# AutoStageMix: Fully Automated Stage Cross-Editing System Utilizing Facial Features
## 4 Experimental Results
### Quantitative Evaluations
#### 4.1.2 Normalized Mean Error (NME)
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON] et al. [1] vs.** & **[PERSON] et al. [1] vs.** & **[PERSON] et al. [2] vs.** \\  & _p-Value_ & **[PERSON] et al. [2] (_p-Value_)** & **Our Method (_p-Value_)** & **Our Method (_p-Value_)** \\ \hline \hline Darl+ing [28] & \textless{}0.001 & 0.1720 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline Ready to love [29] & 0.0136 & 0.0165 & 0.0118 & 0.2762 \\ \hline God of Music [33] & \textless{}0.001 & 0.0066 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Statistical test results. Bold indicates significance at adjusted \(\alpha\) = 0.0167. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Song** & **Method** & **Mean NME** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[PERSON]+ing [28]} & [PERSON] et al. [1] & 0.1272 \\ \cline{2-4}  & [PERSON] et al. [2] & 0.1214 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Our method & 0.0542 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Ready to love [29]} & [PERSON] et al. [1] & 0.2038 \\ \cline{2-4}  & [PERSON] et al. [2] & 0.1256 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Our method & 0.1087 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{God of Music [33]} & [PERSON] et al. [1] & 0.3086 \\ \cline{2-4}  & [PERSON] et al. [2] & 0.1441 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-4}  & Our method & 0.0880 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean NME by method. analyzed videos, the NME consistently followed the pattern: [PERSON] et al. [1] > [PERSON] et al. [2] > our method, suggesting that our method leads to higher morphological similarity. As shown in Table 4, the results of the Kruskal-Wallis H tests [34] indicated statistically significant differences in NME values among the three methods for all three songs (\(p<0.05\)). This justified the use of post hoc pairwise comparisons using the Mann-Whitney U test [35] with Bonferroni correction [36] (adjusted \(\alpha=0.05/3\approx 0.0167\)). In the case of \"Darl+ing\" [28], our method showed significantly lower NME than both [PERSON] et al. [1] and [PERSON] et al. [2] (\(p<0.001\)), whereas the difference between [PERSON] et al. [1] and [PERSON] et al. [2] was not significant (\(p=0.1720\)). For \"Ready to love\" [32], our method performed significantly better than [PERSON] et al. [1] (\(p=0.0118\)), while the comparison with [PERSON] et al. [2] did not reach the Bonferroni-adjusted significance threshold (\(p=0.2762\)). This lack of significance may be attributed to the smaller number of frame pairs identified in the \"Ready to love\" video, as shown in Table 2, which likely reduced the statistical power. The comparison between [PERSON] et al. [1] and [PERSON] et al. [2] was also statistically significant (\(p=0.0165\)). In \"God of Music\" [33], our method again showed significantly lower NME than both [PERSON] et al. [1] and [PERSON] et al. [2] (both \(p<0.001\)), and the difference between [PERSON] et al. [1] and [PERSON] et al. [2] was also significant (\(p=0.0066\)), meeting the Bonferroni-adjusted criterion. Therefore, we conclude that the method proposed in this study--identifying similar faces using head pose--is generally more effective than the methods proposed by [PERSON] et al. [1] and [PERSON] et al. [2], as it consistently yielded lower NME values with statistically significant differences in most cases. The only exception was the comparison between our method and [PERSON] et al. [2] in the \"Ready to love\" [32] video, which did not reach statistical significance, although it followed the same trend.