mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Impact of Blur and Resolution on Demographic Disparities in 1-to-Many Facial Identification

arXiv 2309.04447 ↗First posted 8 Sep 2023cs.CV cs.CYcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Most studies to date that have examined demographic variations in face recognition accuracy have analyzed 1-to-1 matching accuracy, using images that could be described as "government ID quality". This paper analyzes the accuracy of 1-to-many facial identification across demographic groups, and in the presence of blur and reduced resolution in the probe image as might occur in "surveillance camera quality" images. Cumulative match characteristic curves (CMC) are not appropriate for comparing propensity for rank-one recognition errors across demographics, and so we use three metrics for our analysis: (1) the well-known d' metric between mated and non-mated score distributions, and introduced in this work, (2) absolute score difference between thresholds in the high-similarity tail of the non-mated and the low-similarity tail of the mated distribution, and (3) distribution of (mated - non-mated rank-one scores) across the set of probe images. We find that demographic variation in 1-to-many accuracy does not entirely follow what has been observed in 1-to-1 matching accuracy. Also, different from 1-to-1 accuracy, demographic comparison of 1-to-many accuracy can be affected by different numbers of identities and images across demographics. More importantly, we show that increased blur in the probe image, or reduced resolution of the face in the probe image, can significantly increase the false positive identification rate. And we show that the demographic variation in these high blur or low resolution conditions is much larger for male / female than for African-American / Caucasian. The point that 1-to-many accuracy can potentially collapse in the context of processing "surveillance camera quality" probe images against a "government ID quality" gallery is an important one.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Sep 2023.

Builds on

14 of 28 references.

References · 14

  1. 2022AdaFace: Quality Adaptive Margin for Face Recognitioncited by 390
  2. 2021MagFace: A Universal Representation for Face Recognition and Quality Assessmentcited by 332
  3. 2020Partial FC: Training 10 Million Identities on a Single Machinecited by 163
  4. 2020Demographic Bias in Biometrics: A Survey on an Emerging Challengecited by 93
  5. 2020img2pose: Face Alignment and Detection via 6DoF, Face Pose Estimationcited by 57
  6. 2020Analysis of Gender Inequality In Face Recognition Accuracycited by 47
  7. 2019Characterizing the Variability in Face Recognition Accuracy Relative to Racecited by 40
  8. 2020How Does Gender Balance In Training Data Affect Face Recognition Accuracy?cited by 37
  9. 2021Gendered Differences in Face Recognition Accuracy Explained by Hairstyles, Makeup, and Facial Morphologycited by 32
  10. 2022Face Recognition Accuracy Across Demographics: Shining a Light Into the Problemcited by 24
  11. 2020Is Face Recognition Sexist? No, Gendered Hairstyles and Biology Arecited by 23
  12. 2019Does Face Recognition Accuracy Get Better With Age? Deep Face Matchers Say Nocited by 16
2 more
  1. 2022The Gender Gap in Face Recognition Accuracy Is a Hairy Problemcited by 15
  2. 2023Logical Consistency and Greater Descriptive Power for Facial Hair Attribute Learningcited by 15

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

5 papers.