VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Paul Ekman
dblp:33/3130
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
3 papers |
Face, body and person analysis · 100% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Image and video processing · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis
facial action recognition |
0.0 | 2 | 1999 | Classifying Facial Actions · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1999 Classifying Facial Action · NIPS 1995 |
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis › facial expression analysis
facial expression recognition |
0.0 | 2 | 1999 | Image Representations for Facial Expression Coding · NIPS 1999 Classifying Facial Action · NIPS 1995 |
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis › facial action unit analysis
facial action coding |
0.0 | 1 | 1999 | Image Representations for Facial Expression Coding · NIPS 1999 |
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis
facial expression analysis |
0.0 | 1 | 1999 | Classifying Facial Actions · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1999 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
principal component analysis · 0.0optical flow · 0.0linear discriminant analysis · 0.0independent component analysis · 0.0image representations · 0.0image representation · 0.0gabor wavelet · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | Individual Differences in Facial Expression: Stability over Time, Relation to Self-Reported Emotion, and Ability to Inform Person IdentificationabstractThe face can communicate varied personal information including subjective emotion, communicative intent, and cognitive appraisal. Accurate interpretation by observer or computer interface depends on attention to dynamic properties of the expression, context, and knowledge of what is normative for a given individual. In two separate studies, we investigated individual differences in the base rate of positive facial expression and in specific facial action units over intervals from 4 to 12 months. Facial expression was measured using convergent measures, including facial EMG, automatic feature-point tracking, and manual FACS coding. Individual differences in facial expression were stable over time, comparable in magnitude to stability of self-reported emotion, and sufficiently strong that individuals were recognized on the basis of their facial behavior alone at rates comparable to that for a commercial face recognition system (Facelt from Identix). Facial action units convey unique information about person identity that can inform interpretation of psychological states, person recognition, and design of individuated avatars. Jeffrey F. Cohn, Karen L. Schmidt, Ralph Gross, Paul Ekman |
ICMI | 4 |
| 1999 | Image Representations for Facial Expression Coding
Marian Stewart Bartlett, Gianluca Donato, Javier R. Movellan, Joseph C. Hager, Paul Ekman, Terrence J. Sejnowski |
NIPS | 5 |
| 1999 | Classifying Facial ActionsabstractThe Facial Action Coding System (FACS) [23] is an objective method for quantifying facial movement in terms of component actions. This system is widely used in behavioral investigations of emotion, cognitive processes, and social interaction. The coding is presently performed by highly trained human experts. This paper explores and compares techniques for automatically recognizing facial actions in sequences of images. These techniques include analysis of facial motion through estimation of optical flow; holistic spatial analysis, such as principal component analysis, independent component analysis, local feature analysis, and linear discriminant analysis; and methods based on the outputs of local filters, such as Gabor wavelet representations and local principal components. Performance of these systems is compared to naive and expert human subjects. Best performances were obtained using the Gabor wavelet representation and the independent component representation, both of which achieved 96 percent accuracy for classifying 12 facial actions of the upper and lower face. The results provide converging evidence for the importance of using local filters, high spatial frequencies, and statistical independence for classifying facial actions. Gianluca Donato, Marian Stewart Bartlett, Joseph C. Hager, Paul Ekman, Terrence J. Sejnowski |
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. | 4 |
| 1995 | Classifying Facial Action
Marian Stewart Bartlett, Paul A. Viola, Terrence J. Sejnowski, Beatrice A. Golomb, Jan Larsen, Joseph C. Hager, Paul Ekman |
NIPS | 7 |