Name: Harshavardhan Joshi BVS

Ms. Poorani.S
Register number: 192210201
Guided by Dr. Mary Valantina.Guided
G by J Mohana

Public security improvement by detecting age, gender and emotions and comparative analysis with
fingerprint over Support Vector Machine and Decision Tree

INTRODUCTION
 The paper involves how to increase the precision for gender, age, and emotion if applied to security issues.
 The investigation shows that the biometric aspect of analysis is highly trending and is majorly applied in
the security sector to determine age, gender, and emotion.
 The article deals and compares the SVM algorithm and the Decision tree algorithm in terms of their
performance security.
 Data collection is achieved from the bounty of 2720 images available on Kaggle that is used to build the
models, which shall be validated using the test set.
 In Visual Studio Code, we do annotates the images in the dataset for the test and for the training
 IBM SPSS is applied in evaluating the outcomes of the model that have been trained.
 The results show that the algorithm SVM achieved a at the rate of 85% which is higher than Decision tree
Fig 1. Face detection for security
algorithms with a accuracy of 66%.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Problem Feature
Model Training Better results
definition has Extraction, Analysis of
and Model by comparing
to be analysed Data results using
testing using the existing
and data preprocessing IBM SPSS
datasets in algorithm with
collection upon is done by software for
Visual Studio the proposed
from that using Jupyter comparing
code algorithm
analysis notebook

RESULTS
Table 1. Statistical results of Support Vector Machine algorithms
(SVM) and Decision Tree.

Group Statistics
ALGORITH Std. Std. Error
N Mean
M Deviation Mean
"SVM" 20 89.1610 2.73729 .61208
ACCURACY "DECISION
20 66.0500 4.90408 1.09659
TREE"
Fig 2. Bar graph of SVM and Decision Tree Fig 3. Line graph of SVM and Decision Tree

Fig 2. Represents the results of the SVM and DCT algorithm mean accuracies.

Fig 3. Represents the Comparison of the SVM algorithm and DCT algorithm in terms of mean performance. The mean error of the SVM is better than the DCT algorithm
and the standard deviation of the SVM is slightly better than the DCT algorithm. X-Axis: SVM vs DCT algorithm Y-Axis: Mean Accuracy detection +/-2SD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

 In SVM, the accuracy is 89%, while with Decision Tree one gets 66%. SVM is superior to Decision Tree in recognising age, gender, and emotions because of the
higher level of accuracy it shows.
 The study hits the limit of data availability and quality which might affect the universality of result, thus subjecting findings to limitations.
 The reliability of machine learning algorithms depends on the features and hyperparameters decided, and hence results are prone to huge range of errors.
 The result of the classification accuracy shows that SVM performs considerably better than Decision Tree for age, gender, and emotion recognition.
 This emphasizes that the quality of dataset and the selection of features play the major role in the precision of machine learning algorithms for age,
gender, and emotion recognition.
 Future work can investigate optimizing hyper-parameters as well as other algorithms which would lead to improvements in detecting age, gender, and
emotions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Viola, P., & Jones, M. (2001). Rapid Object Detection using a Boosted Cascade of Simple Features. Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Computer Society Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. CVPR 2001. [DOI: 10.1109/CVPR.2001.990517]
 Zhang, H., & Zhang, L. (2010). Face Detection Using Improved Support Vector Machine. Journal of Computers, 5(5), 735-742. [DOI: 10.4304/jcp.5.5.735-742]
 Lyons, M., Akamatsu, S., Kamachi, M., & Gyoba, J. (1998). Coding Facial Expressions with Gabor Wavelets. Proceedings of the Third IEEE International
Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition. [DOI: 10.1109/AFGR.1998.670949]
 Levi, G., & Hassner, T. (2015). Age and Gender Classification Using Convolutional Neural Networks. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition Workshops. [DOI: 10.1109/CVPRW.2015.7301350]
 Vapnik, V. N. (1995). The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer Science & Business Media. [DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4757-2440-0]
 Hart, P. E. (1968). The condensed nearest neighbor rule. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 14(3), 515-516. [DOI: 10.1109/TIT.1968.1054142]