The main objective of this study is to compare face recognition accuracies in the case when the grey levels in each pixel of the face images are replaced by the gradient and the surface normal vectors. Extensive information is provided to explain the differences between the gradient and the proposed features. Some well‐known face recognition methods, such as common vector approach (CVA), discriminative CVA, and support vector machines are applied to the well‐known databases of AR and Yale for comparison other than introducing a new method what the authors called as Sum of Pixel Slope Similarities Approach. The authors’ experimental results are compared with the state‐of‐the‐art methods to the best of their knowledge. In conclusion, their results imply that using the surface normal vectors rather than the gradient vectors in each pixel with no additional work on their elements gives better recognition rates.

The common vector (CV) method is a linear subspace classifier method which allows one to discriminate between classes of data sets, such as those arising in image and word recognition. This method utilizes subspaces that represent classes during classification. Each subspace is modeled such that common features of all samples in the corresponding class are extracted. To accomplish this goal, the method eliminates features that are in the direction of the eigenvectors corresponding to the nonzero eigenvalues of the covariance matrix of each class. In this paper, we introduce a variation of the CV method, which will be referred to as the modified CV (MCV) method. Then, a novel approach is proposed to apply the MCV method in a nonlinearly mapped higher dimensional feature space. In this approach, all samples are mapped into a higher dimensional feature space using a kernel mapping function, and then, the MCV method is applied in the mapped space. Under certain conditions, each class gives rise to a unique CV, and the method guarantees a 100% recognition rate with respect to the training set data. Moreover, experiments with several test cases also show that the generalization performance of the proposed kernel method is comparable to the generalization performances of other linear subspace classifier methods as well as the kernel-based nonlinear subspace method. While both the MCV method and its kernel counterpart did not outperform the support vector machine (SVM) classifier in most of the reported experiments, the application of our proposed methods is simpler than that of the multiclass SVM classifier. In addition, it is not necessary to adjust any parameters in our approach.

In face recognition tasks, the dimension of the sample space is typically larger than the number of the samples in the training set. As a consequence, the within-class scatter matrix is singular and the Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) method cannot be applied directly. This problem is known as the "small sample size" problem. In this paper, we propose a new face recognition method called the Discriminative Common Vector method based on a variation of Fisher's Linear Discriminant Analysis for the small sample size case. Two different algorithms are given to extract the discriminative common vectors representing each person in the training set of the face database. One algorithm uses the within-class scatter matrix of the samples in the training set while the other uses the subspace methods and the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization procedure to obtain the discriminative common vectors. Then, the discriminative common vectors are used for classification of new faces. The proposed method yields an optimal solution for maximizing the modified Fisher's Linear Discriminant criterion given in the paper. Our test results show that the Discriminative Common Vector method is superior to other methods in terms of recognition accuracy, efficiency, and numerical stability.

The main point of the paper is to show the close relation between the nonzero principal components and the difference subspace together with the complementary close relation between the zero principal components and the common vector. A common vector representing each word-class is obtained from the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix of its own word-class; that is, the common vector is in the direction of a linear combination of the eigenvectors corresponding to the zero eigenvalues of the covariance matrix. The methods that use the nonzero principal components for recognition purposes suggest the elimination of all the features that are in the direction of the eigenvectors corresponding to the smallest eigenvalues (including the zero eigenvalues) of the covariance matrix whereas the common vector approach suggests the elimination of all the features that are in the direction of the eigenvectors corresponding to the largest, all nonzero eigenvalues of the covariance matrix.

A voice signal contains the psychological and physiological properties of the speaker as well as dialect differences, acoustical environment effects, and phase differences. For these reasons, the same word uttered by different speakers can be very different. In this paper, two theories are developed by considering two optimization criteria applied to both the training set and the test set. The first theory is well known and uses what is called Criterion 1 here and ends up with the average of all vectors belonging to the words in the training set. The second theory is a novel approach and uses what is called Criterion 2 here, and it is used to extract the common properties of all vectors belonging to the words in the training set. It is shown that Criterion 2 is superior to Criterion 1 when the training set is of concern. In Criterion 2, the individual differences are obtained by subtracting a reference vector from other vectors, and individual difference vectors are used to obtain orthogonal vector basis by using the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization method. The common vector is obtained by subtracting projections of any vector of the training set on the orthogonal vectors from this same vector. It is proved that this common vector is unique for any word class in the training set and independent of the chosen reference vector. This common vector is used in isolated word recognition, and it is also shown that Criterion 2 is superior to Criterion 1 for the test set. From the theoretical and experimental study, it is seen that the recognition rates increase as the number of speakers in the training set increases. This means that the common vector obtained from Criterion 2 represents the common properties of a spoken word better than the common or average vector obtained from Criterion 1.