Utility functions as aggregation functions in face recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Face recognition by computers in recent years has been a topic of intensive studies. In this problem, we witness several challenges: one has to cope with large data sets, solve problems of data extraction, and deal with poor quality of images caused by e.g., poor lighting of the subject. There have been a lot of algorithms and classifiers developed, which are aimed at recognizing faces of individuals. In this paper, we present a novel classification method, which involves a collection of classifiers with a certain utility function regarded as an aggregation operator. The nearest neighbor method with various similarity measures is used as a generic classifier for selected face areas. The main task is to assign photos of a person to one of the classes of image present in the available database. This problem is similar to the decision-making process with some evident analogies. If in face recognition, a single classifier is being used, the problem becomes similar to the one of decision-making with a single criterion. When having several classifiers, the problem resembles a problem of a multi-criteria decision making. The second scenario requires an aggregation of the results produced by different classifiers. The paper presents the use of the utility function which is well-known in the decision-making theory as an aggregation operator applied to the results of various classifiers. The study is focused on the two-factor utility function and its variants.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".