Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Kinship Verification through a Forest Neural Network

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A forest of paired two-node graphs between corresponding facial components lets face-representation methods match or beat joint-representation kinship verification.

desk verdict Plausible architecture, unsupported SOTA: claimed KinFaceW-II gains likely inflated by identity leak and test-set hyperparameter selection. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18910 v1 pith:AXUWS4ME submitted 2025-04-26 cs.CV cs.AI

Ali Nazari , Mohsen Ebrahimi Moghaddam , Omidreza Borzoei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords KinshipVerificationForestNeuralNetworkGraphFaceRepresentationCenterLossKinW-IW-IIResidualGatedConvNets
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

Kinship verification usually asks whether two face images are parent and child, and the strongest recent systems learn a joint representation of the two faces from scratch. This paper tries to show that the older strategy of using separate face representations can be just as good if the representations are organized as a forest of paired component graphs. Nine facial regions (whole face, left eye, right eye, nose, mouth, and four masked faces) are embedded by several pretrained convolutional networks, and each corresponding parent-child pair becomes a two-node graph whose nodes exchange gated messages. On KinFaceW-II the method reports 93.8% mean accuracy, the best among the compared methods and about 1.6 points above the previous best; on KinFaceW-I it reaches 82.09%, close to the best, with the top mother-daughter score. If correct, the result means face-representation pipelines can compete with joint-representation ones while using far fewer parameters.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Forest Neural Network (FNN): a forest of nine disjoint two-node graphs, each joining a parent's facial-component embedding to the child's corresponding embedding with a bidirectional edge. The message-passing layer is the Residual Gated Graph ConvNet, simplified to two nodes: the parent update is $\mathbf{h}_p^{l+1} = \mathbf{h}_p^l + f(\mathbf{A}\mathbf{h}_p^l + \eta(e)\odot \mathbf{B}\mathbf{h}_c^l)$ with gate $\eta(e_p)=\sigma(e_p)/(\sigma(e_p)+\sigma(e_c))$, so each node is updated by combining its own state with its partner's state, scaled by a learnable gate. After each layer the nine parent representations are averaged (readout), and the averages from four layers are concatenated into final parent/child features; the classifier then concatenates four feature combinations and uses a loss mixture whose center-loss term is introduced gradually via a temperature schedule $\alpha^t$. This machinery is what lets separate face representations carry kinship information: correspondence is imposed by graph structure rather than by joint training from scratch.

What would settle it

Re-run the full pipeline under a strict identity-disjoint protocol: train every CNN embedding extractor only on identities that do not appear in any of the five FNN test folds, then compare the mean KinFaceW-II accuracy. If the accuracy drops materially below the reported 93.8%, or no longer beats D4ML, the central claim of competitive face-representation kinship verification would be unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that kinship can be verified from independent face embeddings without joint parent-child training, provided the component structure of faces is respected. It constructs nine paired graphs, each linking one facial component of the parent to the same component of the child, and processes the forest with a residual gated graph convnet in which the parent and child nodes exchange information through gated edges. A mean readout across the nine graphs at each layer, concatenated over layers, forms parent and child feature vectors; these are combined by sum, product, squared difference, and difference-of-squares features and passed to a small classifier. With a five-term loss that adds a gradually weighted center loss, the method reaches 93.8% mean accuracy on KinFaceW-II, the highest in the comparison table, and 82.09% on KinFaceW-I, near the best and the highest for mother-daughter. The authors state this as evidence that face-representation approaches can match joint-representation state-of-the-art.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the identities used to train the CNN embedding extractors were never part of the kinship-classifier test folds; the paper does not describe such an identity-disjoint split, and without it the reported accuracy could reflect identity memorization rather than kinship generalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Face-representation kinship systems can reach state-of-the-art accuracy if corresponding facial components are paired explicitly, so joint representation from scratch is not the only route.
  • Multiple pretrained embeddings at different resolutions act as complementary experts; combining ResNet, ERN, and VGG embeddings improves accuracy over any single embedding in the reported tables.
  • The center loss only helps when applied to a hidden layer of the kinship classifier and when its influence grows during training; with the temperature schedule it contributes roughly 1.45 points on KinFaceW-II and about 3.07 on KinFaceW-I.
  • The proposed FNN classifier is substantially smaller than the joint-representation D4ML model (about 19M versus 91M parameters on KinFaceW-I), suggesting a practical size advantage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the evaluation is later confirmed to be identity-disjoint, the component-paired forest predicts that kinship signal is not uniform across the face: ablating individual graphs should change accuracy more than removing others, a testable extension the paper does not report.
  • The same two-node graph construction could be applied to other pairwise verification tasks where two images share corresponding parts, such as age-progressed face verification or sibling verification, with the gradual center-loss schedule acting as a regularizer.
  • Because the gain is larger on KinFaceW-II (250 pairs per relationship) than on KinFaceW-I (about 130 pairs), the method may benefit more as kinship training data grows; evaluating on a larger benchmark would reveal whether the advantage scales.
  • If the reported accuracy depends on CNN embeddings trained on the same identities used in FNN test folds, an unstated protocol detail, the method's true generalization may be lower; the released code makes this directly checkable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a Forest Neural Network (FNN) for kinship verification. It trains several CNN embedding extractors (ResNet-18, an attention-based Extended Residual Network, and VGG-Face) on augmented, masked, and GFP-GAN-restored KinFaceW images, extracts embeddings from nine facial patches, arranges them into paired two-node graphs forming a forest, and processes the forest with Residual Gated Graph Convolutional layers. The model then concatenates per-layer mean readouts for parent and child, applies four feature combinations, and classifies with a three-layer MLP trained with a fusion of classification, family-ID, triplet, cross-generation, direction, and temperature-scheduled center losses. On KinFaceW-II the method reports a mean accuracy of 93.8%, the best in the comparison table, with a 1.6-point gain over the next best method; on KinFaceW-I it reports 82.09%, near the best.

Significance. If the empirical results are valid, the paper makes a useful contribution by showing that face-representation-based kinship verification can compete with joint-representation methods when a forest of paired graphs exchanges information across facial components and when multiple pretrained embeddings are combined. Strengths include the public code release, a wide comparison table, model-size comparison, and ablations for CNN combinations and the center loss. The main value is the architectural idea of applying GNN message passing to paired facial components. However, the reported SOTA numbers are not supported by the current evaluation protocol because of test-set selection of hyperparameters, a potential identity-level leak in CNN pretraining, missing variance estimates, and an inconsistency between the 'good configurations' tables and the headline results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 4.2 and 4.3] Section 4.2 states that 'All images of every identity are randomly split into 14 and 3 for training and testing, respectively' for the CNN networks, meaning that every identity that later appears in an FNN test fold has augmented, masked, and GFP-GAN-restored images in the CNN training set. The FNN evaluation in Section 4.3 then uses embeddings of these exact identities. The manuscript nowhere states the CNN training loss nor that an identity-disjoint split was used. If the CNN is trained with identity supervision, the downstream classifier can exploit identity memorization rather than kinship generalization, which would inflate the headline accuracy. Please specify the CNN training loss and re-run the evaluation with an identity-disjoint protocol for the embedding networks.
  2. [Section 4.5.3, Tables 6, 8, and 4] The hyperparameters α, H1, and H2 are tuned by the reported accuracies in Tables 6 and 8, which are computed on the same five-fold test partitions used to produce Table 4. The final 'Ensemble of good configurations' is therefore selected on the test folds, so the headline 93.8% is a fitted maximum over the searched configurations rather than an independent estimate. Moreover, the final mean accuracies (82.09 and 93.8) exceed every accuracy listed in the corresponding 'good configurations' tables (maxima 80.93 and 93.3), which is inconsistent unless the ensemble procedure is different from the configurations listed; please clarify the ensemble definition and use nested cross-validation or a held-out validation set for model selection.
  3. [Equations (13) and (14)] Equations (13) and (14) define Lpos = (1/n) Σ y_i ||F^p_i - F^p_i||_2^2 and Lneg = (1/n) Σ (1-y_i) ||F^p_i - F^p_i||_2^2, both of which are identically zero because each norm is taken between F^p_i and itself. If implemented as written, the cross-generation divergence loss in Eq. (12) contributes nothing, contrary to the description in Section 3.7.3 and to the MSE terms in Algorithm 1. The intended expressions presumably use F^c_i; please correct the equations and verify that the reported results used the corrected loss.
  4. [Tables 4, 5, and 7] All accuracy numbers are point estimates without standard deviations or per-fold breakdowns. Because the KinFaceW-I test folds contain only a few dozen pairs per relation (e.g., about 31 father-son pairs per fold), a difference of 1.6 points may be within sampling variability. Please report per-fold accuracies, means with standard deviations, and ideally a significance test before claiming a state-of-the-art margin.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.5.2] The text reports an improvement of '3.07' and then repeats 'in the KinFaceW-I dataset' for the second set of improvements (1.4, 2.4, 1.4, 0.6); the second set appears to refer to KinFaceW-II, not KinFaceW-I.
  2. [Table 8] The configuration (1.05, 256, 16) is listed twice with different accuracies (93.15 and 92.95); one of these entries is presumably a typo.
  3. [Equation (5)] The summation is written as '9X 1'; it should be the sum over i=1 to 9 of f^l_pi.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'ReseNet-18' in Section 3.1, 'Deatails' in the Section 3.5 heading, 'Dawn Scale' and 'Hue Santuration' in Table 3, and 'FFN' in Figure 1 where 'FNN' is intended.
  5. [Section 4.5.4] The phrase 'in companion with' should be 'in combination with'.
  6. [Section 4.3] No random seed is reported, so the experiments are not exactly reproducible; please report seeds or averaged runs over multiple seeds.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The KinFaceW-II SOTA claim is an ensemble of configurations chosen by their accuracy on the same test folds, so the headline number is a fitted maximum rather than an independent out-of-sample prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.5.3 (hyper-parameter analysis), Tables 6 and 8, and the FNN row of Table 4]
    "Good Configurations for KinFaceW-II α H1 H2 accuracy 1.02 256 8 93.3 1.05 256 8 93.2 1.05 256 16 93.15 1.05 128 8 93.05 ... The accuracy reported is the mean of all kinship types. ... The parameters of the ensemble for KinFaceW-I and II are mentioned in Table 6 and Table 8, respectively."

    The FNN row in Table 4 is labeled 'Ensemble of good configurations.' Those configurations were selected by ranking the same five-fold test-set mean accuracies reported in Tables 6 and 8, after searching alpha, H1, H2, and CNN combinations over the benchmark. The paper's Section 4.5.3 says 'The accuracy reported is the mean of all kinship types' and chooses alpha values and hidden sizes by their test accuracy. Thus the claimed KinFaceW-II mean of 93.8 and the 'average improvement of nearly 1.6' are the selected maximum/ensemble of configurations evaluated on the same data they claim to predict. The reported number is therefore a fitted maximum, not an independent prediction of the method on unseen benchmark folds.

full rationale

The core derivation is not equation-level circular: the FNN update rules (Eqs. 1-4), readout (Eqs. 5-6), feature combination (Eq. 7), and loss fusion (Eqs. 8-18 and Alg. 1) are stated explicitly and do not secretly assume the target accuracy. Self-citations are not load-bearing: D4ML and H-RGN are external prior works used as comparison baselines, not as the source of the claimed result. The circularity is in the empirical claim: the headline accuracy is an 'Ensemble of good configurations,' and the 'good' configurations were chosen by their accuracy on the same KinFaceW test folds (Tables 6 and 8), with the selection criterion explicitly being the mean kinship accuracy. Hence the SOTA claim reduces to test-set selection rather than an out-of-sample prediction. Separately, Section 4.2's statement that 'All images of every identity are randomly split into 14 and 3 for training and testing' for CNN training means FNN test-fold identities were seen by the embedding networks; this is a data-leakage/correctness risk, though the score here is based on the test-set selection circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on empirical protocol assumptions and several fitted hyperparameters, listed above. The paper does not derive kinship accuracy from theory, so the main risks are selection bias and leakage rather than invented entities.

free parameters (7)
  • alpha (temperature base) = 1.05 (searched over 1.02-1.07 on KinFaceW-I/II)
    Controls how quickly center loss is engaged; selected by test-fold accuracy in Tables 6 and 8.
  • omega0 (center loss initial weight) = 0.01 (searched over 0.001-0.1)
    Initial weight of center loss in loss fusion; selected in Section 4.5.3.
  • H1 (first hidden layer size) = 256
    Chosen from Table 9 and the 'good configurations' tables based on test accuracy.
  • H2 (second hidden layer size) = 8 or 16
    Chosen from Table 9 and the 'good configurations' tables based on test accuracy.
  • omega_i (loss weights for other terms) = not reported in paper; taken from D4ML [9]
    The paper says weights match D4ML but does not list the values; these are free parameters inherited from prior work.
  • rho (triplet margin) = 0
    Default value stated in Section 3.7.3.
  • ensemble configuration selection = top 5 'good configurations' per dataset
    Final result uses an ensemble of selected configurations, a post-hoc choice made on test folds.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Corresponding facial components in kin pairs carry kinship signal.
    Stated in Sections 1 and 3.4; motivates the paired-graph construction. If false, the forest structure adds nothing over whole-face embeddings.
  • domain assumption Face components are disjoint and can be masked out without destroying kinship information.
    Used to build nine patches including four occluded faces (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption The CNN embedding extractors are trained and evaluated without identity leakage.
    Section 4.2 splits images per identity for CNN training but does not state that FNN test-fold identities are excluded from CNN training; the whole comparison depends on this.
  • domain assumption D4ML loss weights transfer to this architecture.
    The paper adopts omega_i from D4ML without re-estimation (Section 4.5.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinship Verification through a Forest Neural Network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXUWS4ME

@misc{pith2026250418910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinship Verification through a Forest Neural Network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXUWS4ME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18910}
}
read the original abstract

Early methods used face representations in kinship verification, which are less accurate than joint representations of parents' and children's facial images learned from scratch. We propose an approach featuring graph neural network concepts to utilize face representations and have comparable results to joint representation algorithms. Moreover, we designed the structure of the classification module and introduced a new combination of losses to engage the center loss gradually in training our network. Additionally, we conducted experiments on KinFaceW-I and II, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach. We achieved the best result on KinFaceW-II, an average improvement of nearly 1.6 for all kinship types, and we were near the best on KinFaceW-I. The code is available at https://github.com/ali-nazari/Kinship-Verification

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Visual Computer, 1–21 (2024)

    Mzoughi, M.C., Aoun, N.B., Naouali, S.: A review on kinship verification from facial information. The Visual Computer, 1–21 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    International Journal of Computer Vision 130(6), 1494–1525 (2022)

    Wu, X., Feng, X., Cao, X., Xu, X., Hu, D., L´ opez, M.B., Liu, L.: Facial kin- ship verification: A comprehensive review and outlook. International Journal of Computer Vision 130(6), 1494–1525 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44(8), 4432–4453 (2021)

    Robinson, J.P., Shao, M., Fu, Y.: Survey on the analysis and modeling of visual kinship: A decade in the making. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44(8), 4432–4453 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 14(4), 1046–1056 (2012)

    Xia, S., Shao, M., Luo, J., Fu, Y.: Understanding kin relationships in a photo. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 14(4), 1046–1056 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Kumar, C., Ryan, R., Shao, M.: Adversary for social good: Protecting familial privacy through joint adversarial attacks. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 34, pp. 11304–11311 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 36(2), 331–345 (2013)

    Lu, J., Zhou, X., Tan, Y.-P., Shang, Y., Zhou, J.: Neighborhood repulsed met- ric learning for kinship verification. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 36(2), 331–345 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Bisogni, C., Narducci, F.: Kinship recognition: how far are we from viable solutions in smart environments? Procedia Computer Science 198, 225–230 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    IEEE Transactions on image processing 30, 4947–4961 (2021)

    Li, W., Lu, J., Wuerkaixi, A., Feng, J., Zhou, J.: Reasoning graph networks for kinship verification: from star-shaped to hierarchical. IEEE Transactions on image processing 30, 4947–4961 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications 19(1s), 1–19 (2023)

    Zhu, X., Li, C., Chen, X., Zhang, X., Jing, X.-Y.: Distance and direction based deep discriminant metric learning for kinship verification. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications 19(1s), 1–19 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26(1), 289–302 (2016)

    Kohli, N., Vatsa, M., Singh, R., Noore, A., Majumdar, A.: Hierarchical represen- tation learning for kinship verification. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26(1), 289–302 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Journal of Vision 20(6), 18–18 (2020) 24

    Hansen, F., DeBruine, L.M., Holzleitner, I.J., Lee, A.J., O’Shea, K.J., Fasolt, V.: Kin recognition and perceived facial similarity. Journal of Vision 20(6), 18–18 (2020) 24

    2020

  4. [12]

    : Human facial shape and size heritability and genetic correlations

    Cole, J.B., Manyama, M., Larson, J.R., Liberton, D.K., Ferrara, T.M., Riccardi, S.L., Li, M., Mio, W., Klein, O.D., Santorico, S.A., et al. : Human facial shape and size heritability and genetic correlations. Genetics 205(2), 967–978 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Dal Martello, M.F., Maloney, L.T.: Where are kin recognition signals in the human face? Journal of Vision 6(12), 2–2 (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 28(3), 1149–1162 (2018)

    Liang, J., Hu, Q., Dang, C., Zuo, W.: Weighted graph embedding-based metric learning for kinship verification. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 28(3), 1149–1162 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pp

    Fang, R., Tang, K.D., Snavely, N., Chen, T.: Towards computational models of kinship verification. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pp. 1577–1580 (2010). IEEE

    2010

  8. [16]

    In: 2015 11th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), vol

    Bottinok, A., Islam, I.U., Vieira, T.F.: A multi-perspective holistic approach to kinship verification in the wild. In: 2015 11th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), vol. 2, pp. 1–6 (2015). IEEE

    2015

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp

    Zhou, X., Lu, J., Hu, J., Shang, Y.: Gabor-based gradient orientation pyramid for kinship verification under uncontrolled environments. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 725–728 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 61(8), 2322–2325 (2012)

    Guo, G., Wang, X.: Kinship measurement on salient facial features. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 61(8), 2322–2325 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    In: 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS), pp

    Kohli, N., Singh, R., Vatsa, M.: Self-similarity representation of weber faces for kinship classification. In: 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS), pp. 245–250 (2012). IEEE

    2012

  12. [20]

    In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pp

    Puthenputhussery, A., Liu, Q., Liu, C.: Sift flow based genetic fisher vector fea- ture for kinship verification. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pp. 2921–2925 (2016). IEEE

    2016

  13. [21]

    In: 2015 11th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), vol

    Wang, X., Guo, G., Rohith, M., Kambhamettu, C.: Leveraging geometry and appearance cues for recognizing family photos. In: 2015 11th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), vol. 1, pp. 1–8 (2015). IEEE

    2015

  14. [22]

    The Visual Computer 40(4), 2325–2346 (2024)

    Nader, N., El-Gamal, F.E.-Z.A., Elmogy, M.: Enhanced kinship verification anal- ysis based on color and texture handcrafted techniques. The Visual Computer 40(4), 2325–2346 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM 25 International Conference on Multimedia, pp

    Zhou, X., Hu, J., Lu, J., Shang, Y., Guan, Y.: Kinship verification from facial images under uncontrolled conditions. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM 25 International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 953–956 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Multimedia Tools and Applications 76, 4105–4122 (2017)

    Chen, X., An, L., Yang, S., Wu, W.: Kinship verification in multi-linear coherent spaces. Multimedia Tools and Applications 76, 4105–4122 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR2012), pp

    Xia, S., Shao, M., Fu, Y.: Toward kinship verification using visual attributes. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR2012), pp. 549–552 (2012). IEEE

    2012

  18. [26]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 37(1), 107–120 (2014)

    Zhang, M.-L., Wu, L.: Lift: Multi-label learning with label-specific features. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 37(1), 107–120 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    105–112 (2012)

    Somanath, G., Kambhamettu, C.: Can faces verify blood-relations? In: 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS), pp. 105–112 (2012). IEEE

    2012

  20. [28]

    Information Fusion 32, 40–48 (2016)

    Zhou, X., Shang, Y., Yan, H., Guo, G.: Ensemble similarity learning for kinship verification from facial images in the wild. Information Fusion 32, 40–48 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 40(9), 2281–2288 (2017)

    Hu, J., Lu, J., Tan, Y.-P.: Sharable and individual multi-view metric learning. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 40(9), 2281–2288 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Dehghan, A., Ortiz, E.G., Villegas, R., Shah, M.: Who do i look like? determining parent-offspring resemblance via gated autoencoders. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1757–1764 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 28(3), 1329–1341 (2018)

    Kohli, N., Yadav, D., Vatsa, M., Singh, R., Noore, A.: Supervised mixed norm autoencoder for kinship verification in unconstrained videos. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 28(3), 1329–1341 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    In: In British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC) (2015)

    Zhang12, K., Huang, Y., Song, C., Wu, H., Wang, L., Intelligence, S.M.: Kin- ship verification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: In British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC) (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp

    Robinson, J.P., Shao, M., Wu, Y., Fu, Y.: Families in the wild (fiw) large- scale kinship image database and benchmarks. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 242–246 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pp

    Duan, Q., Zhang, L., Zuo, W.: From face recognition to kinship verification: An adaptation approach. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pp. 1590–1598 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Pattern Recognition Letters 128, 169–175 (2019)

    Yan, H., Wang, S.: Learning part-aware attention networks for kinship verifica- tion. Pattern Recognition Letters 128, 169–175 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Expert Systems with Applications 255, 124815 26 (2024)

    Li, H., Zhao, X., Wang, M., Song, H., Sun, F.: Or2net: Online re-weighting relation network for kinship verification. Expert Systems with Applications 255, 124815 26 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Su, W., Chen, M.-H., Wang, C.-Y., Lai, S.-H., Chen, T.P.-C.: Kinship representa- tion learning with face componential relation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 3105–3114 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Computers and Electrical Engineering 118, 109375 (2024)

    Oruganti, M., Meenpal, T., Majumder, S.: Kinship verification in childhood images using curvelet transformed features. Computers and Electrical Engineering 118, 109375 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXII 16, pp

    Wang, W., You, S., Gevers, T.: Kinship identification through joint learning using kinship verification ensembles. In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXII 16, pp. 613–628 (2020). Springer

    2020

  32. [40]

    Applied Sciences 13(9), 5521 (2023)

    Maur´ ıcio, J., Domingues, I., Bernardino, J.: Comparing vision transformers and convolutional neural networks for image classification: A literature review. Applied Sciences 13(9), 5521 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    In: 2024 21st Inter- national Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecom- munications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON), pp

    Talib, M.S.M., Samsuri, M.H., Yuen, S.L., Lau, P.Y., Wong, C.W., Kamarudin, N.A., Hon, H.W.: Performance comparison of convolutional and transformer neural networks in defect classification for industrial images. In: 2024 21st Inter- national Conference on Electrical Engineeri...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    Heusel, M., Ramsauer, H., Unterthiner, T., Nessler, B., Hochreiter, S.: Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    completely blind

    Mittal, A., Soundararajan, R., Bovik, A.C.: Making a “completely blind” image quality analyzer. IEEE Signal processing letters 20(3), 209–212 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Wang, X., Li, Y., Zhang, H., Shan, Y.: Towards real-world blind face restoration with generative facial prior. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 9168–9178 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    IEEE signal processing letters23(10), 1499–1503 (2016)

    Zhang, K., Zhang, Z., Li, Z., Qiao, Y.: Joint face detection and alignment using multitask cascaded convolutional networks. IEEE signal processing letters23(10), 1499–1503 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Kazemi, V., Sullivan, J.: One millisecond face alignment with an ensemble of regression trees. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1867–1874 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    In: 33rd British Machine Vision Con- ference 2022, BMVC 2022, London, UK, November 21-24, 2022, p

    Prados-Torreblanca, A., Buenaposada, J.M., Baumela, L.: Shape preserving facial landmarks with graph attention networks. In: 33rd British Machine Vision Con- ference 2022, BMVC 2022, London, UK, November 21-24, 2022, p. . BMVA Press, 27 London, UK (2022). https://bmvc2022.mpi-...

    2022

  40. [48]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.07553 (2017)

    Bresson, X., Laurent, T.: Residual gated graph convnets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.07553 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Sun, Y., Xu, Q., Li, Y., Zhang, C., Li, Y., Wang, S., Sun, J.: Perceive where to focus: Learning visibility-aware part-level features for partial person re- identification. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 393–402 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    In: Computer vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Con- ference, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part VII 14, pp

    Wen, Y., Zhang, K., Li, Z., Qiao, Y.: A discriminative feature learning approach for deep face recognition. In: Computer vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Con- ference, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part VII 14, pp. 499–515 (2016). Springer

    2016

  43. [51]

    Informa- tion 11(2) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020125

    Buslaev, A., Iglovikov, V.I., Khvedchenya, E., Parinov, A., Druzhinin, M., Kalinin, A.A.: Albumentations: Fast and flexible image augmentations. Informa- tion 11(2) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020125

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    Information Fusion 48, 84–94 (2019)

    Zhou, X., Jin, K., Xu, M., Guo, G.: Learning deep compact similarity metric for kinship verification from face images. Information Fusion 48, 84–94 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    In: Asian Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Dawson, M., Zisserman, A., Nell˚ aker, C.: From same photo: Cheating on visual kinship challenges. In: Asian Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 654–668 (2018). Springer

    2018

  46. [54]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26(9), 4269–4282 (2017)

    Lu, J., Hu, J., Tan, Y.-P.: Discriminative deep metric learning for face and kinship verification. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26(9), 4269–4282 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    IEEE transactions on cybernetics 51(12), 5883–5896 (2020)

    Zhang, L., Duan, Q., Zhang, D., Jia, W., Wang, X.: Advkin: Adversarial convolu- tional network for kinship verification. IEEE transactions on cybernetics 51(12), 5883–5896 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Li, W., Wang, S., Lu, J., Feng, J., Zhou, J.: Meta-mining discriminative sam- ples for kinship verification. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 16135–16144 (2021) 28

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.