Learning to Transfer: Transferring Latent Task Structures and Its Application to Person-Specific Facial Action Unit Detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we explore the problem of constructing person-specific models for the detection of facial Action Units (AUs), addressing the problem from the point of view of Transfer Learning and Multi-Task Learning. Our starting point is the fact that some expressions, such as smiles, are very easily elicited, annotated, and automatically detected, while others are much harder to elicit and to annotate. We thus consider a novel problem: all AU models for the target subject are to be learnt using person-specific annotated data for a reference AU (AU12 in our case), and no data or little data regarding the target AU. In order to design such a model, we propose a novel Multi-Task Learning and the associated Transfer Learning framework, in which we consider both relations across subjects and AUs. That is to say, we consider a tensor structure among the tasks. Our approach hinges on learning the latent relations among tasks using one single reference AU, and then transferring these latent relations to other AUs. We show that we are able to effectively make use of the annotated data for AU12 when learning other person-specific AU models, even in the absence of data for the target task. Finally, we show the excellent performance of our method when small amounts of annotated data for the target tasks are made available.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it