benchmarks / README.md
ljchang's picture
Upload README.md with huggingface_hub
22f81a6 verified
|
Raw
History Blame Contribute Delete
1.85 kB
metadata
license: mit
tags:
  - facial-expression
  - action-units
  - emotion-recognition
  - gaze-estimation
  - benchmark
pretty_name: py-feat benchmarks
configs:
  - config_name: accuracy
    data_files: accuracy.csv
  - config_name: throughput
    data_files: throughput.csv

py-feat benchmarks

Live benchmark data for py-feat and a cross-tool comparison against OpenFace 3.0, LibreFace, and PyAFAR. Powers the py-feat live dashboard. Updated by scheduled benchmark runs.

Files

File What
accuracy.csv Tidy long table: one row per (tool, dataset, modality, metric). Covers AU F1 (DISFA+), 7-class emotion (AffectNet-val, RAF-DB), valence/arousal CCC (AffectNet-val), and gaze angular error (Columbia).
throughput.csv py-feat detector frames/sec across hardware × batch.
cross_tool_methodology.md How every tool was run end-to-end, the feature matrix, dataset/protocol choices, and per-tool integration notes.
competitors/*.json Raw per-tool result JSONs (provenance for every number in accuracy.csv).

accuracy.csv columns

tool · dataset · modality (au / emotion / valence_arousal / gaze) · metric · value · n (samples scored) · notes.

Protocol in one paragraph

Every competitor runs end-to-end as shipped (its own face detector, its own models) on identical images/labels frozen into shared manifests — never as a py-feat dependency, each in its own isolated env. Held-out sets only (DISFA+, not DISFA, since DISFA trains several competitors). Emotion is scored on the 7 shared classes; gaze I/O conventions are resolved identically and in every tool's favor. See cross_tool_methodology.md for the full story, including what it took to get each competitor to run.