Cited by 336Emotion and Mood RecognitionFace recognition and analysisFace and Expression Recognition

Emotion Recognition in the Wild via Convolutional Neural Networks and Mapped Binary Patterns

Levi, Gil, Hassner, Tal·2015·Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction

Abstract

We present a novel method for classifying emotions from static facial images. Our approach leverages on the recent success of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) on face recognition problems. Unlike the settings often assumed there, far less labeled data is typically available for training emotion classification systems. Our method is therefore designed with the goal of simplifying the problem domain by removing confounding factors from the input images, with an emphasis on image illumination variations. This, in an effort to reduce the amount of data required to effectively train deep CNN models. To this end, we propose novel transformations of image intensities to 3D spaces, designed to be invariant to monotonic photometric transformations. These are applied to CASIA Webface images which are then used to train an ensemble of multiple architecture CNNs on multiple representations. Each model is then fine-tuned with limited emotion labeled training data to obtain final classification models. Our method was tested on the Emotion Recognition in the Wild Challenge (EmotiW 2015), Static Facial Expression Recognition sub-challenge (SFEW) and shown to provide a substantial, 15.36% improvement over baseline results (40% gain in performance).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2818346.2830587

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Studies running experiments on data augmentation report accuracy improvements (e.g., from 79% to 89% in [87]).

    “Studies running experiments on this technique report accuracy improvements (e.g., from 79% to 89% in [87]; see also [74], [94]).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levi, G., & Hassner, T.
Affiliations
  • Open University of Israel (IL)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-11-09
Pages
503-510
OpenAlex
W2251198138
Cited by
336
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1
FWCI
44.50
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION (publishedVersion)
Funders
IARPA (2014-14071600010)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face and Expression Recognition
Keywords
emotion recognition, facial expression recognition, static facial images, convolutional neural networks, illumination invariance, photometric transformations, CASIA-WebFace

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