Iterative Closest Normal Point for 3D Face Recognition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it