MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291708340 · doi:10.1049/iet-cvi.2014.0375

Individual‐specific management of reference data in adaptive ensembles for face re‐identification

2015· article· en· W2291708340 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Computer Vision · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace recognition and analysis
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieurePublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersDefence Research and Development CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaSecretaría de Educación Pública
KeywordsComputer scienceDiscriminative modelArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Identification (biology)Divergence (linguistics)Facial recognition systemFace (sociological concept)Process (computing)Reference modelMachine learningComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During video surveillance, face re‐identification allows recognition and targeting of individuals of interest from faces captured across a network of video cameras. In such applications, face recognition is challenging because faces are captured under limited spatial and temporal constraints. In addition, facial models for recognition are commonly designed using a limited number of representative reference samples from faces captured under specific conditions, regrouped into facial trajectories. Given new reference samples (provided by an operator or through some self‐updating process), updating facial models may allow maintenance of a high level of performance over time. Although adaptive ensembles have been successfully applied to robust modelling of an individual's facial appearance, reference data samples from a trajectory must be stored for validation. In this study, a memory management strategy based on Kullback–Leiber (KL) divergence is proposed to rank and select the most relevant validation samples over time in adaptive individual‐specific ensembles. When new reference samples become available for an individual, updates to the corresponding ensemble are validated using a mixture of new and previously‐stored samples. Only the samples with the highest KL divergence are preserved in memory for future adaptations. This strategy is compared with reference classifiers using videos from the face in action data. Simulation results show that the proposed strategy tends to select discriminative samples from wolf‐like individuals for validation. It allows maintenance of a high level of performance, while reducing the number of samples per individual by up to 80%.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.154 · 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