mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Accuracy and Fairness of Facial Recognition Technology in Low-Quality Police Images: An Experiment With Synthetic Faces

arXiv 2505.14320 ↗First posted 20 May 2025cs.CV stat.APcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Facial recognition technology (FRT) is increasingly used in criminal investigations, yet most evaluations of its accuracy rely on high-quality images, unlike those often encountered by law enforcement. This study examines how five common forms of image degradation--contrast, brightness, motion blur, pose shift, and resolution--affect FRT accuracy and fairness across demographic groups. Using synthetic faces generated by StyleGAN3 and labeled with FairFace, we simulate degraded images and evaluate performance using Deepface with ArcFace loss in 1:n identification tasks. We perform an experiment and find that false positive rates peak near baseline image quality, while false negatives increase as degradation intensifies--especially with blur and low resolution. Error rates are consistently higher for women and Black individuals, with Black females most affected. These disparities raise concerns about fairness and reliability when FRT is used in real-world investigative contexts. Nevertheless, even under the most challenging conditions and for the most affected subgroups, FRT accuracy remains substantially higher than that of many traditional forensic methods. This suggests that, if appropriately validated and regulated, FRT should be considered a valuable investigative tool. However, algorithmic accuracy alone is not sufficient: we must also evaluate how FRT is used in practice, including user-driven data manipulation. Such cases underscore the need for transparency and oversight in FRT deployment to ensure both fairness and forensic validity.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2025.

Builds on

14 of 53 references.

References · 14

  1. 2018A Style-Based Generator Architecture for Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 6,013
  2. 2021Alias-Free Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 1,184
  3. 2019Interpreting the Latent Space of GANs for Semantic Face Editingcited by 695
  4. 2019Accuracy comparison across face recognition algorithms: Where are we on measuring race bias?cited by 56
  5. 2022Third Time's the Charm? Image and Video Editing with StyleGAN3cited by 54
  6. 2023GANDiffFace: Controllable Generation of Synthetic Datasets for Face Recognition with Realistic Variationscited by 49
  7. 2022Studying Bias in GANs through the Lens of Racecited by 31
  8. 2023Benchmarking Algorithmic Bias in Face Recognition: An Experimental Approach Using Synthetic Faces and Human Evaluationcited by 25
  9. 2023FRCSyn Challenge at WACV 2024:Face Recognition Challenge in the Era of Synthetic Datacited by 21
  10. 2022Evaluating Proposed Fairness Models for Face Recognition Algorithmscited by 18
  11. 2021Pixel-Level Face Image Quality Assessment for Explainable Face Recognitioncited by 14
  12. 2020Quantifying the Extent to Which Race and Gender Features Determine Identity in Commercial Face Recognition Algorithmscited by 5
2 more
  1. 2024The Impact of Balancing Real and Synthetic Data on Accuracy and Fairness in Face Recognitioncited by 3
  2. 2024Examining Pathological Bias in a Generative Adversarial Network Discriminator: A Case Study on a StyleGAN3 Modelcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.