Facial expression recognition relies on facial data that inherently expose identity and thus raise significant privacy concerns. Current privacy-preserving methods typically fail in realistic open-set video settings where identities are unknown, and identity labels are unavailable. We propose a two-stage framework for video-based privacy-preserving FER in challenging open-set settings that requires no identity labels at any stage. To decouple privacy and utility, we first train an identity-suppression network using intra- and inter-video knowledge priors derived from real-world videos without identity labels. This network anonymizes identity while preserving expressive cues. A subsequent denoising module restores expression-related information and helps recover FER performance. Furthermore, we introduce a falsification-based validation method that uses recognition priors to rigorously evaluate privacy robustness without requiring annotated identity labels. Experiments on three video datasets demonstrate that our method effectively protects privacy while maintaining FER accuracy comparable to identity-supervised baselines.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Our framework relies solely intra- and inter-video knowledge priors extracted from videos based on video characteristics to learn privacy preservation transformations without requiring identity labels. It integrates a denoising step to recover FER performance after anonymization and introduces a falsification-based validation scheme for privacy assessment.
Privacy Preservation
Identity Label
Denoise
Utility Task
Privacy Validation
Validation Require Label
Scenario
[ 16 ]
Yes
No
Act. Recog.
Yes
Yes
Closed
[ 4 ] [ 7 ]
No
No
Act. Recog.
Yes
Yes
Open
Blurring and [ 18 ]
No
No
N/A
No
N/A
Open
[ 17 ]
Yes
Yes
FER
Yes
Yes
Closed
Ours
No
Yes
FER
Yes
No
Open
TABLE I : Comparison of our approach with existing privacy-preserving approaches with their associated utility tasks.
Fig. 2 : Overview of our privacy-preserving video-based FER framework. (1) Face detection and tracking extract cropped face sequences and assign pseudo-identity labels. (2) These labeled faces train the privacy-preserving reconstruction network ( fpp ) using triplet and binary cross-entropy (BCE) losses, guided by the frozen identity extractor ( fe ). (3) fpp generates anonymized faces, which are enhanced by a denoising network fdenoise to support FER training via ( ffer ). (4) Privacy robustness is evaluated using a falsification-based approach without identity labels, comparing original, anonymized, denoised, and reconstructed outputs via a recovery model ( freco ), with a privacy preservation ratio Ppre computed for quantitative comparison.
Fig. 3 : Illustration of inter- and intra-video knowledge priors for training fpp . Each video undergoes face detection, alignment, and tracking to obtain consistent tracking IDs and pseudo-labels. Expression labels (e.g., “Angry”) group semantically similar samples across videos. Training batches contain triplets (anchor, positive, negative) plus an extra face sharing the anchor’s ID to enforce identity disentanglement. A binary label (0 or 1) signals identity consistency, enabling identity-irrelevant learning without ground-truth ID labels.
GT
Rules
0
1 . Two different images from the same original video with different unique ID; 2 . Two images from two different original videos ;
1
3 . Two images from the same original video with the same unique ID;
0
4 . One image from original video and the other from the same video but privacy-preserved , with the same unique ID; 5 . One image from original video and the other from the same video but denoised privacy-preserved , with the same unique ID; 6 . One image from original video and the other from the same video but recovered privacy-preserved , with the same unique ID; 7 . One image from original video and the other from the same video but recovered denoised privacy-preserved , with the same unique ID
TABLE II : Test case generation rules. GT stands for ground truth. 0 means that fmatch needs to output the pair have different identities, otherwise is 1.
Dataset
Model
Hap
Sad
Neu
Ang
Sup
Dis
Fea
Cal
DFEW
R(2+1)D
79.96
40.11
56.93
50.11
49.32
3.45
22.10
N/A
I3D
77.91
46.17
55.99
46.21
46.26
3.45
20.99
N/A
R(2+1)D
73.21
35.36
47.57
39.77
38.78
3.45
17.68
N/A
I3D
68.71
39.31
48.50
40.23
39.80
3.45
16.57
N/A
CREMA-D
R(2+1)D
98.34
80.77
84.89
91.69
N/A
98.89
80.30
N/A
I3D
99.17
82.21
87.31
90.03
N/A
93.35
77.50
N/A
TABLE III : R(2+1)D and I3D FER accuracy (%) on the testing parts of datasets without privacy preservation in regular font and post privacy preservation and denoising in bold and italics font.
Fig. 4 : Privacy preservation ratio, Ppre and FER accuracy tradeoff with 95% confidence interval.
Approach
Acc. of R(2+1)D ↑
Acc. of I3D ↑
DFEW
CREMA-D
RAVDESS
DFEW
CREMA-D
RAVDESS
N-PP
43.14
89.15
86.44
42.43
88.26
87.73
GB
35.89 (0.4)
78.54 (0.5)
77.54(0.6)
36.32 (0.4)
77.43 (0.5)
78.21(0.6)
Adver. [ 4 ]
32.44
74.59
75.08
33.32
73.42
77.31
Face S. [ 18 ]
29.31
67.56
68.39
28.92
68.36
69.85
Contr-HL [ 17 ]
N/A
79.19
79.93
N/A
78.42
77.59
TABLE IV : Privacy-preserved and Denoised FER accuracy (%). ‘N-PP’ stands for no privacy preservation , and it means standard FER task. In the GB row, the numbers in parentheses, (), represent the σ hyperparameter values in Gaussian blurring. The ‘N/A’ stands for Not Applicable.
Fig. 5 : An example video frame from the DFEW dataset.
Approach
DFEW (82,746)
CREMA-D (2466)
RAVDESS (1084)
GB
0.4100
0.2206
0.2039
Adver. [ 4 ]
0.6843
0.6363
0.7399
Face S. [ 18 ]
0.7358
0.5856
0.6780
Contr-HL [ 17 ]
N/A
0.9408
0.9419
Ours
0.9620
0.9071
0.9363
TABLE V : Privacy preservation ratio, ppre . (): number of cases
Approach
SSIM ↓
PSNR ↓
DFEW
CREMA-D
RAVDESS
DFEW
CREMA-D
RAVDESS
GB
0.9122
0.9443
0.9534
29.43
32.85
33.91
Adver. [ 4 ]
0.5120
0.5292
0.5145
21.05
22.07
21.09
Face S. [ 18 ]
0.4372
0.4934
0.5002
15.76
16.31
15.32
Contr-HL [ 17 ]
N/A
0.4243
0.4398
N/A
11.49
12.09
Ours
0.4076
0.4521
0.4432
11.47
12.01
13.98
TABLE VI : SSIM and PSNR results.
Tracking Approach:
MTCNN+ArcFace
SAMURAI
Ours
DFEW
Num of Identity
20347
26032
25969
Acc. (%)
R(2+1)D
36.42
36.71
36.54
I3D
36.60
36.27
36.65
Ppre (%)
96.02
96.31
96.20
CREMA-D
Acc. (%)
R(2+1)D
80.85
81.21
80.90
I3D
81.97
82.49
82.12
TABLE VII : The impact of various tracking approaches on the framework.
TABLE VIII : (a) Ablation ignoring expression labels during dataset generation; only FER accuracy and Ppre are evaluated. (b) FER accuracy and Ppre on DFEW for varying α .
DFEW
CREMA-D
RAVDESS
R(2+1)D Acc.
27.55 ( 33.98 )
71.49 (79.02)
73.54 (77.64)
I3D Acc.
28.31 ( 34.65 )
72.43 (79.21)
73.11 (79.38)
Ppre
95.01 (95.98)
87.59 (91.29)
90.13 (93.98)
TABLE IX : FER accuracy (%) and privacy preservation ratio (%), Ppre on video clips without fdenoise . Numbers in parentheses show results with fdenoise for comparison.
k
m
n
Batch Size
1
2
1
4
2
4
5
16
3
6
21
64
4
8
85
256
5
10
341
1024
TABLE X : Available options of batch size and number of triplets (n).
Fig. 6 : t-SNE of the original, privacy-preserved and denoised privacy-preserved identity embedding from DFEW. It indicates that the model systematically shifts identity features away from their original identities.
Fig. 7 : Distribution of IED Across Stages
Dataset
Rule 4
Rule 5
Rule 6
Rule 7
PP Ratio
DFEW
# Cases
25969
25969
25969
25969
GB
15842
16049
5291
5411
0.4100
Adver.
21437
21625
13975
14046
0.6843
Face S
22837
22981
14675
14846
0.7253
Ours
24897
25297
24681
25052
0.9620
CREMA-D
# Cases
4464
4464
4464
4464
TABLE XI : Statistics of Rule 4–7 cases, including correct validations and privacy-preservation (PP) ratios.
Fig. 8 : FFE task on DFEW dataset using R(2+1)D model without privacy preservation
Fig. 9 : FFE task on DFEW dataset using I3D model without privacy preservation
Fig. 10 : FFE task on CREMA-D dataset using R(2+1)D model without privacy preservation
Fig. 11 : FFE task on CREMA-D dataset using I3D model without privacy preservation
Fig. 12 : FFE task on RAVDESS dataset using R(2+1)D model without privacy preservation
Fig. 13 : FFE task on RAVDESS dataset using I3D model without privacy preservation
Fig. 14 : FFE task on privacy-preserved and denoised DFEW dataset using R(2+1)D model
Fig. 15 : FFE task on privacy-preserved and denoised DFEW dataset using I3D model
Fig. 16 : FFE task on privacy-preserved and denoised CREMA-D dataset using R(2+1)D model
Fig. 17 : FFE task on privacy-preserved and denoised CREMA-D dataset using I3D model
Fig. 18 : FFE task on privacy-preserved and denoised RAVDESS dataset using R(2+1)D model
Fig. 19 : FFE task on privacy-preserved and denoised RAVDESS dataset using I3D model