REVIEW 4 cited by
Responsible AI: Gender bias assessment in emotion recognition
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Responsible AI: Gender bias assessment in emotion recognition
read the original abstract
Rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems amplify many concerns in society. These AI algorithms inherit different biases from humans due to mysterious operational flow and because of that it is becoming adverse in usage. As a result, researchers have started to address the issue by investigating deeper in the direction towards Responsible and Explainable AI. Among variety of applications of AI, facial expression recognition might not be the most important one, yet is considered as a valuable part of human-AI interaction. Evolution of facial expression recognition from the feature based methods to deep learning drastically improve quality of such algorithms. This research work aims to study a gender bias in deep learning methods for facial expression recognition by investigating six distinct neural networks, training them, and further analysed on the presence of bias, according to the three definition of fairness. The main outcomes show which models are gender biased, which are not and how gender of subject affects its emotion recognition. More biased neural networks show bigger accuracy gap in emotion recognition between male and female test sets. Furthermore, this trend keeps for true positive and false positive rates. In addition, due to the nature of the research, we can observe which types of emotions are better classified for men and which for women. Since the topic of biases in facial expression recognition is not well studied, a spectrum of continuation of this research is truly extensive, and may comprise detail analysis of state-of-the-art methods, as well as targeting other biases.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Unrequited Emotions: Investigating the Gaps in Motivation and Practice in Speech Emotion Recognition Research
Stated motivations in SER research for practical applications do not align with the datasets and emotions studied in practice.
-
FAIR_XAI: Improving Multimodal Foundation Model Fairness via Explainability for Wellbeing Assessment
Zero-shot vision-language models are unreliable and vary widely for depression screening, and explainability-based fairness interventions often trade away accuracy without reliable fairness gains.
-
Responsible AI: The Good, The Bad, The AI
The value-versus-responsibility tension in AI is paradoxical, so trade-off optimization amplifies tensions and governance should use acceptance, temporal/spatial separation, or integration strategies instead.
-
FAIR_XAI: Improving Multimodal Foundation Model Fairness via Explainability for Wellbeing Assessment
Vision-language models for wellbeing assessment exhibit dataset-dependent performance and demographic biases, with explainability interventions providing inconsistent fairness gains at potential accuracy costs.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.