MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143752277 · doi:10.1109/iscas.2002.1010792

Automatic localization of human eyes in complex background

2003· article· en· W2143752277 on OpenAlexaff
Liang Tao, Hon Keung Kwan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceHistogramMerge (version control)SegmentationGrayscaleImage segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Human eyeA priori and a posterioriSimilarity (geometry)Block (permutation group theory)Image (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on geometrical facial features and image segmentation, this paper presents a novel algorithm for automatic localization of human eyes in grayscale still images with complex backgrounds. First of all, an eye location determination criterion is established by the a priori knowledge of geometrical facial features. Secondly, a range of threshold values that would separate eye blocks from others in a segmented facial image is estimated from the facial image histogram. Thirdly, with the progressive increase of the threshold by an appropriate step in that range, the size of the existing blocks in the segmented facial image will expand, some existing blocks will merge into one block, and some new blocks will emerge. Once two eye blocks appear from the segmented image, they will be detected by the eye location determination criterion. Finally, the 2D correlation coefficient is used as a symmetry similarity measure to check the factuality of the two detected eyes. In this way, the optimal threshold value can be automatically found, based on the detection result, such that eyes can be accurately located. The experimental results demonstrate the high efficiency of the algorithm in runtime and its correct localization 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207