Attribute-Guided Coupled GAN for Cross-Resolution Face Recognition

Fariborz Taherkhani; Matthew C Valenti; Nasser M Nasrabadi; Veeru Talreja

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Attribute-Guided Coupled GAN for Cross-Resolution Face Recognition

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes an attribute-guided coupled GAN that learns a shared embedding for low- and high-resolution face images, using facial attribute prediction to sharpen the subspace and improve cross-resolution recognition.

desk verdict A plausible engineering combination of known losses that likely helps modestly for cross-resolution face recognition, but the SCFace/UCCS attribute guidance is built on unvalidated MOON pseudo-labels and Table 1 has arithmetic errors, so the state-of-the-art claim is weaker than it first looks. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01790 v1 pith:XMQM2DMX submitted 2019-08-05 cs.CV cs.LGeess.IV

Veeru Talreja , Fariborz Taherkhani , Matthew C Valenti , Nasser M Nasrabadi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.LGeess.IV

keywords cross-resolutionfacerecognitioncoupledgenerativeadversarialnetworkcommonembeddingsubspacecontrastivelossfacialattributepredictionmulti-tasklearninglow-resolution

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

The paper sets out to improve cross-resolution face recognition—matching a low-resolution probe image against a gallery of high-resolution images—by learning a common embedding subspace with a coupled GAN and using facial attributes as auxiliary guidance. It claims that pulling genuine low/high-resolution pairs together and pushing impostor pairs apart in that subspace, while simultaneously predicting facial attributes from both resolutions, produces a more discriminative embedding than previous embedding methods. On the surveillance-camera dataset SCFace, the proposed method is reported to exceed the prior embedding baseline by 1.31, 1.60, 0.80, and 1.22 percentage points at Dist-1, Dist-2, Dist-3, and on average, and to lower top-1 and top-5 error rates on the unconstrained UCCS dataset. This matters because surveillance recognition often has to identify faces at long distances and low resolution, where standard recognizers degrade and explicit super-resolution is computationally expensive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a coupled GAN: two U-Net generators, one for the low-resolution domain and one for the high-resolution domain, tied together by a contrastive loss over a shared latent embedding. Each generator is trained with a patch-based discriminator, an L2 reconstruction loss, and the low-resolution branch also carries a deep perceptual loss. Attribute predictors attached to the bottleneck of each generator add supervised cross-entropy losses for individual facial attributes, and a fine-tuned face attribute predictor network supplies an attribute perceptual loss that compares attributes of synthesized and real images. The total objective is the weighted sum of the contrastive loss, attribute prediction loss, GAN loss, perceptual loss, attribute perceptual loss, and reconstruction loss; the attribute prediction term is what the paper identifies as the contributor that makes the embedding more discriminative.

What would settle it

Train the same coupled GAN with only the attribute prediction loss removed, and separately replace the synthetic attribute labels on SCFace and UCCS with human-verified labels; if recognition accuracy does not improve with human labels, or if randomly shuffled attribute labels reproduce the same gain, then attribute guidance is not the source of the reported improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that facial attributes, used as auxiliary supervision inside a coupled GAN, make the common embedding subspace more discriminative for cross-resolution face recognition. The framework has two sub-networks, one for low-resolution images and one for high-resolution images, coupled by a contrastive loss that attracts same-identity pairs and repels different-identity pairs in the shared subspace. Each sub-network also predicts a set of facial attributes from its bottleneck features, and the joint attribute prediction loss, together with attribute-consistency losses between real and synthesized images, shapes the embedding so that faces with similar attributes land close together across resolutions. The paper reports that this design outperforms the SKD and D-Align embedding baselines on SCFace, lowers top-1 and top-5 errors relative to VLRR and SKD on UCCS, and improves attribute prediction for low-resolution CelebA images. Its ablation study shows the attribute prediction loss provides an additional gain beyond the GAN and perceptual losses.

Load-bearing premise

The method's main bet is that the facial-attribute labels used to guide the embedding are accurate enough to help; on SCFace and UCCS those labels are produced automatically by a pretrained network rather than annotated by humans, so if they are noisy the attribute-guided contribution is not actually being tested on those benchmarks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Low-resolution probe faces can be matched directly against high-resolution gallery faces in the learned subspace, avoiding the computational cost of hallucinating high-resolution images before recognition.
The same features used for matching can also predict facial attributes from low-resolution images, which can narrow down the gallery during identification.
Adding attribute prediction as a multi-task loss is a workable way to improve cross-resolution matching even when attribute labels are machine-generated rather than human-annotated.
The reported rank-1 gains on SCFace across three camera distances suggest the approach transfers to surveillance settings with varying standoff distances.

Reading between the lines

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

If the attribute guidance is genuinely responsible for the gain, the same design should transfer to other cross-domain face-matching problems, such as matching visible to near-infrared images, where attribute consistency across domains can regularize the embedding.
A direct test of the paper's mechanism would be to replace the synthetic attribute labels on SCFace and UCCS with human-verified labels and measure whether recognition accuracy changes; if it does not, the attribute loss may be acting mainly as extra regularization.
The reported improvement in low-resolution attribute prediction suggests the shared embedding preserves soft-biometric information that a standalone low-resolution attribute predictor loses, which could be exploited for attribute-based retrieval from surveillance imagery.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core of this paper is a combined loss for cross-resolution face recognition: a coupled GAN with contrastive coupling, attribute prediction, attribute perceptual loss, and standard reconstruction/adversarial terms. All parts are known, but the specific combination is new, and the multi-task LR attribute prediction angle is a reasonable addition. The ablation on LFWA (Fig. 5) is the paper's best evidence: each added loss, including the attribute loss with human annotations, moves the ROC in the right direction. That supports the mechanism in principle.

The main weaknesses are two. First, Table 1's averages for D-Align and LRFRW are simply wrong: 34.37/39.38/49.37 does not average to 24.30, and LRFRW's row has the same problem. That is a reporting slip, but it undercuts trust in the numbers. Second—and more substantive—on SCFace and UCCS the paper generates attribute labels with MOON and never validates them on those domains. The only direct test of the attribute guidance loss uses LFWA with human labels. The reported SCFace gains over SKD are small, roughly 1% to 2%, so it is entirely possible the attribute term is acting as an unintended regularizer on surveillance data rather than as meaningful semantic guidance. The paper does not address this. Minor omissions (contrastive margin, exact loss weights, no code) round out the list.

That said, the method is coherent, the evaluation covers four datasets, and the central idea—learn a common embedding with auxiliary attribute prediction—has enough precedent and plausibility that the results are worth taking seriously, once the arithmetic and pseudo-label concerns are fixed. For someone working on surveillance or low-resolution face matching, this is a useful baseline. My recommendation: send it to peer review; the authors should be required to correct Table 1, validate or discuss MOON accuracy on SCFace/UCCS, and ideally release code. I would not cite it in the next year as anything beyond a related engineering approach.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The authors propose an attribute-guided coupled GAN for cross-resolution face recognition. Two sub-networks, one for low-resolution and one for high-resolution inputs, project images into a common embedding space learned with a contrastive loss; the overall objective also includes attribute prediction, GAN, perceptual, and L2 reconstruction losses. The paper reports rank-1 recognition improvements over several baselines on LFWA, CelebA, SCFace, and UCCS, and an ablation on LFWA showing that the attribute prediction loss contributes to verification performance.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the method offers a practical embedding-based solution to matching low-resolution surveillance probes against high-resolution galleries, and the multi-task attribute prediction appears to yield a modest but consistent gain on LFWA. The paper provides a useful ablation study and comparisons on four datasets. However, the central attribute-guidance mechanism is directly validated only on LFWA; on SCFace and UCCS the attribute labels are machine-generated without validation, and Table 1 contains an arithmetic error for the D-Align baseline. These issues need to be addressed before the contributions can be fully assessed.

major comments (3)

[Table 1] The average rank-1 accuracy reported for D-Align is 24.30, but the average of the three distance-specific values (34.37, 39.38, 49.37) is 41.04. This error substantially overstates the margin of the proposed method over D-Align. Please correct the table and re-check any text that cites this margin.
[Section 5.1 and Eqs. (8)-(10)] The attribute labels for SCFace and UCCS are generated by MOON, but the paper provides no accuracy or sensitivity analysis for these pseudo-labels. Since Eqs. (8)-(10) make the attribute prediction loss directly dependent on these labels, and since the only ablation that isolates the contribution of La is on LFWA (Section 5.6), the current evidence does not establish whether the attribute guidance is responsible for the gains on SCFace and UCCS. The margins over SKD on SCFace are small (0.80-1.60 pp), so noisy labels could easily account for or erode them. Please provide a validation of MOON on these datasets, an ablation including and excluding La on SCFace and UCCS, or a discussion of the expected impact of label noise.
[Section 4.2 and Eq. (7)] The contrastive loss is written as a sum over all N^2 pairs, but the text in Section 5.2 states that genuine and impostor pairs are balanced. Please clarify how the pairs are sampled and how the balance is achieved, since the number of genuine pairs is O(N) while impostor pairs are O(N^2). This clarification is needed to understand the actual training objective and the role of the contrastive margin m.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5.5] The text says the attribute prediction results are 'for both datasets', but Table 2 only reports CelebA. Please specify the dataset(s) for each reported column.
[Figure 3] The legend labels the first baseline as 'VLLR', but the text and reference [48] call it 'VLRR'. Please correct the legend.
[Eq. (21) and Section 5.2] The text in Section 5.2 states that λ3 and λ4 are 0.5 while all other λ's are 1; consider explicitly listing all hyperparameter values in one place for reproducibility.
[Abstract and Section 1] The text states that the method 'maximizes pair-wise correlation', but the contrastive loss in Eqs. (5)-(6) minimizes distances. Please align the terminology with the actual objective.
[Figure 5] The ROC curves would be more informative if accompanied by numerical AUC or equal-error-rate values; consider adding them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: recognition accuracy is measured on held-out identities, and the attribute-guided losses are auxiliary terms trained with external labels rather than outputs of the recognition model.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical training scheme, not a formal derivation. The recognition claim is evaluated by Eq. (22): a probe LR embedding z1(xp_LR) is matched to gallery HR embeddings z2(xj_HR) by minimum Euclidean distance, and the reported accuracies are measured on test identities not used in training. The attribute prediction losses La (Eqs. 8-10) and attribute perceptual loss Lpa (Eqs. 15-17) are auxiliary terms in the total objective (Eq. 21); their labels are either human annotations (LFWA, CelebA) or MOON-generated pseudo-labels (SCFace, UCCS), i.e., external inputs rather than outputs of the proposed model. The ablation in Fig. 5 compares loss combinations on LFWA and shows incremental ROC improvement, which is an empirical sensitivity check, not a tautology. Self-citations such as [40], [41], and [44] appear in related-work context and are not used to justify the central recognition result. No equation reduces the reported recognition accuracy to a fitted parameter or to the attribute labels by construction. The MOON-label concern on SCFace/UCCS is a correctness risk about whether the attribute-guidance contribution is actually tested there, but it is not circularity under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard supervised deep learning assumptions plus two external tools: a pre-trained and fine-tuned attribute predictor and MOON-generated attribute labels on two datasets. The only hand-set numeric parameters reported are the loss weights and the contrastive margin, whose value is not given. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Loss weights λ1, λ2, λ3, λ4, λ5 = λ1=λ2=λ5=1; λ3=λ4=0.5
Chosen by hand in Section 5.2 to balance the five loss terms; they affect the reported accuracy and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
Contrastive margin m
Appears in Eq. (6) and controls how far impostor pairs are pushed apart; the paper never states its value.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption A balanced set of genuine and impostor LR/HR pairs (Section 5.2) is sufficient to learn a contrastive embedding that separates identities at test time.
The system is evaluated on identities and resolutions not seen in training; the paper provides no theoretical guarantee, only empirical results.
domain assumption MOON-generated attribute labels for SCFace and UCCS are accurate enough to serve as ground truth for the attribute-guided loss.
Section 5.1 states that these datasets are not annotated with attributes and MOON is used to generate ground truth; if the pseudo-labels are noisy, the attribute contribution is not measured on those datasets.
domain assumption The VGG-Face attribute predictor fine-tuned on LFWA attributes provides a meaningful perceptual attribute loss when applied to other datasets.
Section 4.4 defines the attribute perceptual loss through A(.), and Section 5.2 says A was fine-tuned on LFWA attributes; it is assumed to transfer to CelebA, SCFace, and UCCS.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attribute-Guided Coupled GAN for Cross-Resolution Face Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMQM2DMX

@misc{pith2026190801790,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attribute-Guided Coupled GAN for Cross-Resolution Face Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMQM2DMX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01790}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a novel attribute-guided cross-resolution (low-resolution to high-resolution) face recognition framework that leverages a coupled generative adversarial network (GAN) structure with adversarial training to find the hidden relationship between the low-resolution and high-resolution images in a latent common embedding subspace. The coupled GAN framework consists of two sub-networks, one dedicated to the low-resolution domain and the other dedicated to the high-resolution domain. Each sub-network aims to find a projection that maximizes the pair-wise correlation between the two feature domains in a common embedding subspace. In addition to projecting the images into a common subspace, the coupled network also predicts facial attributes to improve the cross-resolution face recognition. Specifically, our proposed coupled framework exploits facial attributes to further maximize the pair-wise correlation by implicitly matching facial attributes of the low and high-resolution images during the training, which leads to a more discriminative embedding subspace resulting in performance enhancement for cross-resolution face recognition. The efficacy of our approach compared with the state-of-the-art is demonstrated using the LFWA, Celeb-A, SCFace and UCCS datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01790 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** CMC curves for rank-n recognition accuracy for different low-resolution images for different datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Top-1 and Top-5 Error rate comparison for VLLR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: ROC curves corresponding to the ablation study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.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

Deep Sparse Band Selection for Hyperspectral Face Recognition
cs.CV 2019-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A VGG-19 network with group Lasso on its first convolutional layer selects 3 to 4 spectral bands per dataset and reaches about 99.9% accuracy on the CMU, HK PolyU, and UWA hyperspectral face datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Chopra, R

S. Chopra, R. Hadsell, and Y . LeCun. Learning a similar- ity metric discriminatively, with application to face veriﬁca- tion. In Proc. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 539– 546, 2005

work page 2005
[2]

Dantcheva, P

A. Dantcheva, P. Elia, and A. Ross. What else does your bio- metric data reveal? a survey on soft biometrics. IEEE Trans- actions on Information Forensics and Security , 11(3):441– 467, March 2016

work page 2016
[3]

C. Dong, C. C. Loy, K. He, X. Tang, D. Fleet, T. Pajdla, B. Schiele, and T. Tuytelaars. Learning a deep convolutional network for image super-resolution. In Proc. European Con- ference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 184–199, 2014

work page 2014
[4]

S. N. Ferdous, M. Mostofa, and N. M. Nasrabadi. Super resolution-assisted deep aerial vehicle detection. In Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Multi-Domain Oper- ations Applications, 2019

2019
[5]

S. Ge, S. Zhao, C. Li, and J. Li. Low-resolution face recog- nition in the wild via selective knowledge distillation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 28:2051–2062, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Goodfellow, J

I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio. Gen- erative adversarial nets. In Proc. Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, pages 2672–2680. 2014

work page 2014
[7]

Grgic, K

M. Grgic, K. Delac, and S. Grgic. Scface surveillance cameras face database. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 51:863–879, 2009

work page 2009
[8]

Haghighat and M

M. Haghighat and M. Abdel-Mottaleb. Low resolution face recognition in surveillance systems using discriminant cor- relation analysis. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition, pages 912–917, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 53 references

[9]

Herrmann, D

C. Herrmann, D. Willersinn, and J. Beyerer. Low-resolution convolutional neural networks for video face recognition. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance (AVSS) , pages 221–227, 2016

2016
[10]

Isola, J.-Y

P. Isola, J.-Y . Zhu, T. Zhou, and A. A. Efros. Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), pages 5967–5976, 2017

2017
[11]

Jian and K.-M

M. Jian and K.-M. Lam. Simultaneous hallucination and recognition of low-resolution faces based on singular value decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 25(11):1761–1772, 2015

2015
[12]

Jiang, R

J. Jiang, R. Hu, Z. Wang, and Z. Cai. Cdmma: Cou- pled discriminant multi-manifold analysis for matching low- resolution face images. Signal Processing , 124:162–172, 2016

2016
[13]

Johnson, A

J. Johnson, A. Alahi, and L. Fei-Fei. Perceptual losses for real-time style transfer and super-resolution. In Proc. Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2016

2016
[14]

Kazemi, S

H. Kazemi, S. M. Iranmanesh, and N. Nasrabadi. Style and content disentanglement in generative adversarial networks. In Proc. IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Com- puter Vision (WACV), pages 848–856, 2019

2019
[15]

Kazemi, S

H. Kazemi, S. Soleymani, F. Taherkhani, S. Iranmanesh, and N. Nasrabadi. Unsupervised image-to-image transla- tion using domain-speciﬁc variational information bound. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 10348–10358, 2018

2018
[16]

Kazemi, F

H. Kazemi, F. Taherkhani, and N. M. Nasrabadi. Unsuper- vised facial geometry learning for sketch to photo synthesis. In International Conference of the Biometrics Special Inter- est Group (BIOSIG). IEEE, 2018

2018
[17]

D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. CoRR, abs/1412.6980, 2015

2015 arXiv
[18]

Kolouri and G

S. Kolouri and G. K. Rohde. Transport-based single frame super resolution of very low resolution face images. InProc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), pages 4876–4884, 2015

2015
[19]

Ledig, L

C. Ledig, L. Theis, F. Huszar, J. Caballero, A. P. Aitken, A. Tejani, J. Totz, Z. Wang, and W. Shi. Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network. CoRR, abs/1609.04802, 2016

2016 arXiv
[20]

P. Li, L. Prieto, D. Mery, and P. J. Flynn. On low-resolution face recognition in the wild: Comparisons and new tech- niques. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, page 11, 2019

2019
[21]

Z. Liu, P. Luo, X. Wang, and X. Tang. Deep learning face attributes in the wild. In Proceedings of International Con- ference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015

2015
[22]

Mirza and S

M. Mirza and S. Osindero. Conditional generative adversar- ial nets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784, 2014

2014 arXiv
[23]

S. P. Mudunuri and S. Biswas. Low resolution face recog- nition across variations in pose and illumination. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 38(5):1034–1040, 2016

2016
[24]

S. P. Mudunuri, S. Venkataramanan, and S. Biswas. Dic- tionary alignment with re-ranking for low-resolution nir-vis face recognition. IEEE Transactions on Information Foren- sics and Security, 14(4):886–896, April 2019

2019
[25]

U. M. Osahor and N. M. Nasrabadi. Deep adversarial at- tack on target detection systems. In Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Multi-Domain Operations Appli- cations, 2019

2019
[26]

U. M. Osahor and N. M. Nasrabadi. Design of adversar- ial targets: fooling deep atr systems. In Automatic Target Recognition XXIX, 2019

2019
[27]

O. M. Parkhi, A. Vedaldi, A. Zisserman, et al. Deep face recognition. In Proc. British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), volume 1, page 6, 2015

2015
[28]

S. Reed, Z. Akata, X. Yan, L. Logeswaran, B. Schiele, and H. Lee. Generative adversarial text to image synthesis. InIn- ternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2016

2016
[29]

Ren, D.-Q

C.-X. Ren, D.-Q. Dai, and H. Yan. Coupled kernel embed- ding for low-resolution face image recognition. IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing, 21(8):3770–3783, 2012

2012
[30]

Ronneberger, P

O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox. U-net: Convolu- tional networks for biomedical image segmentation. InProc. International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 234–241. Springer, 2015

2015
[31]

E. M. Rudd, M. G ¨unther, and T. E. Boult. Moon: A mixed objective optimization network for the recognition of facial attributes. In Proc. European Conference on Cmputer Vision (ECCV), 2016

2016
[32]

Sapkota and T

A. Sapkota and T. E. Boult. Large scale unconstrained open set face database. In 2013 IEEE Sixth International Con- ference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS), Sep. 2013

2013
[33]

Shekhar, V

S. Shekhar, V . M. Patel, and R. Chellappa. Synthesis- based robust low resolution face recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02733, 2017

2017 arXiv
[34]

Simonyan and A

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

2014 arXiv
[35]

Singh, S

M. Singh, S. Nagpal, M. Vatsa, R. Singh, A. Majumdar, and IIIT-Delhi. Identity aware synthesis for cross resolution face recognition. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 479–488, 2018

2018
[36]

Soleymani, A

S. Soleymani, A. Dabouei, J. Dawson, and N. M. Nasrabadi. Adversarial examples to fool iris recognition systems.CoRR, abs/1906.09300, 2019

1906 arXiv
[37]

Soleymani, A

S. Soleymani, A. Dabouei, S. M. Iranmanesh, H. Kazemi, J. Dawson, and N. M. Nasrabadi. Prosodic-enhanced siamese convolutional neural networks for cross-device text- independent speaker veriﬁcation. In Proc. IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Biometrics Theory, Applications an...

2018
[38]

Taherkhani and M

F. Taherkhani and M. Jamzad. Restoring highly corrupted images by impulse noise using radial basis functions inter- polation. IET Image Processing, 12(1):20–30, 2017

2017
[39]

Taherkhani, H

F. Taherkhani, H. Kazemi, and N. M. Nasrabadi. Matrix completion for graph-based deep semi-supervised learning. In Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence , 2019

2019
[40]

Taherkhani, N

F. Taherkhani, N. M. Nasrabadi, and J. Dawson. A deep face identiﬁcation network enhanced by facial attributes pre- diction. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pages 553–560, 2018

2018
[41]

Taherkhani, V

F. Taherkhani, V . Talreja, H. Kazemi, and N. Nasrabadi. Fa- cial attribute guided deep cross-modal hashing for face im- age retrieval. In International Conference of the Biometrics Special Interest Group (BIOSIG). IEEE, 2018

2018
[42]

Talreja, T

V . Talreja, T. Ferrett, M. C. Valenti, and A. Ross. Biometrics- as-a-service: A framework to promote innovative biometric recognition in the cloud. In IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), 2018

2018
[43]

Talreja, S

V . Talreja, S. Soleymani, M. C. Valenti, and N. M. Nasrabadi. Learning to authenticate with deep multibiometric hashing and neural network decoding. CoRR, abs/1902.04149, 2019

1902 arXiv
[44]

Talreja, F

V . Talreja, F. Taherkhani, M. C. Valenti, and N. M. Nasrabadi. Using deep cross modal hashing and error cor- recting codes for improving the efﬁciency of attribute guided facial image retrieval. In Proc. IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing (GlobalSIP),...

2018
[45]

Talreja, M

V . Talreja, M. C. Valenti, and N. M. Nasrabadi. Multibio- metric secure system based on deep learning. In Proc. IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing , pages 298–302, Nov. 2017

2017
[46]

Uiboupin, P

T. Uiboupin, P. Rasti, G. Anbarjafari, and H. Demirel. Fa- cial image super resolution using sparse representation for improving face recognition in surveillance monitoring. In Proc. IEEE Signal Processing and Communication Applica- tion Conference (SIU), pages 437–440, 2016

2016
[47]

X. Wang, H. Hu, and J. Gu. Pose robust low-resolution face recognition via coupled kernel-based enhanced discrim- inant analysis. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica , 3(2):203–212, 2016

2016
[48]

Z. Wang, S. Chang, Y . Yang, D. Liu, and T. S. Huang. Study- ing very low resolution recognition using deep networks. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4792–4800, 2016

2016
[49]

L. Wolf, T. Hassner, and Y . Taigman. Effective uncon- strained face recognition by combining multiple descriptors and learned background statistics. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 33(10):1978– 1990, Oct 2011

1978
[50]

Xing and K

X. Xing and K. Wang. Couple manifold discriminant anal- ysis with bipartite graph embedding for low-resolution face recognition. Signal Processing, 125:329–335, 2016

2016
[51]

Yang, C.-P

M.-C. Yang, C.-P. Wei, Y .-R. Yeh, and Y .-C. F. Wang. Recog- nition at a long distance: Very low resolution face recogni- tion and hallucination. In Proc. International Conference on Biometrics (ICB), pages 237–242, 2015

2015
[52]

Zhang, X

P. Zhang, X. Ben, W. Jiang, R. Yan, and Y . Zhang. Cou- pled marginal discriminant mappings for low-resolution face recognition. Optik, 126(23):4352–4357, 2015

2015
[53]

Zhong, J

Y . Zhong, J. Sullivan, and H. Li. Face attribute prediction using off-the-shelf cnn features. In Proc. International Con- ference on Biometrics (ICB), 2016

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Chopra, R

S. Chopra, R. Hadsell, and Y . LeCun. Learning a similar- ity metric discriminatively, with application to face veriﬁca- tion. In Proc. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 539– 546, 2005

work page 2005

[2] [2]

Dantcheva, P

A. Dantcheva, P. Elia, and A. Ross. What else does your bio- metric data reveal? a survey on soft biometrics. IEEE Trans- actions on Information Forensics and Security , 11(3):441– 467, March 2016

work page 2016

[3] [3]

C. Dong, C. C. Loy, K. He, X. Tang, D. Fleet, T. Pajdla, B. Schiele, and T. Tuytelaars. Learning a deep convolutional network for image super-resolution. In Proc. European Con- ference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 184–199, 2014

work page 2014

[4] [4]

S. N. Ferdous, M. Mostofa, and N. M. Nasrabadi. Super resolution-assisted deep aerial vehicle detection. In Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Multi-Domain Oper- ations Applications, 2019

2019

[5] [5]

S. Ge, S. Zhao, C. Li, and J. Li. Low-resolution face recog- nition in the wild via selective knowledge distillation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 28:2051–2062, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Goodfellow, J

I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio. Gen- erative adversarial nets. In Proc. Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, pages 2672–2680. 2014

work page 2014

[7] [7]

Grgic, K

M. Grgic, K. Delac, and S. Grgic. Scface surveillance cameras face database. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 51:863–879, 2009

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Haghighat and M

M. Haghighat and M. Abdel-Mottaleb. Low resolution face recognition in surveillance systems using discriminant cor- relation analysis. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition, pages 912–917, 2017

work page 2017