Disentangling factors of variation for facial expression recognition. ECCV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We propose a semi-supervised approach to solve the task of emotion recognition in 2D face images using recent ideas in deep learning for handling the factors of variation present in data. An emotion classifi-cation algorithm should be both robust to (1) remaining variations due to the pose of the face in the image after centering and alignment, (2) the identity or morphology of the face. In order to achieve this invariance, we propose to learn a hierarchy of features in which we gradually filter the factors of variation arising from both (1) and (2). We address (1) by using a multi-scale contractive convolutional network (CCNET) in order to obtain invariance to translations of the facial traits in the image. Using the feature representation produced by the CCNET, we train a Contrac-tive Discriminative Analysis (CDA) feature extractor, a novel variant of the Contractive Auto-Encoder (CAE), designed to learn a representation separating out the emotion-related factors from the others (which mostly capture the subject identity, and what is left of pose after the CCNET). This system beats the state-of-the-art on a recently proposed dataset for facial expression recognition, the Toronto Face Database, moving the state-of-art accuracy from 82.4 % to 85.0%, while the CCNET and CDA improve accuracy of a standard CAE by 8%. Key words: emotion recognition, contractive, convolution, deep learn-ing, auto-encoder, TFD 1
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
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".