PCA vs low resolution images in face verification

Principal components analysis (PCA) has been one of the most applied methods for face verification using only 2D information, in fact, PCA is practically the method of choice for face verification applications in the real-world. An alternative method to reduce the problem dimension is working with low resolution images. In our experiments, three classifiers have been considered to compare the results achieved using PCA versus the results obtained using low resolution images. An initial set of located faces has been used for PCA matrix computation and for training all classifiers. The images belonging to the testing set were chosen to be different from the training ones. Classifiers considered are k-nearest neighbours (KNN), radial basis function (RBF) artificial neural networks, and support vector machine (SVM). Results show that SVM always achieves better results than the other classifiers. With SVM, correct verification difference between PCA and low resolution processing is only 0.13% (99.52% against 99.39%).

[1]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Face recognition using view-based and modular eigenspaces , 1994, Optics & Photonics.

[2]  David J. Kriegman,et al.  Recognition using class specific linear projection , 1997 .

[3]  J AtickJoseph,et al.  Statistical approach to shape from shading , 1996 .

[4]  Lawrence Sirovich,et al.  The global dimensionality of face space , 2000, Proceedings Fourth IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (Cat. No. PR00580).

[5]  David J. Kriegman,et al.  Eigenfaces vs. Fisherfaces: Recognition Using Class Specific Linear Projection , 1996, ECCV.

[6]  J KriegmanDavid,et al.  Eigenfaces vs. Fisherfaces , 1997 .

[7]  Paul A. Griffin,et al.  Statistical Approach to Shape from Shading: Reconstruction of Three-Dimensional Face Surfaces from Single Two-Dimensional Images , 1996, Neural Computation.

[8]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Face detection and modeling for recognition , 2002 .

[9]  J. Bigun Proceedings 12th International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing , 2003, 12th International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing, 2003.Proceedings..

[10]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Making large scale SVM learning practical , 1998 .

[11]  Richard J. Mammone,et al.  Automatic systems for the identification and inspection of humans : 28-29 July 1994, San Diego, California , 1994 .

[12]  Penio S. Penev,et al.  Local feature analysis: A general statistical theory for object representation , 1996 .

[13]  M. Turk,et al.  Eigenfaces for Recognition , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[14]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Probabilistic Visual Learning for Object Representation , 1997, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[15]  Minoru Fukumi,et al.  Rotation-invariant neural pattern recognition system estimating a rotation angle , 1997, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[17]  Pascal Fua,et al.  3D stereo reconstruction of human faces driven by differential constraints , 2000, Image Vis. Comput..

[18]  Norbert Krüger,et al.  Face Recognition by Elastic Bunch Graph Matching , 1997, CAIP.