TFW: Annotated Thermal Faces in the Wild Dataset
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Face detection and localization of facial landmarks are the primary steps in building many face applications in computer vision. Numerous algorithms and benchmark datasets have been proposed to develop accurate face and facial landmark detection models in the visual domain. However, varying illumination conditions still pose challenging problems. Thermal cameras can address this problem because of their operation in longer wavelengths. However, thermal face detection and localization of facial landmarks in the wild condition are overlooked. The main reason is that most of the existing thermal face datasets have been collected in controlled environments. In addition, many of them contain no annotations of face bounding boxes and facial landmarks. In this work, we present a thermal face dataset with manually labeled bounding boxes and facial landmarks to address these problems. The dataset contains 9,202 images of 145 subjects, collected in both controlled and wild conditions. As a baseline, we trained the YOLOv5 object detection model and its adaptation for face detection, YOLO5Face, on our dataset. To show the efficacy of our dataset, we evaluated these models on the RWTH-Aachen thermal face dataset in addition to our test set. We have made the dataset, source code, and pretrained models publicly available at https://github.com/IS2AI/TFW to bolster research in thermal face analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it