CIFA: Contextual-Intersectional Fairness Auditing for Hidden Subgroup Discovery in Face Analysis

Kamal Nasrollahi; Khalid Adnan Alsayed; Nazia Aslam; Thomas B. Moeslund

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

CIFA: Contextual-Intersectional Fairness Auditing for Hidden Subgroup Discovery in Face Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read CIFA claims that face-analysis fairness audits checking only aggregate and demographic accuracy will miss the worst contextual-intersectional subgroups, which can fall more than 26 percentage points below overall accuracy.

desk verdict Useful audit framework, but the headline worst-group gaps are single-seed point estimates built on an unspecified minimum group size. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09669 v1 pith:RLQITM4S submitted 2026-08-10 cs.CV

Nazia Aslam , Khalid Adnan Alsayed , Thomas B. Moeslund , Kamal Nasrollahi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords fairnessauditingcontextualbiasintersectionalhiddensubgroupdiscoveryworst-groupaccuracyfaceanalysisgenderclassificationaudit-mitigate-reaudit

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that fairness evaluations of face-analysis models that check only aggregate accuracy and demographic subgroups will miss the worst failures. It proposes CIFA, a framework that audits demographic, contextual, and contextual-intersectional subgroups, then ranks groups by the gap between aggregate accuracy and each subgroup's accuracy. Experiments on gender classification with two model families and three face datasets find worst-group accuracy gaps up to 26.43 percentage points despite overall accuracy above 92 percent. A re-audit after mitigation shows that several strategies shrink some worst-group disparities, but none consistently eliminates them, so hidden-subgroup auditing needs to be part of standard fairness evaluation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the contextual-intersectional subgroup $g=(a,c)$, formed by intersecting demographic attributes (race, gender, age) with contextual attributes (illumination, image quality, blur, facial accessories). The argument is carried by a small set of metrics: group accuracy $A_g$, the overall-to-group gap $\Delta_g = A_{\text{all}} - A_g$, the worst-group accuracy $A_{\text{worst}} = \min_{g \in G_r} A_g$, and the standard deviation of group accuracies $\sigma_G$, all computed only over reliable groups with $|D_g| \ge m$. These definitions make the hidden-failure claim measurable and reusable across the audit-mitigate-re-audit loop, so that the same subgroups are checked before and after mitigation.

What would settle it

Recompute every reported worst-group gap while sweeping the minimum group size $m$ from 1 up to 100 and report the sample size of the worst group at each threshold; if the largest gap collapses to a few points once $m$ is reasonable, the hidden-subgroup failure claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that contextual-intersectional subgroups, combinations like race with age and illumination with image quality, are where failures concentrate. CIFA computes group accuracy $A_g$ for demographic, contextual, and contextual-intersectional groups, defines the overall-to-group gap $\Delta_g = A_{\text{all}} - A_g$, and identifies the worst reliable group $A_{\text{worst}} = \min_{g \in G_r} A_g$. The paper reports that on UTKFace with ResNet-50, overall accuracy is 92.34 percent while the worst reliable contextual-intersectional subgroup reaches only 65.91 percent, a gap of 26.43 percentage points; FairFace shows gaps above 21 points for both architectures; and applying the same group definitions after mitigation reduces some gaps but leaves no single strategy consistently effective. The claim, in one sentence, is that aggregate and demographic-only evaluation can conceal these hidden failures.

Load-bearing premise

The empirical claim rests on an unstated reliability threshold: worst-group statistics are reported only for groups with at least $m$ samples, and $m$ is never specified, so the headline 26.43-point gap could be an artifact of a few noisy images in a tiny worst group rather than a systematic failure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Fairness evaluation of face-analysis models should include contextual-intersectional auditing, not just aggregate and demographic accuracy.
A model that looks fair demographically can still have a worst-group accuracy gap above 20 percentage points on FairFace and UTKFace.
Mitigation strategies should be verified by re-auditing the original subgroup definitions, because several strategies reduce worst-group gaps but no single strategy eliminates them across datasets and architectures.
CIFA is model-agnostic and can be applied to any supervised vision model with labelled demographic and contextual attributes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because CIFA derives contextual attributes like illumination and image quality from image statistics, the same audit could transfer to other vision tasks, such as object detection or medical imaging, wherever those statistics are available.
A testable extension would be to report worst-group gaps as a function of the minimum group-size threshold $m$; if the 26.43-point gap is stable across a wide range of $m$, it reflects systematic failure rather than small-sample noise.
If the gap survives such a sweep, CIFA's worst-group discovery would connect directly to hidden stratification and fairness gerrymandering, suggesting that contextual-intersectional auditing should become a standard pre-deployment check.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a clear, honest framework paper for auditing face-analysis models on intersections of demographic and contextual attributes. The framework is useful and the direction is plausible. But the headline empirical claim—worst-group gaps up to 26.43%—rests on an unstated minimum group size m and single-seed point estimates, so it is not yet distinguished from sampling noise. The stress-test note holds up: the paper never defines m in Section 3.1, and the worst-group accuracy is a minimum over many candidate groups, so the observed gap could be an order-statistic artifact.

What's actually new: prior work covers demographic intersectionality (Gender Shades), hidden stratification (Oakden-Rayner), and worst-group robustness (Group DRO) separately. CIFA's contribution is the audit–mitigate–re-audit protocol that keeps the same subgroup definitions throughout. That is a genuine, practical addition to the fairness-evaluation toolbox. The paper also does the right thing by evaluating established mitigations rather than inventing a new one, and by reporting worst-group accuracy, gap, and subgroup standard deviation alongside aggregate accuracy.

What it does well: the formalization in Section 3.1 is simple and sensible. The empirical setup covers three datasets and two architectures, and the limitations section (Section 4.7) is honest—it acknowledges contextual attributes are estimated from image statistics and the results are not exhaustive. No circularity: group accuracies are computed from predictions and labels, and mitigations are re-audited under the same definitions.

Soft spots, in order of severity. First, m is never specified, and no sensitivity analysis over m is given. Since the worst-group gap is a minimum over a large set of intersections, a small m lets a few noisy images produce a large gap. The paper needs to state m, report the size of the worst group, and show that the gap is not an artifact of selection. Second, all headline numbers are point estimates from a single seed (Section 4.3: fixed random seed 42), with no confidence intervals. Third, no code or data are released, which undercuts the 'reproducible framework' claim. These are fixable, but they are load-bearing for the empirical claim, not stylistic issues.

Bottom line: the framework contribution is worth engaging with; the empirical evidence for hidden subgroups is not yet convincing. I'd send it to a serious referee if the authors add m, sensitivity analysis, confidence intervals, and code release. For a reading group, it's a useful discussion piece on methodology, less on results.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CIFA, a contextual-intersectional fairness auditing framework for face-analysis models. CIFA evaluates gender classifiers across demographic, contextual, and demographic-by-context intersectional groups, identifies worst-performing subgroups, applies standard mitigation strategies, and re-audits using the same subgroup definitions. Experiments on FairFace, CelebA, and UTKFace with ResNet-50 and ViT-B/16 report worst-group accuracy gaps up to 26.43% (Table 3) despite high aggregate accuracy, and mitigation results in Tables 4 and 5 show that no single strategy consistently removes the disparities. The paper concludes that aggregate and demographic-only audits miss hidden contextual-intersectional failures and that re-auditing should accompany mitigation.

Significance. If the empirical claims are credible, CIFA would be a useful and timely contribution: it makes visual context an explicit auditing dimension, couples auditing with mitigation evaluation, and uses the same subgroup definitions throughout, which is a sensible methodological choice for reproducibility. The qualitative finding that high aggregate accuracy can conceal subgroup failures is well aligned with existing hidden-stratification and worst-group-robustness literature, and the proposed protocol is simple enough to be adopted by practitioners. However, the headline numerical claims currently lack the statistical grounding needed to support them, so the significance of the empirical demonstration is conditional on resolving the sampling and threshold issues below.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.1, Eq. (5)] The minimum reliable-group-size threshold m is never specified. The text defines worst-group statistics over reliable groups satisfying |D_g| >= m, but m is absent from Section 4.3 and from the captions of Tables 3-5. Because A_worst is a minimum over a large set of candidate intersections, the reported gap is sensitive to m; a small m allows a few noisy samples to drive the headline 26.43% gap. Please state m explicitly, report the number of reliable groups per dataset and architecture, report the sample size of each worst group, and include a sensitivity analysis over m. The limitations paragraph (Section 4.7) does not address this issue.
[Section 4.3, Table 3] All results are point estimates from a single fixed seed (seed 42) with no confidence intervals and no repeated runs. Worst-group accuracy is an order statistic over many demographic-by-context intersections, so under a null model in which all subgroups share the same true accuracy, the observed minimum is expected to decrease as the number of candidate groups grows and as group sizes shrink. The paper does not report the number of candidate groups or the cardinality of the worst groups, so the headline gaps are not yet distinguished from sampling selection. Add bootstrap confidence intervals or a null-model calibration, and report the number of groups tested per setting.
[Tables 4 and 5] The mitigation conclusions inherit the same statistical problem. For example, on UTKFace with ResNet-50, Group DRO is reported to reduce the gap from 26.43 to 16.68 percentage points, but without any uncertainty estimate or stated m this difference is not interpretable. The audit-mitigate-reaudit idea is sound, but the current tables cannot support the claim that no single strategy consistently eliminates the vulnerabilities unless the underlying worst-group estimates are shown to be stable across seeds or bootstrap resamples.
[Section 4.1 and Eq. (8)] The construction of candidate groups is only partially specified. Contextual attributes are discretized into low/medium/high using quantile-based binning, and Eq. (8) defines each group as a tuple of five attributes (race, age, illumination, image quality, facial accessories), but the paper does not report how many cells this produces, how empty or small cells are handled, or whether all subsets of attributes are used as candidate groups. These choices determine the number of groups tested and therefore directly affect the selection effect on the minimum; they should be documented and varied in a sensitivity analysis.

minor comments (5)

[Section 1] In the introductory paragraph, 'focuse' should be 'focus'.
[Figure 2] The figure contains the typo 'Re-Aduit'; it should be 'Re-Audit'.
[Table 1] The table caption shows a spacing artifact ('T able'); please fix the formatting.
[Section 3.1, Eq. (3)] The indicator function in Eq. (3) is rendered as '1[f' with broken spacing; the typesetting should be cleaned up so the expression reads as an indicator of correct prediction.
[Section 4.1] The description of quantile binning would benefit from stating the quantile boundaries and whether the bins are balanced across the full dataset or within demographic subgroups, since this affects the contextual group definitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

CIFA is a measurement protocol; no claimed result reduces to its input by construction or via load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a measurement and reporting protocol. Group accuracies A_g are computed from model predictions and dataset labels via Eq. (3), aggregate accuracy A_all is defined over the full evaluation set, and the gap Delta_g = A_all - A_g in Eq. (4) is a direct arithmetic comparison. The headline worst-group gaps in Table 3 are the order statistics of these measured accuracies, not values fitted to any parameter, and no equation in Section 3.1 is defined in terms of the claimed conclusion. The audit-mitigate-reaudit protocol reuses the same subgroup definitions to re-measure post-mitigation performance, which is a consistency requirement rather than a circular construction. The paper's self-citations (references 1-5) concern fall detection and video anomaly detection and are used only as examples of deployed vision systems; they do not carry the fairness-auditing argument. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Concerns that the unspecified reliable-group threshold m and the multiplicity of tested intersections could make the 26.43% gap a selection artifact are statistical validity concerns about the evidence, not circularity of the derivation, and are outside the scope of this pass; under the hard rules, circularity must be exhibited as an equation reducing to an input or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and neither occurs here.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no free physical constants and no new entities. The audit protocol is defined over observable group labels and model predictions. The empirical findings rest on unstated or hand-chosen analysis choices, primarily the group size threshold m, the context binning boundaries, and the loss weighting exponent.

free parameters (3)

Minimum reliable group size m = unspecified
Used in Section 3.1 to define G_r; all worst-group metrics in Tables 3-5 depend on it, but the paper gives no value or sensitivity analysis.
Context attribute binning quantiles = unspecified low/medium/high cutoffs
Section 4.1 discretizes illumination and image quality using quantile-based binning without reporting the quantile cutoffs; any reimplementation will choose different subgroup boundaries.
Group-weighted cross-entropy exponent gamma = unspecified (weights normalized to mean one, clipped at 3.0)
Equation 14 defines w_g via gamma, but the actual exponent is not stated; mitigation results in Tables 4-5 depend on it.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Dataset demographic and contextual labels are reliable enough to define subgroups.
Section 4.1 relies on FairFace, CelebA, and UTKFace annotations plus derived illumination and Laplacian-variance quality; if these labels are noisy, the hidden subgroups are mis-specified.
ad hoc to paper Worst-group minima over many candidate intersections represent systematic failures rather than sampling noise.
Section 3.1 selects min over G_r without multiple-comparison control or confidence intervals; the empirical claim depends on this interpretive step.
domain assumption Fine-tuning ImageNet-pretrained models for 10 epochs is a representative deployment setting.
Section 4.3; transfer learning choices may affect which subgroups are worst, so the scope of the conclusion is limited.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CIFA: Contextual-Intersectional Fairness Auditing for Hidden Subgroup Discovery in Face Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RLQITM4S

@misc{pith2026260809669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CIFA: Contextual-Intersectional Fairness Auditing for Hidden Subgroup Discovery in Face Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RLQITM4S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09669}
}

read the original abstract

Fairness evaluation in computer vision commonly relies on aggregate accuracy and demographic subgroup analysis. However, visual models are also sensitive to contextual factors such as illumination, blur, image quality, facial accessories, and appearance attributes. These factors may interact with demographic characteristics, producing hidden subgroups in which performance degrades substantially despite strong aggregate accuracy and apparently acceptable demographic fairness. To address this, we propose the Contextual-Intersectional Fairness Auditing Framework (CIFA), a structured framework for identifying subgroup vulnerabilities arising from interactions between demographic and contextual attributes. CIFA performs demographic, contextual, and contextual-intersectional auditing, followed by worst-group discovery to identify and rank the most vulnerable attribute combinations. We evaluate CIFA on gender classification using ResNet-50 \cite{he2016deep} and ViT-B/16 \cite{dosovitskiy2020image} across FairFace \cite{Karkkainen2021}, CelebA \cite{Liu2015}, and UTKFace \cite{Zhang2017}. Our results show that aggregate accuracy and demographic-only evaluation can mask substantial contextual-intersectional disparities. We further assess several established mitigation strategies through an audit--mitigate--reaudit protocol and find that, although some worst-group disparities are reduced, no single strategy consistently eliminates them across datasets and architectures. These findings establish contextual-intersectional auditing as an important component of fairness evaluation and provide a reproducible framework for discovering, prioritizing, and reassessing hidden subgroup risks in face analysis systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09669 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Real-world facial recognition failure. Left: crime-scene surveillance image. Right: Robert Williams, who was incorrectly matched to the surveillance image by an automated facial recognition system. [11] anomaly detection [2–4], healthcare [1], and automated decision-support systems [27]. As these technologies become embedded in socially consequential settings, concerns regarding fairness, bias, and equitable perfo… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overview of the proposed Contextual-Intersectional Fairness Auditing Framework (CIFA). Conventional fairness evaluation primarily relies on aggregate accuracy and demographic subgroup analysis, which may overlook hidden contextualintersectional vulnerabilities. CIFA progressively performs demographic, contextual, and contextual-intersectional auditing, identifies hidden subgroup vulnerabilities, applies mitigati… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

In: International Conference on Communication and Intelligent Systems

Aslam, N., Hemrom, P.D., Kolekar, M.H.: Attention guided human fall detection for elderly patient monitoring. In: International Conference on Communication and Intelligent Systems. pp. 13–22. Springer (2022) 2

work page 2022
[2]

Multimedia Tools and Applications 81(29), 42457–42482 (2022) 2

Aslam, N., Kolekar, M.H.: Unsupervised anomalous event detection in videos us- ing spatio-temporal inter-fused autoencoder. Multimedia Tools and Applications 81(29), 42457–42482 (2022) 2

work page 2022
[3]

aslam, mh kolekar

Aslam, N., Kolekar, M.H.: Demaae: deep multiplicative attention-based autoen- coder for identification of peculiarities in video sequences: N. aslam, mh kolekar. The Visual Computer40(3), 1729–1743 (2024) 2

work page 2024
[4]

Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation100, 104108 (2024) 2

Aslam, N., Kolekar, M.H.: Transganomaly: Transformer based generative adver- sarial network for video anomaly detection. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation100, 104108 (2024) 2

work page 2024
[5]

Journal of Visual Communica- tion and Image Representation87, 103598 (2022) 1

Aslam,N., Rai, P.K., Kolekar,M.H.: A3n: Attention-based adversarial autoencoder network for detecting anomalies in video sequence. Journal of Visual Communica- tion and Image Representation87, 103598 (2022) 1

work page 2022
[6]

fairml- book.org (2023) 2

Barocas, S., Hardt, M., Narayanan, A.: Fairness and Machine Learning. fairml- book.org (2023) 2

work page 2023
[7]

In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision

Beery, S., Van Horn, G., Perona, P.: Recognition in terra incognita. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 456–473 (2018) 2, 3

work page 2018
[8]

In: IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (2019) 4, 5

Bellamy, R.K.E., Dey, K., Hind, M., et al.: Ai fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting and mitigating algorithmic bias. In: IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (2019) 4, 5

work page 2019

Show all 32 references

[9]

In: Microsoft Research Technical Report (2020) 4, 5

Bird, S., Dudik, M., Edgar, R., et al.: Fairlearn: A toolkit for assessing and im- proving fairness in ai. In: Microsoft Research Technical Report (2020) 4, 5

2020
[10]

In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency

Buolamwini, J., Gebru, T.: Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. pp. 77–91. PMLR (2018) 2, 3, 4, 5

2018
[11]

Burton-Harris, V., Mayor, P.: Wrongfully arrested because face recognition can’t tell black people apart (Jun 2020),https://www.aclu.org/cases/williams- v-city-of-detroit-face-recognition-false-arrest?document=PowerPoint- Presentation-Policy-Review-Facial-Recognition-Technology2

2020
[12]

University of Chicago Legal Forum1989(1), 139–167 (1989) 3

Crenshaw, K.: Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum1989(1), 139–167 (1989) 3

1989
[13]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02464 (2024) 3

Dehdashtian, S., He, R., Li, Y., Balakrishnan, G., Vasconcelos, N., Ordonez, V., Boddeti, V.N.: Fairness and bias mitigation in computer vision: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02464 (2024) 3

2024 arXiv
[14]

In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.J., Li, K., Fei-Fei, L.: Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database. In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 248–255. Ieee (2009) 11

2009
[15]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020) 1, 11 16 Aslamet al

Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020) 1, 11 16 Aslamet al

2020 arXiv
[16]

Nature Machine In- telligence2(11), 665–673 (2020) 2, 3, 4

Geirhos, R., Jacobsen, J.H., Michaelis, C., Zemel, R., Brendel, W., Bethge, M., Wichmann, F.A.: Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nature Machine In- telligence2(11), 665–673 (2020) 2, 3, 4

2020
[17]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Gustafson, L., Rolland, C., Ravi, N., Duval, Q., Adcock, A., Fu, C.Y., Hall, M., Ross, C.: Facet: Fairness in computer vision evaluation benchmark. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 20370–20382 (2023) 3, 4, 5

2023
[18]

IEEE Transactions on Services Computing (2025) 1, 3

Han, S., Hwang, E., Kim, Y., Kwon, T.: A continuous authentication framework for securing metaverse identities. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing (2025) 1, 3

2025
[19]

In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

Hardt, M., Price, E., Srebro, N.: Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 29 (2016) 2

2016
[20]

He,K.,Zhang,X.,Ren,S.,Sun,J.:Deepresiduallearningforimagerecognition.In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770–778 (2016) 1, 11

2016
[21]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision

K"arkk"ainen, K., Joo, J.: Fairface: Face attribute dataset for balanced race, gender, and age for bias measurement and mitigation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. pp. 1548– 1558 (2021) 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

2021
[22]

In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning

Kearns, M., Neel, S., Roth, A., Wu, Z.S.: Preventing fairness gerrymandering: Auditing and learning for subgroup fairness. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 2564–2572. PMLR (2018) 2, 3, 4

2018
[23]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014) 11

Kingma, D.P.: Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014) 11

2014 arXiv
[24]

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance24(3), 375–397 (2025) 4

Lacmanovic, S.: Artificial intelligence bias auditing: Current approaches, challenges and lessons from practice. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance24(3), 375–397 (2025) 4

2025
[25]

IEEE access8, 139110–139120 (2020) 1, 3

Li, L., Mu, X., Li, S., Peng, H.: A review of face recognition technology. IEEE access8, 139110–139120 (2020) 1, 3

2020
[26]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision

Liu, Z., Luo, P., Wang, X., Tang, X.: Deep learning face attributes in the wild. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 3730–3738 (2015) 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

2015
[27]

Nadibaidze, A., Bode, I., Zhang, Q.: Ai in military decision support systems: A review of developments and debates (2024) 2

2024
[28]

In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning

Oakden-Rayner, L., Dunnmon, J., Carneiro, G., Re, C.: Hidden stratification causes clinically meaningful failures in machine learning for medical imaging. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning. pp. 151– 159 (2020) 2, 3, 4

2020
[29]

In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Raji,I.D.,Buolamwini,J.:Actionableauditing:Investigatingtheimpactofpublicly naming biased performance results of commercial ai products. In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. pp. 429–435 (2019) 3, 4

2019
[30]

In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2020) 2, 4, 5

Sagawa, S., Koh, P.W., Hashimoto, T.B., Liang, P.: Distributionally robust neural networks for group shifts: On the importance of regularization for worst-case gen- eralization. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2020) 2, 4, 5

2020
[31]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Torralba, A., Efros, A.A.: Unbiased look at dataset bias. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 1521–1528 (2011) 4

2011
[32]

Zhang, Z., Song, Y., Qi, H.: Age progression/regression by conditional adversarial autoencoder (2017), uTKFace Dataset 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In: International Conference on Communication and Intelligent Systems

Aslam, N., Hemrom, P.D., Kolekar, M.H.: Attention guided human fall detection for elderly patient monitoring. In: International Conference on Communication and Intelligent Systems. pp. 13–22. Springer (2022) 2

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Multimedia Tools and Applications 81(29), 42457–42482 (2022) 2

Aslam, N., Kolekar, M.H.: Unsupervised anomalous event detection in videos us- ing spatio-temporal inter-fused autoencoder. Multimedia Tools and Applications 81(29), 42457–42482 (2022) 2

work page 2022

[3] [3]

aslam, mh kolekar

Aslam, N., Kolekar, M.H.: Demaae: deep multiplicative attention-based autoen- coder for identification of peculiarities in video sequences: N. aslam, mh kolekar. The Visual Computer40(3), 1729–1743 (2024) 2

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation100, 104108 (2024) 2

Aslam, N., Kolekar, M.H.: Transganomaly: Transformer based generative adver- sarial network for video anomaly detection. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation100, 104108 (2024) 2

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Journal of Visual Communica- tion and Image Representation87, 103598 (2022) 1

Aslam,N., Rai, P.K., Kolekar,M.H.: A3n: Attention-based adversarial autoencoder network for detecting anomalies in video sequence. Journal of Visual Communica- tion and Image Representation87, 103598 (2022) 1

work page 2022

[6] [6]

fairml- book.org (2023) 2

Barocas, S., Hardt, M., Narayanan, A.: Fairness and Machine Learning. fairml- book.org (2023) 2

work page 2023

[7] [7]

In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision

Beery, S., Van Horn, G., Perona, P.: Recognition in terra incognita. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 456–473 (2018) 2, 3

work page 2018

[8] [8]

In: IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (2019) 4, 5

Bellamy, R.K.E., Dey, K., Hind, M., et al.: Ai fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting and mitigating algorithmic bias. In: IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (2019) 4, 5

work page 2019