Pith. sign in

REVIEW

GB-CosFace: Rethinking Softmax-based Face Recognition from the Perspective of Open Set Classification

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2111.11186 v2 pith:HAQ4NK4M submitted 2021-11-22 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords gb-cosfacelossfacerecognitionsoftmax-basedclassificationopencosface
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

State-of-the-art face recognition methods typically take the multi-classification pipeline and adopt the softmax-based loss for optimization. Although these methods have achieved great success, the softmax-based loss has its limitation from the perspective of open set classification: the multi-classification objective in the training phase does not strictly match the objective of open set classification testing. In this paper, we derive a new loss named global boundary CosFace (GB-CosFace). Our GB-CosFace introduces an adaptive global boundary to determine whether two face samples belong to the same identity so that the optimization objective is aligned with the testing process from the perspective of open set classification. Meanwhile, since the loss formulation is derived from the softmax-based loss, our GB-CosFace retains the excellent properties of the softmax-based loss, and CosFace is proved to be a special case of the proposed loss. We analyze and explain the proposed GB-CosFace geometrically. Comprehensive experiments on multiple face recognition benchmarks indicate that the proposed GB-CosFace outperforms current state-of-the-art face recognition losses in mainstream face recognition tasks. Compared to CosFace, our GB-CosFace improves 1.58%, 0.57%, and 0.28% at TAR@FAR=1e-6, 1e-5, 1e-4 on IJB-C benchmark.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools