Neural Processing Letters

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 233–244 | Cite as

Heteroscedastic Sparse Representation Based Classification for Face Recognition



Sparse representation based classification (SRC) have received a great deal of attention in recent years. The main idea of SRC is to represent a given test sample as a sparse linear combina-tion of all training samples, then classifies the test sample by evaluating which class leads to the minimum residual. Although SRC has achieved good performance, especially in dealing with face occlusion and corruption, it must need a big occlusion dictionary which makes computation very expensive. In this paper, a novel method, called heteroscedastic sparse representation based classification (HSRC), is proposed to address this problem. In the presence of noises, the SRC model exists heteroscedasticity, which makes residual estimation inefficient. Therefore, heteroscedastic correction must be carried out for homoscedasticity by weighting various residuals with heteroscedastic estimation. As for heteroscedasticity, this paper establishes generalized Gaussian model through which to estimate. The proposed HSRC method is applied to face recognition (on the AR and Extended Yale B face databases). The experimental results show that HSRC has significantly less complexity than SRC, while it is more robust.


Heteroscedastic Face recognition Sparse representation based classification (SRC) Generalized Gaussian model (GGM) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aiazzi B, Alparone L, Baronti S (1999) Estimation based on entropy matching for generalized Gaussian pdf modeling. IEEE Signal Process Lett 6(6): 138–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen SS, Donoho DL, Saunders MA (1998) Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. SIAM J Sci Comput 20(1): 33–61MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen SS, Donoho DL, Saunders MA (1999) Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. SIAM J Sci Comput 20(1): 33–61MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chung F (1997) Spectral graph theory. Regional conference series in mathematics, no. 92Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donoho D (2006) Compressed sensing. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 52(4): 1289–1306MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elad M, Aharon M (2006) Image denoising via sparse and redundant representations over learned dictionaries. IEEE Trans Image Process 15(12): 3736–3745MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Francois M, Pierre V, Jean-Philippe T (2006) Matching pursuit-based shape representation and recognition using scale-space. Int J Imaging Syst Technol 6(5): 162–180Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Georghiades A, Belhumeur P, Kriegman D (2001) From few to many: illumination cone models for face recognition under variable lighting and pose. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 23(6): 643–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gragg JG (1983) More efficient estimation in the presence of heteroscedasticity of unknown form. Econometrica 51(3): 751–764MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gribonval R, Vandergheynst P (2006) On the exponential convergence of matching pursuits in quasi-incoherent dictionaries. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 52(1): 255–261MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    He X, Niyogi P (2003) Locality preserving projections. In: Proceedings of 16th conference neural information processing systemsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang J, Yuen PC, Chen W (2007) Choosing parameters of kernel subspace LDA for recognition of face images under pose and illumination variations. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 37: 847–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joliffe I (1986) Principal component analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jonathon Phillips P (1998) Matching pursuit filters applied to face identification. IEEE Trans Image Process 7(8): 1150–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kong H, Wang L, Teoh EK (2005) A framework of 2D fisher discriminant analysis: application to face recognition with small number of training samples. Proc IEEE Int Conf Comput Vis Pattern Recognit 2: 1083–1088Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li H, Jiang T, Zhang K (2004) Efficient and robust feature extraction by maximum margin criterion. In: Proceedings of the advances in neural information processing systemsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Long JS, Ervin LH (2000) Using heteroscedasity consistent stand errors in the linear regression model. Am Stat 54: 217–224Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mairal J, Elad M, Sapiro G (2008) Sparse representation for color image restoration. IEEE Trans Image Process 17(1): 53–69MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mallat S, Zhang Z (1993) Matching pursuits with time-frequency dictionaries. IEEE Trans Signal Process 41(12): 3397–3415MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martinez A, Benavente R (1998) The AR face database. CVC Tech. Report No. 24Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meignen S, Meignen H (2006) On the modeling of small sample distributions with generalized Gaussian density in a maximum likelihood framework. IEEE Trans Image Process 15(6): 1647–1652MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Muller HG, Stadtmuller U (1987) Estimation of heteroscedasticity in regression analysis. Ann Stat 15(2): 610–625MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murray J, Kreutz-Delgado K (2007) Visual recognition and inference using dynamic overcomplete sparse learning. Neural Comput 19: 2301–2352MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patel VM, Nasrabadi NM, Chellappa R (2010) Automatic target recognition based on simultaneous sparse representation. In: International Conference on Image Processing, pp 1377–1380Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rigamonti R, Brown M, Lepetit V (2011) Are sparse representations really relevant for image classification? In: Computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 1545–1552Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharifi K (1995) Estimation of shape parameter for generalized Gaussian distributions in subband decompositions of video. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 5: 52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shi Q, Eriksson A, Hengel A (2011) Is face recognition really a compressive sensing problem? In: Computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 553–560Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tropp JA (2004) Greed is good: algorithmic results for sparse approximation. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 50(10): 2231–2242MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Varanasi MK, Aazhang B (1989) Parametric generalized Gaussian density estimation. J Acoust Soc Am 86: 1404–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wright J, Yang A, Ma Y (2009) Robust face recognition via sparse representation. IEEE T-PAMI 31(2): 210–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yang M, Zhang L (2010) Gabor feature based sparse representation for face recognition with Gabor occlusion dictionary. In: Europeon conference on computer visionGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang A, Wright J, Ma Y (2007) Feature selection in face recognition: a sparse representation perspective. UC Berkeley Technical Report UCB/EECS-2007-99Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang L (2011) Sparse representation or collaborative representation which helps face. In: International conference on computer visionGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and TechnologyNanjing University of Science and TechnologyNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of Mathematics and Information TechnologyNanjing Xiao Zhuang UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations