Investigating Bias and Fairness in Appearance-based Gaze Estimation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10707v1
• Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2026 16:04:38 GMT
• Title: Investigating Bias and Fairness in Appearance-based Gaze Estimation
• Abstract summary: appearance-based gaze estimation has achieved significant improvements in accuracy and domain adaptation.<n>There is no comprehensive benchmark algorithmic bias in gaze estimation.<n>This paper presents the first extensive evaluation of fairness in appearance-based gaze estimation.
• Score: 9.634859579172254
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: While appearance-based gaze estimation has achieved significant improvements in accuracy and domain adaptation, the fairness of these systems across different demographic groups remains largely unexplored. To date, there is no comprehensive benchmark quantifying algorithmic bias in gaze estimation. This paper presents the first extensive evaluation of fairness in appearance-based gaze estimation, focusing on ethnicity and gender attributes. We establish a fairness baseline by analyzing state-of-the-art models using standard fairness metrics, revealing significant performance disparities. Furthermore, we evaluate the effectiveness of existing bias mitigation strategies when applied to the gaze domain and show that their fairness contributions are limited. We summarize key insights and open issues. Overall, our work calls for research into developing robust, equitable gaze estimators. To support future research and reproducibility, we publicly release our annotations, code, and trained models at: github.com/akgulburak/gaze-estimation-fairness

Related papers

• HoloFair: Unified T2I Fairness Evaluation and Fair-GRPO Debiasing [20.795940054868854]
  Existing evaluation methods address only single-dimensional biases.<n>We introduce HoloFair, a comprehensive benchmark framework for multidimensional demographic bias analysis.<n>We also introduce Fair-GRPO, a reinforcement-learning-based debiasing method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T17:52:07Z)
• 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)
• Testing Fairness with Utility Tradeoffs: A Wasserstein Projection Approach [6.378410364292642]
  We propose a statistical hypothesis testing framework that jointly evaluates approximate fairness and utility.<n>Our framework builds on the strong demographic parity criterion and incorporates a utility measure motivated by the potential outcomes framework.<n>We show that the test is computationally tractable, interpretable, broadly applicable across machine learning models, and extendable to more general settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T20:29:06Z)
• seeBias: A Comprehensive Tool for Assessing and Visualizing AI Fairness [14.36364087809195]
  seeBias is an R package for comprehensive evaluation of model fairness and predictive performance.<n>We show how seeBias supports fairness evaluations, and uncovers disparities that conventional fairness metrics may overlook.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T10:23:10Z)
• Does RAG Introduce Unfairness in LLMs? Evaluating Fairness in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems [18.926129063000264]
  We aim to empirically evaluate fairness in several Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) methods.<n>Our experimental results indicate that, despite recent advances in utility-driven optimization, fairness issues persist in both the retrieval and generation stages.<n>These findings underscore the need for targeted interventions to address fairness concerns throughout the RAG pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T22:04:26Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Thinking Racial Bias in Fair Forgery Detection: Models, Datasets and Evaluations [63.52709761339949]
  We first contribute a dedicated dataset called the Fair Forgery Detection (FairFD) dataset, where we prove the racial bias of public state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods.<n>We design novel metrics including Approach Averaged Metric and Utility Regularized Metric, which can avoid deceptive results.<n>We also present an effective and robust post-processing technique, Bias Pruning with Fair Activations (BPFA), which improves fairness without requiring retraining or weight updates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T14:53:18Z)
• Fairness meets Cross-Domain Learning: a new perspective on Models and Metrics [80.07271410743806]
  We study the relationship between cross-domain learning (CD) and model fairness. We introduce a benchmark on face and medical images spanning several demographic groups as well as classification and localization tasks. Our study covers 14 CD approaches alongside three state-of-the-art fairness algorithms and shows how the former can outperform the latter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-25T09:34:05Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• Through the Data Management Lens: Experimental Analysis and Evaluation of Fair Classification [75.49600684537117]
  Data management research is showing an increasing presence and interest in topics related to data and algorithmic fairness. We contribute a broad analysis of 13 fair classification approaches and additional variants, over their correctness, fairness, efficiency, scalability, and stability. Our analysis highlights novel insights on the impact of different metrics and high-level approach characteristics on different aspects of performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-18T22:55:40Z)

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.