Toward Fair Facial Expression Recognition with Improved Distribution Alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a novel approach to mitigate bias in facial expression recognition (FER) models. Our method aims to reduce sensitive attribute information such as gender, age, or race, in the embeddings produced by FER models. We employ a kernel mean shrinkage estimator to estimate the kernel mean of the distributions of the embeddings associated with different sensitive attribute groups, such as young and old, in the Hilbert space. Using this estimation, we calculate the maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) distance between the distributions and incorporate it in the classifier loss along with an adversarial loss, which is then minimized through the learning process to improve the distribution alignment. Our method makes sensitive attributes less recognizable for the model, which in turn promotes fairness. Additionally, for the first time, we analyze the notion of attractiveness as an important sensitive attribute in FER models and demonstrate that FER models can indeed exhibit biases towards more attractive faces. To prove the efficacy of our model in reducing bias regarding different sensitive attributes (including the newly proposed attractiveness attribute), we perform several experiments on two widely used datasets, CelebA and RAF-DB. The results in terms of both accuracy and fairness measures outperform the state-of-the-art in most cases, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".