Cited by 92Face recognition and analysisFace and Expression RecognitionFace Recognition and Perception

Mitigating face recognition bias via group adaptive classifier

Open access
Gong, Sixue, Liu, Xiaoming, Jain, Anil K.·2021·2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

Face recognition is known to exhibit bias - subjects in a certain demographic group can be better recognized than other groups. This work aims to learn a fair face representation, where faces of every group could be more equally represented. Our proposed group adaptive classifier mitigates bias by using adaptive convolution kernels and attention mechanisms on faces based on their demographic attributes. The adaptive module comprises kernel masks and channel-wise attention maps for each demographic group so as to activate different facial regions for identification, leading to more discriminative features pertinent to their demographics. Our introduced automated adaptation strategy determines whether to apply adaptation to a certain layer by iteratively computing the dissimilarity among demographic-adaptive parameters. A new de-biasing loss function is proposed to mitigate the gap of average intra-class distance between demographic groups. Experiments on face benchmarks (RFW, LFW, IJB-A, and IJB-C) show that our work is able to mitigate face recognition bias across demographic groups while maintaining the competitive accuracy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.00342

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some representatives develop training strategies to balance performance between groups.

    “Representatives either develop training strategies to balance performance between groups [26] or extract features that are invariant across groups [83].”

    From Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices (2023) · cites this paper as [26]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Alexei A Bastidas and Hanlin Tang. Channel attention net- works. In CVPR Workshops, 2019. 3
  2. Michael P Kim, Amirata Ghorbani, and James Zou. Multiac- curacy: Black-box post-processing for fairness in classifica- tion. In AAAI/ACM, 2019. 2
  3. Dong Yi, Zhen Lei, Shengcai Liao, and Stan Z Li. Learning face representation from scratch. arXiv:1411.7923, 2014. 1 · arXiv
  4. Jingchun Cheng, Yali Li, Jilong Wang, Le Yu, and Shengjin Wang. Exploiting effective facial patches for robust gender recognition. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 24(3):333- 345, 2019. 2
  5. Sixue Gong, Xiaoming Liu, and Anil K Jain. Jointly de- biasing face recognition and demographic attribute estimation. ECCV, 2020. 1
  6. Yandong Guo, Lei Zhang, Yuxiao Hu, Xiaodong He, and Jianfeng Gao. Ms-celeb-1m: A dataset and benchmark for large-scale face recognition. In ECCV, 2016. 2
  7. Brendan F Klare, Ben Klein, Emma Taborsky, Austin Blanton, Jordan Cheney, Kristen Allen, Patrick Grother, Alan Mah, and Anil K Jain. Pushing the frontiers of unconstrained face detection and recognition: Iarpa janus benchmark a. In CVPR, 2015. 2
  8. Zhenxing Niu, Mo Zhou, Le Wang, Xinbo Gao, and Gang Hua. Ordinal regression with multiple output cnn for age estimation. In CVPR, 2016. 2
  9. Rasmus Rothe, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Deep expectation of real and apparent age from a single image without facial landmarks. IJCV, 2018. 2
  10. Mei Wang, Weihong Deng, Jiani Hu, Xunqiang Tao, and Yaohai Huang. Racial faces in the wild: Reducing racial bias by information maximization adaptation network. In ICCV, 2019. 1, 2
  11. Zhifei Zhang, Yang Song, and Hairong Qi. Age progres- sion/regression by conditional adversarial autoencoder. In CVPR, 2017. 2

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gong, S., Liu, X., & Jain, A. K.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Venue
2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2021-06
Pages
3413-3423
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3035057071
Cited by
92
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 2
FWCI
6.13
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Commerce
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face and Expression Recognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
demographic bias, channel attention, demographic factors, intra-class distance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review