MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008672983 · doi:10.1109/fg.2013.6553721

Illumination invariant human face recognition: frequency or resonance?

2013· article· en· W2008672983 on OpenAlexafffund
Aryaz Baradarani, Q. M. Jonathan Wu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsYale University
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceInvariant (physics)Principal component analysisFacial recognition systemPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionComputer scienceFace (sociological concept)Resonance (particle physics)Energy (signal processing)MathematicsPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we suggest the use of resonance based decomposition of images for illumination invariant face recognition. Although illumination is mostly considered as the low-frequency part of images, these low-frequency contents may possess low- and/or high-resonance nature. We first assume that an input image can be considered as a combination of illumination and reflectance. The images are then decomposed into low- and high-resonance components simultaneously. Because the energy distribution of subbands of resonance based decomposition are different for an image with good illumination effects and an image with high illumination variations, the energy of subbands of the two components can be thresholded to deactivate the subbands with unwanted energy distribution created by illumination effects. For dimensionality reduction and classification the principal component analysis and extreme learning machine have been used, respectively. Experiments and comparisons illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed resonance based method in illumination invariant face recognition.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.218 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207