MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205774037 · doi:10.18280/ts.380602

Facial Expressions Recognition Based on Delaunay Triangulation of Landmark and Machine Learning

2021· article· en· W4205774037 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Farid Ayeche, Adel Alti

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelaunay triangulationLandmarkArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineDiscriminative modelPattern recognition (psychology)Facial expressionComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Facial recognition systemFeature vectorComputer visionAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facial expressions can tell a lot about an individual’s emotional state. Recent technological advances opening avenues for automatic Facial Expression Recognition (FER) based on machine learning techniques. Many works have been done on FER for the classification of facial expressions. However, the applicability to more naturalistic facial expressions remains unclear. This paper intends to develop a machine learning approach based on the Delaunay triangulation to extract the relevant facial features allowing classifying facial expressions. Initially, from the given facial image, a set of discriminative landmarks are extracted. Along with this, a minimal landmark connected graph is also extracted. Thereby, from the connected graph, the expression is represented by a one-dimensional feature vector. Finally, the obtained vector is subject for classification by six well-known classifiers (KNN, NB, DT, QDA, RF and SVM). The experiments are conducted on four standard databases (CK+, KDEF, JAFFE and MUG) to evaluate the performance of the proposed approach and find out which classifier is better suited to our system. The QDA approach based on the Delaunay triangulation has a high accuracy of 96.94% since it only supports non-zero pixels, which increases the recognition rate.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207