Improving the Recognition Percentage of the Identity Check System by Applying the SVM Method on the Face Image Using Special Faces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Face recognition has attracted tremendous attention during the last three decades because it is considered a simple pattern recognition and image analysis method. Also, many facial recognition patterns have been introduced and used over the years. The SVM algorithm has been one of the successful models in this field. In this article, we have introduced the special faces first. In the following, we have fully explained the SVM method and its subsets, including linear and non-linear support vector machines. Suggestions for improving the recognition percentage of a person's identity check system by applying the SVM method on the face image using special faces are presented. For this test, 10 face images of 40 people (400 face images in total) have been selected from the ORL database. In this way, by choosing the optimal parameter C, determining the most suitable training samples, comparing more accurately with training images and using the distance with the closest training sample instead of the average distance, the proposed method has been implemented and tested on the famous ORL database. The obtained results are FAR=0.23% and FRR=0.48%, which shows the very high accuracy of the operation following the application of the above suggestions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".