Clustering is one of the fundamental tasks in computer vision and pattern recognition, which aims to divide samples into various groups based on their similarity without any prior information. It is very useful, especially when the label information is hard to acquire. There are many clustering based applications, such as image segmentation, dimension reduction, unsupervised classification, etc. During the past decades, a variety of methods for clustering have been proposed. Among them, the standard spectral clustering (SPC), sparse subspace clustering (SSC) , and low-rank representation (LRR)  are the most popular methods.
These single view clustering methods achieve good performance. In practice, we often acquire data from various domains or feature space. For example, one object can be described with text, images or videos, and different kinds of features can be extracted to represent each of them. In order to make full use of multi-view information to boost the performance, many multi-view clustering methods have been derived from these popular single view methods.
Due to the popularity of SSC  and LRR , many self-representation based subspace learning methods [4, 5, 6, 7, 8] are proposed for multi-view clustering. They achieve promising performances. But they mainly focus on subspace learning and have high computation complexity. Another important issue is that they mainly investigate the correlations from the aspect of pairwise matrices, and it is more natural and effective to find comprehensive representation of multi-view from the tensor aspect. Motivated by the robust multi-view spectral clustering (RMSC) , there is a connection between the spectral clustering and Markov chain. So we mainly focus on the spectral clustering via Markov chain in this paper. However, RMSC  only learns the shared common information among all views. While multi-view representations also contain view-specific information, we hope to explore the high order correlation and find the principle components [10, 11, 12, 13, 14] of multi-view representations from the tensor aspect based on the Markov chain clustering.
As for tensor decomposition, we not only need to define the rank, but also find a tight convex relaxation of the tensor rank as nuclear norm. The CANDECOMP/PARAFAC (CP) [15, 16], Tucker  and tensor Singular Value Decomposition (t-SVD)  are three main tensor decomposition techniques. However, CP rank is generally NP-hard to compute and its convex relaxation is intractable. For Tucker decomposition, the commonly used Sum of Nuclear Norms (SNN)  is not a tight convex relaxation of the Tucker rank. Since t-SVD based tensor nuclear norm has been proven to be the tightest convex relaxation  to -norm of the tensor multi-rank, so we adopt it. With the t-SVD based tensor nuclear norm, our model can well capture both the consistent and view-specific information among multiple views, which will benefit the clustering.
In Fig. 1, we present the framework of our proposed method. We first construct a similarity matrix and a corresponding transition probability matrix for features of each view. Then, we propose to collect these transition probability matrices of multi-view into a 3-order tensor. In order to better investigate the correlations as well as reduce the computation complexity, we rotate the tensor. The essential tensor can be learnt via tensor low-rank and sparse decomposition based on tensor nuclear norm minimization defined by the t-SVD.
Main contributions are summarized as follows:
We propose a novel essential tensor learning method for the Markov chain based spectral clustering. With the t-SVD based tensor low-rank constraint and tensor rotation, our method is very effective to learn the principle information for clustering among multiple views.
We present an efficient algorithm based on ADMM to solve the proposed problem.
Our method achieves superior performance compared with the state-of-the-art methods on different datasets for various applications. In the meantime, it also has the lowest computation complexity.
Ii Related Work
Multi-view clustering has been extensively studied during the past decade. The standard spectral clustering (SPC) 
is the most classic method, which constructs the similarity matrix first, and then learns the affinity matrix by exploiting the properties of the Laplacian of graph. Most existing clustering methods are derived from SPC, and they mainly differ in the construction of affinity matrix, according to which, existing work can be mainly divided into two classes, including the graph based affinity matrix learning methods and the self-representation based subspace learning methods. We briefly review some related work.
The graph based methods learn affinity matrix based on the similarity matrix. For example,  proposes a co-training approach to search for the clusterings that agree across the views.  aims to find the complementary information across views based on a co-regularization method.  tries to find a universal Laplacian embedding for multi-view features using minimax optimization. The work in [23, 24] shows that there is a natural connection between the spectral clustering and the Markov random walk. Then,  constructs a transition probability matrix of Markov chain on each view, and then combines these matrices via a Markov mixture. Considering that multi-view data might be noisy, RMSC  hopes to recover a shared low-rank transition probability matrix for the Markov chain based spectral clustering. Recently,  proposes the structured low-rank matrix factorization methods for multi-view spectral clustering.
For the second class, multi-view subspace learning methods are derived from the popular SSC  and LRR , which aim to explore the relationships between samples based on self-representation. Most recent work of multi-view clustering mainly focus on self-representation based subspace learning. For example,  combines the advantages of both LRR and SSC.  extends the LRR into multi-view subspace clustering with generalized tensor nuclear norm. Then  adopts the t-SVD based tensor nuclear norm for better representation, and  proposes the tensorial t-product representation. Zhang et al. 
jointly learns the underlying latent representation of features and the multi-view low-rank representation, and then generalize it to combine with deep neural network. To explore the complementary property of multi-view representations,  utilizes the Hilbert Schmidt Independence Criterion (HSIC) as a diversity term between views, and  adds an exclusivity term to the structured sparse subspace clustering model  to preserve the complementary and consistent information.
Iii Notations and Preliminaries
For convenience, we summarize the frequently used notations in Table I. In this paper, we mainly consider the 3-order tensor
. Vector along the-th mode is called the mode- fiber. Here, we define the -norm of a tensor as the sum of -norm of each mode- fiber. denote the matricization of along the -th mode. It can be constructed by arranging the mode- fibers to be the columns of the resulting matrix. The transpose is obtained by transposing each frontal slice and then reversing the order of transposed frontal slices through .
denotes the fast Fourier transformation (FFT) of a tensoralong the rd dimension, and we also have .
|A scalar.||A matrix.|
|A vector.||A tensor.|
|.||Sum of the singular values.|
|The -th entry of .||.|
|The -th horizontal slice of .||.|
|The -th lateral slice of .||.|
|The -th frontal slice of .||.|
|.||t-SVD based tensor nuclear norm.|
|.||The transpose of .|
|Mode- matricization of .|
Besides, for a tensor , we also define the block vectorizing and its inverse operation as and , respectively. The block diagonal matrix and the block circulant matrix are defined by:
To help understand the definition of tensor nuclear norm, we first introduce some related definitions .
Definition 1 (t-product)
Let be , and be . Then the t-product is the tensor
Definition 2 (f-diagonal tensor)
A tensor is called f-diagonal if each of its frontal slices is diagonal matrix.
Definition 3 (Identity tensor)
For the identity tensor , its first frontal slice is the identity matrix with size
, its first frontal slice is the identity matrix with size, and all other frontal slices are zero.
Definition 4 (Orthogonal tensor)
A tensor is orthogonal if it satisfies
Definition 5 (t-SVD)
For a tensor , it can be factorized by t-SVD as
where and are orthogonal, and is f-diagonal.
Definition 6 (t-SVD based tensor nuclear norm)
The t-SVD based tensor nuclear norm of a tensor is defined by the sum of singular values of all the frontal slices of :
where is computed by the SVD of frontal slices of .
Iv Essential Tensor Learning for Multi-view Spectral Clustering
In this section, we first introduce the overview of spectral clustering by Markov chain. Then we present the details and analysis of our proposed essential tensor learning for multi-view spectral clustering (ETLMSC).
Iv-a Markov Chain based Spectral Clustering
Denote as the the matrix of data vectors, where is the number of data points and is the dimension of feature vectors. We first compute the similarity matrix , where denotes the similarity between data points and . Gaussian kernel is commonly used to define their similarity. We have , where the distance is adopted and
is the standard deviation. Then we can construct a weighted graph, where the vertices set consists of the sample points, the edges set denotes the connection between data points, and the similarity defines the weight of each edge. For spectral clustering , it tries to find an optimal partition in the weighted graph . According to [23, 24], there is a natural connection between spectral clustering and random walkers on the weighted graph. We first define the transition probability matrix by , where denotes the probability of random walk from node to node , and is a diagonal matrix with elements . For this Markov chain, we hope the random walk over the graph converges to a unique and positive stationary distribution , that is . Let denote the diagonal matrix with , then the Laplacian matrix for the Markov chain based spectral clustering can be computed by . Denote as the number of clusters, the indicator function for clustering can be solved by computing the eigenvectors corresponding to the smallest eigenvalues of the generalized eigenvalue decomposition problem , which is equivalent to the eigenvectors corresponding to the largest eigenvalues of the normalized Laplacian matrix . Finally, k-means algorithm  is adopted to cluster based on these indicator vectors. In Algorithm 1, we briefly summarize the outline for spectral clustering by Markov chains. For more details, please refer to [6, 24].
Iv-B The Proposed Method
Assume that there are different views in total. Let denote the data matrix of the -th view, where is the number of samples, is the dimension of feature vectors in the -th view, and ranges from to . For multi-view spectral clustering via Markov chain, we first compute the similarity matrix , construct the weighted graph , and compute the transition probability matrix for each view. According to Algorithm 1, we can see that the transition probability matrix plays a very important role in the clustering by Markov chain. So we mainly focus on how to learn an essential transition probability matrix for spectral clustering based on the multi-view .
RMSC  hopes to capture the shared information among multi-view transition probability matrices. It divides each into two parts: a shared probability matrix describing important information for clustering, and view-specific deviation error matrix . As the number of clusters is much smaller than the sample number, RMSC imposes low-rank constraint on . It also assumes that the error matrix should be sparse. Then the objective function for RMSC  is formulated as
where is a balance parameter.
RMSC only learns the shared common information among multiple views. However, each view also contains unique information that is useful for clustering. Motivated by this, we hope to explore high order correlations among multiple views based on tensor representation.
We divide each into two parts . Then we construct a 3-order tensor by collecting all . As multi-view features are extracted from the same objects, different also contains some similar information. In the meantime, the number of clusters is much smaller than the sample number. So the tensor should be low-rank. We use the t-SVD based tensor nuclear norm to regularize and get the primary objective function for our model:
The minimization of low-rank tensor can help us find the essential information among different views. Specifically, the consistent information among multiple views may be represented by several principle components of the t-SVD, and view-specific information can be preserved in other singular values of the corresponding slice of the f-diagonal tensor , which is computed by the t-SVD.. By constructing a 3-order transition probability tensor , where is the -th frontal slice of the tensor , the above problem can be reformulated as the tensor form:
Instead of optimizing the above problem, we first rotate the original transition probability tensor into , which can be seen in the middle part of Fig. 1 (please pay attention to the rotation of the red edge of the tensor). This tensor rotation can be easily achieved by the function in Matlab. There are mainly two advantages for this operation. First, according to the definition of t-SVD, FFT operates along the third dimension of the tensor and then we perform SVD in each frontal slice. As we hope to capture the essential information among all views, SVD in each slice with the information of multi-view and all samples is more meaningful. Moreover, FFT along the feature dimension can preserve the relationship among views. Second, this rotation can largely reduce the computation complexity in optimization, which will be analysed in the subsection IV-D.
Besides, for the error term, if one sample contains much noise and outliers, transition probability vectors in the tensor related to this sample will be influenced. Noises in these vectors are not sparse, so-norm regularization on vectors is more proper. As noisy samples should be sparse, tensor -norm works. It is more robust to outliers and noises. So we use -norm to characterize the sparsity property. Then the final objective function of our proposed ETLMSC method can be reformulated as follows:
where denotes the rotated transition probability tensor. For the tensor after rotation, the -norm is defined as the sum of -norm of each fiber along the coefficient dimension. According to the definition of -norm and matricization in Table I, we have , which is helpful to the optimization of .
where is a penalty parameter at -th iteration and is a Lagrange multiplier. ADMM alternately updates each variable as follows.
which is a t-SVD based tensor nuclear norm minimization problem. According to , it has the following close-form solution with the tensor tubal-shrinkage operator:
where , and . is an f-diagonal tensor whose diagonal element in the Fourier domain is .
As the -norm of the tensor is defined as the sum of -norm of each mode- fiber, we matricize each tensor along the rd mode. So we have . It can be transformed into the matrix form:
where represents the -th column of the matrix . After we get , we transform it into the tensor form.
The whole optimization process is summarized in Algorithm 2. After we learn the essential transition probability tensor , we compute the essential transition probability matrix by summing its lateral slices as . Then we put into the second step of Algorithm 1 to replace the transition probability matrix , and we can get the final clustering result.
Iv-D Convergence and Complexity
At each iteration, we can get the close-form solution of and . In , the convergence of ADMM with two blocks of variables has already been proved. Accordingly, our algorithm will converge to an optimal solution.
For the computation complexity, at each iteration, it takes to compute the close-form solution of . As for updating , on the one hand, we need to calculate the FFT and inverse FFT of a tensor along the third dimension, which takes . On the other hand, in the Fourier domain, we need to compute the SVD of each frontal slice of a tensor with size , which takes . So we need in total to compute the close-form solution of under tensor rotation operation. However, if we do not rotate the tensor, we need . As the number of views is much smaller than the number of samples in multi-view setting, that is and . Therefore, we can see that the computation complexity is largely reduced by the tensor rotation. Denote as the number of iterations, the complexity to learn the essential tensor in Algorithm 2 is , which is relatively efficient.
After we get the essential transition probability matrix, we adopt the Markov chain based spectral clustering to get the final result, which usually cost . Therefore, the overall complexity is .
V-a Experimental Settings
We adopt seven commonly used real world datasets, which cover five different applications, including news article clustering, digit clustering, generic object clustering, face clustering, and scene clustering.
In Table II, we summarize the statistic information of these seven datasets.
Some samples of these image datasets are presented in Fig 3.
We briefly introduce these datasets as follows.
BBC-Sport  111http://mlg.ucd.ie/datasets contains documents from the BBC Sport website corresponding to sports news in five topical areas, including the athletics, cricket, football, rugby, and tennis. There are two different views in total.
UCI-Digits  consists of digits images corresponding to classes. Same to , we extract three different features to represent these digit images, including Fourier coefficients, pixel averages and morphological features.
COIL-20 222http://www.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/software/softlib/ is the abbreviation of the Columbia object image library dataset, which contains images of object categories. Each category contains 72 images and all images are normalized to size .
For this datasets, we also extract three types of features (intensity, LBP  and Gabor  features), which is same to [28, 29].
Notting-Hill  is a video based face dataset, which is collected from the movie “Notting-Hill”. It contains faces of main casts in tracks. All face images are with size . Intensity, LBP  and Gabor  features are extracted for representation.
Scene-15  has natural scene categories with both indoor and outdoor environments, including industrial, store, bedroom, kitchen, and etc. There are images in total. Similar to , we extract three kinds of image features for representation, including PHOW , LBP , and CENTRIST .
MITIndoor-67  contains indoor images of categories. Same to , the training subset which has
images is adopted for clustering. Besides the three kinds of features for Scene-15, we also extract deep features based on pretrained VGG-VD network to improve the performance.
Caltech-101  includes object images of categories. For each category, it has about to images. This dataset is the largest dataset used in all these related multi-view clustering methods. We adopt all these images of classes to test the performance of clustering, which is same to . Besides the three kinds of features for Scene-15, the Inception V3  network is used to extract deep features.
V-A2 Compared Methods
We compare our proposed approach ETLMSC and UR-ETLMSC (the proposed method without tensor rotation) with the following state-of-the-art methods, including two single view and six multi-view methods.
SPC achieves the best result among all views with standard spectral clustering .
LRR achieves the best result among all views with the low-rank representation .
Co-reg  is the co-regularization method for spectral clustering, which co-regularizes the clustering hypothesis to explore the complementary information.
RMSC  recovers a shared low-rank transition probability matrix as input to the Markov chain based spectral clustering.
DiMSC  employs the HSIC as a diversity term to explore the complementarity of multi-view representations.
LTMSC  adopts the low-rank tensor constraint for multi-view subspace clustering.
ECMSC  consists of position-aware exclusivity term and consistency term for regularization.
t-SVD-MSC  uses the t-SVD based tensor nuclear norm to learn optimal subspace.
Among all above methods, only SPC, Co-reg, and RMSC are spectral clustering methods, and other methods are self-representation based subspace clustering methods.
V-A3 Evaluation Metrics
To comprehensively evaluate the performance of clustering, we adopt all six commonly used metrics including normalized mutual information (NMI), accuracy (ACC), adjusted rand index (AR), F-score , precision and recall. These six metrics favour different properties in clustering task. For all metrics, the higher value indicates the better performance.
V-B Experimental Results and Analysis
V-B1 Performance Comparison
We present the detailed clustering results on seven datasets in Tables III-VI. All results are measured by the average of runs. In each table, the bold values represent the best performance. To better compare the performance of different methods, we divide all methods into four subclasses in the table, including single view methods, spectral clustering methods, subspace learning methods, and tensor based methods. The optimal parameters for these methods are fine-tuned by grid searching.
, we can easily see that our proposed ETLMSC achieves the best performance on the BBC-Sport, UCI-Digits, COIL-20, Scene-15, MITIndoor-67, and Caltech-101 datasets under all six evaluation metrics. Especially on the BBC-Sport and MITIndoor-67 datasets, our results are more thanhigher than the second best results achieved by t-SVD-MSC. There are also , , and improvement compared with the second best performance of t-SVD-MSC on the UCI-Digits, COIL-20, Scene-15, and Caltech-101 datasets, respectively. The Notting-Hill dataset is a video based face dataset. According to [52, 53], facial images have the subspace structure, and self-representation based subspace learning method is more suitable for this task. While t-SVD-MSC is based on subspace learning, the performance of our method is still comparable to that achieved by t-SVD-MSC, and much higher than those of all other methods, which is shown in the right part of Table IV.
For single view methods, they obtain good performance. But in general, multi-view methods work better than single view methods. Moreover, both ECMSC and DiMSC work very well for this task. As they both try to investigate complementary information, it shows that it is necessary to learn view-specific information.
Tensor based methods, including ETLMSC and t-SVD-MSC, achieve significant improvement compared with all other state-of-the-art methods in most cases. There is a huge gap between tensor based methods and other methods, which can be attributed to the effectiveness of tensor based correlations exploration. In Fig. 4, we also present the confusion matrices of these three tensor based methods on the Scene-15 dataset. The row and column names correspond to the ground-truth and predicted labels, respectively. We can see that compared with LTMSC, our proposed ETLMSC and t-SVD-MSC achieve much better results in almost all classes in terms of accuracy, which can be attribute to the effectiveness of t-SVD decomposition based tensor nuclear norm. Compared with t-SVD-MSC, our ETLMSC improves slightly in many categories, which can also be verified by the accuracy.
Compared with RMSC, which is also a Markov chain based method, our proposed ETLMSC gains significant improvement. The main reason is that RMSC only captures the shared information among different view, while ETLMSC incorporates view-specific information that is useful for clustering. Based on the t-SVD based tensor nuclear norm to regularize the essential tensor, our method can well preserve these principle components among multi-view representations.
Tensor rotation plays an important role in our methods. Besides the complexity reduction, it can also largely improve the performance, which has already been validated by t-SVD-MSC . We can see that ETLMSC achieves much better results than UR-ETLMSC on all datasets. The main reason is that after rotation, we can throughly investigate the complementary information among different views as the SVD is performed on each matrix composed of different view features after FFT. However, without rotation, the arrangement of similarity coefficients could be destroyed in Fourier domain, so that complementary information cannot be effectively explored. Therefore, UR-ETLMSC only sometime shows comparable performance with the state-of-the-art methods.
V-B2 Parameter Sensitivity Analysis
There are mainly two parameters in our model, including the balance parameter and the standard deviation of Gaussian kernel to compute the similarity. In experiments, we find the optimal value for by grid searching. As for for the -th view, we directly set it to the average Euclidean distance () between all -th view features, which is same to RMSC. We present the evaluation results of our proposed ETLMSC method on the first six datasets with respect to different and ratio of in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. From Fig. 5, we can observe that on these datasets, the performance of our proposed ETLMSC is relatively stable when varies in the range of . plays an important role in balancing the contributions of these two parts. When it is very small (close to ), the norm regularization on will not work. will be minimized as much as possible, which leads to . So the result is very bad. Moreover, the optimal parameter for each dataset is reported in their corresponding table.
As for , all results of ETLMSC presented in Tables III-VI are based on the ratio . From Fig. 6, we can see that our method is not sensitive to this parameter when it varies in a certain large range. controls the discrimination of similarity. When is too small (or too large), all similarities will be close to (or ). It will be hard to distinguish the difference, which leads to bad results. For all the results reported in the manuscript, they are achieved with . We can see that with proper ratio, the performance can be further improved, especially on the BBCSport, UCI-Digit, COIL-20, Scene-15, and MITIndoor-67 datasets.
For the parameters and of ADMM, we directly adopt the suggestion of  and fix them as and , respectively. These two parameters mainly influence the number of iteration for convergence.
V-B3 Convergence Analysis
The theoretical convergence of our algorithm has already been proved in . In Fig. 7, we show the total error of our algorithm in each iteration on the COIL-20, Notting-Hill, and Caltech-101 datasets. Here, the total error is defined as the maximum value of changes in each iteration , , and reconstruction error :
|Time on BBC-Sport||4.5||35.8||23.4||78.7||10.6||2.1|
|Time on COIL-20||74.8||1075.1||375.9||954.2||103.4||19.6|
|Time on UCI-Digit||214.6||2706.4||959.3||468.5||225.7||54.6|
|Time on Notting-Hill||2531.3||43813.6||10408.7||6319.3||3373.3||562.8|
|Time on Scene-15||2407.9||38904.7||9270.6||5663.9||2627.8||489.7|
|Time on MITIndoor-67||3796.5||66274.3||15759.2||9673.2||5957.5||930.5|
|Time on Caltech-101||15710.9||218825.5||76833.2||41558.6||18929.7||5395.7|
According to Fig. 7, we can see that the error decreases with the increasing of iteration number. Our algorithm converges within iterations, which is also true on other datasets. As we can compute the close-form solution in each iteration with relatively low computation complexity, our algorithm is very efficient.
V-B4 Complexity Comparison
In Table VII, we present computation complexity and running time of the state-of-the-art methods on all these datasets. Since all these methods share the similar post-processing procedure that has the same complexity, we only report the computational complexity and running time for learning the affinity matrix. We need to mention that the number of iteration has an obvious affect on the running time, and parameter selection will influence . So we can see that the running time of ECMSC on the UCI-Digit dataset could be shorter than that on the COIL-20 dataset. We can see that our method has the lowest complexity and the shortest processing time among these related approaches on all datasets, which demonstrates the efficiency of our proposed method. For example, on the COIL-20 dataset, our algorithm can finish within seconds, while the second best method RMSC needs more than seconds, and t-SVD-MSC costs more than seconds. On the largest Caltech-101 dataset, our method can save much time compared with t-SVD-MSC.
V-B5 Representation Visualization
In Fig. 8, we show the visualization of the learned optimal transition probability matrix. Due to the limition of space, we only present the results of two Markov chain based spectral clustering methods (RMSC and our proposed ETLMSC) on the COIL-20 dataset. For ETLMSC, the transition probability matrix is computed by the average of lateral slices of the optimal essential tensor . The yellow color represents the large value. Compared with the result of RMSC in Fig. 8(a), we can easily see that the result of ETLMSC in Fig. 8(b) is much better as most large values concentrate on the diagonal blocks. This can also be verified by comparing the experimental results in Tables III-V. While RMSC only captures shared information among different views, it is more meaningful for our ETLMSC method to explore high order multi-view correlations based on tensor formulation.
V-B6 Comparison with t-SVD-MSC
t-SVD-MSC  achieves very good performance for the task of multi-view clustering. Both the proposed ETLMSC and t-SVD-MSC  are based on the tensor nuclear norm defined by the t-SVD for multi-view clustering. But there are many differences. First, construction of affinity matrix and tensor is totally different. We adopt the Markov chain to compute the transition probability matrix, while t-SVD-MSC is based on self-representation, which is of high computation complexity and under the assumption of subspace structure. Second, the model and optimization process are much different. We directly divide the transition probability tensor into two parts with low-rank and sparse constraints, while their method need to optimize the self-representation coefficients. So the optimization process is also different. Most importantly, compared with t-SVD-MSC, based on the experimental results presented above, our method achieves better performance with much lower complexity and less processing time.
Vi Conclusion and future work
In this paper, we propose a novel essential tensor learning method for Markov chain based multi-view spectral clustering. Based on multi-view transition probability matrices, we construct a -order tensor. We explore the high order correlations among multiple views by learning the essential tensor with low-rank constraint based on t-SVD based tensor nuclear norm. With tensor rotation operation, the proposed algorithm can be optimized efficiently and the principle components can be well preserved. We evaluate the performance of our method on seven datasets with respect to different applications, and it achieves superior performance compared with the state-of-the-art methods.
For future work, we would like to focus on the fast and scalable algorithms, such as the sampling technique or recover the subspace of the whole tensor with a much smaller seed tensor. So that the computation complexity of the proposed model can be further reduced, which will make ETLMSC much suitable for large-scale applications.
We would like to thank Dr. Yuan Xie for his selfless support in sharing codes and datasets as well as the valuable suggestions.
A. Y. Ng, M. I. Jordan, and Y. Weiss, “On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm,” inProceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 849–856, 2002.
-  E. Elhamifar and R. Vidal, “Sparse subspace clustering: Algorithm, theory, and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 2765–2781, 2013.
-  G. Liu, Z. Lin, S. Yan, J. Sun, Y. Yu, and Y. Ma, “Robust recovery of subspace structures by low-rank representation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 171–184, 2013.
-  A. Kumar, P. Rai, and H. Daume, “Co-regularized multi-view spectral clustering,” in Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1413–1421, 2011.
-  X. Cao, C. Zhang, H. Fu, S. Liu, and H. Zhang, “Diversity-induced multi-view subspace clustering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 586–594, 2015.
-  R. Xia, Y. Pan, L. Du, and J. Yin, “Robust multi-view spectral clustering via low-rank and sparse decomposition.,” in Proceedings of the AAAI, pp. 2149–2155, 2014.
-  X. Wang, X. Guo, Z. Lei, C. Zhang, and S. Z. Li, “Exclusivity-consistency regularized multi-view subspace clustering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 923–931, 2017.
-  X. Xie, X. Guo, G. Liu, and J. Wang, “Implicit block diagonal low-rank representation,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 477–489, 2018.
G. Liu, Z. Lin, and Y. Yu, “Robust subspace segmentation by low-rank
Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 663–670, 2010.
J. Wright, A. Ganesh, S. Rao, Y. Peng, and Y. Ma, “Robust principal component analysis: Exact recovery of corrupted low-rank matrices via convex optimization,” inProceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 2080–2088, 2009.
-  C. Lu, J. Feng, Y. Chen, W. Liu, Z. Lin, and S. Yan, “Tensor robust principal component analysis: Exact recovery of corrupted low-rank tensors via convex optimization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 5249–5257, 2016.
-  P. Zhou and J. Feng, “Outlier-robust tensor pca,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3938–3946, 2017.
-  P. Zhou, C. Lu, Z. Lin, and C. Zhang, “Tensor factorization for low-rank tensor completion,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1152–1163, 2018.
-  H. Kong, X. Xie, and Z. Lin, “t-schatten- norm for low-rank tensor recovery,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2018.
-  J. D. Carroll and J.-J. Chang, “Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “eckart-young” decomposition,” Psychometrika, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 283–319, 1970.
-  R. A. Harshman, “Foundations of the parafac procedure: Models and conditions for an” explanatory” multimodal factor analysis,” 1970.
-  L. R. Tucker, “Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis,” Psychometrika, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 279–311, 1966.
-  M. E. Kilmer, K. Braman, N. Hao, and R. C. Hoover, “Third-order tensors as operators on matrices: A theoretical and computational framework with applications in imaging,” SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 148–172, 2013.
-  B. Huang, C. Mu, D. Goldfarb, and J. Wright, “Provable low-rank tensor recovery,” Optimization-Online, vol. 4252, p. 2, 2014.
-  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 Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3842–3849, 2014.
-  A. Kumar and H. Daumé, “A co-training approach for multi-view spectral clustering,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 393–400, 2011.
-  H. Wang, C. Weng, and J. Yuan, “Multi-feature spectral clustering with minimax optimization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 4106–4113, 2014.
-  J. Shi and J. Malik, “Normalized cuts and image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 888–905, 2000.
-  D. Zhou, J. Huang, and B. Schölkopf, “Learning from labeled and unlabeled data on a directed graph,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1036–1043, 2005.
-  D. Zhou and C. J. Burges, “Spectral clustering and transductive learning with multiple views,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1159–1166, 2007.
-  Y. Wang, L. Wu, X. Lin, and J. Gao, “Multiview spectral clustering via structured low-rank matrix factorization,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2018.
-  M. Brbić and I. Kopriva, “Multi-view low-rank sparse subspace clustering,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 73, pp. 247–258, 2018.
-  C. Zhang, H. Fu, S. Liu, G. Liu, and X. Cao, “Low-rank tensor constrained multiview subspace clustering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1582–1590, 2015.
-  Y. Xie, D. Tao, W. Zhang, Y. Liu, L. Zhang, and Y. Qu, “On unifying multi-view self-representations for clustering by tensor multi-rank minimization,” International Journal of Computer Vision, pp. 1–23, 2018.
-  M. Yin, J. Gao, S. Xie, and Y. Guo, “Multiview subspace clustering via tensorial t-product representation,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, no. 99, pp. 1–14, 2018.
-  C. Zhang, Q. Hu, H. Fu, P. Zhu, and X. Cao, “Latent multi-view subspace clustering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 30, pp. 4279–4287, 2017.
-  C. Zhang, H. Fu, Q. Hu, X. Cao, Y. Xie, D. Tao, and D. Xu, “Generalized latent multi-view subspace clustering,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2018.
-  C.-G. Li and R. Vidal, “Structured sparse subspace clustering: A unified optimization framework,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 277–286, 2015.
-  K. Chaudhuri, S. M. Kakade, K. Livescu, and K. Sridharan, “Multi-view clustering via canonical correlation analysis,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 129–136, 2009.
-  C. Cortes, M. Mohri, and A. Rostamizadeh, “Learning non-linear combinations of kernels,” in Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 396–404, 2009.
-  J. Xu, J. Han, and F. Nie, “Discriminatively embedded k-means for multi-view clustering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 5356–5364, 2016.
-  J. A. Hartigan and M. A. Wong, “Algorithm as 136: A k-means clustering algorithm,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 100–108, 1979.
-  Z. Lin, R. Liu, and Z. Su, “Linearized alternating direction method with adaptive penalty for low-rank representation,” in Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 612–620, 2011.
-  W. Hu, D. Tao, W. Zhang, Y. Xie, and Y. Yang, “The twist tensor nuclear norm for video completion,” IEEE Transactions on Nuural Networks and Learning Systems, pp. 1–13, 2017.
-  D. Greene and P. Cunningham, “Practical solutions to the problem of diagonal dominance in kernel document clustering,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 377–384, 2006.
-  A. Asuncion and D. Newman, “UCI machine learning repository,” 2007.
-  T. Ojala, M. Pietikainen, and T. Maenpaa, “Multiresolution gray-scale and rotation invariant texture classification with local binary patterns,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 971–987, 2002.
-  M. Lades, J. C. Vorbruggen, J. Buhmann, J. Lange, C. Von Der Malsburg, R. P. Wurtz, and W. Konen, “Distortion invariant object recognition in the dynamic link architecture,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 300–311, 1993.
-  Y.-F. Zhang, C. Xu, H. Lu, and Y.-M. Huang, “Character identification in feature-length films using global face-name matching,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1276–1288, 2009.
-  L. Fei-Fei and P. Perona, “A bayesian hierarchical model for learning natural scene categories,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 524–531, 2005.
A. Bosch, A. Zisserman, and X. Munoz, “Image classification using random forests and ferns,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1–8, 2007.
-  J. Wu and J. M. Rehg, “Centrist: A visual descriptor for scene categorization,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1489–1501, 2011.
-  A. Quattoni and A. Torralba, “Recognizing indoor scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 413–420, 2009.
-  K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014.
-  L. Fei-Fei, R. Fergus, and P. Perona, “Learning generative visual models from few training examples: An incremental bayesian approach tested on 101 object categories,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 59–70, 2007.
-  C. Szegedy, V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z. Wojna, “Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2818–2826, 2016.
-  D. Arpit, I. Nwogu, and V. Govindaraju, “Dimensionality reduction with subspace structure preservation,” in Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 712–720, 2014.
G. Zhang, R. He, and L. S. Davis, “Jointly learning dictionaries and subspace structure for video-based face recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE Asian Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 97–111, 2014.