MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083652474 · doi:10.1109/icip.2010.5654251

Fiducial point tracking for facial expression using multiple particle filters with kernel correlation analysis

2010· article· en· W2083652474 on OpenAlexaff
Yun Tie, Ling Guan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiducial markerParticle filterKernel (algebra)Artificial intelligenceTracking (education)Computer scienceComputer visionCorrelationPoint (geometry)Pattern recognition (psychology)Kalman filterMathematicsGeometryCombinatoricsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting and tracking fiducial points successfully can generate necessary dynamic and deformable information for facial image interpretation tasks with numerous potential applications. In this paper we propose an automatic fiducial points tracking method using multiple Differential Evolution Markov Chain (DE-MC) particle filters with kernel correlation techniques. Fiducial points are initialized through the scale invariant feature based detectors. By taking the advantage of the ability to approximate complicated proposal distributions, multiple DE-MC particle filters are applied for fiducial points tracking by building a path connecting sampling with measurements, based on the fact that the posteriori depends on both the previous state and the current observation. A Kernel correlation analysis approach is proposed to find the detection likelihood with maximization of the similarity criterion between the target points and the candidate points. Sampling efficiency is improved and computational time is substantially reduced by making use of the intermediate results obtained in particle allocation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207