Are Commercial Face Detection Models as Biased as Academic Models?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As facial recognition systems are deployed more widely, scholars and activists have studied their biases and harms. Audits are commonly used to accomplish this and compare the algorithmic facial recognition systems' performance against datasets with various metadata labels about the subjects of the images. Seminal works have found discrepancies in performance by gender expression, age, perceived race, skin type, etc. These studies and audits often examine algorithms which fall into two categories: academic models or commercial models. We present a detailed comparison between academic and commercial face detection systems, specifically examining robustness to noise. We find that state-of-the-art academic face detection models exhibit demographic disparities in their noise robustness, specifically by having statistically significant decreased performance on older individuals and those who present their gender in a masculine manner. When we compare the size of these disparities to that of commercial models, we conclude that commercial models - in contrast to their relatively larger development budget and industry-level fairness commitments - are always as biased or more biased than an academic model.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 47 of its 93 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jan 2022.
Builds on
47 of 93 references.
References · 47
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
- 2016Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detectioncited by 5,021
- 2014Fully Convolutional Networks for Semantic Segmentationcited by 4,845
- 2014Going Deeper with Convolutionscited by 4,231
- 2015SSD: Single Shot MultiBox Detectorcited by 3,125
- 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,857
- 2013Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentationcited by 2,160
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2017Deformable Convolutional Networkscited by 1,481
- 2018Path Aggregation Network for Instance Segmentationcited by 796
35 more
- 2014Spatial Pyramid Pooling in Deep Convolutional Networks for Visual Recognitioncited by 719
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
- 2019Distance-IoU Loss: Faster and Better Learning for Bounding Box Regressioncited by 454
- 2017Age Progression/Regression by Conditional Adversarial Autoencodercited by 426
- 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 368
- 2018Learning Adversarially Fair and Transferable Representationscited by 353
- 2015WIDER FACE: A Face Detection Benchmarkcited by 297
- 2020Data and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning researchcited by 259
- 2019Towards Fairness in Visual Recognition: Effective Strategies for Bias Mitigationcited by 252
- 2020Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted Learningcited by 251
- 2018Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraintscited by 226
- 2015Censoring Representations with an Adversarycited by 191
- 2017Data Decisions and Theoretical Implications when Adversarially Learning Fair Representationscited by 165
- 2020Minimax Pareto Fairness: A Multi Objective Perspectivecited by 152
- 2019Mitigate Bias in Face Recognition using Skewness-Aware Reinforcement Learningcited by 145
- 2017S3FD: Single Shot Scale-invariant Face Detectorcited by 142
- 2018The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 139
- 2017Focusing Attention: Towards Accurate Text Recognition in Natural Imagescited by 110
- 2017Wing Loss for Robust Facial Landmark Localisation with Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 108
- 2021LowKey: Leveraging Adversarial Attacks to Protect Social Media Users from Facial Recognitioncited by 92
- 2021Towards Measuring Fairness in AI: the Casual Conversations Datasetcited by 80
- 2021Mitigating Dataset Harms Requires Stewardship: Lessons from 1000 Paperscited by 49
- 2021A Step Toward More Inclusive People Annotations for Fairnesscited by 46
- 2021YOLO5Face: Why Reinventing a Face Detectorcited by 44
- 2018FNNC: Achieving Fairness through Neural Networkscited by 43
- 2017Google's Cloud Vision API Is Not Robust To Noisecited by 37
- 2019IoU-aware Single-stage Object Detector for Accurate Localizationcited by 36
- 2020TinaFace: Strong but Simple Baseline for Face Detectioncited by 30
- 2020Intra-Processing Methods for Debiasing Neural Networkscited by 27
- 2021Rethinking Common Assumptions to Mitigate Racial Bias in Face Recognition Datasetscited by 22
- 2020On the Robustness of Face Recognition Algorithms Against Attacks and Biascited by 16
- 2021Robustness Disparities in Commercial Face Detectioncited by 11
- 2021Going Deeper Into Face Detection: A Surveycited by 10
- 2021MogFace: Towards a Deeper Appreciation on Face Detectioncited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 1.
3 papers.
- 2023Racial Bias within Face Recognition: A Surveycited by 9
- 2022Robustness Disparities in Face Detectioncited by 5
- 2022How Technology Impacts and Compares to Humans in Socially Consequential Arenascited by 0
- 2023Racial Bias within Face Recognition: A Survey1 May 2023
- 2022Robustness Disparities in Face Detection29 Nov 2022
- 2022How Technology Impacts and Compares to Humans in Socially Consequential Arenas2 Nov 2022