Identify Attractive and Unattractive Individuals Based on Geometric Features Using Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to explore the essence of facial attractiveness from the viewpoint of geometric features toward the classification and identification of attractive and unattractive individuals. We present a simple but useful feature extraction for facial beauty classification. Evaluation of facial attractiveness was performed with different combinations of geometric facial features using the deep learning method. In this method, we focus on the geometry of a face and use actual faces for our analysis. The proposed method has been tested on, image database containing 60 images of men's faces (attractive or unattractive) ranging from 20-50 years old. The images are taken from both frontal and lateral position. In the next step, principle components analysis (PCA) was applied to feature a reduction of beauty, and finally, the neural network was used for judging whether the obtained analysis of various faces is attractive or not. The results show that one of the indexes in identifying facial attractiveness base of science, is the values of the geometric features in the face, changing facial parameters can change the face from unattractive to attractive and vice versa. The experimental results are based on 60 facial images, high accuracy of 88%, and Sensitivity of 92% is obtained for 2-level classification (attractive or not).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".