Biometric Face Identification: Utilizing Soft Computing Methods for Feature-Based Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biometric facial identification presents a distinct and reliable method for distinguishing individuals based on unique physical or behavioral characteristics.Unlike traditional security measures such as passwords, facial features offer a level of security that cannot be shared, replicated, or forgotten.This study focuses on the application of facial biometrics for person identification, leveraging the advantages of non-contact biometrics like facial features over other methods such as fingerprint or palm recognition.Facial recognition in this work is predicated on the geometric shapes or facial characteristics.Emphasis is placed on three fundamental views of the face: upward, frontal, and downward.For each of these views, specific regions are extracted for processing, including the right-eye region and its width.Simultaneously, the dimensions of the mouth, both height and width, are extracted in a similar manner.Training and evaluation of the proposed system are accomplished using three soft computing models: an Artificial Neural Network (ANN), a Particle Swarm Optimization Neural Network (PSO-NN) model, and an Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) model.Each model employs a dataset constructed for each view.Optimization of the models is achieved by adjusting parameters like the number of neurons used in the hidden layer for recognition in neural network-based procedures.Performance evaluation of the proposed system is conducted by computing the mean square error, obtained by random data division.The models demonstrated a training set accuracy of 97.20% and a testing data set accuracy of 90.86%.These results indicate the effectiveness of the proposed system for both individual and combined face views, underscoring the potential of facial biometrics in secure identification applications.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".