mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On the Effect of Selfie Beautification Filters on Face Detection and Recognition

arXiv 2110.08934 ↗First posted 17 Oct 2021cs.CVcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Beautification and augmented reality filters are very popular in applications that use selfie images captured with smartphones or personal devices. However, they can distort or modify biometric features, severely affecting the capability of recognizing individuals' identity or even detecting the face. Accordingly, we address the effect of such filters on the accuracy of automated face detection and recognition. The social media image filters studied either modify the image contrast or illumination or occlude parts of the face with for example artificial glasses or animal noses. We observe that the effect of some of these filters is harmful both to face detection and identity recognition, specially if they obfuscate the eye or (to a lesser extent) the nose. To counteract such effect, we develop a method to reconstruct the applied manipulation with a modified version of the U-NET segmentation network. This is observed to contribute to a better face detection and recognition accuracy. From a recognition perspective, we employ distance measures and trained machine learning algorithms applied to features extracted using a ResNet-34 network trained to recognize faces. We also evaluate if incorporating filtered images to the training set of machine learning approaches are beneficial for identity recognition. Our results show good recognition when filters do not occlude important landmarks, specially the eyes (identification accuracy >99%, EER<2%). The combined effect of the proposed approaches also allow to mitigate the effect produced by filters that occlude parts of the face, achieving an identification accuracy of >92% with the majority of perturbations evaluated, and an EER <8%. Although there is room for improvement, when neither U-NET reconstruction nor training with filtered images is applied, the accuracy with filters that severely occlude the eye is <72% (identification) and >12% (EER)

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Oct 2021.

Builds on

13 of 51 references.

References · 13

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,713
  3. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
  4. 2016Image-to-Image Translation with Conditional Adversarial Networkscited by 4,527
  5. 2014Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wildcited by 3,693
  6. 2014Striving for Simplicity: The All Convolutional Netcited by 990
  7. 2017VGGFace2: A dataset for recognising faces across pose and agecited by 914
  8. 2020A survey of face recognition techniques under occlusioncited by 38
  9. 2020The Effect of Wearing a Mask on Face Recognition Performance: an Exploratory Studycited by 26
  10. 2018A Survey on Periocular Biometrics Researchcited by 20
  11. 2020SqueezeFacePoseNet: Lightweight Face Verification Across Different Poses for Mobile Platformscited by 9
  12. 2017Demography-based Facial Retouching Detection using Subclass Supervised Sparse Autoencodercited by 8
1 more
  1. 2019On Detecting GANs and Retouching based Synthetic Alterationscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

10 papers.