MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224306551 · doi:10.1049/cit2.12084

Age estimation from facial images based on Gabor feature fusion and the CIASO‐SA algorithm

2022· article· en· W4224306551 on OpenAlexaff
Di Lu, Dapeng Wang, Kaiyu Zhang, Xiangyuan Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueCAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace recognition and analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceHistogramComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Simulated annealingFeature selectionAlgorithmChaoticSupport vector machineFace (sociological concept)Facial recognition systemComputer visionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aiming at the problem of long time‐consuming and low accuracy of existing age estimation approaches, a new age estimation method using Gabor feature fusion, and an improved atomic search algorithm for feature selection is proposed. Firstly, texture features of five scales and eight directions in the face region are extracted by Gabor wavelet transform. The statistical histogram is introduced to encode and fuse the directional index with the largest feature value on Gabor scales. Secondly, a new hybrid feature selection algorithm chaotic improved atom search optimisation with simulated annealing (CIASO‐SA) is presented, which is based on an improved atomic search algorithm and the simulated annealing algorithm. Besides, the CIASO‐SA algorithm introduces a chaos mechanism during atomic initialisation, significantly improving the convergence speed and accuracy of the algorithm. Finally, a support vector machine (SVM) is used to get classification results of the age group. To verify the performance of the proposed algorithm, face images with three resolutions in the Adience dataset are tested. Using the Gabor real part fusion feature at 48 × 48 resolution, the average accuracy and 1‐off accuracy of age classification exhibit a maximum of 60.4% and 85.9%, respectively. Obtained results prove the superiority of the proposed algorithm over the state‐of‐the‐art methods, which is of great referential value for application to the mobile terminals.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCAAI Transactions on Intelligence TechnologySame topicFace recognition and analysisFrench-language works237,207