mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

CIFA: Contextual-Intersectional Fairness Auditing for Hidden Subgroup Discovery in Face Analysis

arXiv 2608.09669 ↗First posted 10 Aug 2026cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Fairness evaluation in computer vision commonly relies on aggregate accuracy and demographic subgroup analysis. However, visual models are also sensitive to contextual factors such as illumination, blur, image quality, facial accessories, and appearance attributes. These factors may interact with demographic characteristics, producing hidden subgroups in which performance degrades substantially despite strong aggregate accuracy and apparently acceptable demographic fairness. To address this, we propose the Contextual-Intersectional Fairness Auditing Framework (CIFA), a structured framework for identifying subgroup vulnerabilities arising from interactions between demographic and contextual attributes. CIFA performs demographic, contextual, and contextual-intersectional auditing, followed by worst-group discovery to identify and rank the most vulnerable attribute combinations. We evaluate CIFA on gender classification using ResNet-50 citehe2016deep and ViT-B/16 citedosovitskiy2020image across FairFace citeKarkkainen2021, CelebA citeLiu2015, and UTKFace citeZhang2017. Our results show that aggregate accuracy and demographic-only evaluation can mask substantial contextual-intersectional disparities. We further assess several established mitigation strategies through an audit--mitigate--reaudit protocol and find that, although some worst-group disparities are reduced, no single strategy consistently eliminates them across datasets and architectures. These findings establish contextual-intersectional auditing as an important component of fairness evaluation and provide a reproducible framework for discovering, prioritizing, and reassessing hidden subgroup risks in face analysis systems.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Aug 2026.

Builds on

13 of 33 references.

References · 13

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
  3. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
  4. 2014Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wildcited by 3,679
  5. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  6. 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
  7. 2019Distributionally Robust Neural Networks for Group Shifts: On the Importance of Regularization for Worst-Case Generalizationcited by 1,232
  8. 2018Recognition in Terra Incognitacited by 655
  9. 2017Age Progression/Regression by Conditional Adversarial Autoencodercited by 426
  10. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
  11. 2019Hidden Stratification Causes Clinically Meaningful Failures in Machine Learning for Medical Imagingcited by 215
  12. 2023FACET: Fairness in Computer Vision Evaluation Benchmarkcited by 58
1 more
  1. 2024Fairness and Bias Mitigation in Computer Vision: A Surveycited by 12

Built on by

Not cited yet.