Hyperparameter Optimization and Boosting for Classifying Facial Expressions: How good can a "Null" Model be?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the goals of the ICML workshop on representation and learning is to establish benchmark scores for a new data set of labeled facial expressions. This paper presents the performance of a "Null" model consisting of convolutions with random weights, PCA, pooling, normalization, and a linear readout. Our approach focused on hyperparameter optimization rather than novel model components. On the Facial Expression Recognition Challenge held by the Kaggle website, our hyperparameter optimization approach achieved a score of 60% accuracy on the test data. This paper also introduces a new ensemble construction variant that combines hyperparameter optimization with the construction of ensembles. This algorithm constructed an ensemble of four models that scored 65.5% accuracy. These scores rank 12th and 5th respectively among the 56 challenge participants. It is worth noting that our approach was developed prior to the release of the data set, and applied without modification; our strong competition performance suggests that the TPE hyperparameter optimization algorithm and domain expertise encoded in our Null model can generalize to new image classification data sets.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".