Cited by 24Face recognition and analysisEthics and Social Impacts of AIAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Enhancing Fairness in Face Detection in Computer Vision Systems by Demographic Bias Mitigation

Open access
Yang, Yu, Gupta, Aayush, Feng, Jianwei, Singhal, Prateek, Yadav, Vivek, Wu, Yue, Natarajan, Pradeep, Hedau, Varsha +1 more·2022·Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Abstract

Fairness has become an important agenda in computer vision and artificial intelligence. Recent studies have shown that many computer vision models and datasets exhibit demographic biases and proposed mitigation strategies. These works attempt to address accuracy disparity, spurious correlations, or unbalanced representations in datasets in tasks such as face recognition, verification and expression and attribute classification. These tasks, however, all require face detection as the first preprocessing step, and surprisingly, there has been little effort in identifying or mitigating biases in face detection. Biased face detectors themselves pose a threat against fair and ethical AI systems, and their biases may be further passed on to subsequent downstream tasks such as face recognition in a computer vision pipeline. This paper therefore investigates the problem of biases in face detection, focusing on accuracy disparity of detectors between demographic groups including gender, age group, and skin tone. We collect perceived demographic attributes on a popular face detection benchmark dataset, WIDER FACE, report skewed demographic distributions, and compare detection performance between groups. In order to mitigate the biases, we apply three mitigation methods that have been introduced in the recent literature and also propose two novel methods. Experimental results show that these methods are effective in reducing demographic biases. We also discuss how the effectiveness varies by demographic attributes, detection easiness, and multiple detectors, which will shed light on this new topic of addressing face detection bias.

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 · 10.1145/3514094.3534153

Cites

43 of 43 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Mohsan Alvi, Andrew Zisserman, and Christoffer Nellåker. 2018. Turning a blind eye: Explicit removal of biases and variation from deep neural network embeddings. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops. 0-0.
  2. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accu- racy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. PMLR, 77-91.
  3. Remi Cadene, Corentin Dancette, Matthieu Cord, Devi Parikh, et al. 2019. Rubi: Reducing unimodal biases for visual question answering. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019), 841-852.
  4. Abhijit Das, Antitza Dantcheva, and Francois Bremond. 2018. Mitigating bias in gender, age and ethnicity classification: a multi-task convolution neural network approach. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops. 0-0.
  5. Emily Denton, Ben Hutchinson, Margaret Mitchell, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Detecting bias with generative counterfactual face attribute augmentation. arXiv e-prints (2019), arXiv-1906.
  6. Ross Girshick. 2015. Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. 1440-1448.
  7. Alejandro Peña, Ignacio Serna, Aythami Morales, and Julian Fierrez. 2020. Bias in multimodal AI: Testbed for fair automatic recruitment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 28-29.
  8. Kate Saenko, Brian Kulis, Mario Fritz, and Trevor Darrell. 2010. Adapting visual category models to new domains. In European conference on computer vision. Springer, 213-226.
  9. Shuo Yang, Ping Luo, Chen Change Loy, and Xiaoou Tang. 2016. WIDER FACE: A Face Detection Benchmark. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, Y., Gupta, A., Feng, J., Singhal, P., Yadav, V., Wu, Y., Natarajan, P., Hedau, V., & Joo, J.
Affiliations
Amazon (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-07-26
Pages
813-822
ISSN
3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4288058270
Cited by
24
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4
FWCI
1.81
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
face detection, demographic bias, algorithmic fairness, bias mitigation, gender bias, age bias, skin tone, WIDER FACE

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