2017
DOI: 10.1049/iet-bmt.2017.0083
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strengths and weaknesses of deep learning models for face recognition against image degradations

Abstract: Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) based approaches are the state-of-the-art in various computer vision tasks, including face recognition. Considerable research effort is currently being directed towards further improving deep CNNs by focusing on more powerful model architectures and better learning techniques. However, studies systematically exploring the strengths and weaknesses of existing deep models for face recognition are still relatively scarce in the literature. In this paper, we try to fill th… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
114
0
4

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 191 publications
(119 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
114
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The recognition models converge to the rank one recognition rate of 0.5138 (0.2974 † ) with 48 × 48px images, 0.7215 (0.4266 † ) with 96 × 96px images and 0.8569 (0.5713 † ) with 192×192px residual images on the training ( † validation) data. As expected, the performance decreases with a decreasing size of the residual images and is adversely affected by the lack of low-frequency information during training (see, e.g., [56] for the expected performance of SqueezeNet for face recognition). Nevertheless, the models contribute towards accurate and visually convincing SR results, as evidenced by the results in the next sections.…”
Section: Datasets and Model Trainingsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…The recognition models converge to the rank one recognition rate of 0.5138 (0.2974 † ) with 48 × 48px images, 0.7215 (0.4266 † ) with 96 × 96px images and 0.8569 (0.5713 † ) with 192×192px residual images on the training ( † validation) data. As expected, the performance decreases with a decreasing size of the residual images and is adversely affected by the lack of low-frequency information during training (see, e.g., [56] for the expected performance of SqueezeNet for face recognition). Nevertheless, the models contribute towards accurate and visually convincing SR results, as evidenced by the results in the next sections.…”
Section: Datasets and Model Trainingsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…Specifically, we include four recent state-of-the-art deep models in the experiments, i.e., AlexNet [ 59 ], VGG-Face [ 60 ], InceptionV3 [ 61 ] and SqueezeNet [ 62 ], and two techniques based on dense image descriptors, i.e., LBP (Local Binary Patterns) [ 63 ] and POEM (Patterns of Oriented Edge Magnitudes) [ 64 ]. We use pretrained publicly available deep models from [ 65 ] ) and the descriptor-based techniques from the AWE MATLAB toolbox [ 66 ] ) for our experiments. With all recognition methods, we simply extract features using the publicly available code and then use the computed feature vectors with the cosine similarity for recognition.…”
Section: Experiments and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, after its creation, CNN's most powerful were presented, and at a specific instant, the creation of these powerful architectures stagnated. CNN's main problem is the large number of data to carry out the training process [9]. From this, techniques were proposed with the use of CNN's without performing all the training of the network.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%