1 / 7

Adam Yeh

Adam Yeh. UCF Computer Vision REU Week 10. This Week. Improved binary results using mask Expanded database Search photo-hosting sites for expressions Flickr, photobucket, webshots Reprocessed images Zoomed in more on face to eliminate background junk

lane
Download Presentation

Adam Yeh

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Adam Yeh UCF Computer Vision REU Week 10

  2. This Week • Improved binary results using mask • Expanded database • Search photo-hosting sites for expressions • Flickr, photobucket, webshots • Reprocessed images • Zoomed in more on face to eliminate background junk • Area of face in dataset more in tune with output from existing face detection systems • Multi-class classification with NSV-based model

  3. Mask Algorithm • For each class, find variances for each feature (pixel) • Find threshold, say 60th percentile variance value • For feature x, if variance(x)>threshold, mask[x]=1, otherwise mask[x]=0 • Remove the connected components of value 1 that are on borders • Union the results among all classes • Addition to expand number of features looked at

  4. Results • Mask improvements: • Happy vs Surprise: 88% to 89% • Happy vs Neutral: 81% to 90% • Surprise vs Neutral: 55% to 70% • Feature reduction: 576 (24x24) to 218 features

  5. Multi-class classification • Find intersection of NSVs from binary SVMs • 22/66 neutral, 389/444 happy, 79/126 surprise NSVS • Nearest Neighbors • 46% testing accuracy on NSVS • 44% on all data • Happy testing accuracy is 100% while other classes do significantly worse • Large happy dataset? • Distance to Poles (average of NSVs) • 21% testing accuracy on NSVs • Happy testing accuracy is 0%--opposite result of nearest neighbors • Coresvm built-in multi-class classification • One vs. One • 70% testing accuracy without mask • 78% testing accuracy with mask • One vs. All • 71% testing accuracy without mask • 74% testing accuracy with mask

  6. Next Week • Previously: “closeness” measure to poles very simplistic • Simple Euclidean distance • Mahalanobis distance • Better idea of closeness to center of mass • Takes correlation between features in feature vector into account • Scale-invariant

More Related