-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 541
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
training set CASIA-WebFace: did you use clean_list or all images from CASIA? #26
Comments
We use a clean list of CASIA, which removed all the identities appearing in LFW. Using all images will violate the training protocol for LFW and it is prohibited. |
I have done quit lots of experiments but not reproduced your results; |
thx |
The repo already contains the code to produce our training list. |
ok,thx |
How many photos and classes must be in washed casia web face? |
@wy1iu @qiqiguaitm So the casia webface used in this repo is different from https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cmu-openface/Xue_D4_mxDQ? |
Based on this, https://github.com/happynear/FaceDatasets/tree/master/CASIA, it seems like there are identities that you have not excluded from your train set. Does that mean that your accuracy on LFW is not reliable? |
@yxchng But for MegaFace FaceScrub set1, there are 42 overlap identities between it and WebFace. Note that there are only 80 identities in FaceScrub set1, which means over half of the identities are already trained. The performance drops significantly on MegaFace if the overlap identities are removed. |
@happynear When you say doesn't affect much, do you mean I can reproduce the result of this paper with identities from https://github.com/happynear/FaceDatasets/blob/master/CASIA/webface_lfw_overlap.txt removed? Currently, I am unable to. Are you? |
lfw acc:99.42% is incredible good;
About training set CASIA-WebFace, did you use clean_list or all images from CASIA?
I use this cleaned version casia,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cmu-openface/Xue_D4_mxDQ
best result is
Accuracy: 0.990+-0.004
Validation rate: 0.92067+-0.02112 @ FAR=0.00100
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: