An Ensemble DCNNs-Based Regression Model for Automatic Facial Beauty Prediction and Analyzation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most effective social aspects of the human face is its attractiveness.Automatic facial beauty prediction (FBP) is an emerging research area that has gained much interest recently.However, identifying the significant facial traits and attributes that can contribute to the process of beauty attractiveness estimation is one of the main challenges in this research area.Furthermore, learning the beauty pattern from a relatively small, imbalanced dataset is another concern that needs to be addressed.This research proposes an ensemblebased regression model that integrates judgments made by three various DCNNs, each with a different structure representation.The proposed method efficiently predicts the beauty score by leveraging the strengths of each network as a complementary data source, and it draws attention to the most important beauty-related face features through the Gradientweighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM).The findings are promising, demonstrating the efficiency of fusing the decision of multiple predictors of the proposed ensemble DCNNs regression models that is significantly consistent with the ground truth of the employed datasets (SCUT-FBP, SCUT-FBP5500, and ME Beauty).Moreover, it can assist in comprehending the relationship between facial characteristics and the impression of attractiveness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".