MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312177448 · doi:10.18280/ria.360520

Deep Neural Networks for Automatic Facial Expression Recognition

2022· article· en· W4312177448 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Venkata Srinivasu Veesam, Suban Ravichandran, G. Rama Mohan Babu

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFacial expressionLocal binary patternsHistogramClassifier (UML)Deep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Facial recognition systemFacial expression recognitionArtificial neural networkExpression (computer science)Speech recognitionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Out of all non-linguistic communications, one of the most popular is face expression and is capable of communicating effectively with others. We have number of applications of facial expressions in as sorted arenas comprising of medicine like psychology, security, gaming, Classroom communication and even commercial creativities. Owing to huge intra-class distinction it is still challenging to recognize the emotions automatically based on facial expression though it is a vigorous area of research since decades. Conventional lines for this approach are dependent on hand-crafted characteristics like Scale Invariant Feature Transform, Histogram of Oriented Gradient and Local Binary Patterns surveyed by a classifier which is applied on a dataset. Various types of architectures were applied for restored performance as Deep learning proved an outstanding feat. The goal of this study is to create a deep learning model on automatic facial emotion recognition FER. The proposed model efforts more on pulling out the crucial features, thereby, advances the expression recognition accuracy, and beats the competition on FER2013 dataset.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207