Why Aggregate Accuracy is Inadequate for Evaluating Fairness in Law Enforcement Facial Recognition Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28675v1
• Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:56:54 GMT
• Title: Why Aggregate Accuracy is Inadequate for Evaluating Fairness in Law Enforcement Facial Recognition Systems
• Abstract summary: This paper argues that aggregate accuracy is an insufficient metric for evaluating the fairness and reliability of facial recognition systems.<n> Empirical observations show that systems with similar overall accuracy can exhibit substantially different fairness profiles.<n>It highlights the importance of fairness-aware evaluation approaches and model-agnostic auditing strategies.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Facial recognition systems are increasingly deployed in law enforcement and security contexts, where algorithmic decisions can carry significant societal consequences. Despite high reported accuracy, growing evidence demonstrates that such systems often exhibit uneven performance across demographic groups, leading to disproportionate error rates and potential harm. This paper argues that aggregate accuracy is an insufficient metric for evaluating the fairness and reliability of facial recognition systems in high-stakes environments. Through analysis of subgroup-level error distribution, including false positive rate (FPR) and false negative rate (FNR), the paper demonstrates how aggregate performance metrics can obscure critical disparities across demographic groups. Empirical observations show that systems with similar overall accuracy can exhibit substantially different fairness profiles, with subgroup error rates varying significantly despite a single aggregate metric. The paper further examines the operational risks associated with accuracy-centric evaluation practices in law enforcement applications, where misclassification may result in wrongful suspicion or missed identification. It highlights the importance of fairness-aware evaluation approaches and model-agnostic auditing strategies that enable post-deployment assessment of real-world systems. The findings emphasise the need to move beyond accuracy as a primary metric and adopt more comprehensive evaluation frameworks for responsible AI deployment.

Related papers

• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• Discovery of Hidden Miscalibration Regimes [52.452902154360565]
  Models may be systematically overconfident on some kinds of inputs and underconfident on others.<n>We define the corresponding miscalibration field and propose a diagnostic framework for estimating it.<n>Our approach learns a calibration-aware representation of the input space and estimates signed local miscalibration by kernel smoothing in the learned geometry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T13:07:50Z)
• When Fairness Metrics Disagree: Evaluating the Reliability of Demographic Fairness Assessment in Machine Learning [0.0]
  We investigate the consistency of fairness evaluation by conducting a systematic multi-metric analysis of demographic bias in machine learning models.<n>Our results demonstrate that fairness assessments can vary significantly depending on the choice of metrics, leading to contradictory conclusions regarding model bias.<n>These findings highlight a critical limitation in current fairness evaluation practices and suggest that single-metric reporting is insufficient for reliable bias assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T14:07:37Z)
• Anterior's Approach to Fairness Evaluation of Automated Prior Authorization System [0.10195618602298682]
  We propose a fairness evaluation framework for prior authorization models based on model error rates rather than approval outcomes.<n>Using 7,166 human-reviewed cases spanning 27 medical necessity guidelines, we assessed consistency in sex, age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-15T22:05:24Z)
• Partial Identification Approach to Counterfactual Fairness Assessment [50.88100567472179]
  We introduce a Bayesian approach to bound unknown counterfactual fairness measures with high confidence.<n>Our results reveal a positive (spurious) effect on the COMPAS score when changing race to African-American (from all others) and a negative (direct causal) effect when transitioning from young to old age.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:35:08Z)
• Fair Deepfake Detectors Can Generalize [51.21167546843708]
  We show that controlling for confounders (data distribution and model capacity) enables improved generalization via fairness interventions.<n>Motivated by this insight, we propose Demographic Attribute-insensitive Intervention Detection (DAID), a plug-and-play framework composed of: i) Demographic-aware data rebalancing, which employs inverse-propensity weighting and subgroup-wise feature normalization to neutralize distributional biases; and ii) Demographic-agnostic feature aggregation, which uses a novel alignment loss to suppress sensitive-attribute signals.<n>DAID consistently achieves superior performance in both fairness and generalization compared to several state-of-the-art
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T14:10:02Z)
• Balancing Tails when Comparing Distributions: Comprehensive Equity Index (CEI) with Application to Bias Evaluation in Operational Face Biometrics [45.84303673987677]
  Comprehensive Equity Index (CEI) is a novel metric designed to detect demographic bias in face recognition systems.<n>Our experiments confirm CEI's superior ability to detect nuanced biases where previous methods fall short.<n>CEI provides a robust and sensitive tool for operational fairness assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T10:43:31Z)
• Understanding challenges to the interpretation of disaggregated evaluations of algorithmic fairness [49.35494016290887]
  We show that equal performance across subgroups is an unreliable measure of fairness when data are representative of relevant populations but reflective of real-world disparities.<n>Our framework suggests complementing disaggregated evaluations with explicit causal assumptions and analysis to control for confounding and distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T17:40:31Z)
• Mitigating Bias in Facial Recognition Systems: Centroid Fairness Loss Optimization [9.537960917804993]
  societal demand for fair AI systems has put pressure on the research community to develop predictive models that meet new fairness criteria.<n>In particular, the variability of the errors made by certain Facial Recognition (FR) systems across specific segments of the population compromises the deployment of the latter.<n>We propose a novel post-processing approach to improve the fairness of pre-trained FR models by optimizing a regression loss which acts on centroid-based scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-27T22:17:44Z)
• Free Lunch for Generating Effective Outlier Supervision [46.37464572099351]
  We propose an ultra-effective method to generate near-realistic outlier supervision. Our proposed textttBayesAug significantly reduces the false positive rate over 12.50% compared with the previous schemes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-17T01:46:45Z)
• Domain-Incremental Continual Learning for Mitigating Bias in Facial Expression and Action Unit Recognition [5.478764356647437]
  We propose the novel usage of Continual Learning (CL) as a potent bias mitigation method to enhance the fairness of FER systems. We compare different non-CL-based and CL-based methods for their classification accuracy and fairness scores on expression recognition and Action Unit (AU) detection tasks. Our experimental results show that CL-based methods, on average, outperform other popular bias mitigation techniques on both accuracy and fairness metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-15T18:22:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.