Pose-Guided person re-identification using attention-enhanced GANs with feature fusion


Abstract

Pose variation remains a major challenge in person re-identification (ReID), particularly in unconstrained surveillance environments with non-overlapping camera views. This paper presents a novel pose-guided ReID framework that integrates an attention-enhanced generative adversarial network (GAN) with a feature fusion strategy to address this challenge. The proposed architecture synthesizes pose-aligned pedestrian images using a conditional autoencoding GAN, which preserves identity while normalizing viewpoint discrepancies. Identity features are then extracted using a w-50 backbone augmented with spatial and channel attention modules. A lightweight fusion module adaptively combines features from both real and generated images, enhancing the robustness and discriminability of the final embedding. Extensive evaluations on Market-1501 and DukeMTMC-reID datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, achieving 89.6% Rank-1 accuracy and 74.3% mAP, outperforming several state-of-the-art models. These results confirm that the integration of pose-guided synthesis, attention-driven feature extraction, and learned fusion significantly improves ReID performance under cross-view and occlusion conditions.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].