The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How far can you get with a modern face recognition test set using only simple features?
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, large databases of natural images have become increasingly popular in the evaluation of face and object recognition algorithms. However, Pinto et al. previously illustrated an inherent danger in using such sets, showing that an extremely basic recognition system, built on a trivial feature set, was able to take advantage of low-level regularities in popular object and face recognition sets, performing on par with many state-of-the-art systems. Recently, several groups have raised the performance “bar” for these sets, using more advanced classification tools. However, it is difficult to know whether these improvements are due to progress towards solving the core computational problem, or are due to further improvements in the exploitation of low-level regularities. Here, we show that even modest optimization of the simple model introduced by Pinto et al. using modern multiple kernel learning (MKL) techniques once again yields “state-of-the-art” performance levels on a standard face recognition set (“labeled faces in the wild”). However, at the same time, even with the inclusion of MKL techniques, systems based on these simple features still fail on a synthetic face recognition test that includes more “realistic” view variation by design. These results underscore the importance of building test sets focussed on capturing the central computational challenges of real-world face recognition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Multiple kernel learning, conic duality, and the SMO algorithm
Bach, F. R., Lanckriet, G. R. G., & Jordan, M. I. (2004) · Twenty-first international conference on Machine learning - ICML '04 · doi:10.1145/1015330.1015424 · Cited by 1,453
Learning methods for generic object recognition with invariance to pose and lighting
LeCun, Y., Huang, F. J., & Bottou, L. (2004) · Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2004. CVPR 2004. · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2004.1315150 · Cited by 1,324
Cited by
How does the brain solve visual object recognition?
DiCarlo, J. J., Zoccolan, D., & Rust, N. C. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.01.010 · Cited by 1,790
Self-citationScheirer, W. J., de Rezende Rocha, A., Sapkota, A., & Boult, T. E. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2012.256 · Cited by 1,573
Describable Visual Attributes for Face Verification and Image Search
Kumar, N., Berg, A., Belhumeur, P. N., & Nayar, S. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2011.48 · Cited by 434
Partial Face Recognition: Alignment-Free Approach
Liao, S., Jain, A. K., & Li, S. Z. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2012.191 · Cited by 313
Similarity Scores Based on Background Samples
Wolf, L., Hassner, T., & Taigman, Y. (2010) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12304-7_9 · Cited by 279
Metadata
- Authors
- Pinto, N., DiCarlo, J. J., & Cox, D. D.
- Venue
- 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2009-06
- Pages
- 2591-2598
- ISSN
- 1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2165052637
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.35
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How far can you get with a modern face recognition test set using only simple features? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206605
- The paper
- Pinto, N., DiCarlo, J. J., & Cox, D. D. (2009). How far can you get with a modern face recognition test set using only simple features? 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. https://doi.org/10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206605
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.