Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual kinship verification entails confirming whether or not two individuals in a given pair of images or videos share a hypothesized kin relation. As a generalized face verification task, visual kinship verification is particularly difficult with low-quality found Internet data. Due to uncontrolled variations in background, pose, facial expression, blur, illumination and occlusion, state-of-the-art methods fail to provide high level of recognition accuracy. As with many other visual recognition tasks, kinship verification may benefit from combining visual and audio signals. However, voice-based kinship verification has received very little prior attention. We hypothesize that the human voice contains kin-related cues that are complementary to visual cues. In this paper, we address, for the first time, the use of audio-visual information from face and voice modalities to perform kinship verification. We first propose a new multi-modal kinship dataset, called TALking KINship (TALKIN), that contains several pairs of Internet-quality video sequences. Using TALKIN, we then study the utility of various kinship verification methods including traditional local feature based methods, statistical methods and more recent deep learning approaches. Then, early and late fusion methods are evaluated on the TALKIN dataset for the study of kinship verification with both face and voice modalities. Finally, we propose a deep Siamese fusion network with contrastive loss for multi-modal fusion of kinship relations. Extensive experiments on the TALKIN dataset indicate that by combining face and voice modalities, the proposed Siamese network can provide a significantly higher level of accuracy compared to baseline uni-modal and multi-modal fusion techniques. Experimental results also indicate that audio (vocal) information is complementary (to facial information) and useful for kinship verification.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".