Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 110 references

Hugging Rain Man: A Novel Facial Action Units Dataset for Analyzing Atypical Facial Expressions in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Hugging Rain Man provides about 130,000 expert-annotated frames of 22 facial action units and 10 action descriptors in children with ASD and TD, and reports significant group differences in AU patterns for happy, surprised, and sad…

desk verdict The dataset is the real contribution; the static ASD/TD AU comparison is circular and needs reanalysis before its claims are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13797 v1 pith:OHXQOYMZ submitted 2024-11-21 cs.CV

Yanfeng Ji , Shutong Wang , Ruyi Xu , Jingying Chen , Xinzhou Jiang , Zhengyu Deng , Yuxuan Quan , Junpeng Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords autismspectrumdisorderfacialactionunitsFACSannotationatypicalexpressionschildrenAUdetectiontemporalregressiondataset
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper builds and analyzes a new dataset, Hugging Rain Man (HRM), of roughly 130,000 frames of facial expressions from 66 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 32 typically developing (TD) children, with every frame annotated by FACS experts for 22 action units (AUs) and 10 action descriptors (ADs), plus segment-level atypicality ratings. The paper's central claim is that these expert labels reveal measurable, objective differences in how children with ASD move their faces: for happy, surprised, and sad expressions, the ASD group differs significantly from the TD group on multiple AUs and ADs, and uses more complex and more diverse AU combinations. It then claims that a temporal regression model can predict human judges' atypicality ratings from AU sequences, bridging subjective perception and objective facial features. This matters because such objective markers could support earlier, more consistent ASD screening and because child-specific AU data may improve automatic facial expression analysis where adult-trained tools currently perform poorly. The paper also provides AU detection baselines and releases labels, features, and pretrained model weights for the community.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the frame-level FACS annotation itself: each frame carries presence labels for 22 AUs and 10 ADs, with direction codes for left, right, upper, and lower regions, so that asymmetry and rare descriptors are recorded. The annotation was done by one FACS expert and checked by a second on a subset, with inter-expert ICC values ranging from 0.66 to 0.97. On top of these labels the paper builds emotion pseudo-labels by soft-voting three facial expression recognition models and then filtering with AU-emotion rules (e.g., happy requires AU12, surprise requires at least one of AU1, AU2, AU5, AU25, or AU26/27), and then applies Mann-Whitney $U$ tests per AU and a count of distinct AU combination types at each complexity level for the group comparisons; for dynamics, a sliding window of 15 frames converts AU sequences into input for GRU and BiLSTM regressors that predict segment-level atypicality ratings.

What would settle it

Recompute the happy, surprise, and sadness AU comparisons using emotion labels provided by human raters or by a model that does not filter on AUs; if the significant AU/AD differences between ASD and TD disappear or reverse, the paper's central group-difference claim is an artifact of the emotion filtering rules.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper introduces HRM as, to the authors' knowledge, the first dedicated facial action unit dataset for children with ASD, and it claims that the dataset supports three findings: (1) in static frames labeled as the same emotion, children with ASD and TD differ significantly in several AUs/ADs, with the ASD group showing greater AU combination complexity and a wider variety of AU combinations; (2) these group differences align with prior reports of reduced AU6/AU12 activity in happy expressions and atypical AU activation in ASD; and (3) temporal AU/AD sequences fed to GRU or BiLSTM regression models predict averaged human atypicality ratings with MAE around 0.30 on a 1–5 scale, demonstrating that perceived atypicality correlates with objective facial movement features. The discovery is a new application: bringing fine-grained, expert FACS annotation plus subjective atypicality ratings to ASD expression research.

Load-bearing premise

The static group comparison assumes the emotion labels assigned to each frame are accurate, but those labels come from adult-trained models and are then filtered by rules using the very AUs later compared between groups, so a bias in the filtering could produce the reported differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the group differences replicate, AU and AD activation patterns from expert FACS coding become candidate objective biomarkers for early ASD screening from facial behavior.
  • Child-specific AU detection models trained or fine-tuned on HRM should outperform adult-trained tools, whose average F1 agreement with experts is around 0.3 on this population.
  • Temporal AU sequences can serve as input for automated atypicality scoring, offering a quantitative complement to subjective ratings.
  • Future datasets can use the HRM annotation scheme (direction-coded AUs, ADs, atypicality ratings) as a template for other clinical populations with atypical facial expressions.
  • The benchmark results suggest self-supervised pretraining is a promising route for AU detection when expert labels are scarce.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The emotion pseudo-labels are filtered by rules involving the same AUs later tested for group differences, so a cleaner test would use human emotion labels or unfiltered model labels to confirm the reported AU differences are not artifacts of the selection rule.
  • Because the atypicality judges were partly blind but the FACS experts were not, part of the rated atypicality could reflect group identity or appearance rather than expression dynamics; showing the model predicts atypicality within the ASD group alone would isolate expression-specific signal.
  • The AU combination complexity and diversity measures could be turned into a single per-child score (for instance, entropy over observed AU sets) and tested prospectively as a screening index against independent diagnostic labels.
  • If the temporal regression generalizes across the 10 random cross-validation splits, a minimal clinically useful next step is to test it on a new cohort with standardized emotion-elicitation tasks to separate posed from spontaneous expression effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Hugging Rain Man (HRM), a dataset of facial action units (AUs) and action descriptors (ADs) from 66 children with ASD and 32 typically developing (TD) children, totaling about 130,000 frames annotated frame-by-frame by FACS experts, plus atypicality ratings for expression segments. The authors report three main results: (1) a static analysis claiming significant AU/AD differences between ASD and TD groups when displaying the same emotional expressions (happiness, surprise, sadness); (2) a temporal regression baseline that predicts perceived atypicality from AU/AD sequences; and (3) AU detection baselines for several supervised and self-supervised models on the HRM dataset. The paper also documents that existing adult-trained AU tools (OpenFace, Py-feat) have low agreement with expert annotations on these children, motivating the need for a child-specific dataset.

Significance. If the dataset is released and validated, HRM would be a valuable new resource for studying atypical facial expressions in ASD, as it is, to my knowledge, the first dedicated FACS-expert-annotated AU dataset for children with ASD that also includes a TD control group. The careful expert-annotation protocol (inter-rater ICC 0.66–0.97, average 0.859) and the quantitative demonstration that adult-trained tools perform poorly on this population (average F1 around 0.3) are concrete strengths. The benchmark results for AU detection provide a useful reference for future work. The central claim about static ASD/TD differences, however, rests on a frame-selection procedure whose validity is not established, and the statistical testing ignores within-subject correlation; these issues are load-bearing for contribution (2) and require reanalysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B, Table IV] The static ASD/TD comparison is circular. Emotion pseudo-labels are obtained from three adult-trained FER models with a 0.6 confidence threshold and then refined by AU activation constraints: happy requires AU12; surprise requires AU1, AU2, AU5, AU25, or AU26/27; sad requires AU1, AU4, AU6, AU15, or AU17. Table IV then reports group differences on those very AUs, e.g., AU12 for happy (Z=-2.236, P=0.025), AU1/AU2 for surprise (Z=-4.248 and -3.789), and AU1/AU4/AU17 for sad. Because the selection condition shares variables with the outcome, a significant group difference on a selection AU cannot receive the usual interpretation; in the extreme, if every 'happy' frame has AU12 by construction, a difference in AU12 frequency is partly a description of the selection rule rather than of the children's expressions. The paper should re-run the analysis with emotion labels independent of the outcome AUs (e.g., human emotion labels, task condition, or a held-out subset) or clearly reframe the analysis as a comparison of AU-constrained expression categories rather than 'same emotional conditions.'
  2. [Section IV.B, Table IV] The statistical tests treat each of the roughly 131,000 frames as independent observations, although frames are nested within expression segments, which are nested within 98 participants. The Mann-Whitney U tests therefore vastly overstate the effective sample size, and the extreme Z-values (e.g., Z=-47.485) reflect the number of frames per participant more than a subject-level effect. The authors should use subject-level summaries (e.g., per-participant AU occurrence rates per emotion) or mixed-effects models with participant and segment as random effects, and report effect sizes and confidence intervals rather than only P-values.
  3. [Section III.D and Section IV.B] The pseudo-labeling step inherits a domain-shift risk that the authors themselves document for AU tools: Section III.D shows that adult-trained AU detectors (OpenFace and Py-feat) agree poorly with expert annotators on children with ASD (average F1 around 0.3). The three FER models used for emotion pseudo-labels are likewise adult-trained, and no validation of their emotion outputs on children is provided. If the FER models are differentially biased by group (e.g., they misclassify ASD expressions as sad or neutral more often), the 'same emotional expression' condition is violated, and both the selection and the outcome are confounded. At minimum, the paper should report agreement on a subset of the HRM frames between the FER pseudo-labels and human emotion labels, and show that the 0.6 threshold is not group-dependent.
  4. [Table II and Table IV] The two groups differ in age (ASD 5.29±2.30 vs. TD 4.37±1.62 years) and sex distribution (80% male in ASD vs. 56% male in TD). Since AU occurrence is known to vary with age and sex, the unadjusted Mann-Whitney comparisons in Table IV may be confounded. The authors should adjust for age and sex (e.g., regression with these covariates or a matched/subsampled analysis) before claiming that the observed AU/AD differences are attributable to ASD status.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Table I] The abstract says 'approximately 130,000 frames' while Table I reports 131,758 frames; please use one consistent number throughout.
  2. [Abstract and Table III] The abstract mentions '22 AUs and 10 ADs,' but Table III lists 33 AU/AD codes (including AU2X and AD19, AD32). Please clarify the relationship among 22 AUs, 10 ADs, and the 33 annotated categories.
  3. [Section V.A.4] The claim that the atypicality-regression results are 'acceptable' would be more convincing with a trivial baseline (e.g., predicting the mean rating for every segment) or a chance-level reference, so the reader can gauge the added value of the AU/AD features.
  4. [Section III.E and Section VI] The discussion reports a Fleiss' Kappa of 0.565, but Section III.E reports Kappa = 0.503; please correct the inconsistency.
  5. [Section V.A.3] The temporal window size of 15 frames is described as empirically chosen; a small sensitivity analysis (e.g., windows of 9, 15, 21 frames) would strengthen the atypicality-regression results.
  6. [Section II.B and Section III.E] The claim that HRM is the 'first dedicated dataset of facial action units for children with ASD' should explicitly acknowledge prior expert-annotated AU studies in ASD (e.g., Weiss et al. [45], which the paper cites) to make the novelty claim precise and verifiable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Static ASD/TD AU comparison is partially circular because emotion labels are filtered using the same AUs later tested as outcomes.

  1. self definitional [Section IV.B, 'Differences in Static Facial Expressions Between ASD and TD Groups' (pseudo-label filtering and Mann-Whitney tests; Table IV)]
    "To enhance the accuracy of emotion classification, we incorporated the established relationships between emotions and facial action units for further refinement [10], [13]. ... an expression is classified as surprise only when at least one of the following AUs is activated: AU1, AU2, AU5, AU25, or AU26/27. Similarly, the constraint for happiness is set to the activation of AU12. For sadness, the constraints include the activation of AU1, AU4, AU6, AU15, or AU17. ... Based on these emotions, we conducted Mann-Whitney U tests to compare AU activation differences between the ASD and TD groups."

    The emotion categories that define the 'same emotional expressions' are themselves filtered by the AUs that are later tested. For happiness, the selection rule requires AU12 activation, so every included happy frame is selected on AU12; the Table IV AU12 happy comparison is conditional on the outcome, and under a literal reading AU12 would be constant in that sample (the paper still reports Z=-2.236, P=0.025). For surprise and sadness, the filter sets are disjunctions containing AU1/AU2/AU5/AU25/AU26/27 and AU1/AU4/AU6/AU15/AU17, and the headline significant differences include AU1/AU2 (surprise) and AU1/AU4/AU17 (sad). Group membership is therefore not independent of the measured AUs; part of the reported ASD/TD difference is built into the sample-selection rule.

full rationale

The paper's dataset contribution, expert-annotation reliability analysis (ICC 0.66-0.97), atypicality-rating regression, and AU detection benchmarks are self-contained and do not reduce to their inputs. The circularity is confined to contribution (2), the static ASD/TD comparison in Section IV.B. There, emotion pseudo-labels from adult-trained FER models are further filtered using FACS AU activation rules that overlap with the AUs then tested as outcomes. For happiness the overlap is exact for AU12; for surprise and sadness the headline significant AUs are members of the filter disjunctions. This selection-on-outcome makes several reported group differences conditional on the labeling rule rather than independent evidence. The risk is made concrete by the paper's own Table III, where adult-trained AU tools achieve average F1 around 0.3 on these children, so the pseudo-labeling step is not a neutral measurement. However, the rest of the paper retains independent content, and even within the static analysis some reported differences (e.g., AU6/AU7 for happy) are not filter AUs, so the overall circularity is substantial but partial.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central new resource is the annotated dataset, which stands on the assumption that expert FACS labels are reliable. The main analytical claims about ASD/TD differences rest on additional assumptions about emotion pseudo-labeling that are not independently validated and are partly circular.

free parameters (3)
  • Emotion confidence threshold = 0.6
    Chosen to select 'confident' frames for emotion pseudo-labeling; affects which frames enter the group comparison.
  • Emotion filtering AU constraints = happy: AU12; surprise: AU1/AU2/AU5/AU25/AU26/27; sad: AU1/AU4/AU6/AU15/AU17
    Hand-defined rules applied after model predictions to clean emotion labels; these rules include the same AUs later tested for differences.
  • Temporal window size = 15 frames (0.5 s)
    Empirically set for the atypicality regression; segments shorter than the window are discarded, affecting the regression data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FACS expert annotations are treated as ground truth for AU activation.
    The paper relies on manual expert labeling as the gold standard; inter-rater ICC is reported but the labels themselves are not externally verified.
  • ad hoc to paper Adult-trained FER models (POSTER++, EAC, DDAMFN++) produce valid emotion probabilities for children's faces.
    The paper uses these models to pseudo-label children's emotions despite noting that adult-trained tools generalize poorly to children with ASD (Sections II, III.D).
  • ad hoc to paper AU-constraint filtering correctly enforces the intended emotion categories.
    Rules such as 'happy requires AU12' are applied without validation on this population, and they overlap with the AUs under study.
  • domain assumption Averaging atypicality ratings across five judges yields a valid measure of perceived atypicality.
    The ratings show moderate agreement (Kappa 0.503, ICC 0.761); averaging is used as the target label for regression.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hugging Rain Man: A Novel Facial Action Units Dataset for Analyzing Atypical Facial Expressions in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OHXQOYMZ

@misc{pith2026241113797,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hugging Rain Man: A Novel Facial Action Units Dataset for Analyzing Atypical Facial Expressions in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OHXQOYMZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13797}
}
read the original abstract

Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) often exhibit atypical facial expressions. However, the specific objective facial features that underlie this subjective perception remain unclear. In this paper, we introduce a novel dataset, Hugging Rain Man (HRM), which includes facial action units (AUs) manually annotated by FACS experts for both children with ASD and typical development (TD). The dataset comprises a rich collection of posed and spontaneous facial expressions, totaling approximately 130,000 frames, along with 22 AUs, 10 Action Descriptors (ADs), and atypicality ratings. A statistical analysis of static images from the HRM reveals significant differences between the ASD and TD groups across multiple AUs and ADs when displaying the same emotional expressions, confirming that participants with ASD tend to demonstrate more irregular and diverse expression patterns. Subsequently, a temporal regression method was presented to analyze atypicality of dynamic sequences, thereby bridging the gap between subjective perception and objective facial characteristics. Furthermore, baseline results for AU detection are provided for future research reference. This work not only contributes to our understanding of the unique facial expression characteristics associated with ASD but also provides potential tools for ASD early screening. Portions of the dataset, features, and pretrained models are accessible at: \url{https://github.com/Jonas-DL/Hugging-Rain-Man}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13797 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Facial expression recognition, imitation and induction, as well as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. AU/AD Annotation Tool. The left and middle positions show the children’s expression frames and neutral frames, respectively, with the eye area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Data organization. strategies such as weighted loss functions or data augmentation techniques will be needed to address the imbalance, ensuring that the model learns all facial action units more equitably. B. Differences in Static Facial Expressions Between ASD and TD Groups In this section, we conducted a detailed analysis of basic facial expressions. To begin, we generated pseudo-labels for seven basic emotions us… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The number of combination types at different AU combination complexity. (a) happy, (b) surprise, (c) sad. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Autism spectrum disorder,

    C. Lord, T. Brugha, T. Charman, J. Cusack, G. Dumas, T. W. Frazier, E. J. H. Jones, R. M. Jones, A. Pickles, M. W. State, J. L. Taylor, and J. Veenstra-VanderWeele, “Autism spectrum disorder,” Nature Reviews Disease Primers , vol. 6, pp. 1–23, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:210221904 JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. ...

    2020

  2. [2]

    Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements,

    L. F. Barrett, R. Adolphs, S. Marsella, A. M. Martinez, and S. D. Pollak, “Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest , vol. 20, pp. 1 – 68, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:150798263

    2019

  3. [3]

    New technologies as promising tools for assessing facial emotion expressions impairments in asd: A systematic review,

    K. Briot, A. Pizano, M. Bouvard, and A. Amestoy, “New technologies as promising tools for assessing facial emotion expressions impairments in asd: A systematic review,” Frontiers in Psychiatry , vol. 12,

  4. [4]

    Children with autism spectrum disorder produce more ambiguous and less socially meaningful facial expressions: an experimental study using random forest classifiers,

    C. Grossard, A. Dapogny, D. Cohen, S. Bernheim, E. Juillet, F. Hamel, S. Hun, J. Bourgeois, H. Pellerin, S. Serret, K. Bailly, and L. Chaby, “Children with autism spectrum disorder produce more ambiguous and less socially meaningful facial expressions: an experimental study using random forest classifiers,” Molecular Autism , vol. 11, 2020. [Online]. Avai...

    2020

  5. [5]

    Digital behavioral phenotyping detects atypical pattern of facial expression in toddlers with autism,

    K. L. H. Carpenter, J. Hahemi, K. Campbell, S. J. Lippmann, J. P. Baker, H. L. Egger, S. Espinosa, S. Vermeer, G. Sapiro, and G. Dawson, “Digital behavioral phenotyping detects atypical pattern of facial expression in toddlers with autism,” Autism Research , vol. 14,

  6. [6]

    On quantifying facial expression- related atypicality of children with autism spectrum disorder,

    T. Guha, Z. Yang, A. Ramakrishna, R. B. Grossman, D. Hedley, S. Lee, and S. S. Narayanan, “On quantifying facial expression- related atypicality of children with autism spectrum disorder,” 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pp. 803–807, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:795148

    2015

  7. [7]

    Toward children’s empathy ability analysis: Joint facial expression recognition and intensity estimation using label distribution learning,

    J. Chen, C. Guo, R. Xu, K. Zhang, Z. Yang, and H. Liu, “Toward children’s empathy ability analysis: Joint facial expression recognition and intensity estimation using label distribution learning,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 18, pp. 16–25,

  8. [8]

    Early detection of autism using digital behavioral phenotyping,

    S. Perochon, J. M. D. Martino, K. L. H. Carpenter, S. Compton, N. Davis, B. Eichner, S. Espinosa, L. Franz, P. R. K. Babu, G. Sapiro, and G. Dawson, “Early detection of autism using digital behavioral phenotyping,” Nature Medicine , vol. 29, pp. 2489 – 2497,

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    Universal facial expressions of emotion,

    P. Ekman and D. Keltner, “Universal facial expressions of emotion,” California mental health research digest , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 151–158, 1970

    1970

  2. [10]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 235578151

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 235578151

  3. [11]

    Facial expressions of affect in autistic, mentally retarded and normal children

    N. Yirmiya, C. Kasari, M. D. Sigman, and P. C. Mundy, “Facial expressions of affect in autistic, mentally retarded and normal children.” Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, vol. 30 5, pp. 725–35, 1989. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticsc...

    1989

  4. [12]

    What the face reveals : basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the facial action coding system (facs),

    P. Ekman and E. L. Rosenberg, “What the face reveals : basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the facial action coding system (facs),” 2005. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:142574268

    2005

  5. [13]

    Compound facial expressions of emotion,

    S. Du, Y . Tao, and A. M. Martinez, “Compound facial expressions of emotion,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 111, pp. E1454 – E1462, 2014. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:24675185

    2014

  6. [14]

    Facial action coding system,

    P. Ekman and W. V . Friesen, “Facial action coding system,” Environ- mental Psychology & Nonverbal Behavior , 1978

    1978

  7. [15]

    Facial action unit recognition by exploiting their dynamic and semantic relationships,

    Y . Tong, W. Liao, and Q. Ji, “Facial action unit recognition by exploiting their dynamic and semantic relationships,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 29, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14834331

    2007

  8. [16]

    Machine learning classification of autism spectrum disorder based on reciprocity in nat- uralistic social interactions,

    J. C. Koehler, M. S. Dong, A. M. Bierlich, S. Fischer, J. Sp ¨ath, I. S. Plank, N. Koutsouleris, and C. M. Falter-Wagner, “Machine learning classification of autism spectrum disorder based on reciprocity in nat- uralistic social interactions,” Translational Psychiatry , vol. 1...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Imitation and recognition of facial emotions in autism: a computer vision approach,

    H. Drimalla, I. Baskow, B. Behnia, S. Roepke, and I. Dziobek, “Imitation and recognition of facial emotions in autism: a computer vision approach,” Molecular Autism, vol. 12, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:233030853

    2021

  10. [18]

    Toward robust facial action units’ detection,

    J. Yang, Y . V . Hristov, J. Shen, Y . Lin, and M. Pantic, “Toward robust facial action units’ detection,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 111, pp. 1198–1214, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:257798148

    2023

  11. [19]

    Openface 2.0: Facial behavior analysis toolkit,

    T. Baltrusaitis, A. Zadeh, Y . C. Lim, and L.-P. Morency, “Openface 2.0: Facial behavior analysis toolkit,” 2018 13th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2018) , pp. 59–66, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ Corpus...

    2018

  12. [20]

    Py-feat: Python facial expression analysis toolbox,

    J. H. Cheong, E. Jolly, T. Xie, S. Byrne, M. Kenney, and L. J. Chang, “Py-feat: Python facial expression analysis toolbox,” Affective Science, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 781–796, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Affdex 2.0: A real-time facial expression analysis toolkit,

    M. Bishay, K. Preston, M. Strafuss, G. Page, J. Turcot, and M. Mavadati, “Affdex 2.0: A real-time facial expression analysis toolkit,” in2023 IEEE 17th international conference on automatic face and gesture recognition (FG). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  14. [22]

    Computer vision analysis of reduced interpersonal affect coordination in youth with autism spectrum disorder,

    C. J. Zampella, L. Bennetto, and J. D. Herrington, “Computer vision analysis of reduced interpersonal affect coordination in youth with autism spectrum disorder,” Autism Research , vol. 13, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:220528456

    2020

  15. [23]

    Disfa: A spontaneous facial action intensity database,

    S. M. Mavadati, M. H. Mahoor, K. Bartlett, P. Trinh, and J. F. Cohn, “Disfa: A spontaneous facial action intensity database,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 4, pp. 151–160, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4246027

    2013

  16. [24]

    The extended cohn-kanade dataset (ck+): A complete dataset for action unit and emotion-specified expression,

    P. Lucey, J. F. Cohn, T. Kanade, J. M. Saragih, Z. Ambadar, and I. Matthews, “The extended cohn-kanade dataset (ck+): A complete dataset for action unit and emotion-specified expression,” 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Worksh...

    2010

  17. [25]

    Pilot study to discover candidate biomarkers for autism based on perception and production of facial expressions,

    M. A. Witherow, N. Diawara, J. Keener, J. W. Harrington, and K. M. Iftekharuddin, “Pilot study to discover candidate biomarkers for autism based on perception and production of facial expressions,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2404.16040, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscho...

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bp4d-spontaneous: a high-resolution spontaneous 3d dynamic facial expression database,

    X. Zhang, L. Yin, J. F. Cohn, S. J. Canavan, M. J. Reale, A. Horowitz, and P. Liu, “Bp4d-spontaneous: a high-resolution spontaneous 3d dynamic facial expression database,” Image Vis. Comput., vol. 32, pp. 692–706, 2014. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/Cor...

    2014

  19. [27]

    The child emotion facial expression set: A database for emotion recognition in children,

    J. G. Negr ˜ao, A. A. C. Os ´orio, R. F. Siciliano, V . R. G. Lederman, E. H. Kozasa, M. E. F. D’Antino, A. Tamborim, V . Santos, D. L. B. de Leucas, P. S. Camargo, D. C. Mograbi, T. P. Mecca, and J. S. Schwartzman, “The child emotion facial expression set: A database for emot...

    2021

  20. [28]

    A novel database of children’s spontaneous facial expressions (liris-cse),

    R. A. Khan, A. Crenn, A. Meyer, and S. Bouakaz, “A novel database of children’s spontaneous facial expressions (liris-cse),” ArXiv, vol. abs/1812.01555, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:54445891

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A comprehensive analysis towards exploring the promises of ai-related approaches in autism research,

    S. Pandya, S. Jain, and J. P. Verma, “A comprehensive analysis towards exploring the promises of ai-related approaches in autism research,” Computers in biology and medicine, vol. 168, p. 107801, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:266103846

    2023

  22. [30]

    The child affective facial expression (cafe) set: validity and reliability from untrained adults,

    V . Lobue and C. Thrasher, “The child affective facial expression (cafe) set: validity and reliability from untrained adults,” Frontiers in Psychology , vol. 5, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:888573

    2014

  23. [31]

    The nimh child emotional faces picture set (nimh-chefs): a new set of children’s facial emotion stimuli,

    H. L. Egger, D. S. Pine, E. E. Nelson, E. Leibenluft, M. Ernst, K. E. Towbin, and A. C. Angold, “The nimh child emotional faces picture set (nimh-chefs): a new set of children’s facial emotion stimuli,” International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, vol. 20, 2011. [...

    2011

  24. [32]

    The dartmouth database of children’s faces: Acquisition and validation of a new face stimulus set,

    K. A. Dalrymple, J. Gomez, and B. Duchaine, “The dartmouth database of children’s faces: Acquisition and validation of a new face stimulus set,” PLoS ONE , vol. 8, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:8646312

    2013

  25. [33]

    An advanced deep learning framework for video-based diagnosis of asd,

    M. Cai, M. Li, Z. Xiong, P. Zhao, E. Li, and J. Tang, “An advanced deep learning framework for video-based diagnosis of asd,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Computer vision in autism spectrum disorder research: a systematic review of published studies from 2009 to 2019,

    R. A. J. de Belen, T. P. Bednarz, A. Sowmya, and D. D. Favero, “Computer vision in autism spectrum disorder research: a systematic review of published studies from 2009 to 2019,” Translational Psychiatry , vol. 10, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/Co...

    2009

  27. [35]

    Exploring complexity of facial dynamics in autism spectrum disorder,

    P. R. Krishnappababu, J. M. D. Martino, Z. Chang, S. Perochon, K. L. H. Carpenter, S. N. Compton, S. Espinosa, G. Dawson, and G. Sapiro, “Exploring complexity of facial dynamics in autism spectrum disorder,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 14, pp. 919–930,

  28. [36]

    Can neurotypical individuals read autistic facial expressions? atypical production of emotional facial expressions in autism spectrum disorders,

    R. Brewer, F. Biotti, C. Catmur, C. Press, F. Happ ´e, R. Cook, and G. Bird, “Can neurotypical individuals read autistic facial expressions? atypical production of emotional facial expressions in autism spectrum disorders,” Autism Research , vol. 9, pp. 262 – 271, 2015. [Onlin...

    2015

  29. [37]

    Evaluating posed and evoked facial expressions of emotion from adults with autism spectrum disorder,

    D. J. Faso, N. J. Sasson, and A. E. Pinkham, “Evaluating posed and evoked facial expressions of emotion from adults with autism spectrum disorder,” Journal of autism and developmental disorders , vol. 45, pp. 75–89, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    A computational study of expressive facial dynamics in children with autism,

    T. Guha, Z. Yang, R. B. Grossman, and S. S. Narayanan, “A computational study of expressive facial dynamics in children with autism,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 9, pp. 14– 20, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 2149263 JOU...

    2018

  31. [39]

    Automated recognition of spontaneous facial expression in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: parsing response variability,

    A. Bangerter, M. Chatterjee, J. Manfredonia, N. V . Manyakov, S. Ness, M. Boice, A. Skalkin, M. S. Goodwin, G. Dawson, R. L. Hendren, B. L. Leventhal, F. Shic, and G. Pandina, “Automated recognition of spontaneous facial expression in individuals with autism spectrum disorder:...

  32. [40]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 240558507

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 240558507

  33. [41]

    A pilot study to identify autism related traits in spontaneous facial actions using computer vision,

    M. D. Samad, N. Diawara, J. L. Bobzien, C. M. Taylor, J. W. Harrington, and K. M. Iftekharuddin, “A pilot study to identify autism related traits in spontaneous facial actions using computer vision,” Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders , 2019. [Online]. Available: https://ap...

    2019

  34. [42]

    Is smiling the key? machine learning analytics detect subtle patterns in micro-expressions of infants with asd,

    G. Alvari, C. Furlanello, and P. Venuti, “Is smiling the key? machine learning analytics detect subtle patterns in micro-expressions of infants with asd,” Journal of Clinical Medicine , vol. 10, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:233425012

    2021

  35. [43]

    Facial expression production in autism: A meta-analysis,

    D. A. Trevisan, M. Hoskyn, and E. Birmingham, “Facial expression production in autism: A meta-analysis,”Autism Research, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 1586–1601, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Analysis of facial muscle activation in children with autism using 3d imaging,

    M. D. Samad, J. L. Bobzien, J. W. Harrington, and K. M. Iftekharuddin, “Analysis of facial muscle activation in children with autism using 3d imaging,” 2015 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) , pp. 337–342, 2015. [Online]. Available: https:/...

    2015

  37. [45]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 218573359

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 218573359

  38. [46]

    Automatic recognition of posed facial expression of emotion in individuals with autism spectrum disorder,

    J. Manfredonia, A. Bangerter, N. V . Manyakov, S. Ness, D. Lewin, A. Skalkin, M. Boice, M. S. Goodwin, G. Dawson, R. L. Hendren, B. L. Leventhal, F. Shic, and G. Pandina, “Automatic recognition of posed facial expression of emotion in individuals with autism spectrum disorder,...

    2018

  39. [47]

    The dsm-5: Classification and criteria changes,

    D. A. Regier, E. A. Kuhl, and D. J. Kupfer, “The dsm-5: Classification and criteria changes,” World psychiatry, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 92–98, 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    Peabody picture vocabulary test–third edition,

    R. Dumont and J. O. Willis, “Peabody picture vocabulary test–third edition,” Encyclopedia of Special Education , pp. 1522–1522, 2008

    2008

  41. [49]

    A feasibility study of autism behavioral markers in spontaneous facial, visual, and hand movement response data,

    M. D. Samad, N. Diawara, J. L. Bobzien, J. W. Harrington, M. A. Witherow, and K. M. Iftekharuddin, “A feasibility study of autism behavioral markers in spontaneous facial, visual, and hand movement response data,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineer...

    2018

  42. [50]

    An intelligent multimodal framework for identifying children with autism spectrum disorder,

    J. Chen, M. Liao, G. Wang, and C. Chen, “An intelligent multimodal framework for identifying children with autism spectrum disorder,” International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, vol. 30, pp. 435 – 448, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticschol...

    2020

  43. [51]

    Less differentiated facial responses to naturalistic films of another person’s emotional expressions in adolescents and adults with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder,

    E. M. Weiss, C. Rominger, E. Hofer, A. Fink, and I. Papousek, “Less differentiated facial responses to naturalistic films of another person’s emotional expressions in adolescents and adults with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder,” Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology a...

    2019

  44. [52]

    Facial expression production in autism: A meta-analysis,

    D. A. Trevisan, M. Hoskyn, and E. Birmingham, “Facial expression production in autism: A meta-analysis,” Autism Research, vol. 11, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53219118

    2018

  45. [53]

    Cross-domain au detection: Domains, learning approaches, and measures,

    I. O. Ertugrul, J. F. Cohn, L. A. Jeni, Z. Zhang, L. Yin, and Q. Ji, “Cross-domain au detection: Domains, learning approaches, and measures,” 2019 14th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2019) , pp. 1–8, 2019. [Online]. Available: https:/...

    2019

  46. [54]

    Detecting deception through facial expressions in a dataset of videotaped interviews: A comparison between human judges and machine learning models,

    M. Monaro, S. Maldera, C. Scarpazza, G. Sartori, and N. Navarin, “Detecting deception through facial expressions in a dataset of videotaped interviews: A comparison between human judges and machine learning models,” Comput. Hum. Behav. , vol. 127, p. 107063,

  47. [55]

    Peabody picture vocabulary test: Proxy for verbal iq in genetic studies of autism spectrum disorder,

    K. Krasileva, S. J. Sanders, and V . H. Bal, “Peabody picture vocabulary test: Proxy for verbal iq in genetic studies of autism spectrum disorder,” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, vol. 47, pp. 1073–1085,

  48. [56]

    Ai-assisted emotion analysis during complementary feeding in infants aged 6-11 months,

    M. G ¨uls ¸en, B. Aydın, G. G¨urer, and S. S. Yalc ¸ın, “Ai-assisted emotion analysis during complementary feeding in infants aged 6-11 months,” Computers in biology and medicine, vol. 166, p. 107482, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:262164206

    2023

  49. [57]

    Machine learning classification of autism spectrum disorder based on reciprocity in naturalistic social interactions,

    J. C. Koehler, M. S. Dong, A. M. Bierlich, S. Fischer, J. Sp ¨ath, I. S. Plank, N. Koutsouleris, and C. M. Falter-Wagner, “Machine learning classification of autism spectrum disorder based on reciprocity in naturalistic social interactions,” Translational Psychiatry , vol. 14,

  50. [58]

    A high-resolution 3d dynamic facial expression database,

    L. Yin, X. Chen, Y . Sun, T. Worm, and M. J. Reale, “A high-resolution 3d dynamic facial expression database,” 2008 8th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition , pp. 1–6, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7634490

    2008

  51. [59]

    Retinaface: Single-stage dense face localisation in the wild,

    J. Deng, J. Guo, Y . Zhou, J. Yu, I. Kotsia, and S. Zafeiriou, “Retinaface: Single-stage dense face localisation in the wild,” ArXiv, vol. abs/1905.00641, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143423665

    1905 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Label error correction and generation through label relationships,

    Z. Cui, Y . Zhang, and Q. Ji, “Label error correction and generation through label relationships,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:213212608

    2020

  53. [61]

    Sup- port vector machines,

    M. A. Hearst, S. T. Dumais, E. Osuna, J. Platt, and B. Scholkopf, “Sup- port vector machines,” IEEE Intelligent Systems and their applications , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 18–28, 1998

    1998

  54. [62]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 239529402

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 239529402

  55. [63]

    Facial expression analysis with affdex and facet: A validation study,

    S. St ¨ockli, M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, S. Borer, and A. C. Samson, “Facial expression analysis with affdex and facet: A validation study,” Behavior Research Methods , vol. 50, pp. 1446–1460, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27426298

    2018

  56. [64]

    Facial action unit detection and intensity estimation from self-supervised representation,

    B. Ma, R. An, W. Zhang, Y . qiong Ding, Z. Zhao, R. Zhang, T. Lv, C. Fan, and Z. Hu, “Facial action unit detection and intensity estimation from self-supervised representation,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 15, pp. 1669–1683, 2022. [Online]. Available: https:...

    2022

  57. [65]

    Multimodal spontaneous emotion corpus for human behavior analysis,

    Z. Zhang, J. M. Girard, Y . Wu, X. Zhang, P. Liu, U. A. Ciftci, S. J. Canavan, M. J. Reale, A. Horowitz, H. Yang, J. F. Cohn, Q. Ji, and L. Yin, “Multimodal spontaneous emotion corpus for human behavior analysis,” 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition...

    2016

  58. [66]

    A technique for the measurement of attitudes,

    R. Likert, “A technique for the measurement of attitudes,” Archives of Psychology, 1932

    1932

  59. [67]

    Sayette group formation task (gft) spontaneous facial expression database,

    J. M. Girard, W.-S. Chu, L. A. Jeni, and J. F. Cohn, “Sayette group formation task (gft) spontaneous facial expression database,” 2017 12th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2017) , pp. 581–588, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://api.sem...

    2017

  60. [68]

    Causally uncovering bias in video micro-expression recognition,

    P.-S. Tan, S. Rajanala, A. Pal, S.-M. Leong, R. C.-W. Phan, and H. F. Ong, “Causally uncovering bias in video micro-expression recognition,” ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 5790–5794, 2024. [Online]. Ava...

    2024

  61. [69]

    Poster v2: A simpler and stronger facial expression recognition network,

    J. ju Mao, R. Xu, X. Yin, Y . Chang, B. Nie, and A. Huang, “Poster v2: A simpler and stronger facial expression recognition network,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2301.12149, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:256390194

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Learn from all: Erasing attention consistency for noisy label facial expression recognition,

    Y . Zhang, C. Wang, X. Ling, and W. Deng, “Learn from all: Erasing attention consistency for noisy label facial expression recognition,” in European Conference on Computer Vision , 2022. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:250921004

    2022

  63. [71]

    Rfau: A database for facial action unit analysis in real classrooms,

    Q. Hu, C. Mei, F. Jiang, R. Shen, Y . Zhang, C. Wang, and J. Zhang, “Rfau: A database for facial action unit analysis in real classrooms,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 13, pp. 1452–1465,

  64. [72]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 225556199

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 225556199

  65. [73]

    A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research

    T. K. Koo and M. Y . Li, “A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research.” Journal of chiropractic medicine, vol. 15 2, pp. 155–63, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1837377

    2016

  66. [74]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

    I. Loshchilov, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Estimation of continuous valence and arousal levels from faces in naturalistic conditions,

    A. Toisoul, J. Kossaifi, A. Bulat, G. Tzimiropoulos, and M. Pantic, “Estimation of continuous valence and arousal levels from faces in naturalistic conditions,” Nature Machine Intelligence , vol. 3, pp. 42 – 50, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpus...

    2021

  68. [76]

    Learning multi- dimensional edge feature-based au relation graph for facial action unit recognition,

    C. Luo, S. Song, W. Xie, L. Shen, and H. Gunes, “Learning multi- dimensional edge feature-based au relation graph for facial action unit recognition,” in International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,

  69. [77]

    Facial encoding of children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders,

    M. A. V olker, C. Lopata, D. A. Smith, and M. L. Thomeer, “Facial encoding of children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders,” Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 195–204, 2009

    2009

  70. [78]

    Different clinical expression of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: Assessment and treatment,

    N. Pop-Jordanova, “Different clinical expression of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: Assessment and treatment,” PRILOZI, vol. 40, JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 17 pp. 40 – 5, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ ...

    2021

  71. [79]

    How far are we from solving the 2d & 3d face alignment problem? (and a dataset of 230,000 3d facial landmarks),

    A. Bulat and G. Tzimiropoulos, “How far are we from solving the 2d & 3d face alignment problem? (and a dataset of 230,000 3d facial landmarks),” 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pp. 1021–1030, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar...

    2017

  72. [80]

    Residual gated graph convnets,

    X. Bresson and T. Laurent, “Residual gated graph convnets,” ArXiv, vol. abs/1711.07553, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:13761978

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    A dual-direction attention mixed feature network for facial expression recognition,

    S. Zhang, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhang, Y . Wang, and Z. Song, “A dual-direction attention mixed feature network for facial expression recognition,” Electronics, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:261198637

    2023

  74. [82]

    Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,

    J. Chung, C ¸ aglar G ¨ulc ¸ehre, K. Cho, and Y . Bengio, “Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,” ArXiv, vol. abs/1412.3555, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5201925

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural Computation, vol. 9, pp. 1735–1780, 1997. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1915014

    1997

  76. [84]

    Dex: Deep expectation of apparent age from a single image,

    R. Rothe, R. Timofte, and L. V . Gool, “Dex: Deep expectation of apparent age from a single image,” 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshop (ICCVW) , pp. 252–257, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12609235

    2015

  77. [85]

    Deep learning face attributes in the wild,

    Z. Liu, P. Luo, X. Wang, and X. Tang, “Deep learning face attributes in the wild,” 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pp. 3730–3738, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:459456

    2015

  78. [86]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2010.11929, 2020. [Onli...

    2010 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 248512877

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 248512877

  80. [88]

    Representation learning and identity adversarial training for facial behavior understanding,

    M. Ning, A. A. Salah, and I. O. Ertugrul, “Representation learning and identity adversarial training for facial behavior understanding,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2407.11243, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:271218226

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 770–778, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:206594692

    2016

  82. [90]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge,

    O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. S. Bernstein, A. C. Berg, and L. Fei-Fei, “Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 115, pp. 211 – 252, 2014. [Online]....

    2014

  83. [91]

    Autoaug- ment: Learning augmentation strategies from data,

    E. D. Cubuk, B. Zoph, D. Mane, V . Vasudevan, and Q. V . Le, “Autoaug- ment: Learning augmentation strategies from data,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 113–123

    2019

  84. [92]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll’ar, and R. B. Girshick, “Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,” 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 15 979–15 988, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar. org/Corpu...

    2022

  85. [93]

    Affectnet: A database for facial expression, valence, and arousal computing in the wild,

    A. Mollahosseini, B. Hasani, and M. H. Mahoor, “Affectnet: A database for facial expression, valence, and arousal computing in the wild,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 10, pp. 18–31, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:37515850

    2017

  86. [94]

    Learning face representation from scratch,

    D. Yi, Z. Lei, S. Liao, and S. Li, “Learning face representation from scratch,” ArXiv, vol. abs/1411.7923, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17188384

    2014 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Review: Posed vs. genuine facial emotion recognition and expression in autism and implications for intervention,

    P. J. Webster, S. Wang, and X. Li, “Review: Posed vs. genuine facial emotion recognition and expression in autism and implications for intervention,” Frontiers in Psychology , vol. 12, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:235779797

    2021

  88. [96]

    Recognition and expression of emotional cues by autistic and normal adults

    H. Macdonald, M. Rutter, P. Howlin, P. Rios, A. L. Conteur, C. Evered, and S. E. B. Folstein, “Recognition and expression of emotional cues by autistic and normal adults.” Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, vol. 30 6, pp. 865–77, 1989. [Online]...

    1989

  89. [97]

    The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research,

    P. Juslin, K. Scherer, J. Harrigan, and R. Rosenthal, “The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research,” 2005

    2005

  90. [98]

    J ˆaa-net: Joint facial action unit detection and face alignment via adaptive attention,

    Z. Shao, Z. Liu, J. Cai, and L. Ma, “J ˆaa-net: Joint facial action unit detection and face alignment via adaptive attention,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 129, pp. 321 – 340, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:213005996

    2020

  91. [99]

    Arcface: Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition,

    J. Deng, J. Guo, and S. Zafeiriou, “Arcface: Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition,” 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 4685–4694, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:8923541

    2019

  92. [100]

    Retinaface: Single-shot multi-level face localisation in the wild,

    J. Deng, J. Guo, E. Ververas, I. Kotsia, and S. Zafeiriou, “Retinaface: Single-shot multi-level face localisation in the wild,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 5203–5212

    2020

  93. [103]

    Assessing auto- mated facial action unit detection systems for analyzing cross-domain facial expression databases,

    S. Namba, W. Sato, M. Osumi, and K. Shimokawa, “Assessing auto- mated facial action unit detection systems for analyzing cross-domain facial expression databases,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 12, p. 4222, 2021

    2021

  94. [104]

    A two-stage multi- modal affect analysis framework for children with autism spectrum disorder,

    J. Li, A. N. Bhat, and R. L. Barmaki, “A two-stage multi- modal affect analysis framework for children with autism spectrum disorder,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2106.09199, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:235458014

    2021 arXiv

  95. [105]

    Deep adaptation of adult-child facial expressions by fusing landmark features,

    M. A. Witherow, M. D. Samad, N. Diawara, H. Y . Bar, and K. M. Iftekharuddin, “Deep adaptation of adult-child facial expressions by fusing landmark features,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , 2023

    2023

  96. [109]

    Disentangled represen- tation learning for multiple attributes preserving face deidentification,

    M. Gong, J. Liu, H. Li, Y . Xie, and Z. Tang, “Disentangled represen- tation learning for multiple attributes preserving face deidentification,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 244–256, 2020

    2020

  97. [110]

    Attribute-preserving face dataset anonymization via latent code optimization,

    S. Barattin, C. Tzelepis, I. Patras, and N. Sebe, “Attribute-preserving face dataset anonymization via latent code optimization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2023, pp. 8001–8010

    2023

  98. [2017]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 33239389

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 33239389

  99. [2020]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 221672238

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 221672238

  100. [2021]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 233732574

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 233732574

  101. [2022]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 254876175

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 254876175

  102. [2023]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 263606724

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 263606724

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.