Multi-Level Evidence Aggregation for Robust Facial Phenotype Retrieval in Rare Genetic Disorder Prioritization

Alexander Hustinx; Behnam Javanmardi; Carolin Kaffin\'e; Peter Krawitz; Tzung-Chien Hsieh

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 21 references

Multi-Level Evidence Aggregation for Robust Facial Phenotype Retrieval in Rare Genetic Disorder Prioritization

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 The paper claims that pooling facial evidence across a patient's multiple images, a disorder's gallery patients, and local versus global disorder scores at inference time improves rare-disorder retrieval accuracy on every GMDB evaluation…

desk verdict Useful inference-time aggregation for GestaltMatcher, but the rare-disorder evaluation is three overlapping 70/30 repeats mislabeled as 10-fold CV, so those gains need re-verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11037 v1 pith:YKQD7VEB submitted 2026-08-11 cs.CV cs.IR

Alexander Hustinx , Carolin Kaffiné , Behnam Javanmardi , Tzung-Chien Hsieh , Peter Krawitz This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.IR

keywords raregeneticdisordersfacialphenotypingmedicalimageretrievalevidenceaggregationGestaltMatcherdisorderprioritizationinference-timefusionClinicalFacePhenotypeSpace

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

The paper asks whether rare genetic disorder prioritization by facial phenotype can be made more reliable by pooling evidence that is already available in a retrieval database, rather than by training a better encoder. It claims that three simple inference-time operations — averaging a patient's face images into one embedding, representing each disorder by a patient-weighted centroid of its gallery embeddings, and blending that centroid distance with the nearest-neighbor distance — improve disorder ranking accuracy on the GestaltMatcher Database (GMDB). Top-1 accuracy rises from 38.52% to 48.82% on frequent disorders and from 19.38% to 23.79% on rare disorders, with larger gains for patients who have several images. Because the encoder is untouched, the method can be added to existing GestaltMatcher-style retrieval pipelines without retraining.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Clinical Face Phenotype Space (CFPS), the fixed embedding space produced by the GM-Arc encoder ensemble, in which cosine distance measures facial phenotypic similarity. Three parameter-free operators act on this space: patient-level embedding fusion, which averages the test patient's image embeddings; patient-weighted disorder centroids, which average per-patient mean gallery embeddings so that patients with many images do not dominate; and hybrid individual-centroid scoring, $D_{\text{hybrid}} = \lambda D_{\text{centroid}} + (1-\lambda) D_{\text{NN}}$ with $\lambda=0.75$, which combines global disorder-level evidence with local nearest-neighbor evidence. These operators carry the argument by changing only how existing embeddings and distances are combined, leaving the encoder fixed.

What would settle it

Run the same aggregation pipeline with a different facial-phenotype encoder or on a future GMDB release and compare against the single-image baseline; if patient-weighted centroids or embedding-level fusion reduce top-1 accuracy for rare disorders, the geometric premise fails. A more direct check is to test a cohort of disorders with age-dependent facial presentations and inspect whether the disorder centroid falls in a low-density region of the embedding space, in which case nearest-neighbor distances should beat centroid distances and the mean-embedding representative is the wrong summary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a patient or a disorder is better modelled as a set of observations in the Clinical Face Phenotype Space (CFPS) than as an isolated image or point, and that aggregating these observations at inference time produces more robust disorder rankings. The full framework uses patient-weighted disorder centroids, a hybrid distance with weight $\lambda=0.75$ between the centroid distance and the nearest-neighbor distance, and embedding-level averaging of a patient's test images before scoring. The paper reports consistent improvements in mean per-disorder top-$N$ accuracy across GMDB-Freq, GMDB-Rare, and multi-image subsets, including a +14.82 percentage-point top-1 gain on GMDB-Multi-Freq, and shows that the true-disorder rank improves for far more patients than it worsens.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that averaging embeddings — both across a patient's images and across a disorder's patients — produces a meaningful, stable representative of the phenotype in cosine-distance space, so that distance to the average behaves like the evidence the individual images provide.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Existing GestaltMatcher-style retrieval systems can adopt the method by changing only inference-time scoring, with no retraining or architecture modification.
Retrieval for ultra-rare disorders represented by very few gallery patients improves, because disorder centroids stabilize sparse gallery evidence.
Patients with multiple clinical photographs benefit most; top-1 accuracy on GMDB-Multi-Freq rises from 46.12% to 60.94%.
The unified-gallery results indicate the method remains effective when well-represented and rarely represented disorders are ranked together, which mirrors real diagnostic retrieval.
The hybrid weighting parameter lets a practitioner balance local image-level evidence against disorder-level summaries, with centroid-dominant weighting preferable for sparsely represented disorders.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension, not tested in the paper, is to make the hybrid weight $\lambda$ adaptive to gallery size or disorder representation; the paper's own post hoc sensitivity analysis suggests rare disorders would benefit from more centroid-dominant weighting.
The same aggregation principle could transfer to other set-based medical image retrieval tasks, such as multiple views or time points of the same lesion, although this is speculative beyond the facial phenotype setting.
The paper's database-growth analysis implies that patient-weighted centroids will become more consequential as reference databases accumulate more images per patient over time, a consequence the authors note but do not quantify in the current gallery.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this paper shows a genuinely useful inference-time trick—aggregate multiple test images, disorder centroids, and a hybrid of both—and it works in their experiments. The gains are large and fairly consistent across evaluation subsets. But the rare-disorder evaluation is not actually 10-fold cross-validation; it's three overlapping 70/30 repeats. That matters because the headline rare-disorder gains rest on that protocol.

What's new: the individual components are all known (template pooling, class centroids, hybrid scoring), but this is the first careful study of combining them at inference time for facial phenotype retrieval without retraining the encoder. That's a practical contribution—existing GestaltMatcher deployments could get a lift just by changing how they score. The experiments are mostly well done: identity leakage is handled, the bootstrap is paired and clustered, and the lambda sensitivity analysis is honest and post hoc.

The biggest problem is the CV description. Section 3.1 says GMDB-Rare was evaluated with 10-fold CV, but the numbers don't fit: 1,554 images total, 455.7 in the evaluation fold means 29.3% test, not 10%. Ten times 455.7 is roughly three times the dataset, so each patient lands in the test portion about three times across the 'folds.' This is repeated 70/30 splits, not patient-disjoint CV. The paper even acknowledges recurring patients in the bootstrap weighting. That doesn't necessarily make the point estimates wrong, but it means the p-values and confidence intervals are computed from non-independent samples, and the protocol is misreported. This needs a correction or a re-run with proper patient-disjoint folds before the rare-disorder claims can be taken at face value.

Other soft spots are minor: code is promised but not yet released; the evaluation is on a single controlled-access database and one reproduced encoder; and the geometric assumption that averaging embeddings in cosine space is meaningful is acknowledged but not validated. These are addressable, not fatal.

Who this is for: anyone building or using GestaltMatcher-style retrieval, and the clinical genetics community that deploys it. It's an empirical paper with a practical payoff, not a methodological breakthrough.

Recommendation: yes, send it to peer review, but require the authors to fix the CV protocol or redo the rare-disorder evaluation with true patient-disjoint splits. The rest of the paper is careful enough that this should be revisable.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an inference-time multi-level evidence aggregation framework for rare-genetic-disorder facial phenotype retrieval. It keeps the GM-Arc encoder fixed and combines: (i) embedding-level fusion of multiple test images per patient (Eq. 11), (ii) patient-weighted disorder centroids summarizing gallery patients (Eq. 7), and (iii) hybrid individual-centroid scoring with a single tuned weight lambda (Eq. 9). In a unified gallery containing both GMDB-Freq and GMDB-Rare disorders, the full framework reports consistent mean per-disorder top-N accuracy gains over the single-image nearest-neighbor baseline, e.g., top-1 from 38.52% to 48.82% on GMDB-Freq and from 19.38% to 23.79% on GMDB-Rare. The evaluation includes component ablations, lambda sensitivity analyses, stratified analyses, and a paired two-stage cluster bootstrap.

Significance. If the results hold, the method is practically valuable because it improves retrieval without retraining the encoder, and the component design is transparent and simple. The manuscript has several strengths: the evaluation uses held-out test sets with identity-leakage prevention, the hybrid weight lambda was selected on a held-out validation set and fixed, a post hoc sensitivity analysis documents robustness, component-wise ablations are reported for both unified and split galleries, and the authors commit to releasing code. However, the rare-disorder evaluation protocol is misreported as 10-fold cross-validation when the numbers show overlapping 70/30 splits, which bears directly on the rare-disorder claims and their p-values.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.1, Table 1] Section 3.1 and Table 1: the procedure labeled '10-fold cross-validation' is not a patient-disjoint 10-fold partition. GMDB-Rare has 1,554 images; the per-fold evaluation set contains 455.7 ± 7.7 images, so 10 × 455.7 ≈ 4,557 ≈ 3 × 1,554, meaning each patient's images are evaluated in about three of the ten 'folds'. The per-fold evaluation also contains all 361 disorders (one patient per disorder on average), whereas a true 10-fold split of 1,240 patients would put only about 124 patients per fold. The same arithmetic holds for GMDB-Multi-Rare (159.9 × 10 ≈ 3 × 528). Thus the reported GMDB-Rare and GMDB-Multi-Rare results are averages over repeated random 70/30 splits, not over cross-validation folds. The headline rare-disorder improvements (top-1 from 19.38% to 23.79% and from 18.54% to 26.71%) rest on this protocol and need to be re-derived with patient-disjoint partitions or explicitly reported as repeated subsampling.
[Section 3.2] Section 3.2: the statistical inference for the rare subsets inherits the same problem. The two-stage cluster bootstrap uses weights 'for patients recurring across the ten cross-validation splits,' which confirms that the same patients contribute to multiple folds. Paired bootstrap p-values computed over these overlapping fold averages do not provide a valid test for a patient-disjoint evaluation: the effective sample size is inflated approximately threefold, so p < 0.001 for GMDB-Rare and GMDB-Multi-Rare may substantially overstate confidence. The authors should either run a genuinely patient-disjoint 10-fold or k-fold evaluation, or switch to a repeated random-subsampling design with inference that treats the patient as the primary resampling unit across all appearances, and report confidence intervals for the fold-level mean accuracy under that design.

minor comments (3)

[Section 2.2] Section 2.2 describes the aggregation operators as 'parameter-free,' but Eq. (9) introduces the tuned weight lambda. Consider saying 'not requiring additional encoder training' or 'having only one tuned hyperparameter' to avoid a contradiction.
[Figure 3] Figure 3 is dense; the four curves per panel are distinguished only by line style, and the caption's 'thin lines' may be hard to read in print. Direct labeling or a table of the same numbers would improve clarity.
[Section 4.4] Section 4.4 reports p = 0.003 for GMDB-Multi-Freq but p < 0.001 for the other subsets; please state explicitly whether the same paired bootstrap scheme was used for all four subsets and whether any correction for testing four evaluation subsets was considered.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the aggregation gains are an empirical, held-out comparison; no equation reduces by construction to fitted inputs or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical evaluation pipeline, not a closed-form derivation in which an output is defined as its own input. The only tuned parameter, lambda, is selected on a held-out GMDB-Freq validation set (Section 3.4.2; Supplementary Note S4.1) and then fixed before the GMDB-Rare and multi-image evaluations; the post hoc sensitivity analysis explicitly uses evaluation data only to assess robustness, not to select the primary configuration. The disorder centroids (Eqs. 6-7), hybrid scoring (Eq. 9), and patient-level fusion (Eqs. 10-11) are arithmetic operations on fixed GM-Arc embeddings, and none of the reported top-N accuracies equals one of these quantities by construction. Self-citations to GM-Arc and GMDB provide the encoder and benchmark, but the central claim—that inference-time aggregation improves retrieval over the single-image baseline—is established by internal comparison on held-out patients, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work to force the method. A separate reliability concern, noted in Section 3.1 and 3.2, is that the reported per-fold evaluation sizes (455.7 of 1,554 images) imply overlapping 70/30 repeats rather than a patient-disjoint 10-fold split, and Section 3.2's bootstrap weighting for 'patients recurring across the ten cross-validation splits' confirms overlap; this affects variance and p-value interpretation but is not circularity. Under the stated hard rules, no circular step can be exhibited, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities; it combines existing representations. The main load-bearing postulates are geometric (mean embeddings as phenotypes) and statistical (validation-set transfer of lambda).

free parameters (1)

hybrid weight lambda = 0.75
Selected on the held-out GMDB-Freq validation set from {0.00, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00} using a weighted top-N objective; fixed for all subsequent experiments. This is the only tuned scalar in the primary configuration.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Arithmetic mean of GM-Arc embeddings represents a meaningful patient or disorder phenotype in the CFPS
Eq. (7) and Eq. (11) average raw embeddings without normalization; the entire disorder-centroid and embedding-level fusion approach assumes the mean lies in a region of the embedding space that preserves phenotype proximity under cosine distance.
domain assumption The held-out GMDB-Freq validation set is representative enough to select lambda that transfers to GMDB-Rare and multi-image subsets
Section 3.4.2 and S4.1: lambda=0.75 is chosen on validation data containing only disorders seen during training; the authors note this may not be ideal for all evaluation subsets.
domain assumption The reproduced GM-Arc encoder (retrained m0, m1 plus external m2) matches the published GM-Arc behavior
Supplementary Table S1 lists retraining details; all results depend on this reproduction rather than the official released models.
domain assumption Single ground-truth disorder label per test patient
Discussed in Section 5.3: dual or composite diagnoses are not modeled, and top-N accuracy assumes one correct disorder.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Level Evidence Aggregation for Robust Facial Phenotype Retrieval in Rare Genetic Disorder Prioritization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKQD7VEB

@misc{pith2026260811037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Level Evidence Aggregation for Robust Facial Phenotype Retrieval in Rare Genetic Disorder Prioritization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKQD7VEB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11037}
}

abstract

AI-assisted facial phenotyping supports rare genetic disorder prioritization by retrieving visually similar diagnosed cases from facial image reference databases such as the GestaltMatcher Database (GMDB). Existing GestaltMatcher-based retrieval frameworks compare each test image with individual gallery images in a facial phenotype embedding space. However, this pointwise formulation does not fully exploit available evidence, because patients may have multiple images and disorders may be represented by multiple diagnosed gallery patients. We propose an inference-time multi-level evidence aggregation framework that improves facial phenotype retrieval without modifying the underlying GestaltMatcher-Arc encoder. The framework combines embedding-level patient aggregation of multiple images from the same individual, patient-weighted disorder centroids, and hybrid individual-centroid scoring to integrate test-patient observations, disorder-level gallery evidence, and local nearest-neighbor evidence. We evaluated the approach on GMDB v1.1.4 across disorders represented during training (GMDB-Freq), unseen disorders (GMDB-Rare), and multi-image patient subsets, using a unified gallery containing both GMDB-Freq and GMDB-Rare disorders. Multi-level evidence aggregation improved mean per-disorder top-$N$ retrieval accuracy across all evaluation subsets. Top-1 accuracy increased from 38.52% to 48.82% on GMDB-Freq and from 19.38% to 23.79% on GMDB-Rare. On multi-image subsets, top-1 accuracy increased from 46.12% to 60.94% on GMDB-Multi-Freq and from 18.54% to 26.71% on GMDB-Multi-Rare. These findings show that inference-time aggregation can improve next-generation facial phenotype retrieval without retraining the encoder, supporting a shift from isolated single-image matching toward multi-level aggregation of patient and disorder evidence for rare-disorder prioritization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11037 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Conceptual overview of multi-level evidence aggregation for rare-disorder retrieval. (A) Baseline GM-Arc retrieval. (A1) A synthetic test image* is embedded into the Clinical Face Phenotype Space. (A2) The resulting embedding is compared with individual gallery images from patients with confirmed diagnoses, and disorders are ranked according to the nearest gallery match. (B) Proposed inference-time aggregation strat… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** t-SNE visualization of image embeddings and disorder centroids from the 10 most frequent disorders (circle), and 10 less frequent disorders (diamond) in the GMDB-Freq gallery set. Each color represents a disorder, and centroids (X) summarize the corresponding disorder-level embeddings. The central region illustrates that embeddings from different disorders can occupy overlapping regions of the CFPS. To summarize di… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Mean per-disorder top-𝑁 accuracy of the single-image nearest-neighbor baseline and of full multi-level aggregation, on the unified gallery. Left panel: all-patient evaluation sets GMDB-Freq and GMDB-Rare. Right panel: Multi-image subsets GMDB-Multi-Freq and GMDB-Multi-Rare. Dashed lines are the baseline, dotted lines the patient-level aggregation only, thin lines the disorder-level aggregation only, and solid lines … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Per-patient change in the rank of the correct disorder relative to the single-image nearest-neighbor baseline rank, on the unified gallery. Numbers give the percentage of test patients whose rank improves (green), worsens (red), or is unchanged (gray). Flows follow the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

, author Patel, V.M

author Chen, J.C. , author Patel, V.M. , author Chellappa, R. , year 2016 . title Unconstrained face verification using deep CNN features , in: booktitle 2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , publisher IEEE . pp. pages 1--9 . :10.1109/WACV.2016.7477557

arXiv 2016
[2]

, author Guo, J

author Deng, J. , author Guo, J. , author Xue, N. , author Zafeiriou, S. , year 2019 . title ArcFace : Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition , in: booktitle 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , publisher IEEE . pp. pages 4685--4694 . :10.1109/CVPR.2019.00482

arXiv 2019
[3]

, author Steinberg, J

author Ferry, Q. , author Steinberg, J. , author Webber, C. , author FitzPatrick, D.R. , author Ponting, C.P. , author Zisserman, A. , author Nell ker, C. , year 2014 . title Diagnostically relevant facial gestalt information from ordinary photos . journal eLife volume 3 , pages e02020 . :10.7554/eLife.02020

work page doi:10.7554/elife.02020 2014
[4]

, author Hanani, Y

author Gurovich, Y. , author Hanani, Y. , author Bar, O. , author Nadav, G. , author Fleischer, N. , author Gelbman, D. , author Basel-Salmon, L. , author Krawitz, P.M. , author Kamphausen, S.B. , author Zenker, M. , author Bird, L.M. , author Gripp, K.W. , year 2019 . title Identifying facial phenotypes of genetic disorders using deep learning . journal ...

work page doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0279-0 2019
[5]

, author Masi, I

author Hassner, T. , author Masi, I. , author Kim, J. , author Choi, J. , author Harel, S. , author Natarajan, P. , author Medioni, G.G. , year 2016 . title Pooling faces: Template based face recognition with pooled face images , in: booktitle 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) , publisher IEEE . pp. pages 12...

work page doi:10.1109/cvprw.2016.23 2016
[6]

u ger, E. , author K \

author Hsieh, T.C. , author Bar-Haim, A. , author Moosa, S. , author Ehmke, N. , author Gripp, K.W. , author Pantel, J.T. , author Danyel, M. , author Mensah, M.A. , author Horn, D. , author Rosnev, S. , author Fleischer, N. , author Bonini, G. , author Hustinx, A. , author Schmid, A. , author Knaus, A. , author Javanmardi, B. , author Klinkhammer, H. , a...

work page 2022
[7]

u mer, \

author Hustinx, A. , author Hellmann, F. , author S \"u mer, \"O . , author Javanmardi, B. , author Andr \'e , E. , author Krawitz, P. , author Hsieh, T.C. , year 2023 . title Improving deep facial phenotyping for ultra-rare disorder verification using model ensembles , in: booktitle 2023 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV...

arXiv 2023
[8]

, author Tomczak, J

author Ilse, M. , author Tomczak, J. , author Welling, M. , year 2018 . title Attention-based deep multiple instance learning , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , publisher PMLR . pp. pages 2127--2136 . https://proceedings.mlr.press/v80/ilse18a.html

work page 2018

Show all 21 references

[9]

, author Hustinx, A

author Kirchhoff, A. , author Hustinx, A. , author Javanmardi, B. , author Hsieh, T.C. , author Brand, F. , author Hellmann, F. , author Mertes, S. , author Andr \'e , E. , author Moosa, S. , author Schultz, T. , author Solomon, B.D. , author Krawitz, P. , year 2025 . title Ge...

2025 doi
[10]

, author Lee, Y

author Lee, J. , author Lee, Y. , author Kim, J. , author Kosiorek, A. , author Choi, S. , author Teh, Y.W. , year 2019 . title Set transformer: A framework for attention-based permutation-invariant neural networks , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 36th International Conferen...

2019
[11]

, author Hustinx, A

author Lesmann, H. , author Hustinx, A. , author Moosa, S. , author Klinkhammer, H. , author Marchi, E. , author Caro, P. , author Abdelrazek, I.M. , author Pantel, J.T. , author ten Hagen, M. , author Thong, M.K. , author Kamphans, T. , author Meiswinkel, W. , author Javanmar...

2024
[12]

, author Verbeek, J

author Mensink, T. , author Verbeek, J. , author Perronnin, F. , author Csurka, G. , year 2013 . title Distance-based image classification: Generalizing to new classes at near-zero cost . journal IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence volume 35 , pages ...

2013 doi
[13]

, author Lambert, D.M

author Nguengang Wakap, S. , author Lambert, D.M. , author Olry, A. , author Rodwell, C. , author Gueydan, C. , author Lanneau, V. , author Murphy, D. , author Le Cam, Y. , author Rath, A. , year 2020 . title Estimating cumulative point prevalence of rare diseases: analysis of...

2020 doi
[14]

, author Harel, T

author Posey, J.E. , author Harel, T. , author Liu, P. , author Rosenfeld, J.A. , author James, R.A. , author Akdemir, Z.H.C. , author Walkiewicz, M. , author Bi, W. , author Xiao, R. , author Ding, Y. , author Xia, F. , author Beaudet, A.L. , author Muzny, D.M. , author Gibbs...

2017
[15]

, author Swersky, K

author Snell, J. , author Swersky, K. , author Zemel, R.S. , year 2017 . title Prototypical networks for few-shot learning , in: booktitle Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (NeurIPS) , pp. pages 4077--4087 . :10.48550/arXiv.1703.05175

2017 doi arXiv
[16]

, author Worring, M

author Snoek, C.G.M. , author Worring, M. , author Smeulders, A.W.M. , year 2005 . title Early versus late fusion in semantic video analysis , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia , publisher ACM . pp. pages 399--402 . :10.114...

2005
[17]

u mer, \

author S \"u mer, \"O . , author Hellmann, F. , author Hustinx, A. , author Hsieh, T.C. , author Andr \'e , E. , author Krawitz, P. , year 2023 . title Few-shot meta-learning for recognizing facial phenotypes of genetic disorders , in: booktitle Caring is Sharing -- Exploiting...

2023 doi
[18]

, author Kottur, S

author Zaheer, M. , author Kottur, S. , author Ravanbakhsh, S. , author P \'o czos, B. , author Salakhutdinov, R. , author Smola, A.J. , year 2017 . title Deep sets , in: booktitle Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (NeurIPS) , pp. pages 3391--3401 . :10.4855...

2017 doi arXiv
[19]

, author Kang, B

author Zhang, Y. , author Kang, B. , author Hooi, B. , author Yan, S. , author Feng, J. , year 2023 . title Deep long-tailed learning: A survey . journal IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence volume 45 , pages 10795--10816 . :10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3268118

2023
[20]

, author Zhu, X

author An, X. , author Zhu, X. , author Gao, Y. , author Xiao, Y. , author Zhao, Y. , author Feng, Z. , author Wu, L. , author Qin, B. , author Zhang, M. , author Zhang, D. , author Fu, Y. , year 2021 . title Partial FC : Training 10 million identities on a single machine , in...

2021
[21]

, author Guo, J

author Deng, J. , author Guo, J. , author Ververas, E. , author Kotsia, I. , author Zafeiriou, S. , year 2020 . title Retinaface: Single-shot multi-level face localisation in the wild , in: booktitle Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni...

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

, author Patel, V.M

author Chen, J.C. , author Patel, V.M. , author Chellappa, R. , year 2016 . title Unconstrained face verification using deep CNN features , in: booktitle 2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , publisher IEEE . pp. pages 1--9 . :10.1109/WACV.2016.7477557

arXiv 2016

[2] [2]

, author Guo, J

author Deng, J. , author Guo, J. , author Xue, N. , author Zafeiriou, S. , year 2019 . title ArcFace : Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition , in: booktitle 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , publisher IEEE . pp. pages 4685--4694 . :10.1109/CVPR.2019.00482

arXiv 2019

[3] [3]

, author Steinberg, J

author Ferry, Q. , author Steinberg, J. , author Webber, C. , author FitzPatrick, D.R. , author Ponting, C.P. , author Zisserman, A. , author Nell ker, C. , year 2014 . title Diagnostically relevant facial gestalt information from ordinary photos . journal eLife volume 3 , pages e02020 . :10.7554/eLife.02020

work page doi:10.7554/elife.02020 2014

[4] [4]

, author Hanani, Y

author Gurovich, Y. , author Hanani, Y. , author Bar, O. , author Nadav, G. , author Fleischer, N. , author Gelbman, D. , author Basel-Salmon, L. , author Krawitz, P.M. , author Kamphausen, S.B. , author Zenker, M. , author Bird, L.M. , author Gripp, K.W. , year 2019 . title Identifying facial phenotypes of genetic disorders using deep learning . journal ...

work page doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0279-0 2019

[5] [5]

, author Masi, I

author Hassner, T. , author Masi, I. , author Kim, J. , author Choi, J. , author Harel, S. , author Natarajan, P. , author Medioni, G.G. , year 2016 . title Pooling faces: Template based face recognition with pooled face images , in: booktitle 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) , publisher IEEE . pp. pages 12...

work page doi:10.1109/cvprw.2016.23 2016

[6] [6]

u ger, E. , author K \

author Hsieh, T.C. , author Bar-Haim, A. , author Moosa, S. , author Ehmke, N. , author Gripp, K.W. , author Pantel, J.T. , author Danyel, M. , author Mensah, M.A. , author Horn, D. , author Rosnev, S. , author Fleischer, N. , author Bonini, G. , author Hustinx, A. , author Schmid, A. , author Knaus, A. , author Javanmardi, B. , author Klinkhammer, H. , a...

work page 2022

[7] [7]

u mer, \

author Hustinx, A. , author Hellmann, F. , author S \"u mer, \"O . , author Javanmardi, B. , author Andr \'e , E. , author Krawitz, P. , author Hsieh, T.C. , year 2023 . title Improving deep facial phenotyping for ultra-rare disorder verification using model ensembles , in: booktitle 2023 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV...

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

, author Tomczak, J

author Ilse, M. , author Tomczak, J. , author Welling, M. , year 2018 . title Attention-based deep multiple instance learning , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , publisher PMLR . pp. pages 2127--2136 . https://proceedings.mlr.press/v80/ilse18a.html

work page 2018