From Perception to Algorithm: Quantifying Facial Distinctiveness with a Deep Convolutional Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Face distinctiveness is a pivotal concept in face recognition, due to long-standing findings indicating that the rated typicality of a face is inversely related to its recognizability (e.g., Light et al., 1979). In traditional face space models (Valentine et al., 2016), distinctive faces are perceptually distant from the average or prototype face. Objectively measurable face spaces are available from deep convolutional neural network (DCNN), which are highly accurate at face recognition. Here we test whether DCNN models capture human-rated perceptions of face typicality, as well as other human-ratings (memorability, attractiveness, etc.). Method: We utilized FaceNet (Schroff et al., 2015, 2018), a pre-trained DCNN, to derive a distinctiveness index based on the average distance of a face to other faces in the DCNN space. First, we quantified distinctiveness for 418 male and 631 female faces using FaceNet's 512-dimensional embedding space and the cosine as a measure of distances. Second, we computed correlations between ach face’s distinctiveness and various human ratings of the same faces (Bainbridge et al., 2013). Results: Male faces classified as more distinctive are rated as less common (r = 0.27) and atypical (r = 0.21). Female faces classified as more distinctive are rated as less common (r = -0.35), more attractive (r = 0.37), more egotistical (r = 0.22), and more confident (r = 0.25) (all p < 0.001). Conclusion: DCNN provides a model of memory-related traits that relate to face distinctiveness across both genders. For female faces, distinctiveness also strongly correlates with personality and social attributes. This underscores the utility of DCNN models for understanding distinctiveness and face recognition. Current efforts focus on extending these findings using an alternate face distinctiveness model and another stimulus set to bolster the generalizability of our results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".