MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252791518 · doi:10.24124/2015/bpgub1134

Local binary pattern network: a deep learning approach for face recognition

2015· dissertation· en· W4252791518 on OpenAlexaff
Meng Xi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceDeep learningConvolutional neural networkFace (sociological concept)Artificial neural networkFacial recognition systemKernel (algebra)Binary classificationSimilarity (geometry)Machine learningImage (mathematics)Support vector machineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning is well known as a method to extract hierarchical representations of data. This method has been widely implemented in many fields, including image classification, speech recognition, natural language processing, etc. Over the past decade, deep learning has made a great progress in solving face recognition problems due to its effectiveness. In this thesis a novel deep learning multilayer hierarchy based methodology, named Local Binary Pattern Network (LBPNet), is proposed. Unlike the shallow LBP method, LBPNet performs multi-scale analysis and gains high-level representations from low-level overlapped features in a systematic manner. The LBPNet deep learning network is generated by retaining the topology of Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and replacing its trainable kernel with the off-the-shelf computer vision descriptor, the LBP descriptor. This enables LBPNet to achieve a high recognition accuracy without requiring costly model learning approach on massive data. LBPNet progressively extracts features from input images from test and training data through multiple processing layers, pairwisely measures the similarity of extracted features in regional level, and then performs the classification based on the aggregated similarity values. Through extensive numerical experiments using the popular benchmarks (i.e., FERET, LFW and YTF), LBPNet has shown the promising results. Its results out-perform (on FERET) or are comparable (on LFW and FERET) to other methods in the same categories, which are single descriptor based unsupervised learning methods on FERET and LFW, and single descriptor based supervise learning methods with image-restricted no outside data settings on LFW and YTF, respectively. --Leaves i-ii.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207