MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388413877 · doi:10.18280/isi.280505

Performance Enhancement in Facial Emotion Classification Through Noise-Injected FERCNN Model: A Comparative Analysis

2023· article· en· W4388413877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K. Anji Reddy, Thirupathi Regula, Karramareddy Sharmila, P V V S Srinivas, Syed Ziaur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)PsychologyFacial expressionComputer scienceSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human face serves as a potent biological medium for expressing emotions, and the capability to interpret these expressions has been fundamental to human interaction since time immemorial.Consequently, the extraction of emotions from facial expressions in images, using machine learning, presents an intriguing yet challenging avenue.Over the past few years, advancements in artificial intelligence have significantly contributed to the field, replicating aspects of human intelligence.This paper proposes a Facial Emotion Recognition Convolutional Neural Network (FERCNN) model, addressing the limitations in accurately processing raw input images, as evidenced in the literature.A notable improvement in performance is observed when the input image is injected with noise prior to training and validation.Gaussian, Poisson, Speckle, and Salt & Pepper noise types are utilized in this noise injection process.The proposed model exhibits superior results compared to well-established CNN architectures, including VGG16, VGG19, Xception, and Resnet50.Not only does the proposed model demonstrate greater performance, but it also reduces training costs compared to models trained without noise injection at the input level.The FER2013 and JAFFE datasets, comprising seven different emotions (happy, angry, neutral, fear, disgust, sad, and surprise) and totaling 39,387 images, are used for training and testing.All experimental procedures are conducted via the Kaggle cloud infrastructure.When Gaussian, Poisson, and Speckle noise are introduced at the input level, the suggested CNN model yields evaluation accuracies of 92.17%, 95.07%, and 92.41%, respectively.In contrast, the highest accuracies achieved by existing models such as VGG16, VGG19, and Resnet 50 are 45.97%, 63.97%, and 54.52%, respectively.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.007
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207