Rank-1 Identity Consensus Predicts Gallery Enrollment in 1:N Face Matching More Accurately than Score Thresholding
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In operational 1:N face identification, a crucial question arises for each probe: is this person enrolled in the gallery or not? The stakes are high and asymmetric. Rejecting a mate-present (MP) probe loses a valid lead; accepting a mate-absent (MA) probe makes every returned candidate a false identification, at worst a wrongful arrest. Most approaches threshold match scores, but scores shift substantially with image quality and gallery size and composition, making thresholds fixed before deployment brittle under realistic conditions. Our prior work introduced 1-consistency, the only method based on rank consensus across multiple independently trained matchers: a probe is labeled MP if all matchers return the same rank-1 identity. This work stress-tests 1-consistency across 36 (gallery, probe quality) scenarios spanning four quality levels and two structural axes: images per identity and total enrolled identities. We benchmark against two score-thresholding methods that bracket what any deployed threshold could achieve. Fixed Score-Thresholding (FST), calibrated once on baseline conditions, collapses asymmetrically as quality degrades: MP recall falls below 2% while MA recall holds near 100%. Oracle Score-Thresholding (OST), re-tuned per scenario, is the best any threshold could theoretically do, yet for degraded probes 1-consistency matches it with zero tuning. The two differ mainly in error type (OST favors MP recall, 1-consistency favors MA recall), but on one axis 1-consistency does not merely match the oracle: when it labels a probe MP, it returns the correct mate 97-100% of the time versus OST's 66-84% under severe degradation. In short, 1-consistency delivers oracle-level accuracy without the impossible requirement: it sets no threshold, so it needs no advance knowledge of the conditions a probe will arrive in, which is what makes it usable.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Jul 2026.
Builds on
15 of 33 references.
References · 15
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2022AdaFace: Quality Adaptive Margin for Face Recognitioncited by 390
- 2018Recent Advances in Open Set Recognition: A Surveycited by 309
- 2014Towards Open World Recognitioncited by 226
- 2021WebFace260M: A Benchmark Unveiling the Power of Million-Scale Deep Face Recognitioncited by 221
- 2019Probabilistic Face Embeddingscited by 171
- 2015The Extreme Value Machinecited by 78
- 2016Neural Aggregation Network for Video Face Recognitioncited by 44
- 2017Toward Open-Set Face Recognitioncited by 29
- 2022Cluster and Aggregate: Face Recognition with Large Probe Setcited by 22
- 2017Deep Heterogeneous Feature Fusion for Template-Based Face Recognitioncited by 6
- 2023Impact of Blur and Resolution on Demographic Disparities in 1-to-Many Facial Identificationcited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.