MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119586505 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2004.825930

Facial Expression Recognition Using Constructive Feedforward Neural Networks

2004· letter· en· W2119586505 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersInstituto de Telecomunicações
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Facial expressionSadnessArtificial neural networkFeedforward neural networkFacial recognition systemFeature (linguistics)Feed forwardSpeech recognitionAngerPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new technique for facial expression recognition is proposed, which uses the two-dimensional (2D) discrete cosine transform (DCT) over the entire face image as a feature detector and a constructive one-hidden-layer feedforward neural network as a facial expression classifier. An input-side pruning technique, proposed previously by the authors, is also incorporated into the constructive learning process to reduce the network size without sacrificing the performance of the resulting network. The proposed technique is applied to a database consisting of images of 60 men, each having five facial expression images (neutral, smile, anger, sadness, and surprise). Images of 40 men are used for network training, and the remaining images of 20 men are used for generalization and testing. Confusion matrices calculated in both network training and generalization for four facial expressions (smile, anger, sadness, and surprise) are used to evaluate the performance of the trained network. It is demonstrated that the best recognition rates are 100% and 93.75% (without rejection), for the training and generalizing images, respectively. Furthermore, the input-side weights of the constructed network are reduced by approximately 30% using our pruning method. In comparison with the fixed structure back propagation-based recognition methods in the literature, the proposed technique constructs one-hidden-layer feedforward neural network with fewer number of hidden units and weights, while simultaneously provide improved generalization and recognition performance capabilities.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.205 · 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