The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quality labeled faces in the wild (QLFW): a database for studying face recognition in real-world environments
Abstract
The varying quality of face images is an important challenge that limits the effectiveness of face recognition technology when applied in real-world applications. Existing face image databases do not consider the effect of distortions that commonly occur in real-world environments. This database (QLFW) represents an initial attempt to provide a set of labeled face images spanning the wide range of quality, from no perceived impairment to strong perceived impairment for face detection and face recognition applications. Types of impairment include JPEG2000 compression, JPEG compression, additive white noise, Gaussian blur and contrast change. Subjective experiments are conducted to assess the perceived visual quality of faces under different levels and types of distortions and also to assess the human recognition performance under the considered distortions. One goal of this work is to enable automated performance evaluation of face recognition technologies in the presence of different types and levels of visual distortions. This will consequently enable the development of face recognition systems that can operate reliably on real-world visual content in the presence of real-world visual distortions. Another goal is to enable the development and assessment of visual quality metrics for face images and for face detection and recognition applications.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Population homogeneity can be problematic for classification schemes, since high prevalence of a feature classification in a given population could result in an overlapping score, leading to erroneous false positive matches.
“Population homogeneity, however, can be problematic for classification schemes, since high prevalence of a feature classification in a given population could result in an overlapping score, leading to erroneous false positive matches [60].”
From Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [60]
Citations
Cites
Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity
Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2003.819861 · Cited by 57,892
Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment
Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E. P., & Bovik, A. C. (2004) · The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2003.1292216 · Cited by 6,253
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- D. S. Taubman and M. W. Marcellin, JPEG2000 : image compression fundamentals, standards, and practice, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2002. · DOI
- 10.1109/83.841940 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIP.2005.859389 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding how image quality affects deep neural networks
Dodge, S., & Karam, L. (2016) · 2016 Eighth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) · doi:10.1109/qomex.2016.7498955 · Cited by 835
Self-citationA Comprehensive Review on Secure Biometric-Based Continuous Authentication and User Profiling
Ayeswarya, S., & Singh, K. J. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3411783 · Cited by 66
Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions
Bacci, N., Davimes, J. G., Steyn, M., & Briers, N. (2021) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology10121269 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Karam, L. J., & Zhu, T.
- Venue
- SPIE Proceedings
- Publisher
- SPIE
- Published
- 2015-03-17
- Volume
- 9394
- Pages
- 93940B
- ISSN
- 0277-786X
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 2
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