MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123247936 · doi:10.1109/mmsp.2009.5293308

Automatic fiducial points detection for facial expressions using scale invariant feature

2009· article· en· W2123247936 on OpenAlexaff
Yun Tie, Ling Guan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceFiducial markerComputer scienceComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Facial recognition systemFace detectionAdaBoostNormalization (sociology)Feature extractionFeature (linguistics)Face (sociological concept)DetectorObject-class detectionFacial expressionClassifier (UML)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting fiducial points successfully in facial images or video sequences can play an important role in numerous facial image interpretation tasks such as face detection and identification, facial expression recognition, emotion recognition, and face image database management. In this paper we propose an automatic and robust method of facial fiducial point's detection for facial expressions analysis in video sequences using scale invariant feature based Adaboost classifiers. Face region is first located using the face detector with local normalization and optimal adaptive correlation technique. Candidate points are then selected over the face region using local scale-space extrema detection. The scale invariant feature for each candidate point is extracted for further examination. We choose 26 fiducial points on the face region from training samples to build the fiducial point detectors with Adaboost classifiers. All the candidate points in the test samples are examined through these detectors. Finally, all the 26 facial fiducial points are located on each frame of the test samples. Cohn-Kanade database and Mind Reading DVD are used for experiment. The results show that our method achieves a good performance of 90.69% average recognition rate.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207