Cited by 218Emotion and Mood RecognitionFace recognition and analysisFace and Expression Recognition

From individual to group-level emotion recognition: EmotiW 5.0

Open access
Dhall, Abhinav, Goecke, Roland, Ghosh, Shreya, Joshi, Jyoti, Hoey, Jesse, Gedeon, Tom·2017·Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction

Abstract

Research in automatic affect recognition has come a long way. This paper describes the fifth Emotion Recognition in the Wild (EmotiW) challenge 2017. EmotiW aims at providing a common benchmarking platform for researchers working on different aspects of affective computing. This year there are two sub-challenges: a) Audio-video emotion recognition and b) group-level emotion recognition. These challenges are based on the acted facial expressions in the wild and group affect databases, respectively. The particular focus of the challenge is to evaluate method in `in the wild' settings. `In the wild' here is used to describe the various environments represented in the images and videos, which represent real-world (not lab like) scenarios. The baseline, data, protocol of the two challenges and the challenge participation are discussed in detail in this paper.

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 · 10.1145/3136755.3143004

Cites

23 of 23 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

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: 2

  1. Abhinav Dhall, Roland Goecke, Jyoti Joshi, Karan Sikka, and Tom Gedeon. 2014. Emotion Recognition In The Wild Challenge 2014: Baseline, Data and Protocol. In Proceedings of the ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI).
  2. Javier Hernandez, Mohammed Ehsan Hoque, Will Drevo, and Rosalind W Picard. 2012. Mood meter: counting smiles in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. 301-310.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dhall, A., Goecke, R., Ghosh, S., Joshi, J., Hoey, J., & Gedeon, T.
Affiliations
  • Indian Institute of Technology Ropar (IN)
  • University of Canberra (AU)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Venue
Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
Publisher
ACM
Published
2017-11-03
Pages
524-528
OpenAlex
W2767348466
Cited by
218
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 13
FWCI
38.12
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
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
affective computing, benchmarking platform, in-the-wild evaluation

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