Simple Histogram Equalization Technique Improves Performance of VGG models on Facial Emotion Recognition Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facial Emotion Recognition (FER) is crucial across psychology, neuroscience, computer vision, and machine learning due to the diversified and subjective nature of emotions, varying considerably across individuals, cultures, and contexts. This paper investigates the impact of histogram equalization, data augmentation and model optimization strategies on three well-known FER datasets using pre-trained VGG models. Additionally, this paper showcases the effectiveness of different regularization techniques, callbacks, and learning schedulers in enhancing model performance by conducting extensive experiments. The model evaluation is discussed in terms of the following metrics: Accuracy, Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC), Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUC-PRC), and Weighted F1 score. Notably, the fine-tuned VGG models exhibit state-of-the-art performance compared to more complex conventional transfer learning models resulting in accuracies of 100%, 95.92%, and 69.65% on the CK+, KDEF, and FER2013 datasets, 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".