MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161895106 · doi:10.1109/icme.2006.262861

Selecting Kernel Eigenfaces for Face Recognition with One Training Sample Per Subject

2006· article· en· W2161895106 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Wang, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis, A.N. Venetsanopolous

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceLinear discriminant analysisFacial recognition systemKernel Fisher discriminant analysisKernel principal component analysisComputer scienceKernel (algebra)EigenfacePrincipal component analysisSubspace topologyFeature (linguistics)Curse of dimensionalityFeature extractionSample (material)Feature vectorFace (sociological concept)Feature selectionKernel methodMathematicsSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well-known that supervised learning techniques such as linear discriminant analysis (LDA) often suffer from the so called small sample size problem when apply to solve face recognition problems. This is due to the fact that in most cases, the number of training samples is much smaller than the dimensionality of the sample space. The problem becomes even more severe if only one training sample is available for each subject. In this paper, followed by the well-known unsupervised technique, kernel principal component analysis (KPCA), a novel feature selection scheme is proposed to establish a discriminant feature subspace in which the class separability is maximized. Extensive experiments performed on the FERET database indicate that the proposed scheme significantly boosts the recognition performance of the traditional KPCA solution

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207