# Are Commercial Face Detection Models as Biased as Academic Models?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.10047 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.10047/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 47 of its 93 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Jan 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 47)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.11929/) (2020)
- [Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.03144/) (2016)
- [Fully Convolutional Networks for Semantic Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1411.4038/) (2014)
- [Going Deeper with Convolutions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.4842/) (2014)
- [SSD: Single Shot MultiBox Detector](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.02325/) (2015)
- [Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.12261/) (2019)
- [Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1311.2524/) (2013)
- [Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02413/) (2016)
- [Deformable Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.06211/) (2017)
- [Path Aggregation Network for Instance Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.01534/) (2018)
- [Spatial Pyramid Pooling in Deep Convolutional Networks for Visual Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1406.4729/) (2014)
- [Certifying and removing disparate impact](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.3756/) (2014)
- [A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.02453/) (2018)
- [Distance-IoU Loss: Faster and Better Learning for Bounding Box Regression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.08287/) (2019)
- [Age Progression/Regression by Conditional Adversarial Autoencoder](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08423/) (2017)
- [Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.08452/) (2016)
- [Learning Adversarially Fair and Transferable Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.06309/) (2018)
- [WIDER FACE: A Face Detection Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1511.06523/) (2015)
- [Data and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.05345/) (2020)
- [Towards Fairness in Visual Recognition: Effective Strategies for Bias Mitigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.11834/) (2019)
- [Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.13114/) (2020)
- [Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.08626/) (2018)
- [Censoring Representations with an Adversary](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1511.05897/) (2015)
- [Data Decisions and Theoretical Implications when Adversarially Learning Fair Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.00075/) (2017)
- [Minimax Pareto Fairness: A Multi Objective Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01821/) (2020)
- [Mitigate Bias in Face Recognition using Skewness-Aware Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.10692/) (2019)
- [S3FD: Single Shot Scale-invariant Face Detector](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.05237/) (2017)
- [The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.08810/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Racial Bias within Face Recognition: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.00817/) (2023)
- [Robustness Disparities in Face Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.15937/) (2022)
- [How Technology Impacts and Compares to Humans in Socially Consequential Arenas](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.03554/) (2022)

## 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.