th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., Haifa,
Israel, Jun. 2010, pp. 807–814. 7

10

