mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Architectural Bias in Face Presentation Attack Detection: A Comparative Study of Vision Transformers and Convolutional Neural Networks

arXiv 2606.18510 ↗First posted 16 Jun 2026cs.CV cs.CRcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Face Presentation Attack Detection (PAD) systems constitute a critical security layer in biometric authentication; however, existing approaches exhibit systematic performance disparities across demographic groups, disproportionately affecting individuals with darker skin tones. This paper presents a comparative empirical investigation of whether Vision Transformer architectures reduce demographic bias in face PAD systems relative to convolutional baselines. Experiments are conducted on the CASIA-SURF Cross-Ethnicity Face Anti-Spoofing (CeFA) dataset. Three architectures are evaluated: a Multimodal ViT-Tiny trained from scratch, a ResNet18 CNN baseline, and a pretrained DeiT-S fine-tuned on CeFA across African, East Asian, and zero-shot Central Asian demographic groups. DeiT-S achieves the highest overall accuracy of 97.27% and the lowest EER of 0.86%, outperforming ResNet18 at 90.15% accuracy. In terms of fairness, DeiT-S reduces the inter-ethnic ACER gap between African and East Asian subjects to 0.13%, compared to 0.75% reported in an LBP-based work [6], representing an 83% reduction. Most notably, while ResNet18 records a BPCER of 10.44% on zero-shot Central Asian subjects, DeiT-S maintains 2.89% on the same unseen group, demonstrating a 3.6x generalization advantage. These results suggest that pretrained Vision Transformers achieve superior PAD accuracy, produce smaller demographic performance gaps, and generalize more equitably across unseen demographic groups, indicating that cross-demographic fairness in PAD may partly be influenced by architectural design.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jun 2026.

Builds on

15 of 23 references.

References · 15

  1. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
  2. 2020Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attentioncited by 4,560
  3. 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,430
  4. 2021Intriguing Properties of Vision Transformerscited by 446
  5. 2020CASIA-SURF CeFA: A Benchmark for Multi-modal Cross-ethnicity Face Anti-spoofingcited by 66
  6. 2020On the Effectiveness of Vision Transformers for Zero-shot Face Anti-Spoofingcited by 44
  7. 2022Rethinking Bias Mitigation: Fairer Architectures Make for Fairer Face Recognitioncited by 26
  8. 2023FM-ViT: Flexible Modal Vision Transformers for Face Anti-Spoofingcited by 22
  9. 2022Fairness in Face Presentation Attack Detectioncited by 13
  10. 2021Introduction to Presentation Attack Detection in Face Biometrics and Recent Advancescited by 11
  11. 2023S-Adapter: Generalizing Vision Transformer for Face Anti-Spoofing with Statistical Tokenscited by 11
  12. 2020Can Your Face Detector Do Anti-spoofing? Face Presentation Attack Detection with a Multi-Channel Face Detectorcited by 7
3 more
  1. 2025Review of Demographic Fairness in Face Recognitioncited by 7
  2. 2025Faces of Fairness: Examining Bias in Facial Expression Recognition Datasets and Modelscited by 6
  3. 2023Robust face anti-spoofing framework with Convolutional Vision Transformercited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.