Abstract:Highlights • The performance of identification algorithms is susceptible to many factors. • Head rotation beyond a 15-degree angle pose challenges to automated systems. • An upward tilt of 10° and higher leads to a notable degradation in performance. • Only a smiling face produced consistently positive log-likelihood ratios. • There is evidence of sex-related bias favoring males in image processing. In today's biometric and commercial settings, state-of-the-art image processing relies solely on artificial intelligence and machine learning which provides a high level of accuracy. However, these principles are deeply rooted in abstract, complex "black-box systems". When applied to forensic image identification, concerns about transparency and accountability emerge. This study explores the impact of two challenging factors in automated facial identification: facial expressions and head poses. The sample comprised 3D faces with nine prototype expressions, collected from 41 participants (13 males, 28 females) of European descent aged 19.96 to 50.89 years. Pre-processing involved converting 3D models to 2D color images (256 × 256 px). Probes included a set of 9 images per individual with head poses varying by 5° in both left-to-right (yaw) and up-and-down (pitch) directions for neutral expressions. A second set of 3,610 images per individual covered viewpoints in 5° increments from −45° to 45° for head movements and different facial expressions, forming the targets. Pair-wise comparisons using ArcFace, a state-of-the-art face identification algorithm yielded 54,615,690 dissimilarity scores. Results indicate that minor head deviations in probes have minimal impact. However, the performance diminished as targets deviated from the frontal position. Right-to-left movements were less influential than up and down, with downward pitch showing less impact than upward movements. The lowest accuracy was for upward pitch at 45°. Dissimilarity scores were consistently higher for males than for females across all studied factors. The performance particularly diverged in upward movements, starting at 15. Among tested facial expressions, happiness and contempt performed best, while disgust exhibited the lowest AUC values.

Face matching as a majority: Getting the best from a crowd

The Wisdom of the Crowd Can Unmask Faces

Social Judgments from Faces Are Universal

Face Recognition Subserves Nature Not Nurture

Automated face recognition assists with low‐prevalence face identity mismatches but can bias users

EXPRESS: Face matching and self-insight: A Registered Report investigating individual differences in metacognitive sensitivity, efficiency, and bias

Trust in automation and the accuracy of human-algorithm teams performing one-to-one face matching tasks

Robust 3D Face Recognition by Local Shape Difference Boosting

Combining Classifiers in Face Recognition

Face identification using reference-based features with message passing model

Face to face: Comparing ChatGPT with human performance on face matching

Face recognition accuracy of forensic examiners, superrecognizers, and face recognition algorithms

Computers do better than experts matching faces in a large population

Exploring Causes of Demographic Variations In Face Recognition Accuracy

Level Playing Field for Million Scale Face Recognition

Does Face Recognition Accuracy Get Better With Age? Deep Face Matchers Say No

Methodological improvements for studying face matching in border control tasks

Not the norm: Face likeness is not the same as similarity to familiar face prototypes

Comparing Facial Expression Recognition in Humans and Machines: Using CAM, GradCAM, and Extremal Perturbation

Head poses and grimaces: Challenges for automated face identification algorithms?

The wisdom of crowds for visual search