mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Exploring Disparity-Accuracy Trade-offs in Face Recognition Systems: The Role of Datasets, Architectures, and Loss Functions

arXiv 2503.14138 ↗First posted 18 Mar 2025cs.CV cs.AI cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Automated Face Recognition Systems (FRSs), developed using deep learning models, are deployed worldwide for identity verification and facial attribute analysis. The performance of these models is determined by a complex interdependence among the model architecture, optimization/loss function and datasets. Although FRSs have surpassed human-level accuracy, they continue to be disparate against certain demographics. Due to the ubiquity of applications, it is extremely important to understand the impact of the three components -- model architecture, loss function and face image dataset on the accuracy-disparity trade-off to design better, unbiased platforms. In this work, we perform an in-depth analysis of three FRSs for the task of gender prediction, with various architectural modifications resulting in ten deep-learning models coupled with four loss functions and benchmark them on seven face datasets across 266 evaluation configurations. Our results show that all three components have an individual as well as a combined impact on both accuracy and disparity. We identify that datasets have an inherent property that causes them to perform similarly across models, independent of the choice of loss functions. Moreover, the choice of dataset determines the model's perceived bias -- the same model reports bias in opposite directions for three gender-balanced datasets of ``in-the-wild'' face images of popular individuals. Studying the facial embeddings shows that the models are unable to generalize a uniform definition of what constitutes a ``female face'' as opposed to a ``male face'', due to dataset diversity. We provide recommendations to model developers on using our study as a blueprint for model development and subsequent deployment.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Mar 2025.

Builds on

18 of 54 references.

References · 18

  1. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  2. 2014Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wildcited by 3,693
  3. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
  4. 2023InstructBLIP: Towards General-purpose Vision-Language Models with Instruction Tuningcited by 2,876
  5. 2015FaceNet: A Unified Embedding for Face Recognition and Clusteringcited by 2,849
  6. 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
  7. 2018CosFace: Large Margin Cosine Loss for Deep Face Recognitioncited by 971
  8. 2022EVA: Exploring the Limits of Masked Visual Representation Learning at Scalecited by 691
  9. 2020Saving Face: Investigating the Ethical Concerns of Facial Recognition Auditingcited by 89
  10. 2023The SSL Interplay: Augmentations, Inductive Bias, and Generalizationcited by 40
  11. 2023TransFace++: Rethinking the Face Recognition Paradigm with a Focus on Accuracy, Efficiency, and Securitycited by 22
  12. 2016Supervised Transformer Network for Efficient Face Detectioncited by 14
6 more
  1. 2021On the interplay between data structure and loss function in classification problemscited by 13
  2. 2022A Deep Dive into Dataset Imbalance and Bias in Face Identificationcited by 11
  3. 2017Who Makes Trends? Understanding Demographic Biases in Crowdsourced Recommendationscited by 3
  4. 2017Linguistic Diversities of Demographic Groups in Twittercited by 3
  5. 2017White, Man, and Highly Followed: Gender and Race Inequalities in Twittercited by 3
  6. 2024Breaking the Global North Stereotype: A Global South-centric Benchmark Dataset for Auditing and Mitigating Biases in Facial Recognition Systemscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.