2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-01264-9_36
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Deeply-Initialized Coarse-to-fine Ensemble of Regression Trees for Face Alignment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
69
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 92 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
69
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We can observe that simple "MobileFAN" performs better than the state-of-the-art SAN [4], but the number of model parameters of "MobileFAN" is 28× smaller than that of SAN (we can see form TABLE 5). Although "MobileFAN + KD" does not outperform DCFE [29], it achieves comparable results to LAB [30] with extra boundary information on 300W Full set and Common subset. Using the knowledge distillation, our two full models are better than their corresponding baselines.…”
Section: Comparison With State-of-the-art Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…We can observe that simple "MobileFAN" performs better than the state-of-the-art SAN [4], but the number of model parameters of "MobileFAN" is 28× smaller than that of SAN (we can see form TABLE 5). Although "MobileFAN + KD" does not outperform DCFE [29], it achieves comparable results to LAB [30] with extra boundary information on 300W Full set and Common subset. Using the knowledge distillation, our two full models are better than their corresponding baselines.…”
Section: Comparison With State-of-the-art Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…However, both the two methods rely on the Hourglass, resulting in introducing a large number of parameters. Valle et al [29] used a simple CNN to generate heatmaps of landmark locations for a better initialization to Ensemble of Regression Trees (ERT) regressor.…”
Section: Facial Landmark Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…All faces are annotated by up to 21 landmarks per image, while the occluded landmarks were not labeled. For fair comparison with other methods we adopt the protocol from [76], which provides revised annotations with 19 [75] 3.92 2.68 CCL CVPR 16 [77] 2.72 2.17 TSR CVPR 17 [41] 2.17 -DAC-OSR CVPR 17 [19] 2.27 1.81 DCFE ECCV 18 [59] 2.17 -CPM+SBR CVPR 18 [15] 2.14 -SAN CVPR 18 [14] 1.91 1.85 DSRN CVPR 18 [46] 1.86 -LAB CVPR 18 [62] 1.85 1.62 Wing CVPR 18 [18] 1.65 -RCN + (L+ELT+A)CVPR 18 [26]…”
Section: Evaluation On Aflwmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The error (NME) is normalized by the face bounding box size. Method AFLW-Full (%) LBF [20] 4.25 CFSS [32] 3.92 CCL (CVPR16) [33] 2.72 TSR (CVPR17) [13] 2.17 DCFE (ECCV18) [25] 2.17 SBR (CVPR18) [6] 2.14 DSRN (CVPR18) [16] 1.86 Wing (CVPR18) [7] 1.65 HGs 1.95 HGs + SA 1.62 HGs + SA + GHCU 1.60 GHCU considers the global face shape as constraint, being robust to such challenging factors.…”
Section: Comparison Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%