Amy N. Yates

Geraldine Jeckeln, Selin Yavuzcan, Kate A. Marquis et al.

Face recognition algorithms perform more accurately than humans in some cases, though humans and machines both show race-based accuracy differences. As algorithms continue to improve, it is important to continually assess their race bias relative to humans. We constructed a challenging test of 'cross-race' face verification and used it to compare humans and two state-of-the-art face recognition systems. Pairs of same- and different-identity faces of White and Black individuals were selected to be difficult for humans and an open-source implementation of the ArcFace face recognition algorithm from 2019 (5). Human participants (54 Black; 51 White) judged whether face pairs showed the same identity or different identities on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Two top-performing face recognition systems from the Face Recognition Vendor Test-ongoing performed the same test (7). By design, the test proved challenging for humans as a group, who performed above chance, but far less than perfect. Both state-of-the-art face recognition systems scored perfectly (no errors), consequently with equal accuracy for both races. We conclude that state-of-the-art systems for identity verification between two frontal face images of Black and White individuals can surpass the general population. Whether this result generalizes to challenging in-the-wild images is a pressing concern for deploying face recognition systems in unconstrained environments.

P. Jonathon Phillips, Geraldine Jeckeln, Carina A. Hahn et al.

Human review of consequential decisions by face recognition algorithms creates a "collaborative" human-machine system. Individual differences between people and machines, however, affect whether collaboration improves or degrades accuracy in any given case. We establish the circumstances under which combining human and machine face identification decisions improves accuracy. Using data from expert and non-expert face identifiers, we examined the benefits of human-human and human-machine collaborations. The benefits of collaboration increased as the difference in baseline accuracy between collaborators decreased-following the Proximal Accuracy Rule (PAR). This rule predicted collaborative (fusion) benefit across a wide range of baseline abilities, from people with no training to those with extensive training. Using the PAR, we established a critical fusion zone, where humans are less accurate than the machine, but fusing the two improves system accuracy. This zone was surprisingly large. We implemented "intelligent human-machine fusion" by selecting people with the potential to increase the accuracy of a high-performing machine. Intelligent fusion was more accurate than the machine operating alone and more accurate than combining all human and machine judgments. The highest system-wide accuracy achievable with human-only partnerships was found by graph theory. This fully human system approximated the average performance achieved by intelligent human-machine collaboration. However, intelligent human-machine collaboration more effectively minimized the impact of low-performing humans on system-wide accuracy. The results demonstrate a meaningful role for both humans and machines in assuring accurate face identification. This study offers an evidence-based road map for the intelligent use of AI in face identification.

Géraldine Jeckeln, Ying Hu, Jacqueline G. Cavazos et al.

Measures of face-identification proficiency are essential to ensure accurate and consistent performance by professional forensic face examiners and others who perform face-identification tasks in applied scenarios. Current proficiency tests rely on static sets of stimulus items, and so, cannot be administered validly to the same individual multiple times. To create a proficiency test, a large number of items of "known" difficulty must be assembled. Multiple tests of equal difficulty can be constructed then using subsets of items. We introduce the Triad Identity Matching (TIM) test and evaluate it using Item Response Theory (IRT). Participants view face-image "triads" (N=225) (two images of one identity, one image of a different identity) and select the different identity. In Experiment 1, university students (N=197) showed wide-ranging accuracy on the TIM test, and IRT modeling demonstrated that the TIM items span various difficulty levels. In Experiment 2, we used IRT-based item metrics to partition the test into subsets of specific difficulties. Simulations showed that subsets of the TIM items yielded reliable estimates of subject ability. In Experiments 3a and 3b, we found that the student-derived IRT model reliably evaluated the ability of non-student participants and that ability generalized across different test sessions. In Experiment 3c, we show that TIM test performance correlates with other common face-recognition tests. In summary, the TIM test provides a starting point for developing a framework that is flexible and calibrated to measure proficiency across various ability levels (e.g., professionals or populations with face-processing deficits).