Regression-Based Automated Facial Image Quality Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, biometric technologies became reliable and widespread means of unobtrusive user authentication in a variety of real-world applications. The performance of an automated face recognition system has a strong relationship with the quality of the biometric samples. The facial samples can be affected by various quality factors, such as uneven illumination, low or high contrast, excessive brightness, blurriness, etc. In this article, the authors propose a quality estimation method based on linear regression analysis to characterize the relationship between different quality factors and the performance of a face recognition system. The regression model can predict the overall quality of a facial sample which reflects the effects of various quality factors on that sample. The weights assigned to the different quality factors by the linear regression model reflect the impact of those quality factors on the performance of the recognition system. Therefore, the prediction scores generated from the model is a strong indicator of the overall quality of the facial images. The authors evaluated the quality estimation model on the Extended Yale Database B. They also performed a study to understand which quality factors affect the face recognition the most.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".