4.6 Article

A survey on face detection in the wild: Past, present and future

Journal

COMPUTER VISION AND IMAGE UNDERSTANDING
Volume 138, Issue -, Pages 1-24

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.cviu.2015.03.015

Keywords

Face detection; Feature extraction; Boosting; Deformable models; Deep neural networks

Funding

  1. EPSRC [EP/J017787/1, EP/L026813/1]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/J017787/1, EP/L026813/1, EP/H016988/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. EPSRC [EP/H016988/1, EP/L026813/1, EP/J017787/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Face detection is one of the most studied topics in computer vision literature, not only because of the challenging nature of face as an object, but also due to the countless applications that require the application of face detection as a first step. During the past 15 years, tremendous progress has been made due to the availability of data in unconstrained capture conditions (so-called 'in-the-wild') through the Internet, the effort made by the community to develop publicly available benchmarks, as well as the progress in the development of robust computer vision algorithms. In this paper, we survey the recent advances in real-world face detection techniques, beginning with the seminal Viola-Jones face detector methodology. These techniques are roughly categorized into two general schemes: rigid templates, learned mainly via boosting based methods or by the application of deep neural networks, and deformable models that describe the face by its parts. Representative methods will be described in detail, along with a few additional successful methods that we briefly go through at the end. Finally, we survey the main databases used for the evaluation of face detection algorithms and recent benchmarking efforts, and discuss the future of face detection. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available