Auditing Facial Emotion Recognition Datasets for Posed Expressions and Racial Bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facial expression recognition (FER) algorithms classify facial expressions into emotions such as happy, sad, or angry. An evaluative challenge facing FER algorithms is the fall in performance when detecting spontaneous expressions compared to posed expressions. An ethical (and evaluative) challenge facing FER algorithms is that they tend to perform poorly for people of some races and skin colors. These challenges are linked to the data collection practices employed in the creation of FER datasets. In this study, we audit two state-of-the-art FER datasets. We take random samples from each dataset and examine whether images are spontaneous or posed. In doing so, we propose a methodology for identifying spontaneous or posed images. We discover a significant number of images that were posed in the datasets purporting to consist of in-the-wild images. Since performance of FER models vary between spontaneous and posed images, the performance of models trained on these datasets will not represent the true performance if such models were to be deployed in in-the-wild applications. We also observe the skin color of individuals in the samples, and test three models trained on each of the datasets to predict facial expressions of people from various races and skin tones. We find that the FER models audited were more likely to predict people labeled as not white or determined to have dark skin as showing a negative emotion such as anger or sadness even when they were smiling. This bias makes such models prone to perpetuate harm in real life applications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".