Person Re-Identification by Deep Joint Learning of Multi-Loss Classification

arXiv:1705.04724v2 [] 23 May 2017

Wei Li, Xiatian Zhu, Shaogang Gong
Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
{w.li, xiatian.zhu, s.gong}@qmul.ac.uk

Abstract
Existing person re-identification (re-id) methods
rely mostly on either localised or global feature representation alone. This ignores their joint benefit
and mutual complementary effects. In this work,
we show the advantages of jointly learning local
and global features in a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) by aiming to discover correlated local
and global features in different context. Specifically, we formulate a method for joint learning of
local and global feature selection losses designed
to optimise person re-id when using only generic
matching metrics such as the L2 distance. We design a novel CNN architecture for Jointly Learning
Multi-Loss (JLML) of local and global discriminative feature optimisation subject concurrently to the
same re-id labelled information. Extensive comparative evaluations demonstrate the advantages
of this new JLML model for person re-id over a
wide range of state-of-the-art re-id methods on five
benchmarks (VIPeR, GRID, CUHK01, CUHK03,
Market-1501).

1

Introduction

Person re-identification (re-id) is about matching identity
classes in detected person bounding box images from nonoverlapping camera views over distributed open spaces. This
is an inherently challenging task because person visual appearance may change dramatically in different camera views
from different locations due to unknown changes in human
pose, illumination, occlusion, and background clutter [Gong
et al., 2014]. Existing person re-id studies typically focus
on either feature representation [Gray and Tao, 2008; Farenzena et al., 2010; Kviatkovsky et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2013;
Liao et al., 2015; Matsukawa et al., 2016a; Ma et al., 2017]
or matching distance metrics [Koestinger et al., 2012; Xiong
et al., 2014; Zheng et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2014b; Paisitkriangkrai et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016b;
Wang et al., 2016c; Wang et al., 2016d; Chen et al., 2017b] or
their combination in deep learning framework [Li et al., 2014;
Ahmed et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016a; Xiao et al., 2016;
Subramaniam et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2017a]. Regardless, the overall objective is to obtain a view- and location-

invariant (cross-domain) representation. We consider that
learning any matching distance metric is intrinsically learning a global feature transformation across domains (two disjoint camera views) therefore obtaining a “normalised” feature representation for matching.
Most re-id features are typically hand-crafted to encode
local topological and/or spatial structural information, by
different image decomposition schemes such as horizontal
stripes [Gray and Tao, 2008; Kviatkovsky et al., 2013], body
parts [Farenzena et al., 2010], and patches [Zhao et al., 2013;
Matsukawa et al., 2016a; Liao et al., 2015]. These localised features are effective for mitigating the person pose
and detection misalignment in re-id matching. More recent
deep re-id models [Xiao et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016a;
Chen et al., 2017a; Ahmed et al., 2015] benefit from the
availability of larger scale datasets such as CUHK03 [Li et
al., 2014] and Market-1501 [Zheng et al., 2015] and from
lessons learned on other vision tasks [Krizhevsky et al., 2012;
Girshick et al., 2014]. In contrast to local hand-crafted features, deep models, in particular Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) [LeCun et al., 1998], favour intrinsically in
learning global feature representations with a few exceptions.
They have been shown to be effective for re-id.
We consider that either local or global feature learning
alone is suboptimal. This is motivated by the human visual system that leverages both global (contextual) and local
(saliency) information concurrently [Navon, 1977; Torralba
et al., 2006]. This intuition for joint learning aims to extract correlated complementary information in different context whilst satisfying the same learning constraint1 therefore
achieving more reliable recognition. To that end, we need to
address a number of non-trivial problems: (i) the model learning behaviour in satisfying the same label constraint may be
different at the local and global levels; (ii) any complementary correlation between local and global features is unknown
and may vary among individual instances, therefore must be
learned and optimised consistently across data; (iii) People’s
appearance in public scenes is diverse in both pattens and
configurations. This makes it challenging to learn correlations between local and global features for all appearances.
This work aims to formulate a deep learning model for
1
In person re-id context, the learning constraint refers to the image person identity label supervision.

jointly optimising local and global feature selections concurrently and to improve person re-id using only generic matching metrics such as the L2 distance. We explore a deep learning approach for its potential superiority in learning from
large scale data [Xiao et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2017a]. For
the bounding box image based person re-id, we consider the
entire person in the bounding box as a global scene context
and body parts of the person as local information sources,
both are subject to the surrounding background clutter within
a bounding box, and potentially also misalignment and partial
occlusion from bounding box detection. In this setting, we
wish to discover and optimise jointly correlated complementary feature selections in the local and global representations,
both subject to the same label constraint concurrently. Whilst
the former aims to address pose/detection misalignment and
occlusion by localised fine-grained saliency information, the
latter exploits holistic coarse-grained context for more robust
global matching.
To that end, we formulate a deep two-branch CNN architecture, with one branch for learning localised feature selection (local branch) and the other for learning global feature selection (global branch). Importantly, the two branches
are not independent but synergistically correlated and jointly
learned concurrently. This is achieved by: (i) imposing interbranch interaction between the local and global branches, and
(ii) enforcing a separate learning objective loss function to
each branch for learning independent discriminative capabilities, whilst being subject to the same class label constraint.
Under such balancing between interaction and independence,
we allow both branches to be learned concurrently for maximising their joint optimal extraction and selection of different discriminative features for person re-id. We call this
model the Joint Learning Multi-Loss (JLML) CNN model.
To minimise poor learning due to inherent noise and potential
covariance, we introduce a structured feature selective and
discriminative learning mechanism into both the local and
global branches subject to a joint sparsity regularisation.
The contributions of this work are: (I) We propose the
idea of learning concurrently both local and global feature
selections for optimising feature discriminative capabilities
in different context whilst performing the same person re-id
tasks. This is currently under-studied in the person re-id literature to our best knowledge. (II) We formulate a novel Joint
Learning Multi-Loss (JLML) CNN model for not only learning both global and local discriminative features in different
context by optimising multiple classification losses on the
same person label information concurrently, but also utilising their complementary advantages jointly in coping with local misalignment and optimising holistic matching criteria for
person re-id. (III) We introduce a structured sparsity based
feature selection learning mechanism for improving multiloss joint feature learning robustness w.r.t. noise and data covariance between local and global representations. Extensive
comparative evaluations demonstrate the superiority of the
proposed JLML model over a wide range of existing state-ofthe-art re-id models on five benchmark datasets VIPeR [Gray
and Tao, 2008], GRID [Loy et al., 2009], CUHK01 [Li et al.,
2012], CUHK03 [Li et al., 2014], and Market-1501 [Zheng
et al., 2015].

2

Related Works

The proposed JLML model considers learning both local
and global feature selections jointly for optimising their correlated complementary advantages. This goes beyond existing methods mostly relying on only one level of feature
representation. Specifically, the JLML method is related
to the saliency learning based models [Zhao et al., 2013;
Wang et al., 2014a] in terms of modelling localised part importance. However, these existing methods consider only the
patch appearance statistics within individual locations but no
global feature representation learning, let alone the correlation and complementary information discovery between local
and global features as modelled by the JLML.
Whilst the more recent Spatially Constrained Similarity
(SCS) model [Chen et al., 2016] and Multi-Channel Parts
(MCP) network [Cheng et al., 2016] consider both levels
of representation, the JLML model differs significantly from
them: (i) The SCS method focuses on supervised metric
learning, whilst the JLML aims at joint discriminative feature learning and needs only generic metrics for re-id matching. Also, hand-crafted local and global features are extracted
separately in SCS without any inter-feature interaction and
correlation learning involved, as opposite to the joint learning of global and local feature selections concurrently subject
to the same supervision information in the JLML; (ii) The local and global branches of the MCP model are supervised and
optimised by a triplet ranking loss, in contrast to the proposed
multiple classification loss design (Sec. 3.2). Critically, this
one-loss model learning is likely to impose negative influence on the discriminative feature learning behaviour for both
branches due to potential over-low pre-branch independence
and over-high inter-branch correlation. This may lead to suboptimal joint learning of local and global feature selections
in model optimisation, as suggested by our evaluation in Section 4.3. (iii) In addition, the JLML is capable of performing structured feature sparsity regularisation along with the
multi-loss joint learning of local and global feature selections
for providing additional benefits (Sec. 4.3). Whilst similar in
theory to the sparsity constraint on the supervised SCS metric
learning, we perform differently sparse generic feature learning without the need for supervised metric optimisation.
In terms of loss function, the HER model [Wang et al.,
2016b] similarly does not exploit pair-wise re-id labels but
defines a single identity label per training person for regression loss (vs. the classification loss in the JLML) based reid feature embedding optimisation. Importantly, HER relies
on the pre-defined feature (mostly hand-crafted local feature)
without the capability of jointly learning global and local feature representations and discovering their correlated complementary advantages as specifically designed in JLML. Also,
the DGD [Xiao et al., 2016] model uses the classification loss
for model optimisation. However, this model considers only
the global feature representation learning of one-loss classification as opposite to the proposed joint global and local feature learning of multi-loss classification concurrently subject
to maximising the same person identity matching.

3
3.1

Model Design
Problem Definition

We assume a set of n training images I = {Ii }ni=1 with
the corresponding identity labels as Y = {yi }ni=1 . These
training images capture the visual appearance of nid (where
yi ∈ [1, · · · , nid ]) different people under non-overlapping
camera views. We formulate a Joint Learning Multi-Loss
(JLML) CNN model that aims to discover and capture concurrently complementary discriminative information about a
person image from both local and global visual features of
the image in order to optimise person re-id under significant
viewing condition changes across locations. This is in contrast to most existing re-id methods typically depending only
on either local or global features alone.

3.2

Joint Learning Multi-Loss
Local Branch

Sparsity

Pooling-256

Shared Conv 1

Local 1

FC-512
FC-IDs

Stripe 1

ID Class
Labels

Local k

Slice
Stripe k

Stripe m

𝑾𝐿

Local m

1,2

Global Branch

Sparsity
Pooling-512 FC-512

Global

𝑾𝐺

FC-IDs

risks. This is especially critical in learning person re-id models when labelled training data is limited.
(II) Multi-task independent learning subject to shared label
constraints. To maximise the learning of complementary discriminative features from local and global representations, the
remaining layers of the two branches are learned independently subject to given identity labels. That is, the JLML
model aims to learn concurrently multiple identity feature
representations for different local image regions and the entire image, all of which aim to maximise the same identity
matching both individually and collectively at the same time.
Independent multi-task learning aims to preserve both local
saliency in feature selection and global robustness in image
representation. To that end, the JLML model is designed
to perform multi-task independent learning subject to shared
identity label constraints by allocating each branch with a
separate objective loss function. By doing so, the per-branch
learning behaviour is conditioned independently on the respective feature representation. We call this branch-wise loss
formulation as the MultiLoss design.
Table 1: JLML-ResNet39. MP: Max-Pooling; AP: AveragePooling; S: Stride; SL: Slice; CA: Concatenation; G: Global; L:
Local.
Layer # Layer Output Size Global Branch
Local Branch
1

conv1

112×112

9

conv2 x

G: 56×56
L: 28×56

9

conv3 x

G: 28×28
L: 14×28

9

conv4 x

G: 14×14
L: 7×14

9

conv5 x

G: 7×7
L: 4×7

1

fc

1×1

ID Class
Labels

2,1

Figure 1: The Joint Learning Multi-Loss (JLML) CNN model architecture.

The overall design of the proposed JLML model is depicted in Figure 1. This JLML model consists of a twobranches CNN network: (1) One local branch of m streams
of an identical structure with each stream learning the most
discriminative local visual features for one of m local image regions of a person bounding box image; (2) Another
global branch responsible for learning the most discriminative global level features from the entire person image.
For concurrently optimising per-branch discriminative feature representations and discovering correlated complementary information between local and global feature selections,
a joint learning scheme that subjects both local and global
branches to the same identity label supervision is considered
with two underlying principles:
(I) Shared low-level features. We construct the global and local branches on a shared lower conv layer, in particular the
first conv layer2 , for facilitating inter-branch common learning. The intuition is that, the lower conv layers capture lowlevel features such as edges and corners which are common
to all patterns in the same images. This shared learning is
similar in spirit to multi-task learning [Argyriou et al., 2007],
where the local and global feature learning branches are two
related learning tasks. Sharing the low-level conv layer reduces the model parameter size therefore model overfitting
2
We found empirically no clear benefits from increasing the
number of shared conv layers in our implementation.

1

fc

1×1

3×3, 32, S-2
3×3 MP, S-2 SL-4, 2×2 MP, S-1




1×1, 32
1×1, 16




3×3, 32×3
3×3, 16×3
1×1, 64
1×1, 32




1×1, 64
1×1, 32




 3×3, 64 ×3 3×3, 32×3
1×1, 128
1×1, 64




1×1, 128
1×1, 64




3×3, 128×3  3×3, 64 ×3
1×1, 256
1×1, 128




1×1, 256
1×1, 128




3×3, 256×3 3×3, 128×3
1×1, 512
1×1, 256
7×7
AP
4×7
h
i
h AP, CA-4
i
1×1, 512

1×1, 512

ID#

ID#

Network Construction. We adopt the Residual CNN unit
[He et al., 2016] as the JLML’s building blocks due to its
capacity for deeper model design whilst retaining a smaller
model parameter size3 . Specifically, we customise the
ResNet50 architecture in both layer and filter numbers and
design the JLML model as a 39 layers ResNet (JLMLResNet39) tailored for re-id tasks. The configuration of
JLML-ResNet39 is given in Table 1. Note that, the ReLU
3
The choice of base network is independent of our JLML model
design. Other types, e.g. GoogLeNet [Szegedy et al., 2015] or
VGG-Net [Simonyan and Zisserman, 2015], can be readily applied
in our model.

(1)

i=1
d

where WG = [wg1 , · · · , wg g ] ∈ R cg ×dg is the parameter
matrix of the global branch feature layer taking as input dg
dimensional vectors from the previous layer and outputting
cg dimensional (512-D) feature representation. Specifically,
with the `1 norm applied on the `2 norm of wgi , our aim is to
learn (tune) selectively feature dimension importance subject
to both the sparsity principle and the identity label constraint
simultaneously.
Similarly, we also enforce a local feature sparsity constraint by an exclusive group LASSO [Kong et al., 2014]:
`1,2 = kWL k1,2 =

cl X
m
X

i
kwl,j
k21

(2)

i=1 j=1

1>
wl,1

WL = · · ·
cl >
wl,1

···
···
···


1>

1
. . . 𝑤𝑙111,𝑑
𝑤𝑙1
1,1

𝑙

𝑐𝑔

𝑤𝑔

1,1

...

𝑐𝑔

𝑤𝑔

𝑤𝑙1𝑙 1,1. . . 𝑤𝑙1𝑙 1,𝑑
𝑐

1,𝑑𝑔

2,1

= ෍ 𝒘𝑔𝑖
i=1

1
. . .𝑤𝑙𝑘11,𝑑
𝑤𝑙𝑘
1,1

𝑐

...

𝑤𝑙𝑘𝑙 1,1. . . 𝑤𝑙𝑘𝑙 1,𝑑

𝑙

𝑙

𝟐

Small

𝑙

𝑐𝑙

Large

...

𝑐

𝑐

Weights

𝑑𝑔

𝑾𝐺

...

...

1
1
. . . 𝑤𝑙𝑚
𝑤𝑙𝑚
1,𝑑
1,1

𝑙

𝑾𝐿

1,2

𝑤𝑙𝑚𝑙 1,1. . . 𝑤𝑙𝑚𝑙 1,𝑑
𝑐

𝑐

𝑙

𝑚

= ෍ ෍ 𝒘𝑖𝑙𝑗
i=1 j=1

2
1

Figure 2: Group sparsity regularisations on fc layer parameter matrices (WG for the global branch and WL for the local branch) for
selectively learning feature representations. Solid and dashed rectangles denote `2 norm and `1 norm respectively.

probability ỹi of image Ii over the given identity label yi :
exp(wy>i xi )
p(ỹi = yi |Ii ) = P|n |
id
>
k=1 exp(wk xi )

(4)

where xi refers to the feature vector of Ii from the corresponding branch, and Wk the prediction function parameter
of training identity class k. The training loss on a batch of nbs
images is computed as:
nbs


1 X
l=−
log p(ỹi = yi |Ii )
nbs i=1

(5)

Combined with the group sparsity based feature selection regularisations, we have the final loss function for the global and
local branch sub-networks as:
lglobal = l + λglobal kWG k2,1 , llocal = l + λlocal kWL k1,2 (6)

where


1,𝑑𝑔

...

kwgi k2

𝑤𝑔1

...

dg
X

...

1,1

...

`2,1 = kWG k2,1 =

𝑤𝑔1

...

rectification non-linearity [Krizhevsky et al., 2012] after each
conv layer is omitted for brevity.
Feature Selection. To optimise JLML model learning robustness against noise and diverse data source, we introduce
a feature selection capability in JLML by a structure sparsity induced regularization [Kong et al., 2014; Wang et al.,
2013]. Our idea is to have a competing-to-survive mechanism in feature learning that discourages irrelevant features
whilst encourages discriminative features concurrently in different local and global context to maximise a shared identity
matching objective. To that end, we sparsify the global feature representation with a group LASSO [Wang et al., 2013]:




1>

wl,m
wl
···  =  ··· 
cl >
wl,m
wlcl >

(3)

is the parameter matrix of the local branch feature layer with
m×dl and cl (512) as the input and output dimensions (m the
i
image stripe number). The wl,j
∈ R dl ×1 defines the parameter vector for contributing the i-th output feature dimension
from the j-th local input feature vector, j ∈ [1, 2, · · · , m]. In
particular, the `2,1 regulariser performs sparse feature selection for individual image regions as below: (1) We perform
feature selective learning at the local region level by enforci
ing the `1 norm directly on wl,j
, conceptually similar to the
group LASSO at the global level. (2) We then apply a nonsparse smooth fusion with the `2 norm to combine the efi
fects of different local features weighted by the sparse wl,j
.
(3) Lastly, we exploit the `1 norm again at the level of wlk
(k ∈ [1, 2, · · · , cl ]) to learn the local 512-D feature representation selection. Figure 2 shows our structured sparsity
regularisations for both local and global feature selections.
Loss Function. For model training, we utilise the crossentropy classification loss function for both global and local
branches so to optimise person identity classification given
training labels of multiple person classes extracted from pairwise labelled re-id dataset. Formally, we predict the posterior

where λglobal and λlocal control the balance between the identity label loss and the feature selection sparsity regularisation. We empirically set λlocal = λglobal = 5×10−4 by crossvalidation in our evaluations.
Choice of Loss Function. Our JLML model learning deploys
a classification loss function. This differs significantly from
the contrastive loss functions used by most existing deep
re-id methods designed to exploit pairwise re-id labels defined by both positive and negative pairs, such as the pairwise
verification [Varior et al., 2016; Subramaniam et al., 2016;
Ahmed et al., 2015; Li et al., 2014], triplet ranking [Cheng et
al., 2016], or both [Wang et al., 2016a; Chen et al., 2017a].
Our JLML model training does not use any labelled negative pairs inherent to all person re-id training data, and we
extract identity class labels from only positive pairs. The
motivations for our JLML classification loss based learning
are: (i) Significantly simplified training data batch construction, e.g. random sampling with no notorious tricks required,
as shown by other deep classification methods [Krizhevsky
et al., 2012]. This makes our JLML model more scalable
in real-world applications with very large training population
sizes when available. This also eliminates the undesirable
need for carefully forming pairs and/or triplets in preparing
re-id training splits, as in most existing methods, due to the
inherent imbalanced negative and positive pair size distributions. (ii) Visual psychophysical findings suggest that representations optimised for classification tasks generalise well

to novel categories [Edelman, 1998]. We consider that reid tasks are about model generalisation to unseen test identity classes given training data on independent seen identity
classes. Our JLML model learning exploits this general classification learning principle beyond the strict pair-wise relative verification loss in existing re-id models.

3.3

Model Training

We adopt the standard Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD)
optimisation algorithm [Krizhevsky et al., 2012] to perform
the batch-wise joint learning of local and global branches.
Note that, with SGD we can naturally synchronise the optimisation processes of the two branches by constraining their
learning behaviours subject to the same identity label information at each update. This is likely to avoid representation
learning divergence between two branches and help enhance
the correlated complementary learning capability.

3.4

Re-Id by Generic Distance Metrics

Once the JLML model is learned, we obtain a 1,024-D joint
representation by concatenating the local (512-D) and global
(512-D) feature vectors (the fc layer in Table 1). For person re-id, we deploy this 1,024-D deep feature representation
using only a generic distance metric without camera-pair specific distance metric learning, e.g. L2 distance. Specifically,
given a test probe image I p from one camera view and a
set of test gallery images {Iig } from other non-overlapping
camera views: (1) We first compute their corresponding
1,024-D feature vectors by forward-feeding the images to
the trained JLML model, denoted as xp = [xpg ; xpl ] and
{xgi = [xgg ; xgl ]}. (2) We then compute L2 normalisation on
the global and local features, separately. (3) Lastly we compute the cross-camera matching distances between xp and xgi
by some generic matching metric, e.g. L2 distance. We then
rank all gallery images in ascendant order by their L2 distances to the probe image. The probabilities of true matches
of probe person images in Rank-1 and among the higher ranks
indicate the goodness of the learned JLML deep features for
person re-id tasks.

4

numbers of images per person per view captured from a supermarket, with all bounding boxes automatically detected.
These datasets present a wide range of re-id evaluation scenarios with different population sizes under different challenging viewing conditions (Table 2).

Experiments

Datasets. For evaluation, we used five benchmarking re-id
datasets, VIPeR [Gray and Tao, 2008], GRID [Loy et al.,
2009], CUHK01 [Li et al., 2012], CUHK03 [Li et al., 2014],
and Market-1501 [Zheng et al., 2015]. Figure 3 shows some
examples of person bounding box images from these datasets.
The datasets are collected by different data sampling protocols from different environments, where: (a) VIPeR has
one image per person per view, with low-resolution under severe lighting change. (b) GRID provides one image per person per view, with additional images for 775 distracting persons under very poor lighting from underground stations. (c)
CUHK01 contains two images person per view from a university campus. (d) CUHK03 consists of up to five images
per person per view, obtained by both manually labelled and
auto-detected person bounding boxes with the latter posing
a more challenging re-id task due to detection bounding box
misalignment and occlusion. (e) Market-1501 has variable

(a)

VIPeR

(b)

GRID

(c)

CUHK01

(d)

CUHK03

(e)

Market

Figure 3: Example cross-view image pairs from five re-id datasets.
Table 2: Settings of person re-id datasets. TS: Test Setting; SS:
Single-Shot; MS: Multi-Shot. SQ: Single-Query; MQ: Multi-Query.
Dataset Cams IDs Train IDs Test IDs Labelled Detected TS
VIPeR
2 632
316
316
1,264
0
SS
GRID
8 250
125
125
1,275
0
SS
CUHK01 2 971 871/485 100/486 1,942
0
SS/MS
CUHK03 6 1,467 1,367
100 14,097 14,097
SS
Market
6 1,501 751
750
0
32,668 SQ/MQ

Evaluation Protocol. We adopted the standard supervised
re-id setting to evaluate the proposed JLML model (Sec. 4.1).
The training and test data splits and testing settings of each
dataset is given in Table 2. Specifically, on VIPeR, we split
randomly the whole population (632 people) into two halves:
One for training (316) and another for testing (316). We repeated 10 trials of random people splits and used the averaged
results. On CUHK01, we considered two training/test splits:
485/486 [Liao et al., 2015] and 871/100 [Ahmed et al., 2015].
Again, we reported the results averaged over 10 random trials
for either split. On GRID, the training/test split were 125/125
with 775 distractor people included in the test gallery. We
used the benchmarking 10 people splits [Loy et al., 2009]
and the averaged performance. On CUHK03, following [Li
et al., 2014] we repeated 20 times of random 1260/100 training/test splits and reported the averaged accuracies under the
single-shot evaluation setting. On Market-1501, we used the
standard training/test split (750/751) [Zheng et al., 2015]. We
used the cumulative matching characteristic (CMC) to measure re-id accuracy on all benchmarks, except on Market1501 we also used in addition the recall measure of multiple
truth matches by mean Average Precision (mAP), i.e. first
computing the area under the Precision-Recall curve for each
probe, then calculating the mean of Average Precision over
all probes [Zheng et al., 2015].
Competitors. We compared the JLML model against 10 existing state-of-the-art methods as listed in Table 3. They range
from hand-crafted and deep learning features to domainspecific distance metric learning methods. We summarise
them into three categories: (A) Hand-crafted (feature) with
domain-specific distance learning (metric); (B) Deep learning
(feature) with domain-specific deep verification metric learning; (C) Deep learning (feature) with generic non-learning L2
distance (metric).
Implementation. We used the Caffe framework [Jia et al.,
2014] for our JLML model implementation. We started by

Table 3: Person re-id method categorisation by features and metrics. Cat: Category; DL: Deep Learning; CPSL: Camera-Pair Specific Learning; DVM: Deep Verification Metric; DVM,L2: Ensemble of DVM and L2; CHS: Fusion of Colour, HOG, SILPT features.
Cat

A

B

C

Feature
Metric
Method
Hand-Crafted
DL
CPSL Generic
XQDA [Liao et al., 2015]
LOMO
XQDA
GOG [Matsukawa et al., 2016b]
GOG
XQDA
NFST [Zhang et al., 2016]
LOMO, KCCA
NSFT
SCS [Chen et al., 2016]
CHS
SCS
DCNN+ [Ahmed et al., 2015]
DCNN+ DVM
X-Corr [Subramaniam et al., 2016]
X-Corr DVM
MTDnet [Chen et al., 2017a]
MTDnet DVM, L2
S-CNN [Varior et al., 2016]
S-CNN
L2
DGD [Xiao et al., 2016]
DGD
L2
MCP [Cheng et al., 2016]
MCP
L2
JLML (Ours)
JLML
L2

pre-training the JLML model on ImageNet (ILSVRC2012).
Subsequently, for CUHK03 or Market, we used only their
own training data for model fine-tuning, i.e. ImageNet →
CUHK03/Market; For CUHK01 or VIPeR or GRID, we pretrained JLML on CUHK03+Market (whole datasets), and
then fine-tuned on their respective training images, i.e. ImageNet → CUHK03+Market → CUHK01 / VIPeR / GRID.
All input person images were resized to 224 × 224 in pixel.
For local branch, according to a coarse body part layout we
evenly decomposed the whole shared convolutional feature
maps (i.e. the entire image) into four (m = 4) horizontal
strip-regions. We used the same parameter settings (summarised in Table 4) for pre-training and training the JLML
model on all datasets. We also adopted the stepped learning
rate policy, e.g. dropping the learning rate by a factor of 10
every 100K iterations for JLML pre-training and every 20K
iterations for JLML training. We utilised the L2 distance as
the default matching metric, unless stated otherwise.
Table 4: JLML training parameters. BLR: base learning rate; LRP:
learning rate policy; MOT: momentum; IT: iteration; BS: batch size.
Parameter BLR
LRP
MOT
IT #
BS
Pre-train
0.01 step (0.1, 100K)
0.9
300K 32
Train
0.01
step (0.1, 20K)
0.9
50K
32

4.1

Conventional Intra-Domain Re-Id Evaluations

We conducted extensively comparative evaluations on conventional supervised learning based person re-id tasks.
(I) Evaluation on CUHK03. Table 5 shows the comparisons of JLML against 8 existing methods on CUHK03. It is
evident that JLML outperforms existing methods in all categories on both labelled and detected bounding boxes, surpassing the 2nd best performers DGD and X-Corr on corresponding labelled and detected images in Rank-1 by 7.9%(83.275.3) and 8.6%(80.6-72.0) respectively. X-Corr/GOG/JLML
also suffer the least from auto-detection misalignment, indicating the robustness and competitiveness of the joint learning approach to mining complementary local and global discriminative features.
(II) Evaluation on Market-1501.
We evaluated JLML
against four existing models on Market-1501. Table 6 shows
the clear performance superiority of JLML over all state-ofthe-arts with more significant Rank-1 advantages over other
methods compared to CUHK03, giving 19.3%(85.1-65.8)

Table 5: CUHK03 evaluation. 1st /2nd best in red/blue.
Cat
A
B
C

Annotation
Rank (%)
XQDA
GOG
NSFT
DCNN+
X-Corr
MTDnet
S-CNN
DGD
JLML

R1
55.2
67.3
62.5
54.7
72.4
74.7
75.3
83.2

Labelled
R5 R10
77.1 86.8
91.0 96.0
90.0 94.8
86.5 93.9
95.5 96.0 97.5
98.0 99.4

R20
83.1
98.1
98.1
98.4
99.8

R1
46.3
65.5
54.7
44.9
72.0
68.1
80.6

Detected
R5 R10
78.9 83.5
88.4 93.7
84.7 94.8
76.0 83.5
96.0 88.1 94.6
96.9 98.7

R20
93.2
95.2
93.2
98.2
99.2

(SQ) and 13.7%(89.7-76.0) (MQ) gains over the 2nd best SCNN. This further validates the advantages of our joint learning of multi-loss classification for optimising re-id especially
when the re-id test population size increases (751 people on
Market-1501 vs. 100 people on CUHK03).
Table 6: Market-1501 evaluation. 1st /2nd best in red/blue. All person bounding box images were auto-detected.
Query Type
Single-Query
Cat
Measure (%)
R1
mAP
XQDA
43.8
22.2
A
SCS
51.9
26.3
NFST
61.0
35.6
S-CNN
65.8
39.5
C
JLML
85.1
65.5

Multi-Query
R1
mAP
54.1
28.4
71.5
46.0
76.0
48.4
89.7
74.5

(III) Evaluation on CUHK01. We compared our JLML
model with 8 state-of-the-art methods on CUHK01. Table
7 shows that JLML surpasses clearly all compared models
under both training/test splits in single- and multi-short settings. Moreover, JLML outperforms in Rank-1 (76.7%) the
best hand-crafted feature method NFST (R1 69.1%) when
the training population size is small (486 people). When the
training population size increases (871 people), JLML is even
more effective than all deep competitors in exploiting extra training classes by inducing more identity-discriminative
joint person features in distinct context. For example, JLML
gains 5.8%(87.0-81.2) more Rank-1 than the 2nd best method
X-Corr in single-shot re-id, further improved the gain of
4.8%(69.8-65.0) under the 486/485 split. These results show
consistent superiority and robustness of the proposed JLML
model over the existing methods.
(IV) Evaluation on VIPeR. We evaluated the performance
of JLML against 8 strong competitors on VIPeR, a more challenging test scenario with fewer training classes (316 people)
and lower image resolution. On this dataset, the best performers are hand-crafted feature methods (SCS and NFST)
rather than deep models. This is in contrast to the tests on
CUHK01, CUHK03, and Market-1501. This is due to (i)
the small training data insufficient for learning effectively discriminative deep models with millions of parameters; (ii) the
greater disparity to CUHK03 in camera viewing conditions
which makes knowledge transfer less effective (see Implementation). Nevertheless, the JLML model remains the best
among all deep methods with or without deep verification
metric learning. This validates the superiority and robustness
of our deep joint global and local representation learning of

Table 7: CUHK01 evaluation. 1st /2nd best in bold/typewriter.
Split
871/100 split
486/485 split
Cat
Rank (%) R1 R5 R10 R20 R1 R5 R10 R20
Single-Shot Testing Setting
A
GOG
- 57.8 79.1 86.2 92.1
DCNN+ 65.0 - 47.5 71.6 80.3 87.5
B
X-Corr 81.2 97.3 - 98.6 65.0 89.7 - 94.4
MTDnet 78.5 96.5 97.5 DGD
- 66.6 C
MCP
- 53.7 84.3 91.0 96.3
JLML 87.0 97.2 98.6 99.4 69.8 88.4 93.3 96.3
Multi-Shot Testing Setting
XQDA
- 63.2 83.9 90.0 94.2
A
GOG
- 67.3 86.9 91.8 95.9
NFST
- 69.1 86.9 91.8 95.4
C
JLML 91.2 98.4 99.2 99.8 76.7 92.6 95.6 98.1

multi-loss classification given sparse training data. We attribute this property to the JLML’s capability of mining complementary features in different context for both handling local misalignment and optimising global matching.
Table 8: VIPeR evaluation. 1st /2nd best in red/blue.
Cat
A
B
C

Rank (%)
XQDA
GOG
NFST
SCS
DCNN+
MTDnet
MCP
DGD
JLML

R1
40.0
49.7
51.1
53.5
34.8
47.5
47.8
38.6
50.2

R5
68.1
82.1
82.6
63.6
73.1
74.7
74.2

R10
80.5
88.7
90.5
91.5
75.6
82.6
84.8
84.3

R20
91.1
94.5
95.9
96.7
84.5
91.1
91.6

(V) Evaluation on GRID. We compared JLML against 4
competing methods on GRID4 . In addition to poor image
resolution, poor lighting and a small training size (125 people), GRID also has extra distractors in the testing population
therefore presenting a very challenging but realistic re-id scenario. Table 9 shows a significant superiority of JLML over
existing state-of-the-arts, with Rank-1 12.8%(37.5-24.7) better than the 2nd best method GOG, a 51.8% relative improvement. This demonstrates the unique and practically desirable advantage of JLML in handling more realistically challenging open-world re-id matching where large numbers of
distractors are usually present. It is worth pointing out that
this step-change advantage in re-id matching rate on GRID
is achieved by deep learning from only a limited number of
training identity classes with highly imbalanced images sampled from 8 distributed camera views, e.g. 25 images from
the 6th camera vs. 513 from the 5th camera. This imbalanced
sampling directly results in not only scarce pairwise training
4

The GRID dataset has not been evaluated as extensively
as others like VIPeR / CUHK01 / CUHK03, although GRID
provides a more realistic test setting with a large number of distractors in testing.
One possible reason is the
more challenging re-id setting imposed by GRID resulting
in significantly poorer matching rates by all published methods (see http://personal.ie.cuhk.edu.hk/˜ccloy/
downloads_qmul_underground_reid.html), also as verified by our evaluation in Table 9.

data but also insufficient training samples for pairwise camera views, resulting in significant degradation in re-id performance from all pairwise supervised learning based models
XQDA, GOG, SCS, and X-Corr. In contrast, JLML is designed to avoid the need for pairwise labelled information in
model learning by instead learning from multi-loss classifications. Moreover, the joint learning of multi-loss classification
benefits from concurrent local and global feature selections in
different context, resulting in more robust and accurate re-id
matching in a heterogeneous search space.
Table 9: GRID evaluation. 1st /2nd best in red/blue.
Cat
A
B
C

4.2

Rank (%)
XQDA
GOG
SCS
X-Corr
JLML

R1
16.6
24.7
24.2
19.2
37.5

R5
33.8
47.0
44.6
38.4
61.4

R10
41.8
58.4
54.1
53.6
69.4

R20
52.4
69.0
65.2
66.4
77.4

CNN Architecture Comparisons

We compared the proposed JLML-ResNet39 model with
four seminal classification CNN architectures (Alexnet
[Krizhevsky et al., 2012], VGG16 [Simonyan and Zisserman,
2015], GoogLeNet [Szegedy et al., 2015], and ResNet50 [He
et al., 2016]) in model size and complexity. Table 10 shows
that the JLML has both the 2nd smallest model size (7.2 million parameters) and the 2nd smallest FLOPs (1.54×109 ), although containing more streams (5 vs. 1 in all other CNNs)
and more layers (39, more than all except ResNet50).
Table 10: Comparisons of model size and complexity. FLOPs: the
number of FLoating-point OPerations; PN: Parameter Number.
Model
FLOPs
PN (million) Depth Stream #
AlexNet
7.25×108
58.3
7
1
VGG16
1.55×1010
134.2
16
1
ResNet50
3.80×109
23.5
50
1
GoogLeNet
1.57×109
6.0
22
1
JLML-ResNet39 1.54×109
7.2
39
5

4.3

Further Analysis and Discussions

We further examined the component effects of our JLML
model on Market-1501 in the following aspects.
(I) Complementary Benefits of Global and Local Features. We evaluated the complementary effects of our jointly
learned local and global features by comparing their individual re-id performance against that of the joint features. Table
11 shows: (i) Any of the two feature representations alone
is competitive for re-id, e.g. the local JLML feature surpasses S-CNN (Table 6) by Rank-1 13.1%(78.9-65.8) (SQ)
and 10.4%(86.4-76.0) (MQ); and by mAP 18.3%(57.8-39.5)
(SQ) and 20.0%(68.4-48.4) (MQ). (ii) A further performance
gain is obtained from the joint feature representation, yielding
further 6.2%(85.1-78.9) (SQ) and 3.3%(89.7-86.4) (MQ) in
Rank-1 increase, and 7.7%(65.5-57.8) (SQ) and 6.1%(74.568.4) (MQ) in mAP boost. These results show the complementary advantages of jointly learning the local and global
features in different context using the JLML model.

Table 11: Complementary benefits of global and local features.
Query Type
Measure (%)
JLML (Global)
JLML (Local)
JLML (joint)

Single-Query
R1
mAP
77.4
56.0
78.9
57.8
85.1
65.5

Multi-Query
R1
mAP
85.0
66.0
86.4
68.4
89.7
74.5

(II) Importance of Branch Independence. We evaluated the
importance of branch independence by comparing our MultiLoss design with a UniLoss design that merges two branches
into a single loss [Cheng et al., 2016]. Table 12 shows that
the proposed MultiLoss model significantly improves the discriminative power of global and local re-id features, e.g. with
Rank-1 increase of 9.0%(85.1-76.1) (SQ) and 6.0%(89.783.7) (MQ); and mAP improvement of 13.3%(65.5-52.2)
(SQ) and 11.7%(74.5-62.8) (MQ). This shows that branch independence plays a critical role in joint learning of multi-loss
classification for effective feature optimisation. One plausible
reason is due to the negative effect of a single loss imposed on
the learning behaviour of both branches, caused by the potential divergence in discriminative features in different context
(local and global). This is shown by the significant performance degradation of both global and local features when the
UniLoss model is imposed.
Table 12: Importance of branch independence.
Loss
UniLoss
MultiLoss

Query Type
Measure (%)
Global Feature
Local Feature
Full
Global Feature
Local Feature
Full

Single-Query
R1
mAP
58.3
31.7
46.3
26.3
76.1
52.2
77.4
56.0
78.9
57.8
85.1
65.5

Multi-Query
R1
mAP
70.4 43.2
58.0 34.0
83.7 62.8
85.0 66.0
86.4 68.4
89.7 74.5

(III) Benefits from Shared Low-Level Features. We evaluated the effects of interaction between global and local
branches introduced by the shared conv layer (common
ground) by deliberately removing it and then comparing the
re-id performance. Table 13 shows the benefits from jointly
learning low-level features in the common conv layers, e.g.
improving Rank-1 by 1.9%(85.1-83.2) / 1.4%(89.7-88.3) and
mAP by 2.4%(65.5-63.1) / 2.4%(74.5-72.1) for single-/multiquery re-id. This confirms a similar finding as in multi-task
learning study [Argyriou et al., 2007].
Table 13: Benefits from shared low-level features.
Query Type
Measure (%)
Without Shared Feature
With Shared Feature

Single-Query
R1
mAP
83.2
63.1
85.1
65.5

Multi-Query
R1
mAP
88.3
72.1
89.7
74.5

(IV) Effects of Selective Feature Learning. We evaluated
the contribution of our structured sparsity based Selective
Feature Learning (SFL) (Eq. (6)). Table 14 shows that our
SFL mechanism can bring additional re-id matching benefits, e.g. improving Rank-1 rate by 1.7%(85.1-83.4) (SQ) and
1.0%(89.7-88.7) (MQ); and mAP by 1.7%(65.5-63.8) (SQ)
and 1.6%(74.5-72.9) (MQ).
(V) Choice of Generic Matching Metrics. We evaluated the
choice of generic matching distances on person re-id using

Table 14: Effects of selective feature learning (SFL).
Query Type
Single-Query
Multi-Query
Measure (%)
R1
mAP
R1
mAP
Without SFL
83.4
63.8
88.7
72.9
With SFL
85.1
65.5
89.7
74.5
the full JLML feature. Table 15 shows that L1 and L2 generate very similar and competitive re-id matching accuracies.
This suggests the flexibility of the JLML model in adopting
generic matching metrics.
Table 15: Effects of generic matching metrics.
Query-Type
Measure (%)
L1
L2

Single-Query
R1
mAP
84.9
65.3
85.1
65.5

Multi-Query
R1
mAP
89.2
74.6
89.7
74.5

(VI) Effects of Body Parts Number. We evaluated the sensitivity of local decomposition, i.e. body parts number m. Table 16 shows that the decomposition of 4 body-parts is the optimal choice, approximately corresponding to head+shoulder,
upper-body, upper-leg and lower-leg (Figure 4).
Table 16: Effects of body parts number.
Query-Type
Measure (%)
2
4
6
8
10

Single-Query
R1
mAP
83.9
64.4
85.1
65.5
83.4
62.6
82.3
61.3
81.7
60.4

Multi-Query
R1
mAP
88.8
72.9
89.7
74.5
88.5
71.8
87.4
70.7
87.2
69.8

(VII) Complementary Effects between JLML Deep Features and Supervised Metric Learning.
We evaluated
the complementary effects of the JLML deep features and
conventional supervised metric learning (XQDA [Liao et al.,
2015], KISSME [Koestinger et al., 2012], and CRAFT [Chen
et al., 2017b]). Results from Table 17 show that: (1) Given
strong deep learning features such as JLML, additional distance metric learning does not benefit further from the same
training data. (2) Moreover, it may even suffer from some
adversary effect.
(VIII) Local Features vs. Global Features. A strength of
the local features is the capability of mitigating misalignment
and occlusion, as compared to the global features. This is
inherently learned from data by the JLML local branch. Figure 5 shows the single-query re-id results on six randomly
selected probe persons with misalignment and/or occlusion.
It is evident that the local features achieve better re-id matching ranks than the global counterparts in most cases. This
clearly demonstrates the robustness of local features against
the misalignment of and occlusion within a person bounding
box.
(IX) Feature Extraction Time Cost. The average time for
extracting JLML feature is 2.75 milliseconds per image (364
images per second) on a Nvidia Pascal P100 GPU card.

Local features:
1,2,3,8,9

Local features:
1,6,8,11,15

Local features:
1,5,34,38,39

Global features:
1,2,8,10,24

Global features:
1,5,34,38,39

Global features:
1,7,76,81,88

Local features:
2,4,7,21,57,99

Local features:
1,32,122,409,460

Local features:
1,2,7,10,13,14

Global features:
1,9,124,173,212

Global features:
1,144,163,948,960

Global features:
1,11,15,16,17

Figure 4: Visualisation of the optimal body part decomposition.
Table 17: Complementary of JLML features and metric learning.
Query-Type
Measure (%)
KISSME
XQDA
CRAFT
L2

5

Single-Query
R1
mAP
82.1
61.4
82.6
63.2
77.9
56.4
85.1
65.5

Multi-Query
R1
mAP
87.5
70.2
88.2
72.4
89.7
74.5

Conclusion

In this work, we presented a novel Joint Learning of MultiLoss (JLML) CNN model (JLML-ResNet39) for person reidentification feature learning. In contrast to existing re-id
approaches that often employ either global or local appearance features alone, the proposed model is capable of extracting and exploiting both and maximising their correlated complementary effects by learning discriminative feature representations in different context subject to multi-loss classification objectives in a unified framework. This is made possible
by the proposed JLML-ResNet39 architecture design. Moreover, we introduce a structured sparsity based feature selective learning mechanism to reduce feature redundancy and
further improve the joint feature selections. Extensive comparative evaluations on five re-id benchmark datasets were
conducted to validate the advantages of the proposed JLML
model over a wide range of the state-of-the-art methods on
both manually labelled and more challenging auto-detected
person images. We also provided component evaluations and
analysis of model performance in order to give insights on the
model design.

References
[Ahmed et al., 2015] Ejaz Ahmed, Michael Jones, and Tim K
Marks. An improved deep learning architecture for person reidentification. In CVPR, 2015.
[Argyriou et al., 2007] Andreas Argyriou, Theodoros Evgeniou,
and Massimiliano Pontil. Multi-task feature learning. In NIPS,
2007.
[Chen et al., 2016] Dapeng Chen, Zejian Yuan, Badong Chen, and
Nanning Zheng. Similarity learning with spatial constraints for
person re-identification. In CVPR, 2016.
[Chen et al., 2017a] Weihua Chen, Xiaotang Chen, Jianguo Zhang,
and Kaiqi Huang. A multi-task deep network for person reidentification. In AAAI, 2017.
[Chen et al., 2017b] Ying-Cong Chen, Xiatian Zhu, Wei-Shi
Zheng, and Jian-Huang Lai. Person re-identification by camera
correlation aware feature augmentation. IEEE TPAMI, 2017.
[Cheng et al., 2016] De Cheng, Yihong Gong, Sanping Zhou, Jinjun Wang, and Nanning Zheng. Person re-identification by multichannel parts-based cnn with improved triplet loss function. In
CVPR, 2016.

Figure 5: Comparing the gallery true match ranks of each probe
image (single-query) with occlusion and/or misalignment by the local and global features. Each probe may have multiple truth matches
in the gallery. Smaller numbers mean better ranking performances.
[Edelman, 1998] Shimon Edelman. Representation is representation of similarities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(04):449–
467, 1998.
[Farenzena et al., 2010] Michela Farenzena, Loris Bazzani,
Alessandro Perina, Vittorio Murino, and Marco Cristani. Person
re-identification by symmetry-driven accumulation of local
features. In CVPR, 2010.
[Girshick et al., 2014] Ross Girshick, Jeff Donahue, Trevor Darrell,
and Jitendra Malik. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object
detection and semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 2014.
[Gong et al., 2014] Shaogang Gong, Marco Cristani, Shuicheng
Yan, and Chen Change Loy. Person re-identification. Springer,
January 2014.
[Gray and Tao, 2008] Douglas Gray and Hai Tao. Viewpoint invariant pedestrian recognition with an ensemble of localized features.
In ECCV, 2008.
[He et al., 2016] Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and
Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In CVPR,
2016.
[Jia et al., 2014] Yangqing Jia, Evan Shelhamer, Jeff Donahue,
Sergey Karayev, Jonathan Long, Ross Girshick, Sergio Guadarrama, and Trevor Darrell. Caffe: Convolutional architecture for
fast feature embedding. In ACM MM, 2014.
[Koestinger et al., 2012] Martin Koestinger, Martin Hirzer, Paul
Wohlhart, Peter M. Roth, and Horst Bischof. Large scale metric learning from equivalence constraints. In CVPR, 2012.
[Kong et al., 2014] Deguang Kong, Ryohei Fujimaki, Ji Liu, Feiping Nie, and Chris Ding. Exclusive feature learning on arbitrary
structures via l1,2-norm. In NIPS, 2014.
[Krizhevsky et al., 2012] Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional
neural networks. In NIPS, 2012.
[Kviatkovsky et al., 2013] Igor Kviatkovsky, Amit Adam, and
Ehud Rivlin. Color invariants for person reidentification. IEEE
TPAMI, 35(7):1622–1634, 2013.
[LeCun et al., 1998] Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio,
and Patrick Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998.
[Li et al., 2012] Wei Li, Rui Zhao, and Xiaogang Wang. Human
reidentification with transferred metric learning. In ACCV, 2012.
[Li et al., 2014] Wei Li, Rui Zhao, Tong Xiao, and Xiaogang Wang.
Deepreid: Deep filter pairing neural network for person reidentification. In CVPR, 2014.

[Liao et al., 2015] Shengcai Liao, Yang Hu, Xiangyu Zhu, and
Stan Z Li. Person re-identification by local maximal occurrence
representation and metric learning. In CVPR, 2015.
[Loy et al., 2009] Chen Change Loy, Tao Xiang, and Shaogang
Gong. Multi-camera activity correlation analysis. In CVPR,
2009.
[Ma et al., 2017] Xiaolong Ma, Xiatian Zhu, Shaogang Gong,
Xudong Xie, Jianming Hu, Kin-Man Lam, and Yisheng Zhong.
Person re-identification by unsupervised video matching. Pattern
Recognition, 65:197–210, 2017.
[Matsukawa et al., 2016a] Tetsu Matsukawa, Takahiro Okabe,
Einoshin Suzuki, and Yoichi Sato. Hierarchical gaussian descriptor for person re-identification. In CVPR, 2016.
[Matsukawa et al., 2016b] Tetsu Matsukawa, Takahiro Okabe,
Einoshin Suzuki, and Yoichi Sato. Hierarchical gaussian descriptor for person re-identification. In CVPR, 2016.
[Navon, 1977] David Navon. Forest before trees: The precedence
of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology,
9(3):353–383, 1977.
[Paisitkriangkrai et al., 2015] Sakrapee Paisitkriangkrai, Chunhua
Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. Learning to rank in person
re-identification with metric ensembles. In CVPR, 2015.
[Simonyan and Zisserman, 2015] Karen Simonyan and Andrew
Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In ICLR, 2015.
[Subramaniam et al., 2016] Arulkumar Subramaniam, Moitreya
Chatterjee, and Anurag Mittal. Deep neural networks with inexact matching for person re-identification. In NIPS, 2016.
[Szegedy et al., 2015] Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia,
Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Going deeper
with convolutions. In CVPR, 2015.
[Torralba et al., 2006] Antonio Torralba, Aude Oliva, Monica S
Castelhano, and John M Henderson. Contextual guidance of eye
movements and attention in real-world scenes: the role of global
features in object search. Psychological Review, 113(4):766,
2006.
[Varior et al., 2016] Rahul Rama Varior, Mrinal Haloi, and Gang
Wang. Gated siamese convolutional neural network architecture
for human re-identification. In ECCV, 2016.
[Wang et al., 2013] Hua Wang, Feiping Nie, and Heng Huang.
Multi-view clustering and feature learning via structured sparsity.
In ICML, 2013.
[Wang et al., 2014a] H. Wang, S. Gong, and T. Xiang. Unsupervised learning of generative topic saliency for person reidentification. In British Machine Vision Conference, Nottingham, UK, September 2014.
[Wang et al., 2014b] Taiqing Wang, Shaogang Gong, Xiatian Zhu,
and Shengjin Wang. Person re-identification by video ranking. In
ECCV, 2014.
[Wang et al., 2016a] Faqiang Wang, Wangmeng Zuo, Liang Lin,
David Zhang, and Lei Zhang. Joint learning of single-image
and cross-image representations for person re-identification. In
CVPR, 2016.
[Wang et al., 2016b] Hanxiao Wang, Shaogang Gong, and Tao
Xiang. Highly efficient regression for scalable person reidentification. In BMVC, 2016.

[Wang et al., 2016c] Hanxiao Wang, Shaogang Gong, Xiatian Zhu,
and Tao Xiang. Human-in-the-loop person re-identification. In
ECCV, 2016.
[Wang et al., 2016d] Taiqing Wang, Shaogang Gong, Xiatian Zhu,
and Shengjin Wang. Person re-identification by discriminative
selection in video ranking. IEEE TPAMI, 38(12):2501–2514,
2016.
[Xiao et al., 2016] Tong Xiao, Hongsheng Li, Wanli Ouyang, and
Xiaogang Wang. Learning deep feature representations with domain guided dropout for person re-identification. In CVPR, 2016.
[Xiong et al., 2014] Fei Xiong, Mengran Gou, Octavia Camps, and
Mario Sznaier. Person re-identification using kernel-based metric
learning methods. In ECCV. Springer, 2014.
[Zhang et al., 2016] Li Zhang, Tao Xiang, and Shaogang Gong.
Learning a discriminative null space for person re-identification.
In CVPR, 2016.
[Zhao et al., 2013] Rui Zhao, Wanli Ouyang, and Xiaogang Wang.
Unsupervised salience learning for person re-identification. In
CVPR, 2013.
[Zheng et al., 2013] Wei-Shi Zheng, Shaogang Gong, and Tao Xiang. Reidentification by relative distance comparison. IEEE
TPAMI, 35(3):653–668, March 2013.
[Zheng et al., 2015] Liang Zheng, Liyue Shen, Lu Tian, Shengjin
Wang, Jingdong Wang, and Qi Tian. Scalable person reidentification: A benchmark. In ICCV, 2015.

