The effect of recovery algorithms on compressive sensing background subtraction

Background subtraction is a key method required to aid processing surveillance videos. Current methods require storing each pixel of every video frame, which can be wasteful as most of this information refers to the uninteresting background. Compressive sensing can offer an efficient solution by using the fact that foreground is often sparse in the spatial domain. By making this assumption and applying a specific recovery algorithm to a trained background, it is possible to reconstruct the foreground, using only a low dimensional representation of the difference between the current frame and the estimated background scene. Although new compressive sensing background subtraction algorithms are being created, no study has been made of the effect of recovery algorithms on performance of background subtraction. This is considered by applying both Basis Pursuit and Orthogonal Matching Pursuit (OMP) to a standard test video, and comparing their accuracy.

[1]  R. Tibshirani.  Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , 1996 .

[2]  Y. C. Pati,et al.  Orthogonal matching pursuit: recursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition , 1993, Proceedings of 27th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers.

[3]  Ting Sun,et al.  Single-pixel imaging via compressive sampling , 2008, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

[4]  Volkan Cevher,et al.  Compressive Sensing for Background Subtraction , 2008, ECCV.

[5]  Larry S. Davis,et al.  Non-parametric Model for Background Subtraction , 2000, ECCV.

[6]  S. Frick,et al.  Compressed Sensing , 2014, Computer Vision, A Reference Guide.

[7]  Minh N. Do,et al.  Tree-Based Orthogonal Matching Pursuit Algorithm for Signal Reconstruction , 2006, 2006 International Conference on Image Processing.

[8]  Emmanuel J. Candès,et al.  Decoding by linear programming , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[9]  Kentaro Toyama,et al.  Wallflower: principles and practice of background maintenance , 1999, Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision.

[10]  Emmanuel J. Candès,et al.  Robust uncertainty principles: exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[11]  H. L. Taylor,et al.  Deconvolution with the l 1 norm , 1979 .

[12]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Convex Optimization , 2004, Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook.

[13]  Joel A. Tropp,et al.  Greed is good: algorithmic results for sparse approximation , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[14]  Joel A. Tropp,et al.  Signal Recovery From Random Measurements Via Orthogonal Matching Pursuit , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[15]  S. Mallat,et al.  Adaptive greedy approximations , 1997 .

[16]  Giuseppe Valenzise,et al.  Privacy-Enabled Object Tracking in Video Sequences Using Compressive Sensing , 2009, 2009 Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance.

[17]  Nigel J. B. McFarlane,et al.  Segmentation and tracking of piglets in images , 1995, Machine Vision and Applications.

[18]  Thierry Bouwmans,et al.  Recent Advanced Statistical Background Modeling for Foreground Detection - A Systematic Survey , 2011 .

[19]  Rama Chellappa,et al.  Compressive Sensing in Visual Tracking , 2012 .

[20]  R.G. Baraniuk,et al.  Compressive Sensing [Lecture Notes] , 2007, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.

[21]  Richard G. Baraniuk,et al.  Wavelet-domain compressive signal reconstruction using a Hidden Markov Tree model , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[22]  J. Claerbout,et al.  Robust Modeling With Erratic Data , 1973 .

[23]  Volkan Cevher,et al.  Sparse Signal Recovery Using Markov Random Fields , 2008, NIPS.

[24]  Chandrika Kamath,et al.  Robust techniques for background subtraction in urban traffic video , 2004, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[25]  Massimo Fornasier,et al.  Compressive Sensing , 2015, Handbook of Mathematical Methods in Imaging.

[26]  J. Hanley,et al.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. , 1983, Radiology.

[27]  Emmanuel J. Candès,et al.  Near-Optimal Signal Recovery From Random Projections: Universal Encoding Strategies? , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[28]  Massimo Piccardi,et al.  Background subtraction techniques: a review , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37583).

[29]  Michael A. Saunders,et al.  Atomic Decomposition by Basis Pursuit , 1998, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..