Semantic Data Augmentation for Long-tailed Facial Expression Recognition

Bowen Guan; JianKai Yin; Yan Wang; Zijian Li

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Semantic Data Augmentation for Long-tailed Facial Expression Recognition

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that injecting class-covariance noise into VAE-GAN latent codes and decoding back to image space produces semantically valid same-expression faces that improve long-tailed facial expression recognition on RAF-DB beyond…

desk verdict A legitimate incremental extension of ISDA/MetaSAug into VAE-GAN latent space with consistent but thin evidence; deserves review, needs error bars and closer baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17254 v1 pith:K3ODS6WB submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CV cs.AI

Zijian Li , Yan Wang , Bowen Guan , JianKai Yin This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.AI

keywords FacialExpressionRecognitionLong-TailedDataAugmentationVAE-GANSemanticLatentSpaceClassCovarianceRAF-DB

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that augmenting facial images in the latent space of a VAE-GAN—by adding class-covariance noise to an image's encoding and decoding the result back into a picture—creates new training faces that keep the expression while changing pose, lighting, identity, age, and other attributes. On the long-tailed RAF-DB benchmark, the method raises ResNet-34 accuracy from 73.22% with balanced resampling to 74.43%, and DAN accuracy from 88.64% to 89.24%, with mAP rising for both. The purpose is to enlarge rare-expression classes with semantically valid same-class images rather than duplicated or linearly mixed pixels. If correct, the method is a plug-in training augmentation that works across classifiers and extends to data-hungry tasks beyond facial expressions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-class covariance matrix $\Sigma_c$ in the VAE-GAN latent space, used in Eq. (4) as $z' = \sqrt{\lambda \Sigma_c}\, r + \mu_z(x)$, where $r$ is a standard Gaussian vector and $\lambda$ controls the augmentation strength. The VAE-GAN is a generative model made of an encoder, a generator/decoder, and a discriminator; it maps an image into a Gaussian encoding and back into an image. The covariance restricts the random perturbation to directions that actually vary within the class, which the paper argues prunes meaningless or label-changing transformations, and the decoder turns each augmented code into a concrete training image so the downstream classifier sees synthetic images rather than just synthetic features.

What would settle it

Rerun the same balanced-sampler training with the class covariance in Eq. (4) replaced by isotropic noise matched to each class's average squared norm, or by covariances computed on shuffled labels; if accuracy still reaches 74.43% and 89.24%, the gain is not from semantic directions. Alternatively, decode augmented tail-class images and have an independently trained expression model label them: if they are not classified as the source expression at roughly the rate of real images, the augmentation is not label-preserving.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated around Eq. (4), is that the per-class covariance $\Sigma_c$ of VAE-GAN latent codes marks out semantically meaningful, label-preserving directions. Perturbing the encoded mean by $z' = \sqrt{\lambda \Sigma_c}\, r + \mu_z(x)$ and decoding therefore yields new images of the same expression with varied high-level attributes, and mixing these into training at a 0.5 augmentation ratio outperforms balanced resampling alone on RAF-DB: ResNet-34 total precision reaches 74.43% versus 73.22%, and DAN reaches 89.24% versus 88.64%.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the spread of each expression's latent codes points in directions that, when decoded, keep the expression the same while changing other facial attributes; for the rarest expression in RAF-DB (fear, 281 training samples) that spread is estimated from very little data and may not point anywhere meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Both evaluated classifiers (ResNet-34 and DAN) improve over balanced resampling on RAF-DB, so the augmentation transfers across very different backbones.
Because augmentation happens in image space through the decoder, the downstream feature extractor trains on synthetic images and can itself benefit, unlike feature-space augmentation.
The pipeline—train a VAE-GAN, compute per-class covariances, perturb codes, decode—does not depend on FER-specific heuristics and is presented as usable in other data-hungry scenarios.
Mixing augmented and original samples at a 0.5 ratio with a balanced sampler is a plug-in training change; no classifier loss or architecture change is required.
The reported total precision and mAP both rise, suggesting the gain is not limited to majority classes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the reported gains over balanced resampling are a few points at most, an ablation replacing the class covariance with isotropic noise of the same norm would determine how much of the effect is semantic direction versus added variance.
Per-class gains are not reported; measuring accuracy separately for fear, disgust, and surprise would clarify whether the benefit actually lands on the rare classes whose covariances are least stable.
One extension the paper does not test is per-class augmentation strength; using a smaller augmentation strength or a shrunk covariance for low-sample classes might make tail augmentation safer.
If the covariance directions are semantically meaningful, the same latent-space machinery could be used for controlled attribute editing, such as adding stress or fatigue to a face, and for generating rare expressions in other modalities.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Bottom line: this is a modest, honest increment, not a breakthrough. It takes ISDA's per-class covariance sampling and MetaSAug's long-tail adaptation, moves that into a VAE-GAN latent space, decodes augmented codes back to images, and shows a small consistent accuracy gain over balanced resampling on RAF-DB. The numbers—74.43 vs 73.22 for ResNet-34, 89.24 vs 88.64 for DAN—are consistent in direction across two very different classifiers, and mAP improves for ResNet. That consistency is the strongest evidence in the paper.

What's new is the specific pipeline: covariance-based latent sampling plus generative decoding to image space, so the feature extractor actually sees augmented images rather than only augmented features. That addresses a real limitation of feature-space augmentation they cite. The writing is clear about what is borrowed from ISDA and MetaSAug, and the claim in the conclusion is narrow enough ("first work to do semantic augmentation using class covariance ... and maps between image and feature using a VAE-GAN") to be defensible.

Now the soft spots. The biggest is that the load-bearing premise—that per-class covariance directions in this latent space are label-preserving and semantically meaningful—is untested. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 are cherry-picked; there's no human study, no label-retention metric, no failure analysis on tail classes. For fear, with 281 training samples, the estimated covariance is mostly noise; if the direction is wrong the augmentation is just resampling with extra noise. That concern is real, but it is not evidence that the method fails—it is an unmeasured risk. Second, there are no error bars or repeated runs. Given the gains are around one point, seed-to-seed variance could eat a good chunk of that. Third, no comparison with ISDA applied at the feature level, MetaSAug, or generative baselines like BAGAN. Without those, "semantic" isn't isolated as the cause. Minor: no ablations of lambda or augmentation ratio, and VAE-GAN training details are skipped with a pointer to prior work, which hurts reproducibility. No code or trained artifacts are released.

Who's this for? Researchers working on long-tailed FER or generative augmentation. It's a workshop/short-paper-level contribution that, with error bars, one or two baselines, and a label-retention check, could become a solid conference paper. As it stands, the evidence supports a small effect but not the mechanistic story.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. The idea is coherent, the comparison to resampling is a fair starting point, and a referee can push for the missing controls. Desk rejection would be too harsh.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a semantic data augmentation method for long-tailed facial expression recognition (FER) on RAF-DB. The authors first train a VAE-GAN on the training set, then compute per-class covariance matrices of the latent encodings. During classifier training with a balanced sampler, for a fraction of samples (default 0.5), they perturb the encoding as z' = sqrt(lambda * Sigma_c) * r + mu_z(x) (Eq. (4)) and decode the perturbed code to generate an augmented image. The method is evaluated with ResNet-34 and DAN, reporting accuracy gains over balanced resampling: 74.43% vs 73.22% for ResNet-34 and 89.24% vs 88.64% for DAN (Table I). The authors claim that this is the first work to combine class-covariance semantic augmentation with a VAE-GAN mapping between image and latent space.

Significance. If the reported gains are reproducible and statistically robust, the method offers a simple and potentially general recipe for augmenting long-tailed datasets at the semantic level using a generative model. The paper's visualizations (Figs. 4 and 5) suggest that augmented images vary in pose, lighting, identity, and other high-level attributes, which is encouraging. However, the empirical support is incomplete: there are no error bars or significance tests, no comparison with the closest prior semantic augmentation methods (ISDA and MetaSAug), and no ablations of the two key hyperparameters (lambda and augmentation ratio). The central novelty—that per-class covariance directions in the VAE-GAN latent space are label-preserving and semantically meaningful—is asserted rather than demonstrated. With targeted experiments, the method could become a useful contribution; in its current form, its claims are plausible but not fully established.

major comments (4)

[Section II-B, Eq. (4)] The load-bearing assumption is that adding sqrt(lambda * Sigma_c) * r to the latent code of a sample produces label-preserving, semantically meaningful variations. This assumption is not tested in the paper. For the tail class 'fear', which has only 281 training samples, the high-dimensional per-class covariance estimate is likely dominated by estimation noise, and the VAE-GAN may not represent rare classes well. The paper provides no quantitative evaluation of label preservation (e.g., accuracy of a pretrained classifier on augmented images, human evaluation, or distance-based analysis), so the claimed semantic advantage over simply adding Gaussian noise to the encodings is unsupported.
[Section III, Table I] The reported accuracy gains are modest (1.2 points for ResNet-34 and 0.6 points for DAN), and no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. Because classifier training is stochastic and the augmentation process itself is random, these differences may fall within seed-to-seed variation. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over multiple independent runs (at least three, ideally five) and, if possible, a paired significance test to establish that the improvement is not due to chance.
[Section IV and references [22], [23]] The claim in Section IV that 'We are the first work to do semantic augmentation using class covariance' is inaccurate: ISDA (ref. [22]) and MetaSAug (ref. [23]) already use class covariance for semantic augmentation, albeit in feature space. The actual novelty of this work is the VAE-GAN decoding step that maps augmented features back to images, but this is neither clearly stated nor benchmarked. The manuscript should include an experimental comparison with ISDA and MetaSAug under the same training protocol (including the same balanced sampler) to show that generating pixel-space augmentations via a VAE-GAN provides a concrete benefit over feature-space-only augmentation.
[Section III and Section II-A] The method's key hyperparameters, lambda (augmentation strength) and the augmentation ratio (default 0.5), are fixed without any ablation. The paper should show how accuracy varies with these parameters, particularly for tail classes, to demonstrate robustness and to help readers select appropriate values. In addition, Section II-A explicitly omits VAE-GAN training details (latent dimension, training iterations, hyperparameter values such as the perceptual loss weight w_p and the KL-divergence scheduling), which prevents reproduction. Providing these details is essential for a generative-model-based method.

minor comments (4)

[Equations (1)-(4)] The equations appear garbled in the manuscript (e.g., '??2 ?' and '?? ?' placeholders), making it difficult to verify the exact formulas. Please ensure the final version renders mathematical symbols correctly and consistently.
[Introduction] In the first paragraph of the Introduction, 'flip semantic consistency' is misspelled as 'filp semantic consistency'.
[References] There are formatting inconsistencies in the reference list: for example, reference [30] uses a different author-name style than references [1] and [7]. Please unify the reference style to the venue's guidelines.
[Section III, Figs. 4 and 5] The captions of Figs. 4 and 5 state that the images show semantic changes, but the figures are only briefly mentioned in the visualization subsection. It would be helpful to explicitly state that the expression label is preserved and to discuss any cases where it is not.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the augmentation pipeline is fit only to training data and evaluated on a held-out split; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (4) defines the augmented latent code z' by adding a class-covariance-scaled Gaussian perturbation to the encoder output mu_z(x), with Sigma_c estimated from the training-set encodings of class c. This is standard within-training-distribution augmentation: the covariance and mean come only from training samples, and the decoder maps z' back to image space. The classifiers are trained on the augmented training set and evaluated on the held-out RAF-DB test split (12,271 training versus 3,068 testing images), so no test labels or test statistics enter the augmentation procedure. The hyperparameter lambda is set once (0.5) and is not tuned to the reported accuracies. The method builds on external prior work such as ISDA and MetaSAug, whose formulas are cited as background and not as a self-citation chain; the present authors do not invoke their own prior results as load-bearing evidence. The central assumption that per-class covariance directions preserve expression labels is empirically untested and the reported gains lack error bars, but those are robustness or correctness concerns, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own output by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Therefore the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumptions about linear semantic structure in the VAE-GAN latent space and label preservation after decoding. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The method has two hand-set hyperparameters and omitted generative training details that affect reproducibility.

free parameters (3)

lambda (augmentation strength) = not reported
Controls the scale of covariance-sampled perturbation in Eq. (4); no value or ablation is given in the paper.
augmentation_ratio = 0.5
Default fraction of each training batch replaced by augmented images; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
VAE-GAN training hyperparameters = not reported
KL weight schedule, reconstruction loss weight, learning rates, and latent dimension are omitted; the paper states 'we do not give detailed settings of this part'.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Latent encodings of facial images are linearly semantically structured, so moving along covariance directions changes attributes like pose and lighting while preserving expression.
Invoked in Section II-B using refs [20] and [21]; no validation is provided for the VAE-GAN latent space used here.
domain assumption Class covariance Sigma_c defines a safe range for augmenting encodings of that class.
Used in Eq. (4); tail class covariance estimates are based on as few as 281 samples, but this fragility is not analyzed.
domain assumption Decoded augmented images preserve their original expression label.
Required for supervised training with augmented images; only qualitative figures are provided, with no label-consistency measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semantic Data Augmentation for Long-tailed Facial Expression Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K3ODS6WB

@misc{pith2026241117254,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semantic Data Augmentation for Long-tailed Facial Expression Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K3ODS6WB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17254}
}

read the original abstract

Facial Expression Recognition has a wide application prospect in social robotics, health care, driver fatigue monitoring, and many other practical scenarios. Automatic recognition of facial expressions has been extensively studied by the Computer Vision research society. But Facial Expression Recognition in real-world is still a challenging task, partially due to the long-tailed distribution of the dataset. Many recent studies use data augmentation for Long-Tailed Recognition tasks. In this paper, we propose a novel semantic augmentation method. By introducing randomness into the encoding of the source data in the latent space of VAE-GAN, new samples are generated. Then, for facial expression recognition in RAF-DB dataset, we use our augmentation method to balance the long-tailed distribution. Our method can be used in not only FER tasks, but also more diverse data-hungry scenarios.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[22]

Y. Wang, G. Huang, S. Song, X. Pan, Y. Xia, C. Wu, Regularizing deep networks with semantic data augmentation, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2021)

work page 2021
[23]

Metasaug: Meta semantic augmentation for long- tailed visual recognition

Li, Shuang, et al. "Metasaug: Meta semantic augmentation for long- tailed visual recognition." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2021

work page 2021
[1]

Learn from all: Erasing attention consistency for noisy label facial expression recognition

Zhang, Yuhang, et al. "Learn from all: Erasing attention consistency for noisy label facial expression recognition." Computer Vision – ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part XXVI. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Distract Your Attention: Multi-head Cross Attention Network for Facial Expression Recognition

Wen, Zhengyao, et al. "Distract your attention: Multi-head cross attention network for facial expression recognition." arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07270 (2021)

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[3]

Facial expression recognition by de-expression residue learning

Yang, Huiyuan, Umur Ciftci, and Lijun Yin. "Facial expression recognition by de-expression residue learning." Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2018

work page 2018
[4]

Facial expression recognition in the wild via deep attentive center loss

Farzaneh, Amir Hossein, and Xiaojun Qi. "Facial expression recognition in the wild via deep attentive center loss." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision. 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Identity-free facial expression recognition using conditional generative adversarial network

Cai, Jie, et al. "Identity-free facial expression recognition using conditional generative adversarial network." 2021 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Island loss for learning discriminative features in facial expression recognition

Cai, Jie, et al. "Island loss for learning discriminative features in facial expression recognition." 2018 13th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2018). IEEE, 2018

work page 2018

Show all 34 references

[7]

Facenet2expnet: Regularizing a deep face recognition net for expression recognition

Ding, Hui, Shaohua Kevin Zhou, and Rama Chellappa. "Facenet2expnet: Regularizing a deep face recognition net for expression recognition." 2017 12th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2017). IEEE, 2017

2017
[8]

Affectnet: A database for facial expression, valence, and arousal computing in the wild

Mollahosseini, Ali, Behzad Hasani, and Mohammad H. Mahoor. "Affectnet: A database for facial expression, valence, and arousal computing in the wild." IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 10.1 (2017): 18-31

2017
[9]

Static facial expression analysis in tough conditions: Data, evaluation protocol and benchmark

Dhall, Abhinav, et al. "Static facial expression analysis in tough conditions: Data, evaluation protocol and benchmark." 2011 IEEE international conference on computer vision workshops (ICCV workshops). IEEE, 2011

2011
[11]

Test-agnostic long-tailed recognition by test-time aggregating diverse experts with self-supervision

Zhang, Yifan, et al. "Test-agnostic long-tailed recognition by test-time aggregating diverse experts with self-supervision." arXiv e-prints (2021): arXiv-2107

2021
[12]

Long-tailed recognition via weight balancing

Alshammari, Shaden, et al. "Long-tailed recognition via weight balancing." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2022

2022
[13]

Deep Long-Tailed Learning: A Survey

Zhang, Yifan, et al. "Deep Long-Tailed Learning: A Survey." arXiv e- prints (2021): arXiv-2110

2021
[14]

A comprehensive survey of image augmentation techniques for deep learning

Xu, Mingle, et al. "A comprehensive survey of image augmentation techniques for deep learning." Pattern Recognition (2023): 109347

2023
[15]

S. Yun, D. Han, S. J. Oh, S. Chun, J. Choe, Y. Yoo, Cutmix: Regularization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 6023–6032

2019
[16]

SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique

Chawla, Nitesh V., et al. "SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique." Journal of artificial intelligence research 16 (2002): 321-357

2002
[17]

Remix: rebalanced mixup

Chou, Hsin-Ping, et al. "Remix: rebalanced mixup." Computer Vision– ECCV 2020 Workshops: Glasgow, UK, August 23 – 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VI 16. Springer International Publishing, 2020

2020
[18]

Mixaugment & mixup: Augmentation methods for facial expression recognition

Psaroudakis, Andreas, and Dimitrios Kollias. "Mixaugment & mixup: Augmentation methods for facial expression recognition." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2022

2022
[19]

mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization

Zhang, Hongyi, et al. "mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization." arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09412 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[20]

Bengio, G

Y. Bengio, G. Mesnil, Y. Dauphin, S. Rifai, Better mixing via deep representations, in: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2013, pp. 552–560

2013
[21]

Upchurch, J

P. Upchurch, J. Gardner, G. Pleiss, R. Pless, N. Snavely, K. Bala, K. Weinberger, Deep feature interpolation for image content changes, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition.2017, pp. 7064–7073

2017
[24]

Feature space augmentation for long-tailed data

Chu, Peng, et al. "Feature space augmentation for long-tailed data." Computer Vision – ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23 – 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXIX 16. Springer International Publishing, 2020

2020
[25]

M2m: Imbalanced classification via major-to-minor translation

Kim, Jaehyung, Jongheon Jeong, and Jinwoo Shin. "M2m: Imbalanced classification via major-to-minor translation." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2020

2020
[26]

Doping: Generative data augmentation for unsupervised anomaly detection with gan

Lim, Swee Kiat, et al. "Doping: Generative data augmentation for unsupervised anomaly detection with gan." 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 2018

2018
[27]

BAGAN: Data Augmentation with Balancing GAN

Mariani, Giovanni, et al. "BAGAN: Data Augmentation with Balancing GAN." International Conference on Machine Learning. 2018

2018
[28]

Ida-gan: A novel imbalanced data augmentation gan

Yang, Hao, and Yun Zhou. "Ida-gan: A novel imbalanced data augmentation gan." 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). IEEE, 2021

2020
[29]

Emotion classification with data augmentation using generative adversarial networks

Zhu, Xinyue, et al. "Emotion classification with data augmentation using generative adversarial networks." Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: 22nd Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2018, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, June 3-6, 2018, Proceedings, Part III 22. Springer I...

2018
[30]

J. Bao, D. Chen, F. Wen, H. Li, G. Hua, Cvae-gan: fine-grained image generation through asymmetric training, in: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2017, pp. 2745–2754

2017
[31]

Deep residual learning for image recognition

He, Kaiming, et al. "Deep residual learning for image recognition." Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2016

2016
[32]

Brock, J

A. Brock, J. Donahue, K. Simonyan, Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

2018
[33]

The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

Zhang, Richard, et al. "The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric." Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2018

2018
[34]

Cyclical Annealing Schedule: A Simple Approach to Mitigating KL Vanishing

Fu, Hao, et al. "Cyclical Annealing Schedule: A Simple Approach to Mitigating KL Vanishing." Proceedings of NAACL-HLT. 2019

2019
[35]

Reliable Crowdsourcing and Deep Locality-Preserving Learning for Unconstrained Facial Expression Recognition

Li, Shan, and Weihong Deng. "Reliable Crowdsourcing and Deep Locality-Preserving Learning for Unconstrained Facial Expression Recognition." IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 28.1 (2019): 356- 370

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

Y. Wang, G. Huang, S. Song, X. Pan, Y. Xia, C. Wu, Regularizing deep networks with semantic data augmentation, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [23]

Metasaug: Meta semantic augmentation for long- tailed visual recognition

Li, Shuang, et al. "Metasaug: Meta semantic augmentation for long- tailed visual recognition." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2021

work page 2021

[3] [1]

Learn from all: Erasing attention consistency for noisy label facial expression recognition

Zhang, Yuhang, et al. "Learn from all: Erasing attention consistency for noisy label facial expression recognition." Computer Vision – ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part XXVI. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [2]

Distract Your Attention: Multi-head Cross Attention Network for Facial Expression Recognition

Wen, Zhengyao, et al. "Distract your attention: Multi-head cross attention network for facial expression recognition." arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07270 (2021)

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[5] [3]

Facial expression recognition by de-expression residue learning

Yang, Huiyuan, Umur Ciftci, and Lijun Yin. "Facial expression recognition by de-expression residue learning." Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2018

work page 2018

[6] [4]

Facial expression recognition in the wild via deep attentive center loss

Farzaneh, Amir Hossein, and Xiaojun Qi. "Facial expression recognition in the wild via deep attentive center loss." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision. 2021

work page 2021

[7] [5]

Identity-free facial expression recognition using conditional generative adversarial network

Cai, Jie, et al. "Identity-free facial expression recognition using conditional generative adversarial network." 2021 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [6]

Island loss for learning discriminative features in facial expression recognition

Cai, Jie, et al. "Island loss for learning discriminative features in facial expression recognition." 2018 13th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2018). IEEE, 2018

work page 2018