MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128178088 · doi:10.1109/tsmcc.2005.848193

An Appearance Model Constructed on 3-D Surface for Robust Face Recognition Against Pose and Illumination Variations

2005· article· en· W2128178088 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R. Ishiyama, M. Hamanaka, Shizuo Sakamoto

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part C (Applications and Reviews) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace recognition and analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSilhouetteComputer visionPoseComputer scienceFace (sociological concept)ResidualSubspace topologyActive appearance modelPattern recognition (psychology)Surface (topology)Image (mathematics)Object (grammar)Facial recognition systemPolygon meshA priori and a posterioriMathematicsAlgorithmGeometryComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a face recognition method that is robust against image variations due to arbitrary lighting and a large extent of pose variations, ranging from frontal to profile views. Existing appearance models defined on image planes are not applicable for such pose variations that cause occlusions and changes of silhouette. In contrast, our method constructs an appearance model of a three-dimensional (3-D) object on its surface. Our proposed model consists of a 3-D shape and geodesic illumination bases (GIBs). GIBs can describe the irradiances of an object's surface under any illumination and generate illumination subspace that can describe illumination variations of an image in an arbitrary pose. Our appearance model is automatically aligned to the target image by pose optimization based on a rough pose, and the residual error of this model fitting is used as the recognition score. We tested the recognition performance of our method with an extensive database that includes 14 000 images of 200 individuals with drastic illumination changes and pose variations up to 60/spl deg/ sideward and 45/spl deg/ upward. The method achieved a first-choice success ratio of 94.2% without knowing precise poses a priori.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part C (Applications and Reviews)Same topicFace recognition and analysisFrench-language works237,207