Tied factor analysis for face recognition across large pose changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—Face recognition algorithms perform very unreliably when the pose of the probe face is different from the gallery face: typical feature vectors vary more with pose than with identity. We propose a generative model that creates a one-to-many mapping from an idealized “identity ” space to the observed data space. In identity space, the representation for each individual does not vary with pose. We model the measured feature vector as being generated by a pose-contingent linear transformation of the identity variable in the presence of Gaussian noise. We term this model “tied ” factor analysis. The choice of linear transformation (factors) depends on the pose, but the loadings are constant (tied) for a given individual. We use the EM algorithm to estimate the linear transformations and the noise parameters from training data. We propose a probabilistic distance metric that allows a full posterior over possible matches to be established. We introduce a novel feature extraction process and investigate recognition performance by using the FERET, XM2VTS, and PIE databases. Recognition performance compares favorably with contemporary approaches. Index Terms—Computing methodologies, pattern recognition, applications, face and gesture recognition. Ç 1
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".