Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 407–438 | Cite as

The effect of noise on foreground detection algorithms

  • Francisco Javier López-Rubio
  • Ezequiel López-Rubio
  • Miguel A. Molina-Cabello
  • Rafael Marcos Luque-Baena
  • Esteban J. Palomo
  • Enrique Domínguez


Background segmentation methods are exposed to the effects of different kinds of noise due to the limitations of image acquisition devices. This type of distortion can worsen the performance of segmentation methods because the input pixel values are altered. In this paper we study how several well-known background segmentation methods perform when the input is corrupted with several levels of uniform and Gaussian noise. Furthermore, few situations are reported where instead of an inconvenience, adding noise to the input may be desirable to attenuate some limitations of a method. In this work, the performance of nine well known methods is studied under both kinds of noise.


Foreground detection Background modeling Uniform noise Gaussian noise Covariance matrix regularization 



This work is partially supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain under grant TIN2014-53465-R, project name Video surveillance by active search of anomalous events. It is also partially supported by the Autonomous Government of Andalusia (Spain) under projects TIC-6213, project name Development of Self-Organizing Neural Networks for Information Technologies; and TIC-657, project name Self-organizing systems and robust estimators for video surveillance. Finally, it is partially supported by the Autonomous Government of Extremadura (Spain) under the project IB13113. All of them include funds from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The authors thankfully acknowledge the computer resources, technical expertise and assistance provided by the SCBI (Supercomputing and Bioinformatics) center of the University of Málaga and by the COMPUTAEX/CenitS center of the Autonomous Government of Extremadura.


  1. Alajlan N, Kamel M, Jernigan E (2004) Detail preserving impulsive noise removal. Sig Process Image Commun 19(10):993–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmeir C, Hyndman RJ, Benítez JM (2016) Bagging exponential smoothing methods using STL decomposition and box–cox transformation. Int J Forecast 32(2):303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouwmans T (2014) Traditional and recent approaches in background modeling for foreground detection: an overview. Comput Sci Rev 11–12:31–66CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown RG (1956) Exponential smoothing for predicting demand. Arthur D. Little Inc., CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Brutzer S, Hoferlin B, Heidemann G (2011) Evaluation of background subtraction techniques for video surveillance. In: 2011 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), pp 1937–1944Google Scholar
  6. Calderara S, Melli R, Prati A, Cucchiara R (2006) Reliable background suppression for complex scenes. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM international workshop on video surveillance and sensor networks, ACM, New York, VSSN ’06, pp 211–214Google Scholar
  7. Carmo JL, Rodrigues AJ (2004) Adaptive forecasting of irregular demand processes. Eng Appl Artif Intell 17(2):137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charles B (2005) Image noise models. In: Bovik A (ed) Handbook of image and video processing (2nd edn), communications, networking and multimedia. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cucchiara G, Piccardi P (2003) Detecting moving objects, ghosts and shadows in video streams. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 25(10):1337–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dengwen Z, Wengang C (2008) Image denoising with an optimal threshold and neighbouring window. Pattern Recogn Lett 29(11):1694–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. El Baf F, Bouwmans T, Vachon B (2008a) A fuzzy approach for background subtraction. In: 15th IEEE international conference on image processing, 2008. ICIP 2008Google Scholar
  12. El Baf F, Bouwmans T, Vachon B (2008b) Fuzzy integral for moving object detection. In: IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, 2008. FUZZ-IEEE 2008. (IEEE world congress on computational intelligence), pp 1729–1736Google Scholar
  13. Elgammal AM, Harwood D, Davis LS (2000) Non-parametric model for background subtraction. In: Proceedings of the 6th European conference on computer vision—part II, Springer, London, ECCV ’00, pp 751–767Google Scholar
  14. Figueiredo M, Bioucas-Dias J, Nowak R (2007) Majorization–minimization algorithms for wavelet-based image restoration. IEEE Trans Image Process 16(12):2980–2991MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner ES Jr (2006) Exponential smoothing: the state of the art—part II. Int J Forecast 22(4):637–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guo Y, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2007) Regularized linear discriminant analysis and its application in microarrays. Biostatistics 8(1):86–100CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Heikkila M, Pietikainen M (2006) A texture-based method for modeling the background and detecting moving objects. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 28(4):657–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holt CC (2004) Forecasting seasonals and trends by exponentially weighted moving averages. Int J Forecast 20(1):5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jensen A, Loog M, Solberg A (2010) Using multiscale spectra in regularizing covariance matrices for hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 48(4):1851–1859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kang W, Lee E, Chea E, Katsaggelos A, Paik J (2013) Compressive sensing-based image denoising using adaptive multiple sampling and optimal error tolerance. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pp 2503–2507Google Scholar
  21. López-Rubio E (2010) Restoration of images corrupted by Gaussian and uniform impulsive noise. Pattern Recogn 43(5):1835–1846CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. López-Rubio E, Luque-Baena RM (2011) Stochastic approximation for background modelling. Comput Vis Image Underst 115(6):735–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maddalena L, Petrosino A (2008) A self-organizing approach to background subtraction for visual surveillance applications. IEEE Trans Image Process 17(7):1168–1177MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moghaddam B, Pentland A (1997) Probabilistic visual learning for object representation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 19(7):696–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nounou MN, Bakshi BR (1999) On-line multiscale filtering of random and gross errors without process models. AIChE J 45(5):1041–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oliver N, Rosario B, Pentland A (2000) A bayesian computer vision system for modeling human interactions. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 22(8):831–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Powell WB (2007) Approximate dynamic programming. Wiley, LondonCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Sayed-Mouchaweh M et al (2012) Learning in non-stationary environments: methods and applications. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Schneider T (2001) Analysis of incomplete climate data: estimation of mean values and covariance matrices and imputation of missing values. J Clim 14:853–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Singh S (1999) Noise impact on time-series forecasting using an intelligent pattern matching technique. Pattern Recogn 32(8):1389–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Singh S (2000) Noisy time-series prediction using pattern recognition techniques. Comput Intell 16(1):114–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sobral A, Bouwmans T (2014) Bgs library: A library framework for algorithm’s evaluation in foreground/background segmentation. In: Background modeling and foreground detection for video surveillance. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  33. Sobral A, Vacavant A (2014) A comprehensive review of background subtraction algorithms evaluated with synthetic and real videos. Comput Vis Image Underst 122:4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Srikrishna A, Reddy B, Pompapathi M (2016) Pixon based image denoising scheme by preserving exact edge locations. J Inst Eng (India) Ser B 97(3):395–403Google Scholar
  35. Stauffer C, Grimson W (1999) Adaptive background mixture models for real-time tracking. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 246–252Google Scholar
  36. Tan MC, Wong SC, Xu JM, Guan ZR, Zhang P (2009) An aggregation approach to short-term traffic flow prediction. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 10(1):60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turrado García F, García Villalba LJ, Portela J (2012) Intelligent system for time series classification using support vector machines applied to supply-chain. Expert Syst Appl 39(12):10,590 – 10,599Google Scholar
  38. Wren C, Azarbayejani A, Darrell T, Pentl A (1997) Pfinder: real-time tracking of the human body. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 19(7):780–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yager RR (2013) Exponential smoothing with credibility weighted observations. Inf Sci 252:96–105MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang JS, Huang XF, Zhou CH (2007) An improved kernel regression method based on Taylor expansion. Appl Math Comput 193(2):419–429MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Zivkovic Z (2004) Improved adaptive gaussian mixture model for background subtraction. In: Proceedings of the pattern recognition, 17th international conference on (ICPR’04) volume 2, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, ICPR ’04, pp 28–31Google Scholar
  42. Zivkovic Z, van der Heijden F (2006) Efficient adaptive density estimation per image pixel for the task of background subtraction. Pattern Recogn Lett 27(7):773–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Languages and Computer ScienceUniversity of MálagaMálagaSpain

Personalised recommendations