MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Two-Level Attention-based Fusion Learning for RGB-D Face Recognition

2021· preprint· en· W3044266388 on OpenAlexafffund
Hardik Uppal, Alireza Sepas‐Moghaddam, Michael Greenspan, Ali Etemad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace recognition and analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceRGB color modelComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkFeature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Benchmark (surveying)Deep learningFeature extractionConvolution (computer science)Facial recognition systemTransfer of learningFusion mechanismFeature learningLayer (electronics)Computer visionArtificial neural networkFusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With recent advances in RGB-D sensing technologies as well as improvements in machine learning and fusion techniques, RGB-D facial recognition has become an active area of research. A novel attention aware method is proposed to fuse two image modalities, RGB and depth, for enhanced RGB-D facial recognition. The proposed method first extracts features from both modalities using a convolutional feature extractor. These features are then fused using a two layer attention mechanism. The first layer focuses on the fused feature maps generated by the feature extractor, exploiting the relationship between feature maps using LSTM recurrent learning. The second layer focuses on the spatial features of those maps using convolution. The training database is preprocessed and augmented through a set of geometric transformations, and the learning process is further aided using transfer learning from a pure 2D RGB image training process. Comparative evaluations demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms other state-of-the-art approaches, including both traditional and deep neural network-based methods, on the challenging CurtinFaces and IIIT-D RGB-D benchmark databases, achieving classification accuracies over 98.2% and 99.3% respectively. The proposed attention mechanism is also compared with other attention mechanisms, demonstrating more accurate results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace recognition and analysisFrench-language works237,207