MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063381257 · doi:10.1109/hpcsim.2014.6903749

Effectiveness of various classification techniques on human face recognition

2014· article· en· W2063381257 on OpenAlexaff
Soodeh Nikan, Majid Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceFacial recognition systemComputer scienceLinear discriminant analysisPrincipal component analysisDimensionality reductionClassifier (UML)k-nearest neighbors algorithmLocal binary patternsExtreme learning machineFeature vectorSupport vector machineFeature extractionFace (sociological concept)DiscriminantArtificial neural networkHistogramImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper the effectiveness of different classification techniques is evaluated on the performance of face recognition algorithms. Gabor wavelet and its fusion with local binary pattern (LBP) are utilized as feature extractors. Dimensionality reduction approaches, principal component analysis (PCA) and Fisher's linear discriminant (FLD), are employed to reduce the size of feature vector. The performance of nearest neighbor (NN) classifier with various cost functions, sparse classification, multilayer feed-forward neural network (MFNN) and extreme learning machine (ELM) are analysed on three face databases, Extended YaleB, FERET and Multi-PIE, which contain large number of individuals with images under various illumination conditions and different facial expressions. Simulation results show that ELM and MFNN are effective in all conditions. The performance of nearest neighbor and sparse classifier is degraded under severe illumination variation.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207