MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224251933 · doi:10.1049/cit2.12092

A robust sparse representation algorithm based on adaptive joint dictionary

2022· article· en· W4224251933 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Tong, Rui Chen, Minghu Wu, Yang Jiao

Bibliographic record

VenueCAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsSparse approximationK-SVDRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Subspace topologyFacial recognition systemNeural codingFace (sociological concept)Dictionary learningAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sparse representation based on dictionary construction and learning methods have aroused interests in the field of face recognition. Aiming at the shortcomings of face feature dictionary not ‘clean’ and noise interference dictionary not ‘representative’ in sparse representation classification model, a new method named as robust sparse representation is proposed based on adaptive joint dictionary (RSR‐AJD). First, a fast low‐rank subspace recovery algorithm based on LogDet function (Fast LRSR‐LogDet) is proposed for accurate low‐rank facial intrinsic dictionary representing the similar structure of human face and low computational complexity. Then, the Iteratively Reweighted Robust Principal Component Analysis (IRRPCA) algorithm is used to get a more precise occlusion dictionary for depicting the possible discontinuous interference information attached to human face such as glasses occlusion or scarf occlusion etc. Finally, the above Fast LRSR‐LogDet algorithm and IRRPCA algorithm are adopted to construct the adaptive joint dictionary, which includes the low‐rank facial intrinsic dictionary, the occlusion dictionary and the remaining intra‐class variant dictionary for robust sparse coding. Experiments conducted on four popular databases (AR, Extended Yale B, LFW, and Pubfig) verify the robustness and effectiveness of the authors’ method.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCAAI Transactions on Intelligence TechnologySame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207