| | 150 × 130 | 30 × 26 | 15 × 13 |
|---|
Features | G1, P1 | G1, P1 | G3, P1 * | G5, P1 | G3, P3 | G1, P1 | G3, P3 | G5, P3 * | G7, P7 |
|---|
GRAB | 1 | 0.9956 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.8622 | 0.9685 | 0.9978 | 1 |
LBP | 1 | 0.9956 | - | - | - | 0.8622 | - | - | - |
% Gain
|
0
|
0
|
0.44
|
0.44
|
0.44
|
0
|
12.32
|
15.72
|
15.98
|
MB-LBP | 1 | 0.9956 | 0.9972 | 0.9945 | 1 | 0.8622 | 0.8950 | 0.9464 | 0.9994 |
% Gain
|
0
|
0
|
0.28
|
0.55
|
0
|
0
|
8.21
|
5.43
|
0.06
|
- From a subset of LFW database with multiple scales. The gallery and probe images are the same; the only difference is the scale. All gallery images are of the size 130 × 150 whereas probe images are of the sizes 130 × 150, 30 × 26, and 15 × 13. The columns of the table show the multiple scales of the operators. For example, (G5, P1) means the scale of the operator is 5 for gallery and 1 for probe, which means gallery images are smoothed by window size of 5 to match the unknown smoothing present in the probe. The columns marked with asterisk are the operator scales automatically selected according to our scale-selection algorithm described later in this paper. Since there is no such selection mechanism in MB-LBP except boosting algorithm, we compared the algorithms on multiple scales. Since LBP does not allow the averaging operator, we mark those fields with hyphens. According to the results above, GRAB is more stable across scales compared to LBP and MB-LBP.
