Face verification remains a challenging problem in very complex conditions with large variations such as pose, illumination, expression, and occlusions. This problem is exacerbated when we rely unrealistically on a single training data source, which is often insufficient to cover the intrinsically complex face variations. This paper proposes a principled multi-task learning approach based on Discriminative Gaussian Process Latent Variable Model, named GaussianFace, to enrich the diversity of training data. In comparison to existing methods, our model exploits additional data from multiple source-domains to improve the generalization performance of face verification in an unknown target-domain. Importantly, our model can adapt automatically to complex data distributions, and therefore can well capture complex face variations inherent in multiple sources. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model in learning from diverse data sources and generalize to unseen domain. Specifically, the accuracy of our algorithm achieves an impressive accuracy rate of 98.52 on the well-known and challenging Labeled Faces in the Wild (LFW) benchmark. For the first time, the human-level performance in face verification (97.53 ) on LFW is surpassed.
Since 2005, human and computer performance has been systematically compared as part of face recognition competitions, with results being reported for both still and video imagery. The key results from these competitions are reviewed. To analyze performance across studies, the cross-modal performance analysis (CMPA) framework is introduced. The CMPA framework is applied to experiments that were part of face a recognition competition. The analysis shows that for matching frontal faces in still images, algorithms are consistently superior to humans. For video and difficult still face pairs, humans are superior. Finally, based on the CMPA framework and a face performance index, we outline a challenge problem for developing algorithms that are superior to humans for the general face recognition problem. The paper reviews the characteristics of human face recognition that should be reflected in any psychologically plausible computational model of face recognition. We then summarise recent results which compare aspects of human face perception and memory with the performance of two computer models which each claim some degree of biological plausibility. We show how the performance of each is correlated with human performance on the same images, but that each explains rather different aspects of human performance with these faces. We conclude with a discussion of the coding of image sequences by humans and computers. Automatic retrieval of face images from police mug-shot databases is critically important for law enforcement agencies. It can effectively help investigators to locate or narrow down potential suspects. However, in many cases, a photo image of a suspect is not available and the best substitute is often a sketch drawing based on the recollection of an eyewitness. We present a novel photo retrieval system using face sketches. By transforming a photo image into a sketch, we reduce the difference between photo and sketch significantly, thus allowing effective matching between the two. Experiments over a data set containing 188 people clearly demonstrate the efficacy of the algorithm. Face recognition technologies have seen dramatic improvements in performance over the past decade, and such systems are now widely used for security and commercial applications. Since recognizing faces is a task that humans are understood to be very good at, it is common to want to compare automatic face recognition (AFR) and human face recognition (HFR) in terms of biometric performance. This paper addresses this question by: 1) conducting verification tests on volunteers (HFR) and commercial AFR systems and 2) developing statistical methods to support comparison of the performance of different biometric systems. HFR was tested by presenting face-image pairs and asking subjects to classify them on a scale of ldquoSame,rdquo ldquoProbably Same,rdquo ldquoNot sure,rdquo ldquoProbably Different,rdquo and ldquoDifferentrdquo; the same image pairs were presented to AFR systems, and the biometric match score was measured. To evaluate these results, two new statistical evaluation techniques are developed. The first is a new way to normalize match-score distributions, where a normalized match score is calculated as a function of the angle from a representation of [false match rate, false nonmatch rate] values in polar coordinates from some center. Using this normalization, we develop a second methodology to calculate an average detection error tradeoff (DET) curve and show that this method is equivalent to direct averaging of DET data along each angle from the center. This procedure is then applied to compare the performance of the best AFR algorithms available to us in the years 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2006, in comparison to human scores. Results show that algorithms have dramatically improved in performance over that time. In comparison to the performance of the best AFR system of 2006, 29.2 of human subjects performed better, while 37.5 performed worse. There has been significant progress in improving the performance of computer-based face recognition algorithms over the last decade. Although algorithms have been tested and compared extensively with each other, there has been remarkably little work comparing the accuracy of computer-based face recognition systems with humans. We compared seven state-of-the-art face recognition algorithms with humans on a face-matching task. Humans and algorithms determined whether pairs of face images, taken under different illumination conditions, were pictures of the same person or of different people. Three algorithms surpassed human performance matching face pairs prescreened to be "difficult" and six algorithms surpassed humans on "easy" face pairs. Although illumination variation continues to challenge face recognition algorithms, current algorithms compete favorably with humans. The superior performance of the best algorithms over humans, in light of the absolute performance levels of the algorithms, underscores the need to compare algorithms with the best current control-humans. We compared face identification by humans and machines using images taken under a variety of uncontrolled illumination conditions in both indoor and outdoor settings. Natural variations in a person's day-to-day appearance (e.g., hair style, facial expression, hats, glasses, etc.) contributed to the difficulty of the task. Both humans and machines matched the identity of people (same or different) in pairs of frontal view face images. The degree of difficulty introduced by photometric and appearance-based variability was estimated using a face recognition algorithm created by fusing three top-performing algorithms from a recent international competition. The algorithm computed similarity scores for a constant set of same-identity and different-identity pairings from multiple images. Image pairs were assigned to good, moderate, and poor accuracy groups by ranking the similarity scores for each identity pairing, and dividing these rankings into three strata. This procedure isolated the role of photometric variables from the effects of the distinctiveness of particular identities. Algorithm performance for these constant identity pairings varied dramatically across the groups. In a series of experiments, humans matched image pairs from the good, moderate, and poor conditions, rating the likelihood that the images were of the same person (1: sure same - 5: sure different). Algorithms were more accurate than humans in the good and moderate conditions, but were comparable to humans in the poor accuracy condition. To date, these are the most variable illumination- and appearance-based recognition conditions on which humans and machines have been compared. The finding that machines were never less accurate than humans on these challenging frontal images suggests that face recognition systems may be ready for applications with comparable difficulty. We speculate that the superiority of algorithms over humans in the less challenging conditions may be due to the algorithms' use of detailed, view-specific identity information. Humans may consider this information less important due to its limited potential for robust generalization in suboptimal viewing conditions.