Memory Integrity of CNNs for Cross-Dataset Facial Expression Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facial expression recognition is a major problem in the domain of artificial intelligence. One of the best ways to solve this problem is the use of convolutional neural networks (CNNs). However, a large amount of data is required to train properly these networks but most of the datasets available for facial expression recognition are relatively small. A common way to circumvent the lack of data is to use CNNs trained on large datasets of different domains and fine-tuning the layers of such networks to the target domain. However, the fine-tuning process does not preserve the memory integrity as CNNs have the tendency to forget patterns they have learned. In this paper, we evaluate different strategies of fine-tuning a CNN with the aim of assessing the memory integrity of such strategies in a cross-dataset scenario. A CNN pre-trained on a source dataset is used as the baseline and four adaptation strategies have been evaluated: fine-tuning its fully connected layers; fine-tuning its last convolutional layer and its fully connected layers; retraining the CNN on a target dataset; and the fusion of the source and target datasets and retraining the CNN. Experimental results on four datasets have shown that the fusion of the source and the target datasets provides the best trade-off between accuracy and memory integrity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".