Goal:
Our goal is to implement a sliding window face detector, and to hopefully achieve high accuracy by mining hard negatives.
Method:
Obtaining a Feature Representation of Cropped Images
Initial Training: Learning from Postives and Random Negatives
Mining Hard Negatives
Testing Time: Sliding Window Classifier
Discussion:
Altering HoG Parameters
By modifying HoG parameters a modest increase in performance was achieved. The effect of modifying the number of bins was not investigated. The results from changing the
number of windows per bounding box can been seen below. The accuracies reported are the results of testing with a linear classifier, without mining hard negatives. By increasing the number of
windows per bounding bow from 3 x 3 to 9 x 9 an increase in accuracy from 17.1 % to 37.6 % was achieved.
Linear Classifier. No hard negatives mined
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
9 bins, 3 x 3 Windows | 9 bins, 5 x 5 Windows | 9 bins, 9 x 5 Windows |
Linear vs. Nonlinear
The results of using a linear and nonlinear classifier for different HoG parameters are displayed below. A large increase in performance was achieved by
switching from linear to nonlinear when the HoG parameters selected were 3,3 and 9 bins.
3 x 3 Windows, 9 Bins. No Hard Negatives Mined.
![]() |
![]() |
Linear Classifier | Nonlinear Classifier |
Mining Hard Negatives
Mining hard negatives further increased the accuracy of our classifier. After performing a single round of mining hard negatives an increase in accuracy from 17.1 % to 22.1 % was obtained.
Mining hard negatives seemed to have a less significant effect on the performance of the nonlinear classifier. The results of mining for 1 and 3 rounds is shown below.
Linear Classifier. 3 x 3 Windows, 9 Bins.
![]() |
![]() |
Without Mining Hard Negatives. | One Round of Mining Hard Negatives. |
Nonlinear Classifier. 3 x 3 Windows, 9 Bins.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Without Mining Hard Negatives. | One Round of Mining Hard Negatives. | Three Round of Mining Hard Negatives. |