MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023528898 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2006.277536

FPGA Implementation of a Face Detector using Neural Networks

2006· article· en· W2023528898 on OpenAlexaff
Yong‐Soon Lee, Seok‐Bum Ko

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceDetectorArtificial neural networkComputer hardwareReduction (mathematics)Frame rateFloating pointFixed-point arithmeticArithmeticAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study implemented an FPGA-based face detector using neural networks. We used a floating point arithmetic unit (FPU) to represent the number system. The FPU provides dynamic range and reduces the bits of arithmetic unit more than fixed point method. These features led to reduction in the memory so that it is efficient for neural networks system with large size data bits. In this system, an FPGA-based face detector using neural networks takes 1.7 ms to process one frame to be 38 times faster than 50 ms of PC (Pentium4, 1.4 GHz). This speed gives a chance to have better picture than PC process and could be named "hardware accelerator". The implemented FPGA-based face detector using neural networks also required 33% of total area in FPGA (Xilinx XC3S1500) which could be applied to a stand-alone system. In order to determine the bits of FPU, we also examined how representation errors affect a detection rate. The arithmetic unit occupies 84%, occupying most of the available area. Therefore bits reduction is needed not only for memory but also for FPU and system size. Reduction from FPU 32 bits (IEEE 754 single precision) to 24 bits reduced the size of memory and arithmetic units by 25%, having only 0.32% deterioration in the detection rate

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 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 score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207