MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973406954 · doi:10.1109/fg.2013.6553769

Using color texture sparsity for facial expression recognition

2013· article· en· W1973406954 on OpenAlexaff
Seung Ho Lee, Hyung-Il Kim, Yong Man Ro, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceLocal binary patternsPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceFace (sociological concept)Feature (linguistics)Facial recognition systemSparse approximationComputer visionTexture (cosmology)PixelFeature extractionRepresentation (politics)Image (mathematics)Histogram

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new facial expression recognition (FER) which exploits the effectiveness of color information and sparse representation. For extracting face feature, we compute color vector differences between color pixels so that they can effectively capture change of face appearance (e.g., skin texture). Through comparative and extensive experiment using two public FER databases (DBs), we validate that our color texture features are suited to the sparse representation for improving FER accuracy. Specifically, our color texture features can considerably improve the recognition accuracy obtained by sparse representation compared with other features (e.g., Local Binary Pattern (LBP)) under realistic recognition conditions (e.g., low-resolution faces). It is also shown that the use of our features can yield high discrimination capability and sparsity, justifying the high recognition accuracies obtained. Further, the proposed FER outperforms five other state-of-the-art FER methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207