2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2015
DOI: 10.1109/cvpr.2015.7299134
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Face alignment by coarse-to-fine shape searching

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 134 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is evident from the experimental results that the improved PFLD network designed in this paper has a certain degree of improvement in accuracy over the current mainstream methods for recognizing facial landmarks with different test sets. LBF [9] 4.95 11.98 6.32 CFSS [10] 4.73 9.98 5.76 MDM [11] 4.83 10.14 5.88 Two-Stage [12] 4.36 7. In summary, it can be seen that the method in this paper has obvious advantages over the current mainstream facial landmark detection accuracy and is more suitable for the needs of facial landmark detection tasks.…”
Section: Experimental Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is evident from the experimental results that the improved PFLD network designed in this paper has a certain degree of improvement in accuracy over the current mainstream methods for recognizing facial landmarks with different test sets. LBF [9] 4.95 11.98 6.32 CFSS [10] 4.73 9.98 5.76 MDM [11] 4.83 10.14 5.88 Two-Stage [12] 4.36 7. In summary, it can be seen that the method in this paper has obvious advantages over the current mainstream facial landmark detection accuracy and is more suitable for the needs of facial landmark detection tasks.…”
Section: Experimental Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Setting AUC FR M 3 CSR [43] FSL (100%) 47.52 5.50 CFSS [42] 49.87 5.05 DenseReg+MDM [44] 52.19 3.67 JMFA [45] 54.85 1.00 LAB [19] 58.85 0.83 3FabRec [6] 54.61 0.17 HybridMatch (ours) SSL (20%) 60.56 0.17 To investigate the effectiveness of our HybridMatch, we compare the proposed method with other fully-supervised models using FR and AUC metrics. We evaluate the methods on the 300-W testset.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We use Inter-ocular norm for 300-W and WFLW datasets, which defines L as the outereye-corner distance for quantitative evaluations as following [6,7]. For AFLW, we define L as the width of the square bounding-box following Zhu et al [42].…”
Section: ) Nmementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zhu et al [52] 8.16 DRMF [53] 6.70 ESR [11] 5.70 RCPR [43] 5.93 SDM [5] 5.50 GN-DPM [54] 5.69 CFAN [25] 5.53 CFSS [51] 4.63 CFSS Practical [51] 4.72 TCDCN [55] 4.60 Ours 3.11…”
Section: Methods 68 Ptsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our proposed method substantially reduced the mean error rate. The second-best mean error rate in the table is the CFSS [51] method, which has a mean error of 4.87%. Our method is considerably superior with an error rate of only 3.52%.…”
Section: Comparison With Lfpw Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%