Facial emotion recognition is an inherently complex problem due to individual diversity in facial features and racial and cultural differences. Moreover, facial expressions typically reflect the mixture of people’s emotional statuses, which can be expressed using compound emotions. Compound facial emotion recognition makes the problem even more difficult because the discrimination between dominant and complementary emotions is usually weak. We have created a database that includes 31,250 facial images with different emotions of 115 subjects whose gender distribution is almost uniform to address compound emotion recognition. In addition, we have organized a competition based on the proposed dataset, held at FG workshop 2020. This paper analyzes the winner’s approach—a two-stage recognition method (1st stage, coarse recognition; 2nd stage, fine recognition), which enhances the classification of symmetrical emotion labels.

Changes in the ungulate population density in the wild has impacts on both the wildlife and human society. In order to control the ungulate population movement, monitoring systems such as camera trap networks have been implemented in a non-invasive setup. However, such systems produce a large number of images as the output, hence making it very resource consuming to manually detect the animals. In this paper, we present a new dataset of wild ungulates which was collected in Latvia. Moreover, we demonstrate two methods, which use RetinaNet and Faster R-CNN as backbones, respectively, to detect the animals in the images. We discuss the optimization of training and impact of data augmentation on the performance. Finally, we show the result of aforementioned tune networks over the real world data collected in Latvia.

No abstract

Facial expression recognition using deep neural networks has become very popular due to their successful performances. However, the datasets used during the development and testing of these methods lack a balanced distribution of races among the sample images. This leaves a possibility of the methods being biased toward certain races. Therefore, a concern about fairness arises, and the lack of research aimed at investigating racial bias only increases the concern. On the other hand, such bias in the method would decrease the real-world performance due to the wrong generalization. For these reasons, in this study, we investigated the racial bias within popular state-of-the-art facial expression recognition methods such as Deep Emotion, Self-Cure Network, ResNet50, InceptionV3, and DenseNet121. We compiled an elaborated dataset with images of different races, cross-checked the bias for methods trained, and tested on images of people of other races. We observed that the methods are inclined towards the races included in the training data. Moreover, an increase in the performance increases the bias as well if the training dataset is imbalanced. Some methods can make up for the bias if enough variance is provided in the training set. However, this does not mitigate the bias completely. Our findings suggest that an unbiased performance can be obtained by adding the missing races into the training data equally. KeywordsFacial expression recognition (FER) • Deep neural networks • Reaction emotion • LSTM Abdallah Hussein Sham and Kadir Aktas are both equally led this work.Our thanks to Pexels API for granting us the rights for the data collection of the database.

One of the main challenges in the current pandemic is the detection of coronavirus. Conventional techniques (PT-PCR) have their limitations such as long response time and limited accessibility. On the other hand, X-ray machines are widely available and they are already digitized in the health systems. Thus, their usage is faster and more available. Therefore, in this research, we evaluate how well deep CNNs do when it comes to classifying normal versus pathological chest X-rays. Compared to the previous research, we trained our network on the largest number of images, 103,468 in total, including 5 classes such as COPD signs, COVID, normal, others and Pneumonia. We achieved COVID accuracy of 97% and overall accuracy of 81%. Additionally, we achieved classification accuracy of 84% for categorization into normal (78%) and abnormal (88%).