Correspondence normal difference: An aligned representation of 3D faces to apply discriminant analysis methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the geometry of the face changes drastically under expression variation, it is one of the greatest challenges in 3D face recognition to design systems that are robust to this variability. In this paper, we introduce a new representation of 3D faces in which all facial features are aligned over different faces. This representation contains highly discriminative features and is particularly useful for the employment of discriminant analysis methods for 3D face recognition. To the best of our knowledge, because of the lack of such alignment, so far, discriminant analysis methods have not been directly applied to 3D faces. Instead, the common approach is to register a probe face to each of the gallery faces, and then calculate the sum of the distances between their points for recognition. This registration also demands extensive computational effort. We demonstrate that the capability of a discriminant method, such as the LDA, to discriminate between the geometric variations resulted from expression changes and the geometric variations resulted from subject difference is beyond the capability of the state-of-art 3D face recognition methods. We achieved a verification rate of 99.5 percent at a false acceptance rate of 0.1 percent on the FRGC v2 database which is, to the best our knowledge, the best performance reported for this database in the literature.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".