Patrick Grother

dblp:g/PatrickGrother · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
11ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
0000-0003-1996-4363ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 10 · 3 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 5 · 1 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
6 papers
Face, body and person analysis · 87% Generative modeling · 4% Video understanding and tracking · 4%
Network and information security
2 papers
Biometric security · 100%

Topics — the 15 heaviest of 18, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis
face recognition
0.652015
Pushing the frontiers of unconstrained face detection and recognition: IARPA Janus Benchmark A · CVPR 2015
Double Trouble: Differentiating Identical Twins by Face Recognition · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2014
Face Recognition Based on Frontal Views Generated from Non-Frontal Images · CVPR (2) 2005
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis
face detection
0.212015
Pushing the frontiers of unconstrained face detection and recognition: IARPA Janus Benchmark A · CVPR 2015
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis › face recognition › robust face recognition
unconstrained face recognition
0.212015
Pushing the frontiers of unconstrained face detection and recognition: IARPA Janus Benchmark A · CVPR 2015
Biometric security
biometric recognition
0.212014
Double Trouble: Differentiating Identical Twins by Face Recognition · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2014
Biometric security
face recognition
0.212014
Double Trouble: Differentiating Identical Twins by Face Recognition · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2014
Biometric security
biometric quality assessment
0.112007
Performance of Biometric Quality Measures · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2007
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis › face recognition
face recognition benchmark
0.112015
Pushing the frontiers of unconstrained face detection and recognition: IARPA Janus Benchmark A · CVPR 2015
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis › face recognition
illumination variation
0.112014
Double Trouble: Differentiating Identical Twins by Face Recognition · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2014
Machine learning › Generative modeling › face synthesis
face frontalization
0.112005
Face Recognition Based on Frontal Views Generated from Non-Frontal Images · CVPR (2) 2005
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis › gait analysis
gait recognition
0.112005
The HumanID Gait Challenge Problem: Data Sets, Performance, and Analysis · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2005
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis › face recognition › robust face recognition
pose-invariant face recognition
0.112005
Face Recognition Based on Frontal Views Generated from Non-Frontal Images · CVPR (2) 2005
Computer vision › Video understanding and tracking › action recognition
silhouette-based recognition
0.112005
The HumanID Gait Challenge Problem: Data Sets, Performance, and Analysis · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2005
Computer vision › 3D vision
3d face reconstruction
0.012005
Face Recognition Based on Frontal Views Generated from Non-Frontal Images · CVPR (2) 2005
Computer vision › 3D vision › 3d face modeling
3d morphable model
0.012005
Face Recognition Based on Frontal Views Generated from Non-Frontal Images · CVPR (2) 2005
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.012004
How Features of the Human Face Affect Recognition: A Statistical Comparison of Three Face Recognition Algorithms · CVPR (2) 2004

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

face recognition algorithms · 0.4crowdsourced annotation · 0.2error versus reject characteristics · 0.1detection error trade-off · 0.1temporal correlation · 0.1computer graphics rendering · 0.1background subtraction · 0.13d morphable model · 0.1statistical modeling · 0.0statistical comparison · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Pushing the frontiers of unconstrained face detection and recognition: IARPA Janus Benchmark A
abstract
Rapid progress in unconstrained face recognition has resulted in a saturation in recognition accuracy for current benchmark datasets. While important for early progress, a chief limitation in most benchmark datasets is the use of a commodity face detector to select face imagery. The implication of this strategy is restricted variations in face pose and other confounding factors. This paper introduces the IARPA Janus Benchmark A (IJB-A), a publicly available media in the wild dataset containing 500 subjects with manually localized face images. Key features of the IJB-A dataset are: (i) full pose variation, (ii) joint use for face recognition and face detection benchmarking, (iii) a mix of images and videos, (iv) wider geographic variation of subjects, (v) protocols supporting both open-set identification (1:N search) and verification (1:1 comparison), (vi) an optional protocol that allows modeling of gallery subjects, and (vii) ground truth eye and nose locations. The dataset has been developed using 1,501,267 million crowd sourced annotations. Baseline accuracies for both face detection and face recognition from commercial and open source algorithms demonstrate the challenge offered by this new unconstrained benchmark.
Brendan Klare, Benjamin Klein, Emma Taborsky, Austin Blanton, Jordan Cheney, Kristen Allen, Patrick Grother, Alan Mah, Mark James Burge, Anil K. Jain 0001
CVPR7
2014 Double Trouble: Differentiating Identical Twins by Face Recognition
abstract
Facial recognition algorithms should be able to operate even when similar-looking individuals are encountered, or even in the extreme case of identical twins. An experimental data set comprised of 17486 images from 126 pairs of identical twins (252 subjects) collected on the same day and 6864 images from 120 pairs of identical twins (240 subjects) with images taken a year later was used to measure the performance on seven different face recognition algorithms. Performance is reported for variations in illumination, expression, gender, and age for both the same day and cross-year image sets. Regardless of the conditions of image acquisition, distinguishing identical twins are significantly harder than distinguishing subjects who are not identical twins for all algorithms.
Jeffrey R. Paone, Patrick J. Flynn, P. Jonathon Phillips, Kevin W. Bowyer, Richard W. Vorder Bruegge, Patrick Grother, George W. Quinn, Matthew Pruitt, Jason M. Grant
IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur.6
2011 Distinguishing identical twins by face recognition
abstract
The paper measures the ability of face recognition algorithms to distinguish between identical twin siblings. The experimental dataset consists of images taken of 126 pairs of identical twins (252 people) collected on the same day and 24 pairs of identical twins (48 people) with images collected one year apart. In terms of both the number of paris of twins and lapsed time between acquisitions, this is the most extensive investigation of face recognition performance on twins to date. Recognition experiments are conducted using three of the top submissions to the Multiple Biometric Evaluation (MBE) 2010 Still Face Track [1]. Performance results are reported for both same day and cross year matching. Performance results are broken out by lighting conditions (studio and outside); expression (neutral and smiling); gender and age. Confidence intervals were generated by a bootstrap method. This is the most detailed covariate analysis of face recognition of twins to date.
P. Jonathon Phillips, Patrick J. Flynn, Kevin W. Bowyer, Richard W. Vorder Bruegge, Patrick Grother, George W. Quinn, Matthew Pruitt
FG5
2007 Performance of Biometric Quality Measures
abstract
We document methods for the quantitative evaluation of systems that produce a scalar summary of a biometric sample's quality. We are motivated by a need to test claims that quality measures are predictive of matching performance. We regard a quality measurement algorithm as a black box that converts an input sample to an output scalar. We evaluate it by quantifying the association between those values and observed matching results. We advance detection error trade-off and error versus reject characteristics as metrics for the comparative evaluation of sample quality measurement algorithms. We proceed this with a definition of sample quality, a description of the operational use of quality measures. We emphasize the performance goal by including a procedure for annotating the samples of a reference corpus with quality values derived from empirical recognition scores.
Patrick Grother, Elham Tabassi
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.1
2005 Face Recognition Based on Frontal Views Generated from Non-Frontal Images
abstract
This paper presents a method for face recognition across large changes in viewpoint. Our method is based on a morphable model of 3D faces that represents face-specific information extracted from a dataset of 3D scans. For non-frontal face recognition in 2D still images, the morphable model can be incorporated in two different approaches: in the first, it serves as a preprocessing step by estimating the 3D shape of novel faces from the non-frontal input images, and generating frontal views of the reconstructed faces at a standard illumination using 3D computer graphics. The transformed images are then fed into state-of-the-art face recognition systems that are optimized for frontal views. This method was shown to be extremely effective in the Face Recognition Vendor Test FRVT 2002. In the process of estimating the 3D shape of a face from an image, a set of model coefficients are estimated. In the second method, face recognition is performed directly from these coefficients. In this paper we explain the algorithm used to preprocess the images in FRVT 2002, present additional FRVT 2002 results, and compare these results to recognition from the model coefficients.
Volker Blanz, Patrick Grother, P. Jonathon Phillips, Thomas Vetter
CVPR (2)2
2005 The HumanID Gait Challenge Problem: Data Sets, Performance, and Analysis
abstract
Identification of people by analysis of gait patterns extracted from video has recently become a popular research problem. However, the conditions under which the problem is "solvable" are not understood or characterized. To provide a means for measuring progress and characterizing the properties of gait recognition, we introduce the HumanID Gait Challenge Problem. The challenge problem consists of a baseline algorithm, a set of 12 experiments, and a large data set. The baseline algorithm estimates silhouettes by background subtraction and performs recognition by temporal correlation of silhouettes. The 12 experiments are of increasing difficulty, as measured by the baseline algorithm, and examine the effects of five covariates on performance. The covariates are: change in viewing angle, change in shoe type, change in walking surface, carrying or not carrying a briefcase, and elapsed time between sequences being compared. Identification rates for the 12 experiments range from 78 percent on the easiest experiment to 3 percent on the hardest. All five covariates had statistically significant effects on performance, with walking surface and time difference having the greatest impact. The data set consists of 1,870 sequences from 122 subjects spanning five covariates (1.2 Gigabytes of data). The gait data, the source code of the baseline algorithm, and scripts to run, score, and analyze the challenge experiments are available at http://www.GaitChallenge.org. This infrastructure supports further development of gait recognition algorithms and additional experiments to understand the strengths and weaknesses of new algorithms. The more detailed the experimental results presented, the more detailed is the possible meta-analysis and greater is the understanding. It is this potential from the adoption of this challenge problem that represents a radical departure from traditional computer vision research methodology.
Sudeep Sarkar, P. Jonathon Phillips, Isidro Robledo Vega, Patrick Grother, Kevin W. Bowyer
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.5
2004 How Features of the Human Face Affect Recognition: A Statistical Comparison of Three Face Recognition Algorithms
Geof H. Givens, J. Ross Beveridge, Bruce A. Draper, Patrick Grother, P. Jonathon Phillips
CVPR (2)4
2004 Models of Large Population Recognition Performance
Patrick Grother, P. Jonathon Phillips
CVPR (2)1
1997 Fast implementations of nearest neighbor classifiers
Patrick Grother, Gerald T. Candela, James L. Blue
Pattern Recognit.1
1996 Binary decision clustering for neural-network-based optical character recognition
Charles L. Wilson, Patrick Grother, C. S. Barnes
Pattern Recognit.2
1994 Evaluation of pattern classifiers for fingerprint and OCR applications
James L. Blue, Gerald T. Candela, Patrick Grother, Rama Chellappa, Charles L. Wilson
Pattern Recognit.3