2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 2013
DOI: 10.1109/smc.2013.210
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Local Difference of Gaussian Binary Pattern: Robust Features for Face Sketch Recognition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, since the projection procedure reduces the discriminability, it degrades the performance of HFR methods. The modality invariant feature descriptor based methods [1], [3], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] first represent face images by extracting modality invariant features which are then measured for matching. Yet most of these methods extract feature descriptors ignoring the facial spatial information and thus these methods have limited discriminability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, since the projection procedure reduces the discriminability, it degrades the performance of HFR methods. The modality invariant feature descriptor based methods [1], [3], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] first represent face images by extracting modality invariant features which are then measured for matching. Yet most of these methods extract feature descriptors ignoring the facial spatial information and thus these methods have limited discriminability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The comparison was made between CCA Fusion (our baseline) and CCA Fusion with D-DoGoGH on PoI matching methods. This is because the CCA Fusion matching method has outperformed the state-of-the-art methods (e.g., MCCA [68], CITE [29], LRBP [17], LDoGBP [69], and C-DoGOGH [44]) and thus be the baseline for the improved matching method (i.e., CCA Fusion with D-DoGoGH on PoI). From Table 2, the results demonstrate that the accuracy improvement for viewed sketch is not significant in comparison with the semi forensic and forensic sketch.…”
Section: B Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accuracy Method Accuracy TFSPS [4] 72.62% PLS [11] 51% MvDA [7] 55.50% LRBP [13] 91.12% LDoGBP [29] 91.04% G-HFR 96.04%…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%