MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991818756 · doi:10.1142/s0218001420560066

Local Comparative Decimal Pattern for Face Recognition

2019· article· en· W2991818756 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohsen Tabejamaat, Abdolmajid Mousavi, Marina L. Gavrilova

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Facial recognition systemFace (sociological concept)Invariant (physics)Sample (material)Representation (politics)Computer visionSet (abstract data type)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid growth of social networks has provided an extraordinary medium to share a large volume of photographs online. This calls for designing efficient face recognition techniques that are applicable to images with low resolutions and arbitrary poses. This paper proposes a new pose invariant face recognition method for low resolution images using only a single training sample. A 3D model, reconstructed using Generic Elastic Model (3D GEM) from a frontal view training sample, is used to generate a set of nonfrontal gallery face images. The face region of the nonfrontal query sample is then extracted using the same landmark detection technique as in the 3D GEM algorithm. Afterwards, a novel texture representation technique called Local Comparative Decimal Pattern (LCDP) is proposed to extract features from each of the training and query samples. A set of experimental results on the ORL, Georgia Tech (GT), and LFW face databases demonstrates the efficiency of the proposed method compared to other state-of-the-art approaches.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial IntelligenceSame topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207