Cited by 657Emotion and Mood RecognitionFace recognition and analysisDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Deep Learning for Emotion Recognition on Small Datasets using Transfer Learning

Ng, Hong-Wei, Nguyen, Viet Dung, Vonikakis, Vassilios, Winkler, Stefan·2015·Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction

Abstract

This paper presents the techniques employed in our team's submissions to the 2015 Emotion Recognition in the Wild contest, for the sub-challenge of Static Facial Expression Recognition in the Wild. The objective of this sub-challenge is to classify the emotions expressed by the primary human subject in static images extracted from movies. We follow a transfer learning approach for deep Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architectures. Starting from a network pre-trained on the generic ImageNet dataset, we perform supervised fine-tuning on the network in a two-stage process, first on datasets relevant to facial expressions, followed by the contest's dataset. Experimental results show that this cascading fine-tuning approach achieves better results, compared to a single stage fine-tuning with the combined datasets. Our best submission exhibited an overall accuracy of 48.5% in the validation set and 55.6% in the test set, which compares favorably to the respective 35.96% and 39.13% of the challenge baseline.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2818346.2830593

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • Since the number of labeled examples for FER remains relatively limited, large models are likely to overfit the data.

    “Since the number of labeled examples for FER remains relatively limited, large 11 models are likely to overfit the data [106], [107], [89], [108].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ng, H.-W., Nguyen, V. D., Vonikakis, V., & Winkler, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Singapore), Singapore, Singapore
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-11-09
Pages
443-449
OpenAlex
W2253728219
Cited by
657
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 106 · 2019: 106 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 1
FWCI
53.84
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Science Technology and Research
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 › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
emotion recognition, facial expression recognition, still images, transfer learning, convolutional neural networks, fine-tuning, ImageNet pre-training, small datasets

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