Cited by 73Face recognition and analysisAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFace Recognition and Perception

Semantic Alignment: Finding Semantically Consistent Ground-Truth for Facial Landmark Detection

Open access
Liu, Zhiwei, Zhu, Xiangyu, Hu, Guosheng, Guo, Haiyun, Tang, Ming, Lei, Zhen, Robertson, Neil M., Wang, Jinqiao·2019·2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

Recently, deep learning based facial landmark detection has achieved great success. Despite this, we notice that the semantic ambiguity greatly degrades the detection performance. Specifically, the semantic ambiguity means that some landmarks (e.g. those evenly distributed along the face contour) do not have clear and accurate definition, causing inconsistent annotations by annotators. Accordingly, these inconsistent annotations, which are usually provided by public databases, commonly work as the ground-truth to supervise network training, leading to the degraded accuracy. To our knowledge, little research has investigated this problem. In this paper, we propose a novel probabilistic model which introduces a latent variable, i.e. the `real' ground-truth which is semantically consistent, to optimize. This framework couples two parts (1) training landmark detection CNN and (2) searching the `real' ground-truth. These two parts are alternatively optimized: the searched `real' ground-truth supervises the CNN training; and the trained CNN assists the searching of `real' ground-truth. In addition, to recover the unconfidently predicted landmarks due to occlusion and low quality, we propose a global heatmap correction unit (GHCU) to correct outliers by considering the global face shape as a constraint. Extensive experiments on both image-based (300W and AFLW) and video-based (300-VW) databases demonstrate that our method effectively improves the landmark detection accuracy and achieves the state of the art performance.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2019.00358

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. K. Messer, J. Matas, J. Kittler, and K. Jonsson. Xm2vts: the extended m2vts database. In Proc. Second International Conference on Audio-and Video-Based Biometric Person Authentication, pages 72-77, 2000.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, Z., Zhu, X., Hu, G., Guo, H., Tang, M., Lei, Z., Robertson, N. M., & Wang, J.
Affiliations
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
Venue
2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-06
Pages
3462-3471
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2962708168
Cited by
73
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5
FWCI
4.40
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
facial landmark detection, semantic ambiguity, probabilistic models, latent variables, semantic consistency, occlusion handling, AFLW

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