FaceMemNet: Predicting Face Memorability with Deep Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With the advent of social media in our day to day life, we are exposed to plenty of images, especially face photographs, every day. Recent behavioural studies have shown that some of these photographs stick in the mind better than others. However, it is still unclear what factors make a picture more or less memorable. Previous research have shown that memorability is an intrinsic property of an image, hence the memorability of an image can be computed from that image. Moreover, various works found that the memorability of an image is highly consistent across people and also over time. Recently, researchers employed deep neural networks to predict image memorability. Here, we show although those models perform well on scene and object images, they perform poorly on photographs of human faces. We demonstrate and explain why generic memorability models do not result in an acceptable performance on face photographs and propose seven different models to estimate the memorability of face images. In addition, we show that these models outperform the previous classical methods, which were used for predicting face memorability.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".