MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166016566 · doi:10.1109/crv.2006.34

Expression-Invariant Face Recognition with Expression Classification

2006· article· en· W2166016566 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoxing Li, Giulio Mori, Hao Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceFacial recognition systemClassifier (UML)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceInvariant (physics)Three-dimensional face recognitionComputer visionFace (sociological concept)Facial expressionExpression (computer science)Face hallucinationFacial expression recognitionFace detectionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Face recognition is one of the most intensively studied topics in computer vision and pattern recognition. Facial expression, which changes face geometry, usually has an adverse effect on the performance of a face recognition system. On the other hand, face geometry is a useful cue for recognition. Taking these into account, we utilize the idea of separating geometry and texture information in a face image and model the two types of information by projecting them into separate PCA spaces which are specially designed to capture the distinctive features among different individuals. Subsequently, the texture and geometry attributes are re-combined to form a classifier which is capable of recognizing faces with different expressions. Finally, by studying face geometry, we are able to determine which type of facial expression has been carried out, thus build an expression classifier. Numerical validations of the proposed method are given.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations62
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207