Projection into Expression Subspaces for Face Recognition from Single Sample per Person
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discriminant analysis methods are powerful tools for face recognition. However, these methods cannot be used for the single sample per person scenario because the within-subject variability cannot be estimated in this case. In the generic learning solution, this variability is estimated using images of a generic training set, for which more than one sample per person is available. However, because of rather poor estimation of the within-subject variability using a generic set, the performance of discriminant analysis methods is yet to be satisfactory. This problem particularly exists when images are under drastic facial expression variation. In this paper, we show that images with the same expression are located on a common subspace, which here we call it the expression subspace. We show that by projecting an image with an arbitrary expression into the expression subspaces, we can synthesize new expression images. By means of the synthesized images for subjects with one image sample, we can obtain more accurate estimation of the within-subject variability and achieve significant improvement in recognition. We performed comprehensive experiments on two large face databases: the Face Recognition Grand Challenge and the Cohn-Kanade AU-Coded Facial Expression database to support the proposed methodology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".