Iterative Closest Normal Point for 3D Face Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The common approach for 3D face recognition is to register a probe face to each of the gallery faces and then calculate the sum of the distances between their points. This approach is computationally expensive and sensitive to facial expression variation. In this paper, we introduce the iterative closest normal point method for finding the corresponding points between a generic reference face and every input face. The proposed correspondence finding method samples a set of points for each face, denoted as the closest normal points. These points are effectively aligned across all faces, enabling effective application of discriminant analysis methods for 3D face recognition. As a result, the expression variation problem is addressed by minimizing the within-class variability of the face samples while maximizing the between-class variability. As an important conclusion, we show that the surface normal vectors of the face at the sampled points contain more discriminatory information than the coordinates of the points. We have performed comprehensive experiments on the Face Recognition Grand Challenge database, which is presently the largest available 3D face database. We have achieved verification rates of 99.6 and 99.2 percent at a false acceptance rate of 0.1 percent for the all versus all and ROC III experiments, respectively, which, to the best of our knowledge, have seven and four times less error rates, respectively, compared to the best existing methods on this database.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".