PreprintCited by 16Gait Recognition and AnalysisBiometric Identification and SecurityFace recognition and analysis

Robust Cross-View Gait Recognition with Evidence: A Discriminant Gait GAN (DiGGAN) Approach

Open access
Hu, BingZhang, Guan, Yu, Gao, Yan, Long, Yang, Lane, Nicholas, Ploetz, Thomas·2018·arXiv

Abstract

Gait as a biometric trait has attracted much attention in many security and privacy applications such as identity recognition and authentication, during the last few decades. Because of its nature as a long-distance biometric trait, gait can be easily collected and used to identify individuals non-intrusively through CCTV cameras. However, it is very difficult to develop robust automated gait recognition systems, since gait may be affected by many covariate factors such as clothing, walking speed, camera view angle etc. Out of them, large view angle changes has been deemed as the most challenging factor as it can alter the overall gait appearance substantially. Existing works on gait recognition are far from enough to provide satisfying performances because of such view changes. Furthermore, very few works have considered evidences -- the demonstrable information revealing the reliabilities of decisions, which are regarded as important demands in machine learning-based recognition/authentication applications. To address these issues, in this paper we propose a Discriminant Gait Generative Adversarial Network, namely DiGGAN, which can effectively extract view-invariant features for cross-view gait recognition; and more importantly, to transfer gait images to different views -- serving as evidences and showing how the decisions have been made. Quantitative experiments have been conducted on the two most popular cross-view gait datasets, the OU-MVLP and CASIA-B, where the proposed DiGGAN has outperformed state-of-the-art methods. Qualitative analysis has also been provided and demonstrates the proposed DiGGAN's capability in providing evidences.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1811.10493

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • DiGGAN obtained state-of-the-art results over the largest multiview gait dataset (OU-MVLP, >10,000 people) using cross-view approaches.

    “An example of the approach can be observed in the UK's Newcastle University cross-view gait recognition system, the so-called DiGGAN, which obtained state-of-the-art results over the largest multiview gait dataset in the world [99] (comprising more than 10 , 000 people) using cross-view approaches [35].”

    From Gait Recognition Based on Deep Learning: A Survey (2023) · cites this paper as [35]

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

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [6][6] Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. In NIPS . 2672-2680. -
  2. [9][9] Ishaan Gulrajani, Faruk Ahmed, Martin Arjovsky, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron C Courville. 2017. Improved training of wasserstein gans. In NIPS . 5767-5777. -
  3. [13][13] Maodi Hu, Yunhong Wang, Zhaoxiang Zhang, James J Little, and Di Huang. 2013. View-invariant discriminative projection for multi-view gait-based human identification. IEEE TIFS 8, 12 (2013), 2034-2045. -
  4. [27][27] Alec Radford, Luke Metz, and Soumith Chintala. 2015. Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks. arXiv (2015). -
  5. [37][37] Zifeng Wu, Yongzhen Huang, Liang Wang, Xiaogang Wang, and Tieniu Tan. 2017. A comprehensive study on cross-view gait based human identification with deep cnns. IEEE TPAMI 2 (2017), 209-226. -
  6. [42][42] Shiqi Yu, Daoliang Tan, and Tieniu Tan. 2006. A framework for evaluating the effect of view angle, clothing and carrying condition on gait recognition. In ICPR , Vol. 4. IEEE, 441-444. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hu, B., Guan, Y., Gao, Y., Long, Y., Lane, N., & Ploetz, T.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3085924585
Cited by
16
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Biometric Identification and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
Keywords
cross-view gait recognition, gait biometrics, view-invariant features, generative adversarial networks, identity verification

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