Robust Principal Component Analysis for Background Estimation of Particle Image Velocimetry Data

Ahmadreza Baghaie

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Robust Principal Component Analysis for Background Estimation of Particle Image Velocimetry Data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Particle Image Velocimetry background removal can be posed as a low-rank-plus-sparse matrix decomposition, and solving it with Robust Principal Component Analysis separates stationary and moving layers more accurately than POD-based or…

desk verdict RPCA for PIV background removal is a sensible idea, cleanly formulated, but the evidence that it beats POD on actual PIV data is mostly qualitative; the quantitative win is on surveillance data. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06047 v1 pith:M5FD6UCX submitted 2019-08-16 cs.CV eess.IV

Ahmadreza Baghaie This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVeess.IV

keywords ParticleImageVelocimetryRobustPrincipalComponentAnalysisbackgroundestimationlow-rankplussparsedecompositionAugmentedLagrangeMultipliernuclearnormforeground/backgroundseparation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) measures flow by imaging tiny tracer particles, and its accuracy suffers when fixed backgrounds, light reflections, stuck particles, or wall defects contaminate the frames. This paper argues that the right preprocessing is to treat each frame as a column of a data matrix and decompose that matrix into a low-rank component (the stationary background) plus a sparse component (the moving particles), a formulation known as Robust Principal Component Analysis (RPCA). The paper claims that solving this decomposition with an Augmented Lagrange Multiplier scheme separates the two layers more cleanly than min-removal or POD-based background estimation, because the squared-error objective of POD leaves particle traces in the background. Tested on synthetic sequences with known ground truth and on two real PIV sequences, the proposed method produces lower background and foreground errors and avoids the signal loss seen for slow-moving particles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the convex Robust Principal Component Analysis program (Eq. 3), which minimizes the nuclear norm $\|L\|_*$ of the background plus $\lambda$ times the $\ell^1$ norm $\|S\|_1$ of the moving-particle layer under the constraint $D=L+S$. The nuclear norm promotes a low-rank background; the $\ell^1$ norm promotes sparse particles. The program is solved by Augmented Lagrange Multiplier (ALM) iteration, alternating a singular-value shrinkage step for $L$ and a soft-threshold step for $S$ (Eqs. 8 and 9), followed by multiplier updates. This machinery separates the two statistical components without the squared-error sensitivity of ordinary PCA/POD.

What would settle it

Take a PIV sequence with a slowly varying background intensity, such as a gradual illumination ramp, and compare the RPCA-estimated background against ground truth after also testing the same frames with increased particle density; if the background estimate retains the ramp or the sparse layer absorbs large background regions, the exact $D=L+S$ assumption is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that PIV background estimation is a low-rank-plus-sparse matrix recovery problem. After vectorizing each frame and stacking the vectors, the data matrix $D$ is assumed to equal $L+S$, where $L$ is low-rank and contains the persistent background, and $S$ is sparse and contains the randomly distributed particles. The paper solves the convex program $\min_{L,S} \|L\|_* + \lambda \|S\|_1$ subject to $D=L+S$, with $\lambda=1/\sqrt{\max(m,n)}$, using the Augmented Lagrange Multiplier method. On three synthetic background/foreground benchmark sequences and on one synthetic plus two real PIV datasets, this decomposition yields lower MSE and higher PSNR and SSIM for both background and foreground estimates than the min-removal and POD-based methods, and it leaves fewer residual particle traces in the estimated background in slow-flow regions.

Load-bearing premise

The entire scheme rests on the premise that the PIV data matrix can be written exactly as a low-rank matrix plus a sparse matrix, with no explicit dense-noise term; if the background drifts gradually or particles become too dense, the low-rank or sparse premise weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the decomposition holds, PIV preprocessing can replace per-pixel temporal statistics such as minimum or median intensity with a single matrix factorization, removing reflections and stuck-particle occlusions without a temporal filter.
Cleaner background estimates feed into cross-correlation-based displacement measurements, which should reduce velocity bias in regions where background brightness is comparable to particle brightness.
The low-rank component can be subtracted as a reference intensity map, so that downstream PIV analysis sees only particle motion.
The experiments use 100-frame subsequences, so the method does not require long recordings and can be applied to short image sequences.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper tests one fixed sparsity weight, $\lambda=1/\sqrt{\max(m,n)}$; sweeping $\lambda$ on sequences with different particle densities or frame counts would show how far the default choice generalizes.
Incorporating a small dense-noise term into the decomposition, as in stable principal component pursuit, would address sensor noise that the exact $D=L+S$ model does not explicitly handle.
The same low-rank-plus-sparse rationale should transfer to other planar flow imaging modalities, such as laser-induced fluorescence or shadowgraphy, wherever a stationary background and sparse moving tracers coexist.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the target domain: taking the standard low-rank-plus-sparse RPCA decomposition and applying it to PIV background removal instead of the usual video-surveillance setting. The paper correctly identifies why POD-based background removal struggles — the L2 norm makes it sensitive to gross particle artifacts — and replaces it with a convex formulation solved by ALM. On the BMC surveillance benchmark, the proposed method beats both min-removal and POD by a wide margin, and the qualitative PIV results do show cleaner background separation. That is a real, if modest, contribution: it is an application of a known algorithm, not a new method.

The soft spots are where the domain-specific claim is tested. The quantitative evaluation is done entirely on surveillance sequences, where moving objects are large and compact; PIV particle fields are dense, small, and scattered, so those benchmark numbers do not transfer automatically. For the actual PIV datasets — Synthetic, Pipe, Stent — the comparison is visual only, with no ground truth, no velocity-field error downstream, no error bars, and no reported particle density or noise level. The paper also does not discuss when the exact D = L + S assumption fails: gradual illumination drift makes L not low-rank, and high seeding makes S dense. The stress-test note is right: the superiority claim for PIV rests on an unverified assumption.

None of this makes the paper worthless. The idea is plausible, the implementation is standard, and the qualitative figures are suggestive. But as it stands, the evidence is incomplete. The paper needs a quantitative PIV experiment — ideally a synthetic PIV sequence with known background and velocity fields, scored by background error and velocity error — and more transparency about parameters and code.

Citation pattern looks honest: the RPCA review and Mendez et al. are properly credited, and the author's own prior OCT work is not over-used. The writing is clear and the reasoning is straightforward.

Who benefits? A PIV practitioner looking for a preprocessing tool could get value from this, and the paper would be a useful conference contribution after revision. A serious referee should see it, because the application is legitimate and the comparison is relevant, even though the current validation is too thin to support the advertised conclusion.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using Robust Principal Component Analysis (RPCA) for background/foreground separation in Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) sequences. The author stacks vectorized frames into a data matrix D and solves the convex RPCA problem D = L + S, with L low-rank (background) and S sparse (moving particles), using an Augmented Lagrange Multiplier (ALM) scheme. The method is compared against min-removal and a POD-based background removal approach. Quantitative metrics (MSE, PSNR, SSIM) are reported on three synthetic surveillance sequences from the Background Models Challenge, and qualitative results are shown for one synthetic and two real PIV datasets (Synthetic, Pipe, Stent). The paper concludes that the RPCA-based approach distinguishes moving and stationary components more accurately than the POD-based and min-removal methods.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, the paper would offer a useful and practical tool for PIV preprocessing: RPCA is a standard, convex, parameter-light formulation with known recovery guarantees, and the ALM solver is straightforward to implement. The use of a public benchmark, comparison against a published baseline (Mendez et al. [10]), and the acknowledgment of the source of the PIV datasets are strengths. The paper does not introduce new theory, and its main contribution is the application and empirical comparison. The principal weakness is that the evidence base for the PIV-specific claim is thin: the only scored experiments are on surveillance data, while the PIV results are qualitative and lack quantitative error metrics or downstream velocity-field validation. Because the central claim depends on the validity of the low-rank-plus-sparse assumption in PIV imaging regimes, the manuscript needs substantially stronger PIV-domain evidence before the claimed superiority can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Table I and Figs. 2-4] The only quantitative evaluation is on BMC surveillance sequences, not PIV data. Table I reports MSE/PSNR/SSIM for three BMC sequences, while the PIV comparisons in Figs. 2-4 are visual only, with no ground-truth background/foreground error and no downstream velocity-field error. Since the title and abstract claim superiority for PIV background removal, the central claim is not directly supported by the reported evidence. Please add quantitative PIV experiments, for example using the Synthetic PIV dataset from Mendez et al. [10], which has known background and noise contamination, and report errors in the estimated background/particle components or, better, the effect on the resulting PIV velocity fields.
[Section II.B, Eq. (3)] The decomposition D = L + S assumes that the background is exactly low-rank and the foreground is exactly sparse with no explicit dense noise term. PIV data can violate this assumption in several realistic regimes: high particle seeding density makes S dense, slowly moving particles make part of S effectively low-rank, and illumination drift or gradual background changes make L non-low-rank. The paper does not report particle density, noise level, or the fraction of nonzero pixels for any of the PIV datasets, so it is unclear whether the tested cases fall inside the validity regime of the model. Please characterize the tested datasets quantitatively and, ideally, add synthetic tests that vary seeding density, noise level, and background drift to delimit the method's applicability.
[Section III, POD baseline] The POD-based baseline is not described sufficiently to support a fair comparative claim. The text refers to 'adaptive truncation of the POD bases' but does not state how many modes are retained, how the truncation criterion is chosen, or whether the parameters were tuned per dataset. Without this information, the reported superiority of RPCA could partly reflect an unfavorable or suboptimal POD configuration. Please specify the POD implementation details, including the number of modes and any tuning procedure, and consider reporting results across a range of truncation settings.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are numerous typos and garbled expressions, such as 'dimentionality' and 'date points' in Sections I and II.A, and the equations in Section II.B are poorly typeset with missing symbols, making the ALM update rules (Eqs. (4)-(9)) difficult to verify.
[Table I] Table I reports single-trial metrics without error bars or statistical comparison across multiple runs or sequences, so the observed differences are not assessed for significance.
[Section III] No code or data availability statement is provided. Since the author acknowledges using Mendez et al.'s source code and datasets, adding a statement about available artifacts would improve reproducibility.
[Abstract and Section II] The paper calls the approach 'novel,' but the RPCA formulation and ALM solution are standard (Candes et al. [19], Lin et al. [28]); the novelty lies in the application to PIV. Please adjust the wording accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the RPCA-based PIV background estimator is an application of a standard convex decomposition, evaluated against external ground-truth and prior methods, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The decomposition D = L + S is not derived from the desired output; it is a modeling assumption taken from the standard convex RPCA formulation of Candès et al. (Eq. 3), with lambda set by the published rule lambda = 1/sqrt(max(m,n)) rather than fitted to the test data. The ALM solver is a standard algorithm from Lin et al., not a custom construction that encodes the result. The comparisons are external: quantitative scores on the BMC synthetic sequences use ground-truth background and foreground images and are compared against min-removal and POD methods, while the synthetic/real PIV results are qualitative but are still compared against prior methods and are not measured against any quantity derived from the method's own outputs. The author's self-citations (refs. 25 and 26) are merely examples of earlier uses of sparse/low-rank decomposition in biomedical imaging and are not load-bearing for the PIV claim. No prediction reduces by construction to fitted inputs, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The paper's weakness is evidentiary (no quantitative PIV ground-truth metrics), not circular, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new machinery; it applies a standard RPCA formulation with lambda set to 1/sqrt(max(m,n)) and ALM optimization. The main assumptions are the low-rank-plus-sparse model of PIV data and the validity of the convex relaxation.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The PIV data matrix D is exactly decomposable as D = L + S with L low-rank and S sparse, with no dense noise term.
Section II.B: 'It is assumed that the data matrix can be decomposed into two statistically different components, a low-rank component depicting the still background and a sparse component representing the moving particles.'
standard math The convex relaxation of RPCA (nuclear norm plus l1 norm) recovers the true low-rank and sparse components under suitable conditions.
Cites Candes et al. [19] for recovery guarantees and Lin et al. [28] for convergence of the ALM algorithm.
standard math The ALM algorithm converges to the solution of the convex optimization problem for the chosen step sizes and stopping criteria.
Invoked in Section II.B with reference to [28].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Principal Component Analysis for Background Estimation of Particle Image Velocimetry Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M5FD6UCX

@misc{pith2026190806047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Principal Component Analysis for Background Estimation of Particle Image Velocimetry Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M5FD6UCX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06047}
}

read the original abstract

Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) data processing procedures are adversely affected by light reflections and backgrounds as well as defects in the models and sticky particles that occlude the inner walls of the boundaries. In this paper, a novel approach is proposed for decomposition of the PIV data into background/foreground components, greatly reducing the effects of such artifacts. This is achieved by utilizing Robust Principal Component Analysis (RPCA) applied to the data matrix, generated by aggregating the vectorized PIV frames. It is assumed that the data matrix can be decomposed into two statistically different components, a low-rank component depicting the still background and a sparse component representing the moving particles within the imaged geometry. Formulating the assumptions as an optimization problem, Augmented Lagrange Multiplier (ALM) method is used for decomposing the data matrix into the low-rank and sparse components. Experiments and comparisons with the state-of-the-art using several PIV image sequences reveal the superiority of the proposed approach for background removal of PIV data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[10]

POD-based background removal for particle image velocimetry

Mendez, M.; Raiola, M.; Masullo, A.; Discetti, S.; Ianiro, A.; Theunissen, R.; Buchlin, J.M. POD-based background removal for particle image velocimetry. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 2017, 80, 181–192

work page 2017
[1]

Particle image velocimetry: new developments and recent applications; Vol

Schröder, A.; Willert, C.E. Particle image velocimetry: new developments and recent applications; Vol. 112, Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

work page 2008
[2]

Particle image velocimetry; Number 30, Cambridge University Press, 2011

Adrian, R.J.;Westerweel, J. Particle image velocimetry; Number 30, Cambridge University Press, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

Particle image velocimetry: a practical guide; Springer, 2013

Raffel, M.; Willert, C.E.; Wereley, S.; Kompenhans, J. Particle image velocimetry: a practical guide; Springer, 2013

work page 2013
[4]

Dual- plane PIV technique to determine the complete velocity gradient tensor in a turbulent boundary layer

Ganapathisubramani, B.; Longmire, E.K.; Marusic, I.; Pothos, S. Dual- plane PIV technique to determine the complete velocity gradient tensor in a turbulent boundary layer. Experiments in Fluids 2005, 39, 222–231

work page 2005
[5]

Fundamentals of multiple plane stereo particle image velocimetry

Kähler, C.J.; Kompenhans, J. Fundamentals of multiple plane stereo particle image velocimetry. Experiments in Fluids 2000, 29, S070–S077

work page 2000
[6]

Tomographic particle image velocimetry

Elsinga, G.E.; Scarano, F.; Wieneke, B.; van Oudheusden, B.W. Tomographic particle image velocimetry. Experiments in fluids 2006, 41, 933–947

work page 2006
[7]

Tomographic PIV: principles and practice

Scarano, F. Tomographic PIV: principles and practice. Measurement Science and Technology 2012, 24, 012001

work page 2012

Show all 31 references

[8]

Distortion compensation for generalized stereoscopic particle image velocimetry

Soloff, S.M.; Adrian, R.J.; Liu, Z.C. Distortion compensation for generalized stereoscopic particle image velocimetry. Measurement science and technology 1997, 8, 1441

1997
[9]

Stereoscopic digital particle image velocimetry for application in wind tunnel flows

Willert, C. Stereoscopic digital particle image velocimetry for application in wind tunnel flows. Measurement science and technology 1997, 8, 1465

1997
[11]

PIV error correction

Hart, D.P. PIV error correction. In Laser Techniques Applied to Fluid Mechanics; Springer, 2000; pp. 19–35

2000
[12]

On errors of digital particle image velocimetry

Huang, H.; Dabiri, D.; Gharib, M. On errors of digital particle image velocimetry. Measurement Science and Technology 1997, 8, 1427

1997
[13]

Three-dimensional particle image velocimetry: experimental error analysis of a digital angular stereoscopic system

Lawson, N.;Wu, J. Three-dimensional particle image velocimetry: experimental error analysis of a digital angular stereoscopic system. Measurement Science and Technology 1997, 8, 1455

1997
[14]

Instantaneous pressure and material acceleration measurements using a four-exposure PIV system

Liu, X.; Katz, J. Instantaneous pressure and material acceleration measurements using a four-exposure PIV system. Experiments in Fluids 2006, 41, 227

2006
[15]

PIVlab–towards user-friendly, affordable and accurate digital particle image velocimetry in MATLAB

Thielicke, W.; Stamhuis, E. PIVlab–towards user-friendly, affordable and accurate digital particle image velocimetry in MATLAB. Journal of Open Research Software 2014, 2

2014
[16]

Pixelation effect removal from fiber bundle probe based optical coherence tomography imaging

Han, J.H.; Lee, J.; Kang, J.U. Pixelation effect removal from fiber bundle probe based optical coherence tomography imaging. Optics express 2010, 18, 7427–7439

2010
[17]

Robust suppression of background reflections in PIV images

Mejia-Alvarez, R.; Christensen, K. Robust suppression of background reflections in PIV images. Measurement Science and Technology 2013, 24, 027003

2013
[18]

Advanced algorithms for microscale particle image velocimetry

Wereley, S.; Gui, L.; Meinhart, C. Advanced algorithms for microscale particle image velocimetry. AIAA journal 2002, 40, 1047–1055. Fig. 3 Sample results from the Pipe PIV dataset [10]. (a) sample initial frame, (b) POD-based method, (c) proposed method. Fig. 4 Sample results ...

2002
[19]

Robust principal component analysis? Journal of the ACM (JACM) 2011, 58, 11

Candès, E.J.; Li, X.; Ma, Y.; Wright, J. Robust principal component analysis? Journal of the ACM (JACM) 2011, 58, 11

2011
[20]

Themethod of proper orthogonal decomposition for dynamical characterization and order reduction of mechanical systems: an overview

Kerschen, G.; Golinval, J.c.; Vakakis, A.F.; Bergman, L.A. Themethod of proper orthogonal decomposition for dynamical characterization and order reduction of mechanical systems: an overview. Nonlinear dynamics 2005, 41, 147–169

2005
[21]

Principal Component Analysis and Factor Analysis

Jolliffe, I.T. Principal Component Analysis and Factor Analysis. In Principal component analysis; Springer, 1986; pp. 115–128

1986
[22]

Principal component analysis

Wold, S.; Esbensen, K.; Geladi, P. Principal component analysis. Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems 1987, 2, 37–52

1987
[23]

Principal component analysis

Abdi, H.; Williams, L.J. Principal component analysis. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: computational statistics 2010, 2, 433–459

2010
[24]

Decomposition into low-rank plus additive matrices for background/foreground separation: A review for a comparative evaluation with a large-scale dataset

Bouwmans, T.; Sobral, A.; Javed, S.; Jung, S.K.; Zahzah, E.H. Decomposition into low-rank plus additive matrices for background/foreground separation: A review for a comparative evaluation with a large-scale dataset. Computer Science Review 2017, 23, 1–71

2017
[25]

Sparse and low rank decomposition based batch image alignment for speckle reduction of retinal OCT images

Baghaie, A.; D’souza, R.M.; Yu, Z. Sparse and low rank decomposition based batch image alignment for speckle reduction of retinal OCT images. Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), 2015 IEEE 12th International Symposium on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 226–230

2015
[26]

State-of-the-art in retinal optical coherence tomography image analysis

Baghaie, A.; Yu, Z.; D’Souza, R.M. State-of-the-art in retinal optical coherence tomography image analysis. Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery 2015, 5, 603–617

2015
[27]

Constrained optimization and Lagrange multiplier methods

Bertsekas, D.P. Constrained optimization and Lagrange multiplier methods. Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Boston: Academic Press, 1982 1982, 1

1982
[28]

The augmented lagrange multiplier method for exact recovery of corrupted low-rank matrices

Lin, Z.; Chen, M.; Ma, Y. The augmented lagrange multiplier method for exact recovery of corrupted low-rank matrices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1009.5055 2010

2010 arXiv
[29]

A benchmark dataset for outdoor foreground/background extraction

Vacavant, A.; Chateau, T.; Wilhelm, A.; Lequièvre, L. A benchmark dataset for outdoor foreground/background extraction. Asian Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2012, pp. 291–300

2012
[30]

Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

Wang, Z.; Bovik, A.C.; Sheikh, H.R.; Simoncelli, E.P. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing 2004, 13, 600–612

2004
[31]

A public turbulence database cluster and applications to study Lagrangian evolution of velocity increments in turbulence

Li, Y.; Perlman, E.; Wan, M.; Yang, Y.; Meneveau, C.; Burns, R.; Chen, S.; Szalay, A.; Eyink, G. A public turbulence database cluster and applications to study Lagrangian evolution of velocity increments in turbulence. Journal of Turbulence 2008, p. N31

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [10]

POD-based background removal for particle image velocimetry

Mendez, M.; Raiola, M.; Masullo, A.; Discetti, S.; Ianiro, A.; Theunissen, R.; Buchlin, J.M. POD-based background removal for particle image velocimetry. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 2017, 80, 181–192

work page 2017

[2] [1]

Particle image velocimetry: new developments and recent applications; Vol

Schröder, A.; Willert, C.E. Particle image velocimetry: new developments and recent applications; Vol. 112, Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

work page 2008

[3] [2]

Particle image velocimetry; Number 30, Cambridge University Press, 2011

Adrian, R.J.;Westerweel, J. Particle image velocimetry; Number 30, Cambridge University Press, 2011

work page 2011

[4] [3]

Particle image velocimetry: a practical guide; Springer, 2013

Raffel, M.; Willert, C.E.; Wereley, S.; Kompenhans, J. Particle image velocimetry: a practical guide; Springer, 2013

work page 2013

[5] [4]

Dual- plane PIV technique to determine the complete velocity gradient tensor in a turbulent boundary layer

Ganapathisubramani, B.; Longmire, E.K.; Marusic, I.; Pothos, S. Dual- plane PIV technique to determine the complete velocity gradient tensor in a turbulent boundary layer. Experiments in Fluids 2005, 39, 222–231

work page 2005

[6] [5]

Fundamentals of multiple plane stereo particle image velocimetry

Kähler, C.J.; Kompenhans, J. Fundamentals of multiple plane stereo particle image velocimetry. Experiments in Fluids 2000, 29, S070–S077

work page 2000

[7] [6]

Tomographic particle image velocimetry

Elsinga, G.E.; Scarano, F.; Wieneke, B.; van Oudheusden, B.W. Tomographic particle image velocimetry. Experiments in fluids 2006, 41, 933–947

work page 2006

[8] [7]

Tomographic PIV: principles and practice

Scarano, F. Tomographic PIV: principles and practice. Measurement Science and Technology 2012, 24, 012001

work page 2012