Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Exploiting Multiple Representations: 3D Face Biometrics Fusion with Application to Surveillance

T0 review · 3 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 By fusing match scores from verification systems enhanced with different 3D face reconstruction algorithms, the paper shows that surveillance face verification becomes more accurate and stable than with any single reconstruction method.

desk verdict Thorough empirical fusion study for 3DFR-based surveillance verification, but the missing 2D-augmentation control keeps the central claim about 3D complementarity underdetermined. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18886 v1 pith:E727U456 submitted 2025-04-26 cs.CV cs.AI

Simone Maurizio La Cava , Roberto Casula , Sara Concas , Giulia Orrù , Ruben Tolosana , Martin Drahansky , Julian Fierrez , Gian Luca Marcialis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords 3Dfacereconstructionverificationscore-levelfusionsurveillancerecognitionensemblemethodsbiometricrobustnesscross-datasetevaluationsyntheticviewgeneration
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 asks whether combining several 3D face reconstruction (3DFR) algorithms can make face verification more reliable in surveillance settings, where probe images are low-quality, distant, and off-pose. The authors build four verification systems that share the same recognition backbone but are each enhanced by a different 3DFR algorithm, then combine their match scores with score-level fusion rules. Across intra-setting, cross-setting, and cross-dataset experiments on surveillance data, fused systems achieve higher AUC and lower EER than every single 3DFR-enhanced system, with the main gains on AdaFace: intra-setting AUC rises from 93.09% for the 2D baseline to about 99% after fusion, and cross-dataset AUC from 85.60% to 88.72%. The upshot is that complementary failure modes of different reconstruction algorithms can be exploited without retraining the recognition models, and simple non-parametric fusion rules capture most of the gain.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is an ensemble built from 3DFR-generated views. For each training mugshot, each 3DFR algorithm builds a 3D template, and the template is projected into multiple synthetic poses to enlarge the gallery seen by a face verification network; at test time a frontal synthetic view is matched against the probe. Four such networks, each sharing the same backbone but using a different 3DFR algorithm, produce match probabilities, and score-level fusion rules, including average, Bayesian average, Pearson-correlation-weighted average, and a trained perceptron, combine them into one decision. The weak Pearson correlation between score sets from different 3DFR algorithms is the evidence that the representations carry complementary information. The practical advantage is that the expensive view generation is done offline, while the online fusion step is a simple combination of scores.

What would settle it

Run the same SCface training and fusion protocol but replace the 3DFR synthetic views with 2D affine pose augmentations of the mugshots, such as rotation, translation, and scaling. If the fused AUC and EER gains match those reported, the improvement comes from view diversity and ensemble fusion rather than from 3D reconstruction; if the gains disappear, the 3D geometry itself is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that different 3D face reconstruction algorithms, when used to train separate face verification systems, produce matching scores that are only weakly correlated, and that fusing those scores yields a verification system more accurate and more stable than any single reconstruction choice. The paper tests four reconstruction algorithms, spanning statistical model fitting, photometric refinement, and deep learning, under four recognition backbones. In the intra-setting protocol, fusion raises AdaFace AUC from 93.09% for the 2D baseline to 98.99–99.00% and cuts EER from 5.30% to 0.68%; in cross-setting experiments EER drops from 8.42% to 0.06%; in cross-dataset tests on a second surveillance collection AUC rises from 85.60% to 88.72%. Fusion also improves threshold-specific error rates, which individual 3DFR algorithms often worsen at stringent operating points. The authors conclude that score-level fusion of complementary 3DFR information is a reliable way to enhance surveillance face verification.

Load-bearing premise

The approach assumes that synthetic views rendered from 3D templates of frontal mugshots are representative of the faces that appear in surveillance probes at the true distances, poses, and lighting conditions; if a plain 2D pose augmentation produced the same gains, the observed complementarity would not be specific to 3D reconstruction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No single 3DFR algorithm is the best choice across all acquisition settings, so combining several is a more reliable design strategy than selecting one.
  • Simple non-parametric fusion rules perform nearly as well as trained or weighted fusion, so deployments can avoid tuning fusion parameters.
  • Fusion improves threshold-specific errors such as FNMR at FMR=1%, addressing cases where single 3DFR enhancement harms stringent operating points.
  • The fusion benefit transfers to a different surveillance dataset not seen in training, suggesting generalization beyond one camera environment.
  • Systems with near-random performance, such as the MobileNet-based system here, cannot be rescued by fusion; the underlying recognition systems must already carry useful signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the core requirement is complementarity in match scores rather than 3D reconstruction per se, the same fusion scheme could be tested with any diverse set of preprocessing or augmentation strategies, and comparing against 2D augmentation would isolate the 3D contribution.
  • The offline/online split means the approach could be extended to identity tasks beyond verification, such as watch-list identification or re-identification, wherever a frontal enrollment image exists and the online cost of fusing scores is acceptable.
  • A testable extension would weight the fusion by estimated probe quality or by each matcher's confidence on distant probes, since the paper identifies distance as the dominant degradation factor.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an ensemble face-verification approach for surveillance scenarios in which multiple state-of-the-art 3D face reconstruction (3DFR) algorithms (EOS, NextFace, 3DDFA V2, HRN) are used to generate synthetic views and frontal references, and the scores of face recognition systems trained with these different 3DFR-enhanced representations are combined through score-level fusion rules (average, Bayesian average, PCC-based average, perceptron). The authors evaluate four backbones (MobileNet, XceptionNet, VGG19, AdaFace) on the SCface dataset under intra-setting and cross-setting protocols, and additionally on Quis-Campi for a cross-dataset test. They report that fusion consistently improves AUC and EER over the best single 3DFR-enhanced system in many configurations, e.g., AdaFace AUC rising from 93.09% (2D baseline) to 98.99-99.00% with fusion intra-setting, and from 85.60% to 88.72% cross-dataset. The paper also provides practical guidelines for selecting fusion rules and acquisition settings.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper offers a simple, practical strategy for improving surveillance face verification by exploiting complementary information from multiple 3DFR algorithms, along with a systematic comparison of parametric and non-parametric fusion rules. The experimental effort is substantial: many camera-distance combinations, two datasets, four architectures, and eight fusion methods are considered, and the cross-dataset evaluation is genuinely external. The paper also provides useful engineering guidelines. However, the current evidence does not fully isolate the contribution of 3D reconstruction from generic data augmentation, and the selective reporting of architectures weakens the generality of the conclusions. With additional control experiments and a more transparent treatment of all architectures, the paper could be a solid empirical contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.2, 4.2, Tables 1 and 3] The experimental design does not isolate the contribution of 3D reconstruction from generic pose augmentation. In Section 3.2, training uses synthetic views projected from 3D templates, and in Section 4.2 the test reference is a frontal synthetic face, whereas the baseline uses the original mugshot; thus the 3DFR pipeline differs from baseline in both training-data diversity and reference-image type. No control trains on 2D pose-augmented mugshots (e.g., rotations, flips, affine warps) without 3D reconstruction. Consequently, the reported gains (e.g., AdaFace AUC from 93.09% to 98.99% in Table 1, and from 85.60% to 88.72% in Table 3) could be attributable to data augmentation alone, which is central to the paper's claim that distinct 3DFR algorithms provide complementary information.
  2. [Sections 5.2 and 5.3, Table 1] The paper selectively excludes architectures for which fusion does not improve performance. Table 1 shows that for MobileNet the Avg fusion AUC is 51.25%, well below the baseline AUC of 61.50%; the text in Section 5.2 then states that the paper will focus on the other three architectures, and Section 5.3 restricts cross-setting experiments to XceptionNet and AdaFace without a pre-specified inclusion criterion. Since the central claim is that a suitable fusion method improves performance and robustness, the negative MobileNet result is a counterexample that should be analyzed and reported rather than excluded post hoc.
  3. [Tables 1, 2, and 3] The central claim is supported only by point estimates without uncertainty or significance assessment. Tables 1 and 2 report average metrics without standard deviations or statistical tests; Table 3 includes standard deviations but no comparison test between methods. Many differences between fusion rules are small (e.g., 98.99% vs. 99.00% AUC in Table 1), and the 63/420/63 experiments counted in Section 7 are aggregated in a way that makes it impossible to determine whether the reported improvements are statistically reliable. I recommend paired significance tests across the replicated settings.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (1)] The transformation P(mated)=1/(d+1) is a heuristic that does not guarantee calibrated probabilities; this should be acknowledged, especially because the Bayesian fusion rule in Eq. (4) treats the scores as probabilities.
  2. [Section 5.2] The sentence 'recognition capability can only improve when using a system with performance that is not close to that of random selection' is vague; the criterion for excluding MobileNet should be stated precisely.
  3. [Figure 6] The PCC values are not printed on the heatmap; adding numerical values would make the correlation analysis more transparent.
  4. [Section 4.1] Details on the validation split (number of subjects and images, random seed) are missing; this is relevant because the perceptron and PCC-based fusion weights are derived from validation scores.
  5. [Section 7] The counts '63 intra-setting, 420 cross-setting, and 63 cross-dataset' are not decomposed; the authors should clarify what constitutes one experiment in each protocol.
  6. [General] No statement of code or data availability is provided; consider adding a reproducibility statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the fusion claims are evaluated on held-out and external test sets, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical and self-contained. The central hypothesis is that score-level fusion of verification systems enhanced by different 3DFR algorithms improves robustness in surveillance settings. That hypothesis is tested on held-out probes: intra-setting, cross-setting, and cross-dataset experiments, with the cross-dataset test run on Quis-Campi, a dataset not used for training. Fusion weights for PCC-based averaging and the perceptron are estimated from validation scores, not from the test partitions, so the reported AUC and EER improvements are measured rather than fitted. All four 3DFR backbones (EOS, NextFace, 3DDFA V2, HRN) are used from their public repositories without retraining, which removes a parameter-fitting loop. The only self-citation is the use of the synthetic view-generation algorithm proposed in [18], which is also said to be reported in the Supplemental Material, so the argument does not reduce to the cited work. The absence of a 2D pose-augmentation control means the specific attribution of the gains to 3D reconstruction complementarity is underdetermined as a scientific inference, and the reported results are vulnerable to the alternative explanation that generic multi-view augmentation or score averaging drives the improvements; however, this is a missing control or confound, not a circular step. No equation in the paper defines the predicted quantities in terms of the fitted inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation-chain circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on dataset representativeness, an ad hoc probability mapping, and the undocumented view-generation procedure, plus post-hoc architecture selection. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • synthetic view angles = not specified (referenced to [18] and supplement)
    Performance depends on the chosen projection angles for gallery enlargement; the exact values are not given in the main text.
  • training hyperparameters = lr=0.001, batch=128, 128x128, max 256 epochs, early stop 5 epochs
    Chosen by hand and not optimized; results could shift with other settings.
  • PCC-based fusion weights = not reported
    Computed from validation scores in each setting; the central fusion result depends on these weights.
  • perceptron fusion weights = not reported
    Trained on validation scores; no architecture or weights are disclosed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SCface and Quis-Campi are representative surveillance datasets for evaluating face verification.
    The validity of the empirical claim is bounded by these datasets; Quis-Campi was only tested with AdaFace and the average fusion rule.
  • ad hoc to paper The score transformation P(mated)=1/(d+1) yields probabilities suitable for probabilistic fusion rules.
    Section 3.3 uses this ad hoc mapping for Euclidean-distance Siamese scores; Bayesian averaging in Eq. 4 assumes calibrated and conditionally independent scores, which is not demonstrated.
  • standard math Pearson correlation between matcher scores measures the complementarity that fusion can exploit.
    Section 5.1 uses PCC as the complementary metric; low correlation does not guarantee fusion gain if one matcher is much weaker.
  • domain assumption The off-the-shelf 3DFR algorithms generate sufficiently accurate geometry and texture on SCface mugshots for view synthesis.
    The authors rely on the original GitHub implementations without retraining or quality verification on this data.
  • ad hoc to paper MobileNet and other dropped architectures are legitimately excluded post hoc.
    Section 5.2 excludes MobileNet because it is near random and Sections 5.3 restrict the analysis to XceptionNet and AdaFace; the general claim is then only supported on selected architectures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploiting Multiple Representations: 3D Face Biometrics Fusion with Application to Surveillance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E727U456

@misc{pith2026250418886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploiting Multiple Representations: 3D Face Biometrics Fusion with Application to Surveillance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E727U456}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18886}
}
read the original abstract

3D face reconstruction (3DFR) algorithms are based on specific assumptions tailored to the limits and characteristics of the different application scenarios. In this study, we investigate how multiple state-of-the-art 3DFR algorithms can be used to generate a better representation of subjects, with the final goal of improving the performance of face recognition systems in challenging uncontrolled scenarios. We also explore how different parametric and non-parametric score-level fusion methods can exploit the unique strengths of multiple 3DFR algorithms to enhance biometric recognition robustness. With this goal, we propose a comprehensive analysis of several face recognition systems across diverse conditions, such as varying distances and camera setups, intra-dataset and cross-dataset, to assess the robustness of the proposed ensemble method. The results demonstrate that the distinct information provided by different 3DFR algorithms can alleviate the problem of generalizing over multiple application scenarios. In addition, the present study highlights the potential of advanced fusion strategies to enhance the reliability of 3DFR-based face recognition systems, providing the research community with key insights to exploit them in real-world applications effectively. Although the experiments are carried out in a specific face verification setup, our proposed fusion-based 3DFR methods may be applied to other tasks around face biometrics that are not strictly related to identity recognition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Advantages of 3D face reconstruction from a 2D acquisition in comparison with 3D data acquisition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proposed method. After the 3DFR algorithms, the synthetic view generation module creates 2D images ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of personalized 3D templates generated from a mugshot (a) in the SCface dataset [41] using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Taxonomy of the analyzed score-level fusion methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Siamese Neural Network module overview: the 3D reference image and 2D probe image undergo face [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) between the sets of scores obtained in the intra-setting experiments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Summary of AUC values obtained from all the intra-setting camera-distance configurations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: AUC values obtained with AdaFace in the intra-setting scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: AUC values obtained with the Siamese network based on the XceptionNet in the intra-setting scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: AUC obtained with AdaFace in the cross-setting scenarios when varying acquisition distance and surveillance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: AUC values obtained after combining the 3DFR-enhanced verification systems based on AdaFace through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: ROC curves obtained after combining the 3DFR-enhanced verification systems based on AdaFace obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Comparison of Visual Trackers for Biomechanical Analysis of Running

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Joint-based pose trackers with outlier smoothing and late fusion estimate sprint angles to within roughly 4 to 8 degrees of expert labels, still short of the roughly 2-degree accuracy needed for injury screening.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Second Edition FRCSyn challenge at CVPR 2024: face recognition challenge in the era of synthetic data

    Ivan DeAndres-Tame, Ruben Tolosana, Pietro Melzi, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, Minchul Kim, Christian Rathgeb, Xiaoming Liu, Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez, Javier Ortega-Garcia, et al. Second Edition FRCSyn challenge at CVPR 2024: face recognition challenge in the era of synthetic data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern R...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    SDFR: synthetic data for face recognition competition

    Hatef Otroshi Shahreza, Christophe Ecabert, Anjith George, Alexander Unnervik, Sébastien Marcel, Nicolò Di Domenico, Guido Borghi, Davide Maltoni, Fadi Boutros, Julia V ogel, et al. SDFR: synthetic data for face recognition competition. In 2024 IEEE 18th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    FRCSyn-onGoing: benchmarking and comprehensive evaluation of real and synthetic data to improve face recognition systems

    Pietro Melzi, Ruben Tolosana, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, Minchul Kim, Christian Rathgeb, Xiaoming Liu, Ivan DeAndres-Tame, Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez, Javier Ortega-Garcia, et al. FRCSyn-onGoing: benchmarking and comprehensive evaluation of real and synthetic data to improve face recognition systems. Information Fusion, 107:102322, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Synthetic data for video surveillance applications of computer vision: A review

    Rita Delussu, Lorenzo Putzu, and Giorgio Fumera. Synthetic data for video surveillance applications of computer vision: A review. International Journal of Computer Vision, pages 1–37, 2024. 15 A PREPRINT - A PRIL 29, 2025

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    3D face reconstruction for forensic recognition-a survey

    Simone Maurizio La Cava, Giulia Orrù, Tomáš Goldmann, Martin Drahansky, and Gian Luca Marcialis. 3D face reconstruction for forensic recognition-a survey. In 2022 26th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 930–937. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Controllable 3D face synthesis with conditional generative occupancy fields

    Keqiang Sun, Shangzhe Wu, Zhaoyang Huang, Ning Zhang, Quan Wang, and HongSheng Li. Controllable 3D face synthesis with conditional generative occupancy fields. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:16331–16343, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Gomez, Aythami Morales, Jose L

    Javier Hernandez-Ortega, Julian Fierrez, Luis F. Gomez, Aythami Morales, Jose L. Gonzalez de Suso, and Francisco Zamora-Martinez. FaceQvec: Vector quality assessment for face biometrics based on ISO compliance. In IEEE/CVF Winter Conf. on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVw), pages 84–92, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Face image quality assessment: A literature survey

    Torsten Schlett, Christian Rathgeb, Olaf Henniger, Javier Galbally, Julian Fierrez, and Christoph Busch. Face image quality assessment: A literature survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 10(54):1–49, September 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    3D digital stereophotogrammetry: a practical guide to facial image acquisition

    Carrie L Heike, Kristen Upson, Erik Stuhaug, and Seth M Weinberg. 3D digital stereophotogrammetry: a practical guide to facial image acquisition. Head & face medicine, 6(1):1–11, 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    3D face recognition by ICP-based shape matching

    B Ben Amor, Karima Ouji, Mohsen Ardabilian, and Liming Chen. 3D face recognition by ICP-based shape matching. LIRIS Lab, Lyon Research Center for Images and Intelligent Information Systems, UMR, 5205, 2005

    2005

  3. [11]

    3D face reconstruction: the road to forensics

    Simone Maurizio La Cava, Giulia Orrù, Martin Drahansky, Gian Luca Marcialis, and Fabio Roli. 3D face reconstruction: the road to forensics. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(3):1–38, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Survey on 3D face reconstruction from uncalibrated images

    Araceli Morales, Gemma Piella, and Federico M Sukno. Survey on 3D face reconstruction from uncalibrated images. Computer Science Review, 40:100400, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Realy: Rethinking the evaluation of 3D face reconstruction

    Zenghao Chai, Haoxian Zhang, Jing Ren, Di Kang, Zhengzhuo Xu, Xuefei Zhe, Chun Yuan, and Linchao Bao. Realy: Rethinking the evaluation of 3D face reconstruction. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 74–92. Springer, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Analysis of score-level fusion rules for deepfake detection

    Sara Concas, Simone Maurizio La Cava, Giulia Orrù, Carlo Cuccu, Jie Gao, Xiaoyi Feng, Gian Luca Marcialis, and Fabio Roli. Analysis of score-level fusion rules for deepfake detection. Applied Sciences, 12(15):7365, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Trends and controversies

    Hugo Proença, Mark Nixon, Michele Nappi, Esam Ghaleb, Gökhan Özbulak, Hua Gao, Hazim Kemal Ekenel, Klemen Grm, Vitomir Struc, Hailin Shi, et al. Trends and controversies. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 33(3):41–67, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Combination of face regions in forensic scenarios

    Pedro Tome, Julian Fierrez, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, and Javier Ortega-Garcia. Combination of face regions in forensic scenarios. Journal of forensic sciences, 60(4):1046–1051, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Gonzalez-Sosa, R

    E. Gonzalez-Sosa, R. Vera-Rodriguez, J. Fierrez, and J. Ortega-Garcia. Exploring facial regions in unconstrained scenarios: Experience on ICB-RW. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 33(3):60–63, May 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Exploring 3D face reconstruction and fusion methods for face verification: A case-study in video surveillance

    Simone Maurizio La Cava, Sara Concas, Ruben Tolosana, Roberto Casula, Giulia Orrù, Martin Drahansky, Julian Fierrez, and Gian Luca Marcialis. Exploring 3D face reconstruction and fusion methods for face verification: A case-study in video surveillance. In IEEE/CVF European Con...

    2024

  11. [19]

    P. Tome, J. Fierrez, R. Vera-Rodriguez, and D. Ramos. Identification using face regions: Application and assessment in forensic scenarios. Forensic Science International, (233):75–83, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Surveillance video face recognition with single sample per person based on 3D modeling and blurring

    Xiao Hu, Shaohu Peng, Li Wang, Zhao Yang, and Zhaowen Li. Surveillance video face recognition with single sample per person based on 3D modeling and blurring. Neurocomputing, 235:46–58, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    3D face texture modeling from uncalibrated frontal and profile images

    Hu Han and Anil K Jain. 3D face texture modeling from uncalibrated frontal and profile images. In 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS), pages 223–230. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Effective face frontalization in unconstrained images

    Tal Hassner, Shai Harel, Eran Paz, and Roee Enbar. Effective face frontalization in unconstrained images. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4295–4304, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Towards high fidelity face frontalization in the wild

    Jie Cao, Yibo Hu, Hongwen Zhang, Ran He, and Zhenan Sun. Towards high fidelity face frontalization in the wild. International Journal of Computer Vision, 128(5):1485–1504, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Rotate-and-render: Unsupervised photorealistic face rotation from single-view images

    Hang Zhou, Jihao Liu, Ziwei Liu, Yu Liu, and Xiaogang Wang. Rotate-and-render: Unsupervised photorealistic face rotation from single-view images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5911–5920, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Recognizing rotated faces from frontal and side views: An approach toward effective use of mugshot databases

    Xiaozheng Zhang, Yongsheng Gao, and Maylor KH Leung. Recognizing rotated faces from frontal and side views: An approach toward effective use of mugshot databases. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 3(4):684–697, 2008. 16 A PREPRINT - A PRIL 29, 2025

    2008

  18. [26]

    On mugshot-based arbitrary view face recognition

    Jie Liang, Feng Liu, Huan Tu, Qijun Zhao, and Anil K Jain. On mugshot-based arbitrary view face recognition. In 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 3126–3131. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    3D face reconstruction from mugshots: Application to arbitrary view face recognition

    Jie Liang, Huan Tu, Feng Liu, Qijun Zhao, and Anil K Jain. 3D face reconstruction from mugshots: Application to arbitrary view face recognition. Neurocomputing, 410:12–27, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 1 edition, 2023

    V olker Blanz and Thomas Vetter.A Morphable Model For The Synthesis Of 3D Faces. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 1 edition, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Towards photo-realistic facial expression manipulation

    Zhenglin Geng, Chen Cao, and Sergey Tulyakov. Towards photo-realistic facial expression manipulation. International Journal of Computer Vision, 128:2744–2761, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    N heads are better than one: Exploring theoretical performance bounds of 3D face reconstruction methods

    William Rowan, Patrik Huber, NE Pears, and Andrew Keeling. N heads are better than one: Exploring theoretical performance bounds of 3D face reconstruction methods. In European Conference on Computer Vision Workshop (ECCVw) 2024: Foundation Models for 3D Humans. Springer Scienc...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Quality-based artifact modeling for facial deepfake detection in videos

    Sara Concas, Simone Maurizio La Cava, Roberto Casula, Giulia Orrù, Giovanni Puglisi, and Gian Luca Marcialis. Quality-based artifact modeling for facial deepfake detection in videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 38...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Fierrez-Aguilar, L

    J. Fierrez-Aguilar, L. Nanni, J. Ortega-Garcia, R. Cappelli, and D. Maltoni. Combining multiple matchers for fingerprint verification: a case study in FVC2004. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Image Analysis and Processing, volume 3617 of LNCS, pages 1035...

    2005

  25. [33]

    Garcia-Romero, J

    D. Garcia-Romero, J. Fierrez-Aguilar, J. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, and J. Ortega-Garcia. Using quality measures for multilevel speaker recognition. Computer Speech and Language, 20(2):192–209, April 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Multiple classifiers in biometrics

    Julian Fierrez, Aythami Morales, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, and David Camacho. Multiple classifiers in biometrics. part 2: Trends and challenges. Information Fusion, 44:103–112, November 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Evaluating the integration of morph attack detection in automated face recognition systems

    Andrea Panzino, Simone Maurizio La Cava, Giulia Orrù, and Gian Luca Marcialis. Evaluating the integration of morph attack detection in automated face recognition systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3827–3836, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    A survey of face recognition

    Xinyi Wang, Jianteng Peng, Sufang Zhang, Bihui Chen, Yi Wang, and Yandong Guo. A survey of face recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13038, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Fusion of appearance-based face recognition algorithms

    Gian Luca Marcialis and Fabio Roli. Fusion of appearance-based face recognition algorithms. Pattern Analysis and Applications, 7:151–163, 2004

    2004

  30. [38]

    Multiple classifiers in biometrics

    Julian Fierrez, Aythami Morales, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, and David Camacho. Multiple classifiers in biometrics. part 1: Fundamentals and review. Information Fusion, 44:57–64, November 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Multimodal biometrics: Weighted score level fusion based on non-ideal iris and face images.Expert systems with applications, 41(11):5390– 5404, 2014

    Hiew Moi Sim, Hishammuddin Asmuni, Rohayanti Hassan, and Razib M Othman. Multimodal biometrics: Weighted score level fusion based on non-ideal iris and face images.Expert systems with applications, 41(11):5390– 5404, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    Evaluation of fusion at different levels for face recognition

    Prachi Punyani and Ashwani Kumar. Evaluation of fusion at different levels for face recognition. In 2017 Int. Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA), pages 1052–1055, May 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    SCface–surveillance cameras face database

    Mislav Grgic, Kresimir Delac, and Sonja Grgic. SCface–surveillance cameras face database. Multimedia tools and applications, 51:863–879, 2011

    2011

  34. [42]

    Facial soft biometric features for forensic face recognition

    Pedro Tome, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, Julian Fierrez, and Javier Ortega-Garcia. Facial soft biometric features for forensic face recognition. Forensic science international, 257:271–284, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    A multiresolution 3D morphable face model and fitting framework

    Patrik Huber, Guosheng Hu, Rafael Tena, Pouria Mortazavian, P Koppen, William J Christmas, Matthias Ratsch, and Josef Kittler. A multiresolution 3D morphable face model and fitting framework. In Proceedings of the 11th international joint conference on computer vision, imaging...

    2016

  36. [44]

    Practical face reconstruction via differentiable ray tracing

    Abdallah Dib, Gaurav Bharaj, Junghyun Ahn, Cédric Thébault, Philippe Gosselin, Marco Romeo, and Louis Chevallier. Practical face reconstruction via differentiable ray tracing. In Computer Graphics Forum, volume 40, pages 153–164. Wiley Online Library, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    An inexpensive BRDF model for physically-based rendering

    Christophe Schlick. An inexpensive BRDF model for physically-based rendering. In Computer graphics forum, volume 13(3), pages 233–246. Wiley Online Library, 1994

    1994

  38. [46]

    Towards fast, accurate and stable 3D dense face alignment

    Jianzhu Guo, Xiangyu Zhu, Yang Yang, Fan Yang, Zhen Lei, and Stan Z Li. Towards fast, accurate and stable 3D dense face alignment. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam

    Andrew G. Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam. Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 2017. 17 A PREPRINT - A PRIL 29, 2025

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A hierarchical representation network for accurate and detailed face reconstruction from in-the-wild images

    Biwen Lei, Jianqiang Ren, Mengyang Feng, Miaomiao Cui, and Xuansong Xie. A hierarchical representation network for accurate and detailed face reconstruction from in-the-wild images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 394...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks

    Phillip Isola, Jun-Yan Zhu, Tinghui Zhou, and Alexei A Efros. Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1125–1134, 2017

    2017

  42. [50]

    Deep siamese network for low-resolution face recognition

    Shun-Cheung Lai and Kin-Man Lam. Deep siamese network for low-resolution face recognition. In 2021 Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA ASC), pages 1444–1449. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Searching for MobileNetv3

    Andrew Howard, Mark Sandler, Grace Chu, Liang-Chieh Chen, Bo Chen, Mingxing Tan, Weijun Wang, Yukun Zhu, Ruoming Pang, Vijay Vasudevan, et al. Searching for MobileNetv3. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 1314–1324, 2019

    2019

  44. [52]

    Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions

    François Chollet. Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1251–1258, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    AdaFace: Quality adaptive margin for face recognition

    Minchul Kim, Anil K Jain, and Xiaoming Liu. AdaFace: Quality adaptive margin for face recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 18750–18759, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    ArcFace: Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition

    Jiankang Deng, Jia Guo, Xue Niannan, and Stefanos Zafeiriou. ArcFace: Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4690–4699, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Fusion, Score-Level, pages 611–616

    Arun Ross and Karthik Nandakumar. Fusion, Score-Level, pages 611–616. Springer US, Boston, MA, 2009

    2009

  49. [57]

    Recent advances in deep learning techniques for face recognition

    Md Tahmid Hasan Fuad, Awal Ahmed Fime, Delowar Sikder, Md Akil Raihan Iftee, Jakaria Rabbi, Mabrook S Al-Rakhami, Abdu Gumaei, Ovishake Sen, Mohtasim Fuad, and Md Nazrul Islam. Recent advances in deep learning techniques for face recognition. IEEE Access, 9:99112–99142, 2021

    2021

  50. [58]

    A systematic survey of ML datasets for prime cv research areas—media and metadata

    Helder F Castro, Jaime S Cardoso, and Maria T Andrade. A systematic survey of ML datasets for prime cv research areas—media and metadata. Data, 6(2):12, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Gonzalez-Sosa, R

    E. Gonzalez-Sosa, R. Vera-Rodriguez, J. Hernandez-Ortega, and J. Fierrez. Person recognition at a distance: Improving face recognition through body static information. In IAPR Intl. Conf. on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 3439–3444, August 2018

    2018

  52. [60]

    A comprehensive study on face recognition biases beyond demographics

    Philipp Terhörst, Jan Niklas Kolf, Marco Huber, Florian Kirchbuchner, Naser Damer, Aythami Morales Moreno, Julian Fierrez, and Arjan Kuijper. A comprehensive study on face recognition biases beyond demographics. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 3(1):16–30, 2021

    2021

  53. [61]

    Discriminative multidimensional scaling for low-resolution face recognition

    Fuwei Yang, Wenming Yang, Riqiang Gao, and Qingmin Liao. Discriminative multidimensional scaling for low-resolution face recognition. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 25(3):388–392, 2017

    2017

  54. [62]

    QUIS-CAMPI: an annotated multi-biometrics data feed from surveillance scenarios

    Joao Neves, Juan Moreno, and Hugo Proença. QUIS-CAMPI: an annotated multi-biometrics data feed from surveillance scenarios. IET Biometrics, 7(4):371–379, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Huang, Marwan Mattar, Tamara Berg, and Eric Learned-Miller

    Gary B. Huang, Marwan Mattar, Tamara Berg, and Eric Learned-Miller. Labeled faces in the wild: A database for studying face recognition in unconstrained environments. In Workshop on faces in’Real-Life’Images: detection, alignment, and recognition, 2008

    2008

  56. [64]

    Le, and Hartwig Adam

    Andrew Howard, Mark Sandler, Grace Chu, Liang-Chieh Chen, Bo Chen, Mingxing Tan, Weijun Wang, Yukun Zhu, Ruoming Pang, Vijay Vasudevan, Quoc V . Le, and Hartwig Adam. Searching for MobileNetV3, 2019

    2019

  57. [65]

    Prepended domain transformer: Heterogeneous face recognition without bells and whistles

    Anjith George, Amir Mohammadi, and Sebastien Marcel. Prepended domain transformer: Heterogeneous face recognition without bells and whistles. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 18:133–146, 2022

    2022

  58. [66]

    Face hallucination revisited: An exploratory study on dataset bias

    Klemen Grm, Martin Pernus, Leo Cluzel, Walter J Scheirer, Simon Dobrisek, and Vitomir Struc. Face hallucination revisited: An exploratory study on dataset bias. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pages 0–0, 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    Multimodal low resolution face and frontal gait recognition from surveillance video

    Sayan Maity, Mohamed Abdel-Mottaleb, and Shihab S Asfour. Multimodal low resolution face and frontal gait recognition from surveillance video. Electronics, 10(9):1013, 2021

    2021

  60. [68]

    Facial soft biometrics for recognition in the wild: Recent works, annotation and COTS evaluation.IEEE Trans

    Ester Gonzalez-Sosa, Julian Fierrez, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, and Fernando Alonso-Fernandez. Facial soft biometrics for recognition in the wild: Recent works, annotation and COTS evaluation.IEEE Trans. on Information Forensics and Security, 13(8):2001–2014, August 2018. 18 A PREP...

    2001

  61. [69]

    Gomez, Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez, and Juan R

    Luis F. Gomez, Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez, and Juan R. Orozco-Arroyave. Exploring facial expressions and action unit domains for parkinson detection. PLoS One, 18(2):e0281248, February 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    Gomez, Julian Fierrez, Aythami Morales, Ruben Tolosana, and Javier Ortega-Garcia

    Roberto Daza, Luis F. Gomez, Julian Fierrez, Aythami Morales, Ruben Tolosana, and Javier Ortega-Garcia. Deepface-attention: Multimodal face biometrics for attention estimation with application to e-learning. IEEE Access, 12:111343–111359, 2024. 19

    2024

Pith tools

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