AIToday
Large Language ModelsQiita 機械学習Published: Nov 8, 2026, 19:01 JST

YuNet + SFace goes 5 for 5 as faster Jev stumbles in face-finding test

Send on LINE
YuNet + SFace goes 5 for 5 as faster Jev stumbles in face-finding test

3 Key Points

  1. What happened

    Across five stages, YuNet + SFace scored 5/5 in 9.94 seconds; Jev was fastest at 3.81 seconds but scored 1/5; Claude Opus 5.5 scored 4/5 in 51.22 seconds; Clef scored 0/5 in 18.36 seconds.

  2. Why it matters

    Splitting the job into face detection and face matching appears to have beaten models asked to answer with coordinates directly, suggesting how a task is broken down can matter as much as raw model capability.

Not sure about something? Ask the AI

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Summaries like this, every morning.

Context & Analysis

The experiment grew out of a Qiita post in which Jev found a Waldo-style character in 0.4 seconds, prompting this spin-off that swapped the target for a real person's face. Rather than pitting raw models head-to-head, the author assembled four different search systems — Jev via its Box feature, Clef through coordinate choices, Claude Opus 5.5 answering from images, and OpenCV's YuNet plus SFace — and ran them on the same reference image and five stage images.

The most striking contrast is not speed but method. YuNet + SFace first detects faces, then compares each candidate to a reference image, a two-step split. The general-purpose models were asked to return a location straight from the image. The author notes this may be why the face-specific pipeline did well, while cautioning that if YuNet fails to detect a face, SFace cannot pick it. Similarly, Clef's 0/5 is tied to the coordinate-choice output format used here, not proof of weak image understanding.

Timing also deserves care: Jev's 3.81 seconds and YuNet + SFace's 9.94 seconds include API communication and model loading, so they are not pure inference speeds. The author's takeaway is that for face-finding, matching the decomposition of the problem to the tool may matter more than picking the newest general model.

FAQ
Why did Clef score zero?
Clef could not output a bounding box directly, so its four coordinates were picked from 0–100% choices. The author notes the way positions were output, not just image understanding, affected the result.
Does this prove which AI is best at finding faces?
No. The test used five images, one run per method, and its timing includes API calls and model loading. The author calls it a small comparison, not a controlled benchmark.
How was a prediction judged correct?
The predicted box had to cover at most twice the area of the correct face box, with its center inside the correct box or at least 50% of that box covered.
Qiita 機械学習Read Original Article
Send on LINE

AI news that matters for your work, delivered every morning.

Pick your industry and the AI tools you use, and get news related to your work every day.

Free · 30 seconds with Google · unsubscribe anytimeWhat is AIToday? →

Ask AI

Ask AI anything about this article. The AI reads this article, earlier AIToday articles, and Wikipedia, and cites its sources. Q&As are published on this page for other readers too.

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Related Articles

Next articleClaude Code safeguards: one stop_all switch, four locks