MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120922739 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2005.1415344

Statistical Non-Uniform Sampling of Gabor Wavelet Coefficients for Face Recongnition

2006· article· en· W2120922739 on OpenAlexaff
Shan Du, R.K. Ward

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGabor waveletPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligencePrincipal component analysisSampling (signal processing)Face (sociological concept)MathematicsCurse of dimensionalityWaveletComputer scienceFacial recognition systemGabor transformComputer visionWavelet transformDiscrete wavelet transformTime–frequency analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A statistics based, non-uniform sampling of the Gabor wavelet decomposition coefficients for face recognition is presented in this paper. Gabor wavelets are popularly used to decompose face images into their spatial/frequency domains. The derived Gabor coefficients generate an augmented vector, e.g., 40 times larger than the original gray-scale vector. To reduce the dimensionality, uniform sampling of the Gabor coefficients is normally used. In this paper, we propose a non-uniform sampling method of the Gabor coefficients such that the coefficients corresponding to important face features are sampled much finer than those of the other parts of the image. The non-uniform sampling is based on the local statistics of the Gabor coefficients obtained from a set of training images. This adaptation is implemented in a hierarchical fashion; a coarse-to-fine strategy results in multi-level sampling rates. After the samples are obtained, the traditional principal component analysis (PCA) is used to code the samples for the final classification. The experimental results show that the proposed non-uniform sampling of Gabor coefficients outperforms the uniform one and the popular eigenfaces method.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207