2015
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-23234-8_50
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Classification-Selection Approach for Self Updating of Face Verification Systems Under Stringent Storage and Computational Requirements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First of all, we implemented standard facial recognition as a sort of "ground truth", since our main claim is to clarify to what extent self update approaches are helpful over top-performing deep-learning based face recognition. In particular, we tested the "traditional" self-update system [30], the classification-selection method based on risk minimization [31] and two methods of classification-selection with limited number of templates per user, based on K-means [32] and on the semi-supervised application of RANDOM editing methods just to verify if the selection performed by the two methods above is significant or not. In fact, it is possible to categorize biometric adaptive systems into two categories:…”
Section: Adaptive Methods For Template Updatementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…First of all, we implemented standard facial recognition as a sort of "ground truth", since our main claim is to clarify to what extent self update approaches are helpful over top-performing deep-learning based face recognition. In particular, we tested the "traditional" self-update system [30], the classification-selection method based on risk minimization [31] and two methods of classification-selection with limited number of templates per user, based on K-means [32] and on the semi-supervised application of RANDOM editing methods just to verify if the selection performed by the two methods above is significant or not. In fact, it is possible to categorize biometric adaptive systems into two categories:…”
Section: Adaptive Methods For Template Updatementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, Rattani et al introduced a classification/selection system based on harmonic functions and a risk minimization technique [31]. In [32] the authors present a method that keeps the number of templates constant at each iteration by setting the maximum number of images per user, namely, p, in the selection phase. This is obtained by deriving the centroid of the samples of a given subject through the K-means algorithm, and then selecting the p closest samples to that centroid.…”
Section: Adaptive Methods For Template Updatementioning
confidence: 99%
“…We extract four frames from each video, and rotate and scale face images to have eyes in the same positions. We use the same matcher described in [42]. It accounts for illumination variations as in [43], and then computes a BSIF descriptor [44].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These reasons explain why, to the best of our knowledge, no self-update algorithms have been implemented and integrated yet in real face verification applications. Therefore, in this paper, as follow-up of [13], we faced with the self-update problem by considering a very small number of templates per client. Besides the advantage of meeting eventual and stringent hardware requirements of mobile devices, the limited number of templates may also reduce the probability of introducing impostors into the users' gallery.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With regard to our previous work [13], we updated and increased the evidence reported in that early publication by: (1) clearly explaining the rationale behind our approach, that was only drafted in that early publication; (2) proposing two more algorithms; (3) performing a large set of experiments which simulate conditions near and far from the system's working hypothesis. This allowed to clarify when the proposed methods can work and when not; (4) comparing our algorithms' performance with that of other existing self-updating approaches [9,12,14], in order to assess their possible advantages and drawbacks with respect to the state of the art.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%