An Empirical Study of Dimensional Reduction Techniques for Facial Action Units Detection

TL;DR

This study empirically compares various dimensionality reduction techniques for facial action unit detection, showing that some methods improve detection accuracy and efficiency, with results varying across different action units.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive comparison of multiple DR approaches for AU detection using large spontaneous facial behavior datasets, highlighting the effectiveness of PCA and LDA.

Findings

DR generally improves AU detection over no-DR

Gradient-based SIFT features outperform Gabor features

PCA and LDA are the most efficient DR methods

Abstract

Biologically inspired features, such as Gabor filters, result in very high dimensional measurement. Does reducing the dimensionality of the feature space afford advantages beyond computational efficiency? Do some approaches to dimensionality reduction (DR) yield improved action unit detection? To answer these questions, we compared DR approaches in two relatively large databases of spontaneous facial behavior (45 participants in total with over 2 minutes of FACS-coded video per participant). Facial features were tracked and aligned using active appearance models (AAM). SIFT and Gabor features were extracted from local facial regions. We compared linear (PCA and KPCA), manifold (LPP and LLE), supervised (LDA and KDA) and hybrid approaches (LSDA) to DR with respect to AU detection. For further comparison, a no-DR control condition was included as well. Linear support vector machine classifiers with independent train and test sets were used for AU detection. AU detection was quantified using area under the ROC curve and F1. Baseline results for PCA with Gabor features were comparable with previous research. With some notable exceptions, DR improved AU detection relative to no-DR. Locality embedding approaches proved vulnerable to \emph{out-of-sample} problems. Gradient-based SIFT lead to better AU detection than the filter-based Gabor features. For area under the curve, few differences were found between linear and other DR approaches. For F1, results were mixed. For both metrics, the pattern of results varied among action units. These findings suggest that action unit detection may be optimized by using specific DR for specific action units. PCA and LDA were the most efficient approaches; KDA was the least efficient.