Deep Differentiable Random Forests for Age Estimation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age estimation from facial images is typically cast as a label distribution learning or regression problem, since aging is a gradual progress. Its main challenge is the facial feature space w.r.t. ages is inhomogeneous, due to the large variation in facial appearance across different persons of the same age and the non-stationary property of aging. In this paper, we propose two Deep Differentiable Random Forests methods, Deep Label Distribution Learning Forest (DLDLF) and Deep Regression Forest (DRF), for age estimation. Both of them connect split nodes to the top layer of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and deal with inhomogeneous data by jointly learning input-dependent data partitions at the split nodes and age distributions at the leaf nodes. This joint learning follows an alternating strategy: (1) Fixing the leaf nodes and optimizing the split nodes and the CNN parameters by Back-propagation; (2) Fixing the split nodes and optimizing the leaf nodes by Variational Bounding. Two Deterministic Annealing processes are introduced into the learning of the split and leaf nodes, respectively, to avoid poor local optima and obtain better estimates of tree parameters free of initial values. Experimental results show that DLDLF and DRF achieve state-of-the-art performance on three age estimation datasets.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it