MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769482590 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.12332

Learning Spatio-Temporal Features With Partial Expression Sequences for On-the-Fly Prediction

2018· article· en· W2769482590 on OpenAlexaff
Wissam J. Baddar, Yong Man Ro

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionMinistry of Science and ICT, South Korea
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceExpression (computer science)Feature (linguistics)Sequence (biology)Encoding (memory)Facial expressionPattern recognition (psychology)On the flySegmentationTask (project management)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatio-temporal feature encoding is essential for encoding facial expression dynamics in video sequences. At test time, most spatio-temporal encoding methods assume that a temporally segmented sequence is fed to a learned model, which could require the prediction to wait until the full sequence is available to an auxiliary task that performs the temporal segmentation. This causes a delay in predicting the expression. In an interactive setting, such as affective interactive agents, such delay in the prediction could not be tolerated. Therefore, training a model that can accurately predict the facial expression "on-the-fly" (as they are fed to the system) is essential. In this paper, we propose a new spatio-temporal feature learning method, which would allow prediction with partial sequences. As such, the prediction could be performed on-the-fly. The proposed method utilizes an estimated expression intensity to generate dense labels, which are used to regulate the prediction model training with a novel objective function. As results, the learned spatio-temporal features can robustly predict the expression with partial (incomplete) expression sequences, on-the-fly. Experimental results showed that the proposed method achieved higher recognition rates compared to the state-of-the-art methods on both datasets. More importantly, the results verified that the proposed method improved the prediction frames with partial expression sequence inputs.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207