mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Faces of Fairness: Examining Bias in Facial Expression Recognition Datasets and Models

arXiv 2502.11049 ↗First posted 16 Feb 2025cs.CVcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Automated Facial Expression Recognition (FER), involves two critical aspects: data and model design. Both significantly influence bias and fairness in FER tasks. However, issues related to bias and fairness in FER datasets and models remain underexplored. This study investigates bias and fairness in FER datasets and models. The bias of four common in-the-wild FER datasets, including AffectNet, ExpW, Fer2013, and RAF-DB, is studied. Additionally, this research evaluates the bias and fairness of seven deep models, including three generic CNN models: MobileNet, ResNet, XceptionNet, as well as two popular Transformer-based models: ViT and CLIP, plus two FER-specific state-of-the-art models: POSTER and CEPrompt. Unlike prior studies that examine only limited aspects of bias, our work introduces a unified evaluation framework for FER that integrates five existing and two newly proposed dataset metrics with four fairness criteria for model analysis. We further introduce two new metrics, Conditional-Entropy Bias Index and Concentration Index, designed to quantify conditional dependencies and intra-group data imbalance that existing measures fail to capture. Our results show that all four datasets carry significant demographic bias, most notably in race, with AffectNet exhibiting the highest overall bias and Fer2013 the lowest. At the model level, we find that residual-based CNN architectures (ResNet and XceptionNet) exhibit the lowest overall bias, whereas Transformer-based models (ViT and CLIP) exhibit the highest, despite often achieving comparable or superior accuracy. These findings demonstrate that high predictive accuracy does not guarantee fairness, and that dataset-level and model-level bias must be addressed jointly rather than in isolation.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 38 of its 86 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Feb 2025.

Builds on

38 of 86 references.

References · 38

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  3. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
  4. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  5. 2017MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applicationscited by 3,827
  6. 2016Xception: Deep Learning with Depthwise Separable Convolutionscited by 2,320
  7. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  8. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  9. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
  10. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  11. 2016TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systemscited by 660
  12. 2017AffectNet: A Database for Facial Expression, Valence, and Arousal Computing in the Wildcited by 490
26 more
  1. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  2. 2013Challenges in Representation Learning: A report on three machine learning contestscited by 301
  3. 2020Investigating Bias and Fairness in Facial Expression Recognitioncited by 87
  4. 2021A Comprehensive Study on Face Recognition Biases Beyond Demographicscited by 86
  5. 2023Fairness And Bias in Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Survey of Sources, Impacts, And Mitigation Strategiescited by 83
  6. 2020The Conditional Entropy Bottleneckcited by 75
  7. 2016From Facial Expression Recognition to Interpersonal Relation Predictioncited by 53
  8. 2021Understanding and Mitigating Annotation Bias in Facial Expression Recognitioncited by 50
  9. 2022POSTER: A Pyramid Cross-Fusion Transformer Network for Facial Expression Recognitioncited by 49
  10. 2022Rethinking Bias Mitigation: Fairer Architectures Make for Fairer Face Recognitioncited by 26
  11. 2019A Deeper Look at Facial Expression Dataset Biascited by 25
  12. 2022Potential sources of dataset bias complicate investigation of underdiagnosis by machine learning algorithmscited by 19
  13. 2021Anatomizing Bias in Facial Analysiscited by 18
  14. 2024Enhancing Zero-Shot Facial Expression Recognition by LLM Knowledge Transfercited by 18
  15. 2020Uncovering the Bias in Facial Expressionscited by 12
  16. 2023Metrics for Dataset Demographic Bias: A Case Study on Facial Expression Recognitioncited by 12
  17. 2023Bias and Diversity in Synthetic-based Face Recognitioncited by 11
  18. 2022Towards A Holistic View of Bias in Machine Learning: Bridging Algorithmic Fairness and Imbalanced Learningcited by 10
  19. 2020Local Convolutions Cause an Implicit Bias towards High Frequency Adversarial Examplescited by 9
  20. 2022Assessing Demographic Bias Transfer from Dataset to Model: A Case Study in Facial Expression Recognitioncited by 9
  21. 2022Gender Stereotyping Impact in Facial Expression Recognitioncited by 8
  22. 2024AffectNet+: A Database for Enhancing Facial Expression Recognition with Soft-Labelscited by 8
  23. 2024Less can be more: representational vs. stereotypical gender bias in facial expression recognitioncited by 5
  24. 2024Exploring Vision Language Models for Facial Attribute Recognition: Emotion, Race, Gender, and Agecited by 4
  25. 2023Linking convolutional kernel size to generalization bias in face analysis CNNscited by 1
  26. 2023Mitigating Algorithmic Bias on Facial Expression Recognitioncited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.

6 papers.