2020
DOI: 10.1109/access.2020.3010018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pyramid With Super Resolution for In-the-Wild Facial Expression Recognition

Abstract: Facial Expression Recognition (FER) is a challenging task that improves natural humancomputer interaction. This paper focuses on automatic FER on a single in-the-wild (ITW) image. ITW images suffer real problems of pose, direction, and input resolution. In this study, we propose a pyramid with super-resolution (PSR) network architecture to solve the ITW FER task. We also introduce a prior distribution label smoothing (PDLS) loss function that applies the additional prior knowledge of the confusion about each e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
60
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 123 publications
(75 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
(78 reference statements)
1
60
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The accuracy obtained with the DL architecture proposed in this work is in line with the accuracy reported in other scientific publications for both the RAF-DB dataset and the AffectNet dataset. Regarding the RAF-DB dataset, the difference in accuracy with the work that currently reports the highest accuracy is about 2.2%, but in [ 59 ] the accuracy reported for “anger” and “disgust” is lower than the accuracy obtained through the algorithmic pipeline proposed in this paper. On the other hand, the results reported in Table 7 show that the AffectNet dataset is the one containing facial expression images acquired in largely uncontrolled contexts, but even in this case our pipeline achieves a relatively lower accuracy (about 1.8%) compared to the current state of the art.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 64%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The accuracy obtained with the DL architecture proposed in this work is in line with the accuracy reported in other scientific publications for both the RAF-DB dataset and the AffectNet dataset. Regarding the RAF-DB dataset, the difference in accuracy with the work that currently reports the highest accuracy is about 2.2%, but in [ 59 ] the accuracy reported for “anger” and “disgust” is lower than the accuracy obtained through the algorithmic pipeline proposed in this paper. On the other hand, the results reported in Table 7 show that the AffectNet dataset is the one containing facial expression images acquired in largely uncontrolled contexts, but even in this case our pipeline achieves a relatively lower accuracy (about 1.8%) compared to the current state of the art.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…The limit of this dataset, however, is related to the fact that it contains only grey level images. Another important difference to headline is related to the computational cost of our approach with respect to the approach proposed for example in [ 59 ], in which the greater accuracies are reported. In fact, in order to integrate our system on a microcontroller, our pipeline includes deep learning architectures that work even in the absence of GPUs, and this is not the case with the architecture proposed in ref.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In addition, SR methods based on deep learning have also made significant progress in recent years [ 15 , 16 ]. However, the current research on the role of the SR algorithm in recognition is focused on specific fields such as 2D face recognition [ 17 , 18 ]. To the best of our knowledge, no relevant study covers the role of the SR algorithm in range image recognition.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%