MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118271890 · doi:10.1109/fuzzy.2010.5584450

Enhanced weakly trained frontal face detector for surveillance purposes

2010· article· en· W2118271890 on OpenAlexaff
Wael Louis, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis, Yong Man Ro

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorArtificial intelligenceHistogramComputer scienceFace (sociological concept)Face detectionFalse positive ratePattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionHistogram of oriented gradientsHaar-like featuresObject-class detectionFacial recognition systemImage (mathematics)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Face detection is becoming popular in surveillance applications; however, the need of enormous size face/non-face dataset, large number of features, and long training time are persistent problems. This paper claims that only a subset of the total number of features conserves the major power to detect faces; hence, this subset is capable to detect faces with high detection rate. The proposed detector fuses the results of two classifiers where one is trained with only 40 Haar-like features and the other is trained with only 50 LBP Histogram features. A pre-processing stage of skin-tone detection is applied to reduce the false positive rate. The detector is examined on real-life low-resolution surveillance sequence. Conducted experiments show that the proposed detector can achieve a high detection rate and a low false positive rate. Also, it outperforms Lienhart detector and tolerates wide range of illumination and blurring changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207